1:11-cv-08407
S.D.N.Y.Apr 23, 2015Background
- SJ Decision granted summary judgment to plaintiffs for copyright infringement; trial on statutory damages set for Apr 27, 2015.
- Works in Suit are 4,907 recordings linked to Escape's employees uploading to Grooveshark; pre-1972 recordings not necessarily covered by federal law.
- Escape and Grooveshark founders Tarantino and Greenberg found jointly and severally liable for direct and secondary infringement; spoliation led to adverse inferences about scope of piracy.
- Court identified six Bryant factors for statutory damages and reaffirmed that willful infringement allows enhanced damages up to $150,000 per work.
- Motions in limine addressed: consistency with SJ Order, degree of willfulness, applicability of DMCA, and admissibility of related collateral decisions and settlement evidence.
- Trial may involve evidence of timing of uploads and degree of willfulness; pre-1972 subset may affect statutory damages eligibility; court reserved judgment on some issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Willfulness and bad faith support for statutory damages | Plaintiffs: SJ findings show willful/bad faith conduct; damages capped per work at $150k | Escape contends degree of willfulness varies; some evidence should be allowably probative | Willful/bad faith established; degree of willfulness may be presented; per-work cap applies |
| Liability of Tarantino and Greenberg for employee uploads | Findings show joint/several liability for direct and secondary infringements | Some alleged lack of knowledge about specific uploads by Tarantino/Greenberg | Precluded: prior SJ rulings control; liability remains |
| Validity of copyrights pre-1972 subset for statutory damages | Pre-1972 works may be subject to statutory damages if remastered after 1972 | Potential waiver or jurisdiction issues; subset may be in dispute at trial | Court reserved judgment on waiver and subset viability; trial clarification sought |
| DMCA and failure-to-mitigate defense | DMCA irrelevant where Escape itself caused infringements; mitigation argument limited | Defendants may introduce background licensing attempts to show state of mind | DMCA is irrelevant to liability; partial allowance of mitigation evidence linked to state of mind and conduct |
| Admission of settlement and collateral EMI decision evidence | Collateral EMI decision useful to show state of mind/deterrence | Collateral decision irrelevant and prejudicial | EMI evidence potentially admissible as rebuttal on state of mind; not ruling on full admission |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Media Right Productions, Inc., 603 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) (six-factor framework for calculating statutory damages, including willfulness and deterrence)
- Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 748 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2014) (reaffirms Bryant factors; confirms non-necessity of direct correlation between statutory and actual damages)
- Arista Records LLC v. Lime Grp. LLC, 784 F. Supp. 2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (pre-1972 sound recordings and state copyright protections)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010) (statutory damages framework and scope; Supreme Court)