Capitol Records Inc v. Thomas-rasset
| Decision Date | 22 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 06-1497 (MJD/RLE). |
| Parties | CAPITOL RECORDS INC., a Delaware corporation; Sony BMG Music Entertainment, a Delaware general partnership; Arista Records LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Interscope Records, a California general partnership; Warner Bros. Records Inc., a Delaware corporation; and UMG Recordings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Jammie THOMAS-RASSET, Defendant. Civil No. 06-1497 (MJD/RLE). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Andrew B. Mohraz, David A. Tonini, and Timothy M. Reynolds, Holme Roberts & Owen, LLP; Felicia J. Boyd, Kara L.B Barrow, and Mary Andreleita Walker Faegre & Benson, LLP; and Matthew J Oppenheim, Oppenheim Group, LLP, for Plaintiffs.
Joe Sibley and K.A.D. Camara, Camara & Sibley, LLP, and Brant D. Penney and Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for a New Trial, Remittitur, and to Alter or Amend the Judgment [Docket No. 344] and Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Judgment. [Docket No. 342]
After long and careful deliberation, the Court grants in part and denies in part Thomas-Rasset's motion and remits the damages award to $2,250 per song—three times the statutory minimum. The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music. Moreover, although Plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages.
The Court has labored to fashion a reasonable limit on statutory damages awards against noncommercial individuals who illegally download and upload music such that the award of statutory damages does not veer into the realm of gross injustice. Finding a precise dollar amount that delineates the border between the jury's wide discretion to calculate its own number to address Thomas-Rasset's willful violations Plaintiffs' far-reaching, but nebulous damages, and the need to deter online piracy in general and the outrageousness of a $2 million verdict is a considerable task. The Court concludes that setting the limit at three times the minimum statutory damages amount in this case is the most reasoned solution.
This award constitutes the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award to both compensate Plaintiffs and address the deterrence aspect of the Copyright Act. This reduced award is significant and harsh. It is a higher award than the Court might have chosen to impose in its sole discretion, but the decision was not entrusted to this Court. It was the jury's province to determine the award of statutory damages and this Court has merely reduced that award to the maximum amount that is no longer monstrous and shocking. Plaintiffs have seven days from the date of this Order to decide whether to accept the remittitur or request a new trial on the issue of damages.
The Court denies Thomas-Rasset's motion for a new trial based on the admission of evidence collected by MediaSentry. It further denies her motion for a new trial based on Plaintiffs' failure to produce certified copies of the sound recordings deposited with the Copyright Office.
Finally, the Court grants Plaintiffs' request to amend the Judgment to include a permanent injunction.
Plaintiffs are recording companies that owned or controlled exclusive rights to copyrights in sound recordings, including 24 at issue in this lawsuit. On April 19, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant Jammie Thomas-Rasset alleging that she infringed Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 106, 501-505, by illegally downloading and distributing the recordings via the online peer-to-peer file sharing application known as Kazaa. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, statutory damages, costs, and attorney fees.
Trial on this matter began on October 2, 2007. On October 4, 2007, the jury found that Thomas-Rasset had willfully infringed all 24 of Plaintiffs' sound recordings at issue and awarded Plaintiffs statutory damages in the amount of $9,250 for each willful infringement. [Docket No. 100] The total damages award was $222,000. On October 5, the Court entered judgment on the jury's verdict. [Docket No. 106]
On October 15, Defendant filed a Motion for New Trial, or in the Alternative, for Remittitur, based solely on the issue of the constitutionality of the Copyright Act's statutory damages provision in the case. [Docket No. 109] On September 24, 2008, 579 F.Supp.2d 1210, the Court vacated the verdict and granted a new trial based on its conclusion that it had erred in giving Jury Instruction No. 15, which addressed the existence of a making-available right. [Docket No. 197] The Court made no findings regarding the constitutionality of the damages award.
The second trial of this matter began on June 15, 2009. On June 18, 2009, the jury returned a verdict finding that ThomasRasset had willfully infringed all 24 sound recordings and awarding statutory damages in the amount of $80,000 for each song, for a total verdict of $1,920, 000. [Docket No. 336] On June 19, 2009, the Court entered judgment on the jury's verdict. [Docket No. 338]
Now, Thomas-Rasset requests that the Court set aside the award of statutory damages and provides three alternatives: 1) the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act, as applied to Thomas-Rasset, violates the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution; therefore, Plaintiffs must accept a $0 verdict; 2) the jury's application of the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act is excessive and shocking so the Court should remit the verdict to the minimum statutory damages of $750 per sound recording infringed; or 3) the jury's application of the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act is excessive and shocking so the Court should grant a new trial. She also requests a new trial on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict because the evidence collected by MediaSentry should not have been admitted at trial. Finally, she asserts that the Court erred in permitting Plaintiffs to proceed without producing certified copies of the sound recordings deposited with the Copyright Office.
Plaintiffs request that the Court amend the June 19, 2009 Judgment to include a permanent injunction.
Eich v. Bd. of Regents for Cent. Mo State Univ., 350 F.3d 752, 763 (8th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). When deciding a motion for a new trial or remittitur, the Court can rely on its own reading of all of the trial evidence presented. Schaefer v Spider Staging Corp., 275 F.3d 735, 738 (8th Cir.2002).
The scope of review of a district court's damage award is extremely narrow and the district court's award may not be reversed except for a manifest abuse of discretion. In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a remittitur, [the appellate court will] analyze whether the remittitur was ordered for an amount less than the jurycould reasonably find.
Taylor v. Otter Tail Corp., 484 F.3d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir.2007) (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs argue that this Court does not have the power to remit an award of statutory damages. They note that the Supreme Court has held that "the Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages under § 504(c) of the Copyright Act, including the amount itself." Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340, 355, 118 S.Ct. 1279, 140 L.Ed.2d 438 (1998). Plaintiffs conclude that the jury, alone, has the authority to determine the amount of statutory damages within the statutory range.
The Court is hesitant to interfere with the jury's role in determining the proper amount of damages. And the Court is cognizant that Congress chose the range of statutory damages available for copyright infringement, within which the jury's deci- sionmaking was bounded. However, despite the Court's reluctance to interfere, there is no authority for Plaintiffs' assertion that the Court does not have the power to remit an award of statutory damages.
Moreover, the fact that Plaintiffs have a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial regarding damages under the Copyright Act does not prevent the Court from ordering remittitur. Rather, the Seventh Amendment merely requires that, if this Court does order remittitur, it also offer Plaintiffs the option of choosing to reject the remittitur and exercise their right to a new jury trial solely on the issue of damages. Corpus v. Bennett, 430 F.3d 912, 917 (8th Cir.2005); Thorne v. Welk Inv., Inc., 197 F.3d 1205, 1212 (8th Cir.1999).
The Copyright Act provides that "an infringer of copyright is liable for either... the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer... or... statutory damages." 17 U.S.C § 504(a).
The statute further provides:
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually... in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sony Music Entm't v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc.
...statutory scheme.Finally, it was not improper for Sony to present evidence of industry-wide harms. This is not a new consideration. In Thomas-Rasset the district court stated:All of the potential ills caused by unauthorized peer-to-peer networking and illegal downloading are relevant to the......
-
Sony Bmg Music Ent. v. Tenenbaum
...a remitted award and would instead opt for a new trial. In an analogous file-sharing case in the District of Minnesota, Capitol Records Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, the recording-company plaintiffs-four of whom are also plaintiffs in this case-rejected a remitted damages award of $2,250 per infri......
-
Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset
...2010 Order, and the parties raise no materially new arguments that would change the Court's ruling. See Capitol Records Inc. v. Thomas–Rasset, 680 F.Supp.2d 1045, 1059–62 (D.Minn.2010). Therefore, based on the same reasoning set forth in the Court's previous Order, the Court grants Plaintif......
-
Coalition v. Elk Run Coal Co.
...case evidence obtained in violation of state law. The Court thus DENIES this objection. See also Capitol Records Inc. v. Thomas–Rasset, 680 F.Supp.2d 1045, 1058 (D.Minn.2010) (evidence gathered by a private detective in violation of a state licensing and wiretap statute was admissible in fe......
-
Emerging Issues In Statutory Damages
...precision; but the jury is not allowed to base its award on speculation or guesswork."); Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 680 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1052 (D. Minn. 2010) (remitting the jury award because statutory damages should bear some relation to the actual damage suffered) and Van Al......
-
Damages in Dissonance: The 'Shocking' Penalty for Illegal Music File-Sharing
...Id. 15 See Sony BMG Music Entm‘t v. Tenenbaum, 721 F. Supp. 2d 85, 85 (D. Mass. 2010); Capital Records Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 680 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1045 (D. Minn. 2010); see also discussion infra Parts II.B–II.C. 16 See Thomas-Rasset, 680 F. Supp. 2d at 1045; Tenenbaum, 721 F. Supp. 2d at 8......
-
Efficient Copyright Infringement
...themselves rather than waiting for someone else to do it and reap the profits. 175. See, e.g. , Capitol Records Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 680 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1056–57 (D. Minn. 2010) (reducing statutory damages award against defendant who illegally shared twenty-four sound recordings via a pe......
-
Protection of "innocent Lawbreakers": Striking the Right Balance in the Private Enforcement of the Anti "junk Fax" Provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
...of Regents for Cent. Mo. State Univ., 350 F.3d 752, 763 (8th Cir. 2003). 447. See generally Capital Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 680 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1051 (D. Minn. 2010) ("[I]f this Court does order remittitur, it [must] also offer Plaintiffs the option of choosing to reject the remitt......
-
Cross-jurisdictional Analysis of Damage Awards in Copyright Infringement Cases
...Id. at 2.226. Id. at 6.227. Sony BMG Music Ent. v. Tenenbaum, 719 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2013).228. Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 680 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1049 (D. Minn. 2010).229. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Minn. 2008); Capitol Records, Inc., 680 F.Supp......