Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
DOJ Brief in Support of Tenenbaum Award

DOJ Brief in Support of Tenenbaum Award

Ratings: (0)|Views: 703 |Likes:
Published by Ben Sheffner
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR REMITTITUR AND IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTORY DAMAGES PROVISION OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) in Sony v. Joel Tenenbaum
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR REMITTITUR AND IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTORY DAMAGES PROVISION OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) in Sony v. Joel Tenenbaum

More info:

Published by: Ben Sheffner on Jan 20, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/19/2010

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS)SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT,)et al.,))Civil Action No. 07-cv-11446-NGPlaintiffs,))v.))JOEL TENENBAUM,))Defendant.) ____________________________________)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TODEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR REMITTITUR AND IN DEFENSE OFTHE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTORY DAMAGES PROVISION OFTHE COPYRIGHT ACT, 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)
Case 1:07-cv-11446-NG Document 31 Filed 01/19/2010 Page 1 of 30
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
Page
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1BACKGROUND. ........................................................................................................................... 2I. STATUTORY BACKGROUND............................................................................ 2II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND......................................................................... 4ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. 6I. THIS COURT SHOULD FIRST DETERMINE WHETHER THECONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION RAISED BY DEFENDANT CANBE AVOIDED. ....................................................................................................... 6II. THE COPYRIGHT ACT’S STATUTORY DAMAGES PROVISIONSATISFIES DUE PROCESS.................................................................................. 7A. Courts Examine Statutory Damages Awards Under The StandardArticulated By The Supreme Court in
Williams
......................................... 8B. The Copyright Act’s Statutory Damages Provision Satisfies The
Williams
Standard..................................................................................... 12CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 24i
Case 1:07-cv-11446-NG Document 31 Filed 01/19/2010 Page 2 of 30
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases Page(s)
 Accounting Outsourcing, LLC v. Verizon Wireless Pers. Commc'n, L.P.
,329 F. Supp. 2d 789 (M.D. La. 2004).......................................................................... 9, 11
 Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Anderson
,2008 WL. 2316551 (S.D. Tex. March 12, 2008)............................................................. 10
 BMW of North Am., Inc. v. Gore
,517 U.S. 559 (1996)........................................................................................... 8, 9, 10, 11
 Bisbal-Ramos v. City of Mayaguez 
,467 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2006)................................................................................................ 6
 Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.
,492 U.S. 257 (1989)......................................................................................................... 12
 Buchanan v. Maine
,469 F.3d 158 (1st Cir. 2006).............................................................................................. 6
 Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
,111 U.S. 53 (1884)........................................................................................................... 14
Capitol Records, Inc. v. Alaujan
,626 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D. Mass. 2009).......................................................................... 5, 18
Centerline Equip. Corp. v. Banner Pers. Serv., Inc.
,545 F. Supp. 2d 768 (N.D. Ill. 2008)......................................................................... 11, 18
 In re Charter Communications, Inc.
,393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2005). .......................................................................................... 17
City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc.
,411 U.S. 624 (1973)......................................................................................................... 22
Correa v. Hosp. San Francisco
,69 F.3d 1184 (1st Cir. 1995).............................................................................................. 7
 DirecTV, Inc. v. Cantu
,2004 WL. 2623932 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2004)................................................................ 9ii
Case 1:07-cv-11446-NG Document 31 Filed 01/19/2010 Page 3 of 30

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
crsyeh liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->