Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum
660 F.3d 487
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Sony sued Tenenbaum in 2007 for statutory damages and injunctive relief under the Copyright Act for 30 recordings downloaded/distributed via peer-to-peer networks; the district court found liability for willful infringement and the jury awarded $22,500 per work ($675,000 total).
- The district court found willful infringement and then reduced the award to $2,250 per work ($67,500 total) on due process grounds without offering remittitur or a new trial.
- Tenenbaum admitted extensive, knowing infringement and lied in discovery and at trial about his conduct; warnings from his father, Goucher College, and his ISP warned him of liability.
- Sony presented evidence of substantial harm to the recording industry from infringement, including reduced revenues and jobs, supporting damages as compensatory/punitive under §504(c).
- The United States intervened to defend the constitutionality of the Copyright Act.
- On appeal, the First Circuit reversed the district court’s remittitur reduction, reinstated the jury award, and remanded for consideration of common-law remittitur; it also held Feltner does not render §504(c) unconstitutional and that statutory damages can apply to consumer copying under the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of §504(c) after Feltner | Sony argues Feltner requires jury determination of damages but does not render §504(c) unconstitutional. | Tenenbaum argues Feltner invalidates §504(c) as unconstitutional. | §504(c) remains constitutional; Feltner does not foreclose statutory damages. |
| Applicability of §504(c) to consumer copying | Sony contends the Act covers all infringers, including consumers, not just commercial infringers. | Tenenbaum argues consumer copying is outside §504(c). | Act applies to consumer copying; liability and statutory damages may be awarded. |
| Availability of statutory damages without proof of actual harm | Sony argues §504(c) provides statutory damages as an alternative to actual damages. | Tenenbaum contends statutory damages require proof of actual harm. | Statutory damages are available as an alternative to actual damages under §504(c). |
| District court’s remittitur/constitutional avoidance handling | Sony argues remittitur should be considered first and due process issues should not bypass non-constitutional remittitur. | Tenenbaum argues the court did not err in addressing due process. | District court erred by bypassing common-law remittitur; reinstate original award and remand for remittitur proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Segrets, Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co., 207 F.3d 56 (1st Cir.2000) (remittitur and statutory damages analysis under Feltner framework)
- Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183 (1st Cir.2004) (interpretation of §504(c) after Feltner)
- BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir.2005) ( Feltner did not render §504(c) unconstitutional)
- Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broad. of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2001) (rejection of broad unconstitutionality post-Feltner)
- Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (apply copyright statute to new technology; statutory damages framework guidance)
- Williams v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63 (1919) (due process limits for statutory penalties; Eighth/Seventh Amendment context)