In the aftermath of a surge of music industry lawsuits over file-sharing, the courts are continuing to revise some of the outlandish damage awards handed out by juries.

A federal judge in Boston last week slashed a $675,000 verdict against a college student for downloading and sharing 30 songs online. Reducing the damages to $67,500, Judge Nancy Gertner said this amount was more than adequate to compensate the record companies and deter infringement.

The defendant, Joel Tannenbaum, apparently used peer-to-peer networks to share thousands of songs. But he did not benefit financially from his infringement, and the judge concluded that the jury’s damages were “unconstitutionally excessive.”

This outlook echoes the point of view expressed by another district court judge, Michael Davis, who threw out a $1.92 million judgment for downloading 24 songs, calling the judgment against Jammie Thomas-Rasset “monstrous and shocking.”

In her ruling last week, Judge Gertner noted that businesses have long complained that juries’ punitive damage awards can be excessive. In a number of recent cases, corporate lawyers have persuaded courts to overturn excessive punitive damage awards as unconstitutional. This argument for due process can also be raised by individuals, she said.

The music industry has reconsidered its tactic of using legal intimidation to try maintain control over the evolving digital marketplace. Unfortunately, it is not willing to retreat on the few big verdicts its former legal strategy won from juries.

The Recording Industry Association of America said it will appeal the reduction of the damage award against Tannenbaum. Meanwhile, it is forging ahead with plans for a new trial against Thomas-Rasset, due to begin this fall.

We hope judges continue to resist the industry’s effort to use the courts to manage problems better managed through marketing and technology.

Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com.