Sony BMG Music Ent. v. Tenenbaum, s. 10–1883

Citation100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161,660 F.3d 487,2011 Copr.L.Dec. P 30134
Decision Date16 September 2011
Docket NumberNos. 10–1883,10–1947,10–2052.,s. 10–1883
PartiesSONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants/Cross–Appellees, v. Joel TENENBAUM, Defendant, Appellee/Cross–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Paul D. Clement, with whom Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Erin E. Murphy, King & Spalding, LLP, Timothy M. Reynolds, Eve G. Burton, Holme, Roberts & Owen, LLP, Matthew J. Oppenheim, and Jennifer L. Pariser were on brief, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Jeffrey Clair, with whom Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Carmen Ortiz, United States Attorney, and Scott R. McIntosh were on brief, for the United States as plaintiff-appellant.

Charles R. Nesson and Jason Harrow for defendant-appellee.Julie A. Ahrens, with whom Anthony T. Falzone, Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society, Michael Barclay, Corynne McSherry, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Jason M. Schultz, Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic, were on brief for Electronic Frontier Foundation, amicus curiae.

Before LYNCH, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

LYNCH, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs, the recording companies Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Brothers Records Inc., Arista Records LLC, Atlantic Recording Corporation, and UMG Recordings, Inc. (together, Sony), brought this action for statutory damages and injunctive relief under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Sony argued that the defendant, Joel Tenenbaum, willfully infringed the copyrights of thirty music recordings by using file-sharing software to download and distribute those recordings without authorization from the copyright owners.

The district court entered judgment against Tenenbaum as to liability. The jury found that Tenenbaum's infringement of the copyrights at issue was willful and awarded Sony statutory damages of $22,500 for each infringed recording, an award within the statutory range of $750 to $150,000 per infringement that Congress established for willful conduct. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).

Upon Tenenbaum's motion for a new trial or remittitur, the district court skipped over the question of remittitur and reached a constitutional issue. It reduced the damage award by a factor of ten, reasoning that the award was excessive in violation of Tenenbaum's due process rights. See Sony BMG Music Entm't v. Tenenbaum, 721 F.Supp.2d 85 (D.Mass.2010).

The parties have cross-appealed. Sony argues the district court erred, for a number of reasons, in reducing the jury's award of damages and seeks reinstatement of the full award. It defends the liability and willfulness determinations.

Tenenbaum challenges both liability and damages. He challenges the Copyright Act's constitutionality and the applicability of the Copyright Act and its statutory damages provision to his conduct. Tenenbaum also argues that 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.

The United States, intervening to defend the constitutionality of the Copyright Act, argues that the district court erred in bypassing the question of common law remittitur to reach a constitutional issue.

We reject all of Tenenbaum's arguments and affirm the denial of Tenenbaum's motion for a new trial or remittitur based on claims of error as to the application of the Copyright Act and error as to the jury instructions. However, the court erred when it bypassed Tenenbaum's remittitur arguments based on excessiveness of the statutory damages award and reached the constitutional due process issue. We agree with the United States that the doctrine of constitutional avoidance requires consideration of common law remittitur before consideration of Tenenbaum's due process challenge to the jury's award. We reverse the reduction in damages, reinstate the original award, and remand for consideration of the common law remittitur question. We comment that this case raises concerns about application of the Copyright Act which Congress may wish to examine.

I.Background
A. District Court Proceedings

Sony brought this action against Tenenbaum in August 2007, seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Copyright Act. Sony pursued copyright claims against Tenenbaum for only thirty copyrighted works, even though it presented evidence that Tenenbaum illegally downloaded and distributed thousands of copyrighted materials.

Sony's complaint elected to seek statutory, not actual damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). For each act of infringement, § 504(c) establishes an award range of $750 to $30,000 for non-willful infringements, and a range of $750 to $150,000 for willful infringements.

Tenenbaum filed several pre-trial motions, including a motion to dismiss Sony's complaint on the ground that the Copyright Act is unconstitutional. 1 After the United States intervened to defend the constitutionality of the Act, the district court rejected Tenenbaum's motion without prejudice to allow Tenenbaum to challenge the constitutionality of any award ultimately issued by the jury. The district court also considered and rejected a fair use defense put forth by Tenenbaum.

A five-day jury trial was held from July 27 to July 31, 2009. Following the conclusion of testimony, the district court partially granted Sony's motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that Sony owned the thirty copyrights at issue and that Tenenbaum infringed those copyrights through his downloading and distribution activities. The court left to the jury the questions of (1) whether Tenenbaum's infringement was willful and (2) the amount of statutory damages to be awarded. In instructing the jury, the court informed it of the statutory range Congress had established for willful and non-willful infringements and articulated a non-exhaustive list of factors it could consider in determining the damage award.

The jury found that Tenenbaum had willfully infringed each of Sony's thirty copyrighted works. The jury returned a damage award, within the statutory range, of $22,500 per infringement, which yielded a total award of $675,000.

Tenenbaum filed a post-trial motion seeking a new trial on various grounds 2 or a reduction of the jury's award. Tenenbaum argued that although the jury's award fell within the statutory range prescribed by Congress, (1) common law remittitur was both available to the court and appropriate in this case, and (2) the award was excessive such that it violated due process. The court rejected Tenenbaum's arguments for a new trial.

