Joel Tenenbaum can bash the Recording Industry Association of America all he wants.
A judge today rejected the industry’s request to gag Mr. Tenenbaum, a Boston University graduate student who was ordered to pay $675,000 to record labels for music piracy, according to a Wired article. The RIAA had accused Mr. Tennenbaum of encouraging illegal music downloading by egging on his fans via Twitter.
“Although plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, they have no right to silence defendant’s criticism of the statutory regime under which he is obligated to pay those damages,” wrote Nancy Gertner, a federal judge for the District of Massachusetts. “This court has neither the desire nor the authority to serve as the censor of defendant’s public remarks regarding online file sharing.”
The federal judge finalized the $675,000 jury verdict and issued an injunction blocking Mr. Tenenbaum from further file sharing, according to Wired.
9 Responses to Judge Rejects RIAA Request to Censor Student Downloader
panacea - December 7, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Bravo!
acmorton - December 7, 2009 at 10:27 pm
It continues to anger and bewilder me how much the RIAA/MPAA/Big Media believe they can control and dicate consumer behavior to “save” their dying business models. Now they try to infringe on an individual’s right to free speech. Really??? Adapt or go the way of the dinosaurs.
bobsw - December 8, 2009 at 10:28 am
I’d guess that RIAA will accept $675k from everyone who is interested in reviling it. Not exactly “free” speech, is it?
jffoster - December 8, 2009 at 11:41 am
bobsw (3), as I understand it, the $675K was for music piracy. Not for criticizing RIAA. I hearby revile RIAA on their attempts to muzzle criticism and I betcha I don’t have to pay them a dime.
hdhale - December 8, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Here’s hoping that Mr. Tenenbaum, through the use of his 1st Amendment rights, successfully deprives the Music Industry of far more than the $675k that the RIAA thinks it will be getting from him.The bottom line through out the whole saga is that the lawsuits generate tons of revenue eating bad publicity, hurt innocent people who accidentally get caught in the random legal shootings, and only serve to demonstrate to people just how easy it is to download music “for free” so long as you don’t call attention to yourself and take a few simple precautions. This was never really about who owns the copyright to songs–that was never in dispute, save for the rantings of people bend on “sticking it to The Man”.
cwinton - December 8, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Since I don’t do music downloads I don’t have any personal stake in this latest skirmish of antagonists, but it is quite clear who the heavy is. The clumsy and heavy handed tactics repeatedly employed by the RIAA have thoroughly demonstrated their inability to understand that such an approach is counterproductive to their own interests. In savaging the likes of Mr. Tenenbaum they may have made an army of enemies who by this point will no longer be satisfied short of total annihilation of the RIAA. It may be too late, but I would suggest that they seek to enlist some of the more capable from among those they seem so determined to alienate. It should be clear even to the RIAA that its relevance depends on revising its structure and mode of operation in a manner more congruent to the realties of digital media. They also need to recognize that they may now have to cede more than would have been the case in the past had they adopted a more progressive approach to their consumer base.
bobsw - December 8, 2009 at 4:42 pm
jffoster (4), while you’re right in what you say and the RIAA has in this instance and in others been more than heavy-handed, actually alienating their customers and creating enemies, you have to admit that your statement is pretty wimpy. Get out there and say some really libelous and then let’s see whether or not you pay. ;-)
acmorton - December 8, 2009 at 4:51 pm
What could make this story better? How about artists joining together and suing the major lables (at least in Canada) for unpaid royalties on compilation CDs. Fines could go as high as $6 billion (which I doubt will happen). Talk about a double standard. Read more: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/
jffoster - December 9, 2009 at 5:23 am
bobsw, He wasn’t accused of libel.