Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum

Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum is a court case wherein 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, thus violating 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 Capitol v. Thomas), a large number previously having been settled out of court.[1] After the judge entered a finding of liability, a jury assessed damages of $675,000, although that amount was later reduced tenfold to $67,500 on due process grounds. Both parties appealed, and the First Circuit rejected all of Tenenbaum's arguments, reinstating the original jury verdict and remanding to the District Court for reconsideration of the remittitur question.

Contents

Background

Joel Tenenbaum (born December 25, 1983) comes from Providence, Rhode Island, and attended Goucher College in Maryland, majoring in physics and mathematics. He is currently pursuing doctoral studies in physics at Boston University.[2]

The court case

In 2003, a fine was received at Joel’s parents’ house for the amount of $3,500 for songs that Joel (then age 20) allegedly downloaded. Joel offered a partial payment of $500, explaining his financial situation as a student, which was ultimately rejected.[3]

After several other correspondences, the five record labels later filed suit against Joel Tenenbaum in August 2007, accusing him of copyright infringement for the sharing of thirty-one music files from Kazaa. The case went to trial in the last week of July 2009.[4]

A few months before the trial, the court dismissed Tenenbaum's abuse of process claim again the plaintiffs, excluded four of his expert witnesses, and denied his motion to exclude all MediaSentry evidence, which could be used to link the file-sharing to his computer. Jurors who used social networks to obtain music were also excluded. Nesson, the defense counsel, claimed this was unfair as Tenenbaum no longer had a trial by a jury of peers. Further, 8 hours before the trial, Judge Gertner ruled that Tenenbaum could not present a fair use defense to the jury.

Charles Nesson, Tenenbaum's attorney and Harvard Law School professor, argued that Tenenbaum's situation was similar to the Napster situation in 1999 and that he did not intend any harm nor understood the copyright laws.[5] The plantiffs, however, claimed Tenenbaum repeatedly infringed copyright laws and that he had taken actions to evade the law.[6]

During the trial, Tenenbaum answered "yes" to the plaintiff's counsel's question "Mr. Tenenbaum, on the stand now are you now admitting liability for downloading and distributing all 30 sound recordings that are at issue and listed on Exhibits 55 and 56 of the exhibits?"[7] The next day, the jury was instructed that liability was no longer at issue; they only needed to determine an appropriate amount for damages.[8]

On 31 July 2009, the jury awarded $675,000 to the music companies, taking a middle option between the minimum ($22,500 total) and the maximum ($4.5 million). Nesson had planned to appeal; if the verdict had stood, Tenenbaum had planned to file for bankruptcy.[9][10]

On Friday, 9 July 2010, Judge Nancy Gertner of the U.S. District Court in Boston reduced Tenenbaum's fines to $67,500,[11] holding that arbitrarily high statutory damages violate due process and are thus unconstitutional. On 21 July 2010, both parties filed notice to appeal the ruling.[12] Oral arguments in the appeal were held in the First Circuit on 4 April 2011.[13]

The First Circuit rejected all of Tenenbaum's arguments and held on 16 September 2011 that the District Court had erred by ruling on the constitutionality of the jury award before considering whether the award should be reduced by the common law remittitur. It vacated the reduction in damages, reinstated the original $675,000 award, and remanded to the District Court for reconsideration of the remittitur question[14] by another judge, since Gertner retired.[15] Gertner's retirement followed her appointment at Harvard Law, where she is now a colleague of Professor Nesson.[16]

On 31 October 2011 Attorneys for Tenenbaum filed a petition for a rehearing in the First Circuit Court of Appeals because "it is unconstitutional to instruct a jury that it can return an unconstitutionally excessive award. To instruct the jury that it may ascribe an award in a range of up to $4,500,000 against a noncommercial copyright infringer is punitive, excessive, not authorized by statute, and a denial of due process." [17]

On 17 November 2011 The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Tenenbaum request to rehear his case, which denies him another opportunity to argue his case against Sony BMG Music Entertainment before an expanded judicial panel.[18]

Tenenbaum has claimed his infringement has actually benefitted the record labels that sued him, stating, "I often have bought music as a result of the free exploration I've done," he told TorrentFreak. "In that respect, I'm much like the average downloader, who actually spends more money on music than people who don't download at all." [19]

Over 30,000 individuals have been accused of online musical copyright infringement. Most people have elected to settle with the average settlement being between $3,000 - $12,000. [20]

31 songs

Copyright Owner Artist Recording Title Album Title
Sony BMG Music Entertainment Incubus New Skin Science
Warner Bros. Records Green Day Minority Warning
Arista Records Outkast Wheelz of Steel Atliens
Sony BMG Music Entertainment Incubus Pardon Me Make Yourself
UMG Recordings Nirvana Come As You Are Nevermind
Warner Bros. Records Green Day When I Come Around Dookie
Warner Bros. Records Green Day Nice Guys Finish Last Nimrod
UMG Recordings Nirvana Heart Shaped Box In Utero
UMG Recordings Nine Inch Nails The Perfect Drug The Perfect Drug (EP)
UMG Recordings Blink-182 Adam's Song Enema of the State
UMG Recordings Limp Bizkit Rearranged Significant Other
UMG Recordings Limp Bizkit Leech Three Dollar Bill, Y'all$
Warner Bros. Records Linkin Park Crawling Hybrid Theory
Warner Bros. Records Deftones Be Quiet And Drive Around The Fur
Sony BMG Music Entertainment The Fugees Killing Me Softly The Score
Warner Bros. Records Red Hot Chili Peppers Californication Californication
Warner Bros. Records Red Hot Chili Peppers By The Way By The Way
Warner Bros. Records Red Hot Chili Peppers My Friends One Hot Minute
UMG Recordings Beck Loser Mellow Gold
Virgin Records America Smashing Pumpkins Bullet With Butterfly Wings Mellon Collie and The Infinite Sadness
Interscope Records Eminem My Name Is The Slim Shady
Interscope Records Eminem Drug Ballad The Marshall Mathers (EP)
Interscope Records Eminem Cleaning Out My Closet Eminem Show
UMG Recordings Beastie Boys (You Gotta) Fight for Your Right (To Party) Licensed To Ill
Warner Bros. Records The Ramones The KKK Took My Baby Away Pleasant Dreams
UMG Recordings Monster Magnet Look To Your Orb For The Warning Dopes To Infinity
Sony BMG Music Entertainment Aerosmith Pink Nine Lives
Arista Records Outkast Rosa Parks Aquemini
Sony BMG Music Entertainment Rage Against The Machine Guerrilla Radio Battle Of Los Angeles
Warner Bros. Records Goo Goo Dolls Iris Dizzy Up The Girl
UMG Recordings Aerosmith Water Song/Janie's Got A Gun Pump

[21]

See also

References

  1. ^ http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/copyright/sony-bmg-music-entertainment-v-tenenbaum
  2. ^ http://physics.bu.edu/~jesusina/joel.html
  3. ^ http://joelfightsback.com/#/about-the-case/overview/
  4. ^ Tenenbaum, Joel (27 July 2009). "How it feels to be sued for $4.5m". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/jul/27/filesharing-music-industry. Retrieved 31 July 2009. 
  5. ^ http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/nesson_more.html
  6. ^ Weiner, Stephanie (2009-08-12). "Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum". http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/copyright/sony-bmg-music-entertainment-v-tenenbaum. Retrieved 2011-11-23. 
  7. ^ "Case 1:07-cv-11446-NG Document 20: Testimony of Joel Tenebaum [sic"] (PDF). July 30, 2009. p. 102. http://joelfightsback.com/wp-content/uploads/transcript201.pdf. Retrieved 2011-04-05. 
  8. ^ "Case 1:03-cv-11661-NG Document 909: Jury Instructions". July 31, 2009. http://www.scribd.com/doc/18056906/Final-jury-insturctions-in-Sony-v-Joel-Tenenbaum. Retrieved 2011-04-05. 
  9. ^ Standora, Leo (31 July 2009). "Court orders Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum to pay $675G for illegally downloading music". New York Daily News. http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/07/31/2009-07-31_court_orders_boston_university_student_joel_tenenbaum_to_pay_675g_for_illegally_.html. Retrieved 26 August 2010. 
  10. ^ http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136350/Q_A_Tenenbaum_says_he_faces_bankruptcy_after_675K_piracy_verdict
  11. ^ "Boston judge cuts penalty in song-sharing case". Associated Press. 2010-07-09. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hfe56cQJqoqqPuj2iQagbjj1ptdwD9GRQMEG2. Retrieved 2010-07-09. 
  12. ^ Sheffner, Ben (22 July 2010). "Labels file notice of appeal in Tenenbaum case". http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/07/labels-file-notice-of-appeal-in.html. Retrieved 7 September 2010. 
  13. ^ Mackey, Alexandra (2011-04-08). "Sony v. Tenenbaum Saga: File-Sharing Case Makes Its Way to First Circuit". Intellectual Property Brief. http://www.ipbrief.net/2011/04/08/sony-v-tenenbaum-saga-file-sharing-case-makes-its-way-to-first-circuit/. Retrieved 2011-09-15. 
  14. ^ Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum, Nos. 10-1883, 10-1947, 10-2052 (First Circuit 2011-09-16).
  15. ^ Valencia, Milton (2011-09-21). "Court upholds fine in music download case". Boston Globe. http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-20/news/30180976_1_appeals-court-joel-tenenbaum-district-court. Retrieved 2011-10-09. 
  16. ^ Harvard Law School: "http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2011/02/4_practice.html", accessed May 4, 2011
  17. ^ http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/legal-and-management/joel-tenenbaum-files-for-rehearing-of-675k-1005482952.story
  18. ^ http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2011/11_-_November/Appeals_court_rejects_request_by_serial_downloader/
  19. ^ http://torrentfreak.com/tenenbaum-demands-rehearing-of-675000-riaa-file-sharing-case-111103/
  20. ^ http://joelfightsback.com/#/about-the-case/overview/
  21. ^ "Plaintiffs Supplemental Disclosure Statement 10.28.08". 28 October 2008. http://www.scribd.com/doc/17299117/Plaintiffs-Supplemental-Disclosure-Statement-102808. Retrieved 11 August 2009. 

External links