• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
IN THEUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIRST CIRCUITNo. 09-1090IN RE: SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT; WARNER BROS.RECORDS, INC.; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION; ARISTARECORDS, LLC; AND UMG RECORDINGS, INC.Petitioners.ON PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT TO THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSDistrict Court Case No. 07-CV-11446-NG (D. Mass.)(Consolidated with District Court Case No. 03-CV-11661-NG (D. Mass.))Hon. Nancy Gertner, United States District Judge, presiding
BRIEF OF RESPONDENT JOEL TENENBAUM
Charles R. Nesson
1
 1525 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, MA 02138(617) 495-4609FAX (617) 495-4299nesson@law.harvard.edu
Counsel for the Respondent 
 
1
Assisted by Aaron Dulles, Isaac Meister, James E. Richardson, and Debbie Rosenbaum
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT …………………………………………………….…… 1QUESTION PRESENTED ..……………………………………………………… …… 2ARGUMENT ...…………………………………………………………………….…… 2CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………… …… 3
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
“And all Israel heard of the judgment of Solomon; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment.”
(1 Kings 3:16)Respondent Joel Tenenbaum is the defendant in litigation brought by Plaintiff-Petitioners, the “big four” corporations of the music business, acting in concert with their tradeassociation, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The suit claims willfulcopyright infringement of seven popular rock songs that Joel downloaded as MP3 files from aglobal open peer-to-peer digital network. See Complaint. (Addendum at 2) With statutorydamages of $150,000 for each willful infringement, the total threat exceeds a million dollars.Joel’s case is one of more than one hundred such cases in this district alone, all consolidatedbefore Judge Gertner. It is one of thousands of cases filed in federal courts across the countryagainst noncommercial users like Joel. Almost all of the defendants in these cases areunrepresented by counsel. They either settle out of court or suffer default judgment. Joelappeared
 pro se
until, at Judge Gertner’s suggestion and with her facilitation, he obtainedrepresentation from the undersigned counsel
 pro bono.
Joel counterclaimed against the Plaintiffs for abuse of federal process. (Addendum at 7)Plaintiffs moved to dismiss. Judge Gertner ordered that the hearing on the motion to dismiss beopen to the Internet.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...