419:
their legal rights. Some read the summons, and they haven't the foggiest idea what it means and don't know where to go, and they're defaulted, and they owe money anywhere from $ 3,000 to $ 10,000 as a result. Sometimes they answer and get counsel, and because the law is so overwhelmingly on the side of the record companies, there's a negotiated settlement which is slightly lower than the settlement the people that are unrepresented have been getting—in other words, with a lawyer you can get some kind of leverage, but it is a delaying game in some sense. It simply doesn't make sense to fight them as an individual, per se, and to some degree you run the risk that the longer you fight without having a basis to do so, the plaintiff's legal fees go up and up. I can't say this is a situation that is a good situation or a fair situation; it is, however, the situation. If you really wish to stand and fight, you need to have legal representation because otherwise all you're going to do is stand in place, their fees go up and we'll end this case with the higher end of the statutory damages rather than the lower end. The best that I can do given the state of the law and the unequal resources is to try to level the playing field as best I can, to try to find lawyers. The lawyers look at a case in which the law is so overwhelmingly on the side of the record companies and say 'why should we get involved?' So the group of lawyers that we're trying to get to represent you is not a very large group, which is why we've had difficulty.
337:
this time for any reason, then the statutory range given in the instructions to the original jury was unjust, and the instructions were therefore faulty and a new damages-amount trial is warranted. The record companies asked the court to strike or reject
Tenenbaum's request, maintaining that the award was not excessive, and arguing that the trial request had no legal basis and was untimely since it contravened the Appeals Court's remand for consideration of remittitur.
178:. Tenenbaum then offered the plaintiffs the original complaint amount of $ 5250, but the music companies declined, and subsequently demanded "double." In a pre-trial conference in June 2008, Tenenbaum's mother stated "my son was offered $ 12,000, your Honor, and every time we appear that goes up." The plaintiffs responded that Tenenbaum had filed several motions with the court, and that "as our legal fees go up, so will the settlement amount that we offer."
127:
390:
behavior was exactly what
Congress was trying to deter when it amended the Copyright Act. Therefore, we do not hesitate to conclude that an award of $ 22,500 per song, an amount representing 15% of the maximum award for willful violations and less than the maximum award for non-willful violations, comports with due process.
312:. It vacated the reduction in damages, reinstated the original $ 675,000 award, and remanded to the District Court for reconsideration of the remittitur question by another judge, since Gertner retired. Gertner's retirement followed her appointment at Harvard Law, where she is now a colleague of Professor Nesson.
456:
Similarly, the First
Circuit Court of Appeals commented "this case raises concerns about application of the Copyright Act which Congress may wish to examine." However, the court did not explain what those concerns are, and its opinion repeatedly expresses certainty that Congress intended for the Act,
451:
As this Court has previously noted, it is very, very concerned that there is a deep potential for injustice in the
Copyright Act as it is currently written. It urges—no, implores—Congress to amend the statute to reflect the realities of file sharing. There is something wrong with a law that routinely
437:
The court at one point described the defense as "truly chaotic," stating that defense counsel "repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the
418:
There is a huge imbalance in these cases. The record companies are represented by large lawfirms with substantial resources. The law is also overwhelmingly on their side. They bring cases against individuals, individuals who don't have lawyers and don't have access to lawyers and who don't understand
389:
The evidence of
Tenenbaum's copyright infringement easily justifies the conclusion that his conduct was egregious. Tenenbaum carried on his activities for years in spite of numerous warnings, he made thousands of songs available illegally, and he denied responsibility during discovery. Much of this
255:
far greater than necessary to serve the government's legitimate interests in compensating copyright owners and deterring infringement. In fact, it bears no meaningful relationship to these objectives. To borrow Chief Judge
Michael J. Davis' characterization of a smaller statutory damages award in an
336:
On June 5, 2012, Tenenbaum requested a new trial to determine a new damage award. Although Judge
Gertner and the Court of Appeals had both already rejected this argument when it was made on constitutional grounds, Tenenbaum reasoned that if the District Court feels that the jury award was unjust,
230:
During the trial, Tenenbaum answered "yes" to the plaintiff's counsel's question "Mr. Tenenbaum, on the stand now are you now admitting liability for downloading and distributing all 30 sound recordings that are at issue and listed on
Exhibits 55 and 56 of the exhibits?" The next day, Judge Nancy
347:
In the same order, Judge Zobel acted on the remand, holding that reduction of the award via remittitur wasn't warranted, since the jury had ample reason to find that
Tenenbaum willfully infringed. A footnote in the First Circuit's remand stated that in this situation, the District Court and the
323:
to hear the case, arguing that the
Appeals Court should not have sent the case back to District Court, because the plaintiffs would likely reject an award reduced by remittitur and would opt for a retrial, pushing Tenenbaum "down an endless litigation rathole" on a "retrial merry-go-round." The
315:
On 31 October 2011, attorneys for Tenenbaum filed a petition for a rehearing in the First Circuit Court of Appeals because "it is unconstitutional to instruct a jury that it can return an unconstitutionally excessive award. To instruct the jury that it may ascribe an award in a range of up to $
307:
On September 16, 2011, the First Circuit rejected all of Tenenbaum's arguments, and, avoiding the question of which standard to apply, held that the District Court had erred by ruling on the constitutionality of the jury award before considering whether the award should be reduced by common law
332:
In early 2012, the parties submitted briefs and responses to the District Court regarding the remittitur and due process issues. The plaintiffs asked the court to strike or disregard Tenenbaum's reply briefs, which, in violation of procedure, contained facts and arguments that were not in his
238:
On July 31, 2009, the jury awarded $ 675,000 to the music companies, taking a middle option between the statutory minimum ($ 22,500 total) and maximum ($ 4.5 million) for willful infringement. Nesson had planned to appeal; if the verdict had stood, Tenenbaum had planned to file for bankruptcy.
