<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Mass Law Blog &#187; Gertner</title>
	<atom:link href="http://masslawblog.com/tag/gertner/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://masslawblog.com</link>
	<description>Lee Gesmer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:47:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Tenenbaum Final Judgment</title>
		<link>http://masslawblog.com/copyright/tenenbaum-final-judgment/</link>
		<comments>http://masslawblog.com/copyright/tenenbaum-final-judgment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:56:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lee Gesmer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gertner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tenenbaum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.masslawblog.com/2009/12/tenenbaum-final-judgment/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Update: Link to First Circuit&#8217;s Decision Rejecting Constitutional Grounds for Reducing Statutory Damages, issued September 16, 2011. ____________________ Final judgment in Sony v. Tenenbaum entered by Judge Nancy Gertner today.  The 30 day appeal clock starts to run.  Should be interesting to see what the First Circuit does with this one, although I suspect that the betting is heavy in favor of quick affirmance. A few choice quotes from Judge Gertner&#8217;s opinion, which is provided in full below on scribd.com. “the Court, deeply concerned by the rash of file-sharing lawsuits, the imbalance of resources between the parties, and the upheaval of norms of behavior brought on by the Internet, did everything in its power to permit Tenebaum to make his best case for fair use.…The Court did what it could to focus the issue, notwithstanding what can only be described as a truly chaotic defense.” &#8230; Tenenbaum “tailor[ed] his fair use defense to suggest a modest exception to copyright protections,” he “mounted a broadside attack that would excuse all file sharing for private enjoyment. It is a version of fair use so broad that it would swallow the copyright protections that Congress created, defying both statute and precedent.” &#8230; &#8220;As this Court has previously noted, it is very, very concerned that there is a deep potential for injustice in the Copyright Act as it is currently written. It urges –...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p><em>Update: <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=sony+v.+tenenbaum+2011&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,22&amp;case=2920171466088067058&amp;scilh=0" target="_blank">Link to First Circuit&#8217;s Decision Rejecting Constitutional Grounds for Reducing Statutory Damages</a>, issued September 16, 2011.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">____________________</p>
<p>Final judgment in Sony v. Tenenbaum entered by Judge Nancy Gertner today.  The 30 day appeal clock starts to run.  Should be interesting to see what the First Circuit does with this one, although I suspect that the betting is heavy in favor of quick affirmance.</p>
<p>A few choice quotes from Judge Gertner&#8217;s opinion, which is provided in full below on scribd.com.</p>
<blockquote><p>“the Court, deeply concerned by the rash of file-sharing lawsuits, the imbalance of resources between the parties, and the upheaval of norms of behavior brought on by the Internet, did everything in its power to permit Tenebaum to make his best case for fair use.…The Court did what it could to focus the issue, notwithstanding what can only be described as a truly chaotic defense.”</p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<p>Tenenbaum “tailor[ed] his fair use defense to suggest a modest exception to copyright protections,” he “mounted a broadside attack that would excuse all file sharing for private enjoyment. It is a version of fair use so broad that it would swallow the copyright protections that Congress created, defying both statute and precedent.”</p>
<p>&#8230;</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;As this Court has previously noted, it is very, very concerned that there is a deep potential for injustice in the Copyright Act as it is currently written. It urges – no implores – Congress to amend the statute to reflect the realities of file sharing. There is something wrong with a law that routinely threatens teenagers and students with astronomical penalties for an activity whose implications they may not have fully understood. The injury to the copyright holder may be real, and even substantial, but, under the statute, the record companies do not even have to prove actual damage. “Repeatedly, as new developments have occurred in this country, it has been Congress that has fashioned the new rules that new technology made necessary.”  … It is a responsibility that Congress should not take lightly in the face of this litigation and the thousands of suits like it.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>The full opinion, below.</p>
<p><a style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;" title="View Tenenbaum Final Judgment on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/23813190/Tenenbaum-Final-Judgment">Tenenbaum Final Judgment</a></p>
<p><object id="doc_137746174734082" width="100%" height="500" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="play" value="true" /><param name="loop" value="true" /><param name="scale" value="showall" /><param name="wmode" value="opaque" /><param name="devicefont" value="false" /><param name="menu" value="true" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="salign" /><param name="mode" value="list" /><param name="src" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=23813190&amp;access_key=key-v9mzi8mgmxuet1f4nr1&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode=list" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed id="doc_137746174734082" width="100%" height="500" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=23813190&amp;access_key=key-v9mzi8mgmxuet1f4nr1&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode=list" quality="high" play="true" loop="true" scale="showall" wmode="opaque" devicefont="false" menu="true" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" mode="list" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" /></object></p>
<p>And Judge Gertner&#8217;s opinion rejecting Joel Tenenbaum&#8217;s fair use defense:</p>
<p><a style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;" title="View Sony v. Tenenbaum Fair Use Decision on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/23850282/Sony-v-Tenenbaum-Fair-Use-Decision">Sony v. Tenenbaum Fair Use Decision</a> <object id="doc_531058570498522" width="100%" height="500" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="play" value="true" /><param name="loop" value="true" /><param name="scale" value="showall" /><param name="wmode" value="opaque" /><param name="devicefont" value="false" /><param name="menu" value="true" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="salign" /><param name="mode" value="list" /><param name="src" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=23850282&amp;access_key=key-2gaponmq2uc815np27y2&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode=list" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed id="doc_531058570498522" width="100%" height="500" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=23850282&amp;access_key=key-2gaponmq2uc815np27y2&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode=list" quality="high" play="true" loop="true" scale="showall" wmode="opaque" devicefont="false" menu="true" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" mode="list" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" /></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://masslawblog.com/copyright/tenenbaum-final-judgment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cameras in Judge Gertner&#8217;s Court?  Not Quite Yet</title>
		<link>http://masslawblog.com/courts/cameras-in-judge-gertners-court-not-quite-yet/</link>
		<comments>http://masslawblog.com/courts/cameras-in-judge-gertners-court-not-quite-yet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:51:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lee Gesmer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gertner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RIAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tenenbaum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.masslawblog.com/?p=971</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Boston Globe reports that U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner has stayed last week&#8217;s decision allowing a motion hearng in the Tenenbaum music downloading case to be &#8220;narrowcast&#8221; on the Internet, pending an appeal to the First Circuit by the RIAA.  Apparently, the RIAA feels strongly enough about this issue to ask for immediate appellate review, and Judge Gertner agreed to keep cameras out of court, at least for the moment. My take? Cameras in the courtroom should be within the discretion of the judge, who exercises control over that courtroom, and the First Circuit should deny the RIAA&#8217;s appeal.  The more that the public sees what goes on in our federal courts, the better for our judicial system.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>The Boston Globe reports that U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner has stayed last week&#8217;s <a href="http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=gertner/pdf/tenenbaumbroadcastord.pdf" target="_parent">decision allowing a motion hearng in the Tenenbaum music downloading case </a>to be &#8220;narrowcast&#8221; on the Internet, pending an appeal to the First Circuit by the RIAA.  Apparently, the RIAA feels strongly enough about this issue to ask for immediate appellate review, and Judge Gertner agreed to keep cameras out of court, at least for the moment.</p>
<p>My take? Cameras in the courtroom should be within the discretion of the judge, who exercises control over that courtroom, and the First Circuit should deny the RIAA&#8217;s appeal.  The more that the public sees what goes on in our federal courts, the better for our judicial system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://masslawblog.com/courts/cameras-in-judge-gertners-court-not-quite-yet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 4/18 queries in 0.009 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 264/282 objects using disk: basic

Served from: masslawblog.com @ 2012-02-09 00:32:25 -->
