Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum

Last updated
Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedSeptember 16, 2011
Citation(s)Nos. 10-1883, 10-1947, 10-2052
Case history
Prior action(s)Tenenbaum liable for damages of $675,000; [1] damages reduced to $67,500 [2]
Subsequent action(s)Suggested for US Supreme Court [3]
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingLynch, Torruella, Thompson
Case opinions
U.S. District Court, Mass.: Joel Tenenbaum is liable for willful copyright infringement, statutory damage award reduced due to constitutional due process. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Keywords
Rights of Copyright Owners [4] DMCA [5]

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum (1st Circuit Court) is the appeals lawsuit which followed the U.S. District Court case Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum , No. 07cv11446-NG (D. Mass. Dec. 7, 2009).

Contents

The initial district court decision awarded the plaintiffs $675,000 in statutory damages for Joel Tenenbaum's willful copyright infringement via peer-to-peer file-sharing of 30 songs. Tenenbaum then challenged the constitutionality of the damage award and asked for a retrial or a reduction of the award via common law remittitur. The district court judge rejected Tenenbaum's arguments in favor of a retrial, and declined to invoke remittitur because, in this case, it would prompt a retrial which would broach the constitutional issues remittitur was intended to avoid. Asserting that the question of the award's constitutionality was unavoidable, the judge reduced the damages to $67,500 on constitutional grounds, reasoning that the damages were effectively punitive, as well as excessive and in violation of Tenenbaum's Due Process rights. [3]

Both parties then cross-appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals—Sony, et al., for full reinstatement of the original damages, and Tenenbaum challenging both liability and damages. The First Circuit rejected all of Tenenbaum's arguments, affirmed the denial of Tenenbaum's motion for a new trial, reversed the District Court's decision to reduce the damages, reinstated the original award, and remanded on the question of the common law remittitur.

Background

Defendant and cross-appellant Joel Tenenbaum was an undergraduate student studying physics and mathematics at Goucher College in Maryland 2005 prior to the original litigation in the Massachusetts District Court. During this period, Joel Tenenbaum downloaded and distributed, via a peer-to-peer file-sharing network, a number of songs owned by the plaintiffs. [6]

While the plaintiffs are listed collectively as Sony BMG Music Entertainment, the plaintiffs in both the district court case and the subsequent appeal actually included five record companies:

As the plaintiffs are all members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and it is the RIAA which makes public statements about the case, the case is sometimes informally referenced as RIAA v. Tenenbaum. However, references more commonly use Sony, Sony BMG, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and the more precise Sony BMG Music Entertainment, et al. as the name of the plaintiffs.

During a jury trial in the Massachusetts District Court, Tenenbaum admitted liability for infringing the plaintiffs' copyright for 30 songs he downloaded and distributed via file-sharing software. The judge issued a directed verdict for the issue of liability, and the jury determined the infringement was "willful" and assessed statutory damages totaling $675,000.

Tenenbaum then filed a motion claiming the damage award was unconstitutional, and requested either a new trial or a reduction of the damages by remittitur. The Court granted the retrial request, in part, by considering the constitutionality and "punitive" nature of the damage award, weighing it against the standards established by the Supreme Court in the cases BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (referenced as BMW or Gore, and favored by the defendant) and in St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams (referenced as Williams, and favored by the plaintiffs and the U.S. Government). Citing these standards and other case law relating to statutory and punitive damages, the Court ordered the judgment in the case be amended to reduce the damage award by 90%, to $67,500. [2]

Remittitur would allow the plaintiffs to reject the remitted award and opt for a retrial, which they had indicated they would do, so the Court explicitly chose to reduce the award on constitutional grounds, because a retrial would put the Court in the position of confronting the constitutional issues that remittitur was intended to avoid. [2]

The plaintiffs and defendant collectively brought suit in the First District Court of Appeals to argue several matters:

Facts

Appearing before Chief Judge Lynch, and Circuit Judges Torruella and Thompson, the facts of the case are as follows:

The Massachusetts District Court entered judgement against Tenenbaum that he was liable for willful violation of the Copyright Act and summarily awarded Sony statutory damages of $22,500 for each infringed song. This reward is within the $750 to $150,000 per infringement that Congress established for willful infringement. [3] [8]

Tenenbaum then motioned for a new trial or remittitur. The district court skipped over the issue of the remittitur and instead reached a constitutional issue. Reasoning that the $675,000 fine is excessive and thus in violation of Tenenbaum's due process rights [2]

Both parties then cross-appealed.

Tenenbaum's argument

Joel Tenenbaum challenges the District Court's opinion that he is liable for copyright violation and he should owe Sony statutory damages. Tenenbaum challenges the constitutionality of the Copyright Act. In addition, he challenges the Copyright Act's statutory damages provision's applicability to his conduct. Tenenbaum also argues the district court committed various errors that require a new trial and that a further reduction of the damage award is required by the due process clause. [3]

Sony BMG's argument

Sony argues the district court has erred in reducing the jury's award of damages and seeks to reinstate of the full award of $675,000 and in its defense of Tenenbaum's willful infringement and liability of infringement.

Court decision

Foremost in the circuit court ruling, the United States defended the constitutionality of the Copyright Act against Joel Tenenbaum's challenge. In addition, the United States contended the District Court of Massachusetts erred in bypassing the question of common law remittitur and thus should not have reduced Tenenbaum's punishment sum as a constitutional issue. [3]

The First Circuit court then moved to reject all of Tenenbaum's arguments. They point out that Tenenbaum has received multiple warnings from his parents, school, ISP, and the recording companies to cease and desist from his file-sharing [9] and thus has willfully violated the Copyright Act and infringed the Copyrights of Sony et al. by using the peer-to-peer sharing platform Kazaa. In addition, the court affirmed the denial of Tenenbaum's motion for a new trial or remittitur on the claim that the Copyright Act is not applicable to his actions or trial. Lastly, the court reversed the District Court's supplemental decision to reduce the damages Tenenbaum owed Sony et al., and instead reinstated the original full value of $675,000. [3]

On February 13, 2012, Tenenbaum petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the case. [10] The court denied the petition on May 21. [11]

Aftermath

Although the First Circuit Court, in its opinion, recommends Congress to reanalyze its copyright laws, [3] the United States Supreme Court has yet to weigh in with its opinion. As such, the current legal precedents and legal situation for the states in the First District are as follows:

Bibliography for (Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum (1st Cir. 2011)

Related Research Articles

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

<i>A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i> US legal case

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that if there is to be an award of statutory damages in a copyright infringement case, then the opposing party has the right to demand a jury trial.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

<i>BMG Music v. Gonzalez</i> U.S. court case

BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, was a court decision in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a record company could sue a person who engaged in online sharing of music files for copyright infringement. The decision is noteworthy for rejecting the defendant's fair use defense, which had rested upon her contention that she was merely "sampling" songs with the intention of possibly purchasing the downloaded songs in the future, a practice known informally as "try before you buy".

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the standards governing awards of attorneys' fees in copyright cases. The Copyright Act of 1976 authorizes, but does not require, the court to award attorneys' fees to "the prevailing party" in a copyright action. In Fogerty, the Court held that such attorneys'-fees awards are discretionary, and that the same standards should be applied in the case of a prevailing plaintiff and a prevailing defendant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nancy Gertner</span> American judge

Nancy Gertner is a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. She assumed senior status on May 22, 2011, and retired outright from the federal bench on September 1, 2011. She is now a professor of practice at Harvard Law School.

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset was the first file-sharing copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States brought by major record labels to be tried before a jury. The defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was found liable to the plaintiff record company for making 24 songs available to the public for free on the Kazaa file sharing service and ordered to pay $220,000.

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), also known as the “Betamax case”, is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs, cannot be liable for contributory infringement. The case was a boon to the home video market, as it created a legal safe haven for the technology.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1928, are in the public domain.

In the case of Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum, record label Sony BMG, along with Warner Bros. Records, Atlantic Records, Arista Records, and UMG Recordings, accused Joel Tenenbaum of illegally downloading and sharing files in violation of U.S. copyright law. It was only the second file-sharing case to go to verdict in the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) anti-downloading litigation campaign. After the judge entered a finding of liability, a jury assessed damages of $675,000, which the judge reduced to $67,500 on constitutional grounds, rather than through remittitur.

<i>Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.</i> U.S. District Court case

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding liability for copyright infringement committed by the users of an online video hosting platform.

<i>Arista Records, LLC v. Launch Media, Inc</i> American legal case

Arista Records, LLC v. LAUNCH Media, Inc., 578 F.3d 148, is a legal case brought by Arista Records, LLC, Bad Boy Records, BMG Music, and Zomba Recording LLC alleging that the webcasting service provided by LAUNCH Media, Inc. ("Launch") willfully infringed BMG's sound recording copyrights. The lawsuit concerns the scope of the statutory term "interactive service" codified in 17 U.S.C. § 114, as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ("DMCA"). If the webcasting service is an interactive service, Launch would be required to pay individual licensing fees to BMG's sound recording copyright holders; otherwise, Launch only need to pay "a statutory licensing fee set by the Copyright Royalty Board."

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i> 2010 United States district court case

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999</span>

The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 is a United States law that increased the possible civil penalties for copyright infringement.

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the two-part Seagate test, used to determine when a district court may increase damages for patent infringement, is not consistent with Section 284 of the Patent Act.

Contributory copyright infringement is a way of imposing secondary liability for infringement of a copyright. It is a means by which a person may be held liable for copyright infringement even though he or she did not directly engage in the infringing activity. In the United States, the Copyright Act does not itself impose liability for contributory infringement expressly. It is one of the two forms of secondary liability apart from vicarious liability. Contributory infringement is understood to be a form of infringement in which a person is not directly violating a copyright but induces or authorises another person to directly infringe the copyright.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act. In the 9–0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.

References

  1. 1 2 District court opinion 1
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 District court opinion 2
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1st district Archived 2011-10-10 at the Wayback Machine
  4. 1 2 3 4 17 U.S.C.   § 106
  5. 1 2 DMCA
  6. 1 2 about page for Joel Tenenbaum Archived 2009-08-03 at the Wayback Machine
  7. 1 2 First district court opinion 2
  8. 1 2 17 U.S.C.   § 504
  9. 1 2 3 4 analysis of the article and opinions
  10. ↑ Tenenbaum v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, et al., no. 11-1019, petition for certiorari (docket). February 13, 2012. Retrieved May 21, 2012.
  11. ↑ "Music downloading damages against BU student Joel Tenenbaum left intact by US Supreme Court". Boston Globe. Bloomberg News. May 21, 2012. Retrieved May 21, 2012.
  12. 1 2 First district court opinion 3 Archived 2011-11-03 at the Wayback Machine
  13. ↑ Rhode Island district court opinion
  14. ↑ First district court opinion 1
  15. ↑ industry versus people cases
  16. ↑ News Article Summary
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.