I covered the Tenenbaum case earlier in a few posts here earlier this week, but I decided to step back and do a bit a broader analysis in a guest post over at the Citizen Media Law Project blog. Check it out.
Having attended the oral arguments before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al v. Tenenbaum yesterday and analyzed my initial impression here, I was pleased to see that the court posted (MP3) the audio of the oral arguments on its website.
Unfortunately, it is often difficult to tell who is speaking given the bare audio. Therefore, I have decided to post the audio on YouTube and annotate it so that listeners can know who is speaking when. I hope many find this helpful.
Here are the links, in 5 parts:
- Part 1: United States as intervenor-appellant. Argument by Jeffrey Clair, Department of Justice, Civil Division. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gLXSnCzgNM
- Part 2: Record labels as plaintiff-appellant. Argument by Paul Clement, Partner, King & Spalding. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s5Omh2bDdA
- Part 3: Electronic Frontier Foundation as amicus curiae. Argument by Julie A. Ahrens, Associate Director, Fair Use Project, Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lqHuukDW-c
- Part 4: Joel Tenenbaum as defendant-appellee. Argument by Jason S. Harrow, Student, Harvard Law School, and Charles R. Nesson, Weld Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWy3Wj6XbDk
- Part 5: Record labels’ rebuttal. Clement again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI-3YYN3xxY
The argument was before a panel of three First Circuit judges:
- Sandra L. Lynch, Chief Appellate Judge
- Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge
- Rogeriee Thompson, Appellate Judge
For even more fun, you can download the briefs here to follow along with the audio. Happy analysis!
A few hours ago, I attended oral arguments here in Boston before the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum (Wikipedia backgrounder, appellate briefs here). To summarize, several record labels sued Joel Tenenbaum for sharing music files on a peer-to-peer service, and Tenenbaum lost at trial. However, trial court Judge Nancy Gertner reduced the jury verdict of $675,000 against Mr. Tenenbaum down to $67,500.
Both sides appealed. The labels framed the sole issue on appeal as:
Whether the district court erred by holding that the jury’s award of $22,500 per work for willful infringement of 30 copyrighted works violated the Due Process Clause, even though that award is well within the range of statutorily prescribed damages awards for willful copyright infringement and even within the statutory range for non-willful infringement.
In contrast, defendant Tenenbaum framed the issues as:
1. Is the award of damages against the defendant unconstitutionally excessive?
2. Was the jury properly guided by the trial judge’s instructions?
3. Does the statute under which the defendant was prosecuted apply to individual noncommercial consumers?
4. Does 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) remain operative in the wake of Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998)?
Today’s hearing took place before a three-judge panel consisting of Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch, Judge Juan R. Torruella, and Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson. In addition to the plaintiffs and defendants, the United States (as intervenor) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (as amicus curiae) presented oral arguments.
Based on the judges’ questions and demeanor at oral argument, my impression is that Joel Tenenbaum faces an uphill battle and is likely to lose his appeal. I don’t have a transcript of the proceedings, but the following stands out from my notes and memory.
Chief Judge Lynch clearly had no tolerance for the defense’s contention that “no one thought” the statutory penalties for copyright infringement would ever apply to “consumers”. She pointed out that the statute appeared to apply to consumers, eliciting a concession from Tenenbaum’s counsel that statutory copyright penalties were not facial unconstitutional. This left the defense with little more than a half-hearted argument that the jury verdict was improper here because the copyright statute originally contemplated damage calculations by judges.
Judges Torruella and Thompson seemed somewhat more suspicious of the record labels’ arguments, but it was unclear whether these suspicions would help Tenenbaum win his case. Judge Torruella asked the labels’ lawyer whether “lost sales” would provide a useful measure of damages, to which he replied that damages should be commensurate with the “lost of value of the copyright”. He argued that file-sharing in the aggregate caused enormous economic losses to the labels because it essentially put the music “in the public domain.” (Why Joel Tenenbaum should be personally responsible for the actions of thousands or millions of other file-sharers remained the obvious question he never managed to answer.)
For her part, Judge Thompson questioned whether appellate courts could ever find that a jury for statutory damages in a copyright infringement action to be excessive if it fell within the statutory range ($750 to $150,000 per work infringed). The labels’ counsel did concede copyright damage awards were “not immune from Williams [Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007)] review” but maintained that such a problem would be “rare” and that this was not that case.
We likely won’t have the First Circuit’s decision for several months, so there’s still plenty of time to speculate about what the outcome will be. I’ll continue posting as I have additional thoughts.
I’m going to be attending oral arguments here in Boston before the First Circuit Court of Appeals in the Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum case (Wikipedia backgrounder) later this morning. Appellate briefs are available here, summary from the defendant’s perspective here.
Check back later today for more commentary and analysis.