You are on page 1of 48
 
 
#1455747 v1 den
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, ) et al., ) Civ. Act. No. 07-cv-11446-NG Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) Leave to File Excess Pages JOEL TENENBAUM, ) Granted January 20, 2009 ) Defendant. ) )
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JOEL TENENBAUM’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR REMITTITUR
Case 1:07-cv-11446-NG Document 36 Filed 02/08/2010 Page 1 of 48
 
 i
#1455747 v1 den
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................................4 ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................7 I. Standard Of Review............................................................................................................7 II. The Court Properly Granted Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment Regarding Fair Use, And Tenenbaum’s Efforts To Overturn That Ruling Post Trial Fail..................................................................................8 A. Tenenbaum is barred from asserting his new fair use arguments in a post-trial motion.............................................................................8 B. The Court did not create a fair use right for some undefined “interregnum,” nor does such right exist under the law.........................8 C. Tenenbaum’s attractive nuisance argument fares no better the second time......................................................................................12 III. The Court Properly Redacted The Portion Of Tenenbaum’s  November 21, 2005 Letter Concerning Settlement Discussions......................................13 IV. The Jury’s Damage Award Is Consistent With The Law And With The Facts Of Tenenbaum’s Massive, Willful Infringement............................17 A. The Court should reject Tenenbaum’s constitutional challenge...........................17 1. Tenenbaum’s constitutional argument is devoid of factual support......................................................................................18 2. Tenenbaum’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s punitive damages jurisprudence is misplaced as statutory damages are reviewed under a much more deferential standard.............................19 3. The jury’s award of statutory damages to Plaintiffs satisfies
Williams
......................................................................................23 4. Tenenbaum’s arguments challenging the jury’s verdict under
Williams
 all fail...............................................................................26
Case 1:07-cv-11446-NG Document 36 Filed 02/08/2010 Page 2 of 48
 
 ii
#1455747 v1 den
 B. There is no basis for reducing the jury’s award to the statutory minimum................................................................................................29 1. Congress acted specifically to address the very type of online infringement that Tenenbaum engaged in.................................30 2. The Court properly charged the jury with the task of awarding statutory damages.................................................................32 V. The Court Should Reject Tenenbaum’s Request For A Remittitur..................................33 A. The Court lacks authority to remit the jury’s damage award................................33 B. The overwhelming evidence of Tenenbaum’s misconduct and the substantial harm that he caused supports the jury’s award......................36 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................38
Case 1:07-cv-11446-NG Document 36 Filed 02/08/2010 Page 3 of 48

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505