Capitol Records, Inc. v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset
692 F.3d 899
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Recording companies sued Jammie Thomas-Rasset for willful copyright infringement for 24 songs based on KaZaA file-sharing activity.
- First trial awarded $222,000; district court granted new trial due to a flawed instruction equating making available with distribution regardless of actual distribution.
- Second trial awarded $1,920,000; district court remitted to $54,000 and the companies elected a new damages trial, not a new liability trial.
- Third trial awarded $1,500,000; district court reduced to $54,000 under Due Process clause, and issued a narrow injunction.
- This appeal challenges damages and the injunction; Thomas-Rasset cross-appeals on the constitutionality of any statutory damages.
- Court vacates district court judgment, reinstates $222,000 damages, and expands injunction to bar making recordings available for distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether making recordings available to the public is distribution under §106(3). | Thomas-Rasset should be liable; making available is distribution. | Thomas-Rasset argues making available is not distribution. | District court erred; making available may be protected but remand unnecessary for that issue here. |
| Whether the first verdict’s $222,000 damages were constitutional under Due Process. | Damages within statutory range and constitutionally permissible. | Damages too high under Due Process for noncommercial infringement. | Damages of $222,000 are constitutional; remittitur to $54,000 was improper. |
| Whether the district court properly reduced damages to $54,000 or to $2,250 per work. | Remittitur violated the statutory framework and due process. | Low end necessary to comply with due process. | Reversal of $54,000 remittitur; uphold $222,000 award. |
| Whether the district court could enter a broad injunction barring making recordings available for distribution. | Broad injunction is necessary to protect rights and deter future violations. | Only a narrower injunction is needed if any injunction at all. | Court authorizes broader injunction prohibiting making recordings available to the public. |
| Whether the question of granting a new trial after the first verdict remains moot. | mootness not dispositive since remedies sought depend on issue. | moot because remedies resolved on appeal. | Moot; not reached on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1919) (Due process standards for statutory damages; public interest in penalties)
- Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (U.S. 1984) (copyrights as public interest; purpose of statutory damages)
- F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, 344 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1952) (statutory damages as restitution and deterrence)
- Cass County Music Co. v. C.H.L.R., Inc., 88 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 1996) (statutory damages designed to deter infringement)
- Zomba Enters., Inc. v. Panorama Records, Inc., 491 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2007) (statutory damages framework and non-applicability of punitive-damages-style guideposts)
- Williams v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1919) (reiterates the general standard for assessing statutory damages under due process)
- McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187 (U.S. 1949) (broad authority to issue broad injunctions where warranted by conduct)
- EEOC v. Wilson Metal Casket Co., 24 F.3d 836 (6th Cir. 1994) (injunction standards and abuse of discretion analysis)
- Russian Media Grp., LLC v. Cable America, Inc., 598 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 2010) (proclivity for unlawful conduct supports broader injunctions)