Regarding the size of the award, the court declined to decide the common law remittitur issue, based on its assumption that Sony would not agree to a reduction of the award and that remittitur would only necessitate a new trial on the issue of damages, and that even after a new trial the same issue of constitutional excessiveness would arise, so, in its view decision on the issue was inevitable. The court itself then found that the award violated due process, over objections that it utilized an impermissible standard, and reduced the award from $22,500 per infringement to $2,250 per infringement for a total award of $67,500.

B. Factual Background

We recite the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. Analysis Grp., Inc. v. Cent. Fl. Invs., Inc., 629 F.3d 18, 20 (1st Cir.2010).

1. The Music Recording Industry and Peer–to–Peer Networks

Plaintiffs are several of the largest recording companies in the United States, and engage in discovering, developing, and marketing music recording artists and distributing the musical works those artists record. They hold exclusive rights to copy and distribute various music recordings under United States copyright law, including the thirty recordings at issue in this case, and their primary source of revenue is the sale of those recordings.

Plaintiffs only sell copies of their copyrighted recordings for profit. They never sell licenses to their copyrighted works that include rights to upload recordings to the internet for public consumption. The value of such a blanket license would be enormous, as the grant of such a license would deprive the companies of their source of income and profits and essentially drive them out of business.3

In the late 1990s, copyrighted music recordings, including those held by the plaintiffs, began to appear on file-sharing software called “peer-to-peer networks” without the authorization of the copyright holders.

Peer-to-peer networks enable individuals both to make digital files stored on their own computers available to other network users and to download such files from the computers of others. Files shared between users of these networks do not pass through a central computer, but are instead exchanged directly from one user's computer to another. Through the use of these peer-to-peer networks, the unauthorized and illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials—especially music recordings—became commonplace. See Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 919–20, 923, 125 S.Ct. 2764, 162 L.Ed.2d 781 (2005) (describing operation of peer-to-peer networks and noting that their advent has likely resulted in copyright infringement on a “staggering” scale). Because music recordings are loaded onto peer-to-peer networks in digital form, recordings downloaded from peer-to-peer networks are virtually indistinguishable from recordings purchased through lawful means, making enforcement difficult.

The proliferation of these networks from 1999 onward and the piracy they enable has had a significant negative impact on the recording industry. Between 1999 and 2008, the recording industry as a whole suffered a fifty percent drop in both sales and revenues, a figure plaintiffs attribute to the rise of illegal downloading. This reduction in revenues has, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
73 cases
  • Sony Music Entm't v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • June 2, 2020
    ...statutory award. If either question is answered in the affirmative, the $1 billion jury award is subject to reduction. In Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum , the First Circuit commented on the courts' role when applying the Copyright Act, independent of the parties' proposed rationa......
  • United States v. Wells, 16-4006
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • October 23, 2017
    ...questions only when necessary to a resolution of the case or controversy before it."); accord Sony BMG Music Entm't v. Tenenbaum, 660 F.3d 487, 508 (1st Cir. 2011) ("The court declined to adhere to the doctrine of constitutional avoidance on the ground that it felt resolution of a constitut......
  • United States v. Brown
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • January 19, 2012
    ...violated his constitutional right to defend himself. We review this constitutional question de novo. See Sony BMG Music Entm't v. Tenenbaum, 660 F.3d 487, 496 (1st Cir.2011). Whether it is rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Sixth Amendment, “the Constitution guarantees criminal de......
  • Sánchez v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • February 14, 2012
    ...liability, id. at 230.II. The district court's ultimate rulings were ones of law, which we review de novo. Sony BMG Music Entm't v. Tenenbaum, 660 F.3d 487, 496 (1st Cir.2011). On this Rule 12(b)(1) motion, we must “credit the plaintiff's well-pled factual allegations and draw all reasonabl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Two Courts Address Constitutional Limits On Copyright Statutory Damages
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 31, 2011
    ...constitutional and procedural methods for correcting excessive statutory damage awards. Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, 100 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1161 (1st Cir. The defendant in Tenenbaum was a college student who downloaded and made available to others thousands of music recordings using ......
6 books & journal articles
  • Efficient Copyright Infringement
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 98-5, July 2013
    • July 1, 2013
    ...file sharing, albeit also expressing reservations about draconian statutory damages), aff’d in part , vacated in part , rev’d in part , 660 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 2011). 145. Indeed, §§ 107–122 of the Copyright Act comprise various exceptions to owners’ exclusive rights. 17 U.S.C. §§ 10722 (20......
  • INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CRIMES
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...property reasonably and in good faith, even in the face of disputed title, has not acted willfully); Sony BMG Music Ent. v. Tenenbaum, 660 F.3d 487, 507–08 (1st Cir. 2011) (f‌inding that copyright infringement is willful if the infringement is knowing or there is reckless disregard for the ......
  • Intellectual Property Crimes
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • July 1, 2023
    ...property reasonably and in good faith, even in the face of disputed title, has not acted willfully); Sony BMG Music Ent. v. Tenenbaum, 660 F.3d 487, 507–08 (1st Cir. 2011) (f‌inding copyright infringement is willful if the infringement is knowing or there is reckless disregard for the risk ......
  • Intellectual Property Crimes
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • July 1, 2022
    ...property reasonably and in good faith, even in the face of disputed title, has not acted willfully); Sony BMG Music Ent. v. Tenenbaum, 660 F.3d 487, 507–08 (1st Cir. 2011) (f‌inding that copyright infringement is willful if the infringement is knowing or there is reckless disregard for the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT