#1455747 v1 den

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS)SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, )et al., ) Civ. Act. No. 07-cv-11446-NGPlaintiffs, ))v. )) Leave to File Excess PagesJOEL TENENBAUM, ) Granted January 20, 2009)Defendant. ))

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TODEFENDANT 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

#1455747 v1 den

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................1STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................................4ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................7I. Standard Of Review............................................................................................................7II. The Court Properly Granted Plaintiffs’ Motion For SummaryJudgment Regarding Fair Use, And Tenenbaum’s Efforts ToOverturn That Ruling Post Trial Fail..................................................................................8A. Tenenbaum is barred from asserting his new fair usearguments in a post-trial motion.............................................................................8B. The Court did not create a fair use right for someundefined “interregnum,” nor does such right exist under the law.........................8C. Tenenbaum’s attractive nuisance argument faresno better the second time......................................................................................12III. The Court Properly Redacted The Portion Of Tenenbaum’sNovember 21, 2005 Letter Concerning Settlement Discussions......................................13IV. The Jury’s Damage Award Is Consistent With The LawAnd With The Facts Of Tenenbaum’s Massive, Willful Infringement............................17A. The Court should reject Tenenbaum’s constitutional challenge...........................171. Tenenbaum’s constitutional argument is devoidof factual support......................................................................................182. Tenenbaum’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s punitivedamages jurisprudence is misplaced as statutory damagesare reviewed under a much more deferential standard.............................193. The jury’s award of statutory damages to Plaintiffssatisfies

Williams

......................................................................................234. Tenenbaum’s arguments challenging the jury’s verdictunder

Williams

all fail...............................................................................26

Case 1:07-cv-11446-NG Document 36 Filed 02/08/2010 Page 2 of 48

#1455747 v1 den

B. There is no basis for reducing the jury’s award to thestatutory minimum................................................................................................291. Congress acted specifically to address the very typeof online infringement that Tenenbaum engaged in.................................302. The Court properly charged the jury with the task of awarding statutory damages.................................................................32V. The Court Should Reject Tenenbaum’s Request For A Remittitur..................................33A. The Court lacks authority to remit the jury’s damage award................................33B. The overwhelming evidence of Tenenbaum’s misconductand the substantial harm that he caused supports the jury’s award......................36 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................38