Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum(1st Circuit Court) is the subsequent appeals lawsuit following the initial case Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum decided on 31 July 2009 by the Massachusetts District Court. The initial court decision stated Joel Tenenbaum was to pay a sum of $675,000 for damages on counts of willful copyright violation through peer-to-peer file-sharing of 31 songs. The sum of $675,000 was reduced ten-fold to $67,500 due to the district court reasoning that the punishment was excessive and in violation of Tenebaum's due process rights.[1]
Both parties then cross-appealed the Massachusetts District Court decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Sony et al., in defense of full reinstatement of original damages payments and Tenebaum on challenge of both liability and damages. The First Circuit has rejected all of Tenenbaum's arguments, affirmed the denial of Tenebaum's motion for a new trial, reversed the District Court's decision to reduce the damages, reinstated the original award, and remands on the question of the common law remittitur.
| Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum | |
|---|---|
| File:1st Circuit seal.jpg | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit |
| Full case name | Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Et Al., v. Joel Tenenbaum |
| Decided | September 16 2011 |
| Citation(s) | Nos. 10-1883, 10-1947, 10-2052 |
| Case history | |
| Prior history | Tenenbaum liable for damages of $675,000[2]; damages reduced to $67,500 [3] |
| Subsequent history | Suggested for US Supreme Court[1] |
| Holding | |
| Joel Tenenbaum is liable for copyright violation damages, damages reduced due to constitutional due process.United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Lynch, Torruella, Thompson |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Lynch, joined by Torruella, Thompson |
| Laws applied | |
| Rights of Copyright Owners[4]; DMCA[5] ; | |
Background
editDefendant and cross-appellant Joel Tenenbaum was a graduate student studying physics and mathematics in Goucher College in Maryland 2005 prior to the original litigation in the Massachusetts District Court. During this period, Joel Tenenbaum engaged in peer-to-peer file-sharing of at least 31 individual songs owned by the plaintiffs listed collectively as Sony BGM Music Entertainment.[6] [7]
The Plaintiffs Sony BMG Music Entertainment is composed of the following recording companies:
- Sony BMG Entertainment
- Warner Brothers Records Inc.
- Arista Records LLC.
- Atlantic Recording Corporation
- UMG Recordings Inc.
Following the Massachusetts District Court's opinions and holdings that Joel Tenenbaum is guilty on account of Copyright violation, owed Sony $675,000 in statutory damages, and the consequent reduction of damages to $67,500 based upon constitutional remittur[3], this appeal to a higher court was filed and processed. Collectively, the plaintiffs cross-appellants Sony and defendant Joel Tenenbaum has brought this litigation to the first district court to argue the matters of statutory damages and injunctive relief[1] under the Copyright Act[8], constitutionality of the damages reduction, matters of fair use, and a district court's ability to invoke constitutionality.[9]
Facts
editAppearing 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.[10][1]
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[11][3]
Both parties then crossed appealed.
Tenebaum's argument
editJoel 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.[1]
Sony BMG's argument
editSony 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
editForemost in the circuit court ruling, the United States defends the constitutionality of the Copyright Act against Joel Tenenbaum's challenge otherwise. In addition, the United States states 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.[1]
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[12] and thus has willfully violated the Copyright Act and infringed the Copyrights of Sony et. all. 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. [1]
Aftermath
editAlthough the First Circuit Court, in its opinion, recommends Congress to reanalyze its copyright laws, [1] 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:
- The Copyright Act is constitutional.[13]
- The Copyright Act is applicable for cases of peer-to-peer file sharing of copyrighted material by individuals.[1]
- Peer-to-peer file sharing of copyrighted works by individuals for the purpose of "enjoyment" is not fair use.[12]
- Skipping common law remittitur and instead applying for constitutional reasoning is erroneous.[12]
- Courts must practice constitutional avoidance: the practice of first arguing or reasoning a point based upon common law before turning to use the constitution. [1]
Bibliography for (Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum (1st Cir. 2011))
edit- Existing wiki article [6]
- Mass. District Court Opinion [2]
- Mass. District court opinion [3]
- Rhode Island district court memorandum [14]
- First district court of appeals opinion [15]
- First district court of appeals supplement [9]
- First district court of appeals documentation [13]
- Collection of industry versus people files [16]
- Random summary article on 1st district court decision [17]
- US Court PDF [1]
- DMCA[5]
- Joel Tenenbaum and lawyers website [7]
- Copyhype article [12]
- rights of copyright owner[4]
- definitions[8]
- damages[10]
References
edit- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k [www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1883P-01A.pdf 1st district pdf]
- ^ a b District court opinion 1
- ^ a b c d District court opinion 2
- ^ a b 17 U.S.C. § 106
- ^ a b [www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl105-304.pdf DMCA pdf]
- ^ a b Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum
- ^ a b about page for Joel Tenenbaum
- ^ a b 17 U.S.C. § 106
- ^ a b First district court opinion 2
- ^ a b 17 U.S.C. § 504
- ^ Cornell University Law School. "Bill of Rights from Cornell University Law School". Retrieved 2007-12-16.
- ^ a b c d analysis of the article and opinions
- ^ a b First district court opinion 3
- ^ Rhode Island district court opinion
- ^ First district court opinion 1
- ^ industry versus people cases
- ^ News Article Summary