You are on page 1of 64
 
-i-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSSONY BMG MUSIC )ENTERTAINMENT; WARNER BROS.)RECORDS INC.; ATLANTIC )RECORDING CORP.; ARISTA )RECORDS LLC; and UMG )RECORDINGS, INC.,)Plaintiffs,))v.) Civil Action No. 07cv11446-NG) JOEL TENENBAUM,)Defendant.)GERTNER, D.J.:TABLE OF CONTENTSMEMORANDUM & ORDER RE:DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR REMITTITUR
July 9, 2010I.INTRODUCTION......................................................-1-II.BACKGROUND.......................................................-7-III.TENENBAUMS CHALLENGE TO THE DAMAGES AWARD................-9-A.Tenenbaum’s Constitutional Challenge to the Jury’s Award must Be Addressed -9-B.Tenenbaums Due Process Challenge................................-15-1.What standard should the Court employ in evaluating Tenenbaum’sconstitutional challenge?....................................-15-a.
Williams
...........................................-15- b.
The Supreme Court’s Punitive Damages Jurisprudence
......-16-c.
 Is the Supreme Court’s recent punitive damages jurisprudencerelevant to this case?
.................................-25-2.The BMW Guideposts......................................-30-a.
The Third BMW Guidepost 
............................-30- b.
The Second BMW Guidepost 
...........................-42-c.
The First BMW Guidepost 
.............................-51-3.What is the maximum constitutionally permissible damages award in thiscase?....................................................-52-
Case 1:07-cv-11446-NG Document 47 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 64
 
-ii-
IV.MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS.............................................-55-A.Fair Use.......................................................-55-B.Tenenbaums Evidentiary Challenge ................................-57-V.CONCLUSION.......................................................-61-
Case 1:07-cv-11446-NG Document 47 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 64
 
1
 In particular, the plaintiffs are Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Bros. Records Inc., AtlanticRecording Corp., Arista Records LLC, and UMG Recordings, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSSONY BMG MUSIC )ENTERTAINMENT; WARNER BROS.)RECORDS INC.; ATLANTIC )RECORDING CORP.; ARISTA )RECORDS LLC; and UMG )RECORDINGS, INC.,)Plaintiffs,))v.) Civil Action No. 07cv11446-NG) JOEL TENENBAUM,)Defendant.)GERTNER, D.J.:MEMORANDUM & ORDER RE:DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR REMITTITUR
July 9, 2010
I.INTRODUCTION
This copyright case raises the question of whether the Constitution’s Due Process Clauseis violated by a jury’s award of $675,000 in statutory damages against an individual who reaped no pecuniary reward from his infringement and whose individual infringing acts caused the plaintiffs minimal harm. I hold that it is.Joel Tenenbaum (“Tenenbaum”), the defendant in this action, was accused of using file-sharing software to download and distribute thirty copyrighted songs belonging to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are a group of the country’s biggest recording companies.
1
 Their lawsuit againstTenenbaum is one of thousands that they have brought against file sharers throughout the country. Tenenbaum, like many of the defendants in these suits, was an undergraduate when his file-sharing was detected.
Case 1:07-cv-11446-NG Document 47 Filed 07/09/10 Page 3 of 64

Reward Your Curiosity

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