- He conducted his infringing activities while knowing that lawsuits were being brought against individuals who downloaded and distributed music without authorization.
- He personally received multiple warnings from various sources – including his father in 2002, his college in 2003, and plaintiffs in 2005 – and he was warned that his activities could subject him to liability of up to $150,000 per infringement. In spite of these warnings, he continued to download and distribute copyrighted materials; indeed, even after receiving Sony’s 2005 cease and desist letter, trial evidence shows that defendant continued his activities for two more years, until Sony filed this lawsuit against him.
- Plaintiffs’ 2005 letter also informed Tenenbaum about the impact of his activities on the music industry and instructed him to preserve all evidence of his activities, including any recordings he made available for distribution; yet in spite of these instructions, Tenenbaum had his operating system on his laptop reinstalled and its hard drive reformatted.
- Furthermore, as the First Circuit noted, “[s]trong evidence established that Tenenbaum lied in the course of these legal proceedings in a number of ways.” At trial, Tenenbaum admitted that he lied in responding to Sony’s discovery requests about the scope of his conduct using online media distribution systems, his use of peer-to-peer networks, and the installment of such networks on his computer. When he was confronted at trial with his attempts to shift blame for his actions to others – including a foster child living in his family’s home, his sisters, a family house guest, and burglars – Tenenbaum finally admitted responsibility. In short, there was ample evidence of willfulness and the need for deterrence based on Tenenbaum’s blatant contempt of warnings and apparent disregard for the consequences of his actions. In spite of the overwhelming evidence from which the jury could conclude that Tenenbaum’s activities were willful, the award of $22,500 per infringement not only was at the low end of the range – only 15% of the statutory maximum – for willful infringement, but was below the statutory maximum for non-willful infringement. Considering all of the aforementioned evidence, the jury’s damage award was not so excessive as to merit remittitur.
More:
http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/sony_tenenbaum_120823Decision.pdf
See also:
Judge Evans branded the defendant the most arrogant he had encountered in his career, said Vickerman knew full well what he was doing was unlawful, despite his protestations of innocence
http://vrritti.com/2012/08/15/more-details-about-surfthechannel-com-court-case-emerge-operator-and-former-british-telecom-employee-anton-vickerman-obsessed-with-his-website-uploaded-pirated-content-to-3rd-party-sites-himself/
And:
Suspect 2.0 Not Easily Intimidated: MegaUpload’s Kim Dotcom To Launch Megabox Service , You must appreciate the 90s depiction of the hacker, when the stereotype was a cunning scofflaw with a Marlboro hanging from his lips and Judges Facing New Types Of Crimes, New Types (And Levels) Of Damage, New Types Of Suspects? (MegaUpload) )