368:
Given the deference afforded Congress' statutory award determination and the public harms it was designed to address, the particular behavior of plaintiff in this case and the fact that the award not only is within the range for willful infringement but also below the limit for non-willful
206:
defense to the jury. Although the Court considered the late addition of the defense "troubling," the Court allowed limited discovery to proceed over the plaintiffs' strenuous objections. However, eight hours before trial, upon consideration of both parties' arguments, the Court issued a
452:
threatens teenagers and students with astronomical penalties for an activity whose implications they may not have fully understood. The injury to the copyright holder may be real, and even substantial, but, under the statute, the record companies do not even have to prove actual damage.
117:
refused to hear Tenenbaum's appeal arguing against the remand. A new District Court judge then found no cause for remittitur, and held that the statutory damage award was constitutional. Tenenbaum again appealed to the First Circuit, which in June 2013 upheld the award.
152:
Tenenbaum was not the only one who had been given a lawsuit as, after September 8, 2003, there were thousands of similar lawsuits being filed. Over 5 years the number of cases surpassed 35,000 and caused the court to apply the Copyright act to the digital realm.
427:
Counsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers, to fully understand that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop
295:
standard, which regards punitive damage awards as eligible for reduction, and allows actual damages to be taken into consideration. The record companies and the U.S. Government countered that statutory damages and punitive damages are different things, so the
166:
In 2003, a demand for $ 3,500 was received at Tenenbaum's parents' house for songs that the then 20-year-old allegedly downloaded. Tenenbaum explained his financial situation as a student and offered a partial payment of $ 500, which was ultimately rejected.
1103:
148:
The record companies alleged they had given him warnings of these crimes prior to the trial and told him to stop what he was doing right away. They claim he had given a wide array of excuses as to why he was still distributing these songs.
446:
In the memorandum and order regarding fair use, Gertner acknowledged Nesson and Tenenbaum's argument that the general concept of fairness should be considered, but said that it was for the legislature to deal with:
235:, instructing the jury that liability was no longer at issue; they only needed to determine an appropriate amount for damages, which would be partly based on whether they believed the infringement was "willful."
348:
parties to the case "will have to address the relationship between the remittitur standard and the due process standard for statutory damage awards." Judge Zobel ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, noting that
316:
4,500,000 against a noncommercial copyright infringer is punitive, excessive, not authorized by statute, and a denial of due process." On November 17, 2011, the Court denied the request to rehear the case.
226:
situation in 1999 and that he did not intend any harm nor understood the copyright laws. The plaintiffs claimed Tenenbaum repeatedly infringed copyright laws and that he had taken actions to evade the law.
1107:
2114:
170:
After several other correspondences, the five record labels later filed suit against Tenenbaum in August 2007, accusing him of copyright infringement for the sharing of thirty-one music files via
1237:
414:
In the June 2008 hearing, when discussing Tenenbaum's need for a lawyer, Gertner expressed dismay at the plaintiffs' tactics in the over 133 file-sharing cases heard in her court at that point:
361:
1275:
90:'s (RIAA) anti-downloading litigation campaign. (The vast majority of cases having been settled out of court.) After the judge entered a finding of liability, a jury assessed damages of
2243:
281:
The appeal broached several topics, one of which was the District Court's authority to reduce a statutory damage award on constitutional grounds. Two Supreme Court cases were cited:
364:, which raised the statutory damage limits for several reasons, one of which was to be a more effective deterrent in response to widespread copyright infringement on the Internet.
1575:
1430:
375:
344:, Judge Gertner's successor, rejected Tenenbaum's request for a new trial as untimely, and disregarded the facts and arguments improperly raised in Tenenbaum's reply briefs.
189:
evidence, which could be used to link the file-sharing to his computer. Jurors who used social networks to obtain music were also excluded. Harvard Law School professor
465:
The initial lawsuit included the following 31 songs. However, the Smashing Pumpkins song was removed from the list prior to the trial, so only 30 songs were at issue.
2115:
http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/2012/05/21/music-downloading-damages-against-student-joel-tenenbaum-left-intact-supreme-court/QinlYIwd2UdAKOIhaNGPvL/story.html
1348:
1086:
394:
Tenenbaum subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in November 2015 and the court granted a discharge of the $ 675,000 judgement against him in March 2016.
1645:
1561:
275:
106:
32:
2218:
385:
Tenenbaum submitted notice of appeal to the First Circuit on September 17, 2012. In June 2013, the First Circuit upheld the statutory damages award:
1703:
1248:
1868:
1919:
1194:
2120:
1121:
1282:
1519:
1373:
324:
Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving no option but for the District Court to decide whether to reduce the award via remittitur.
2228:
133:
Joel Tenenbaum's issues started as a college student where he was accused of spreading songs to millions of people by uploading them onto
1820:
369:
infringement, the award is neither "wholly disproportioned to the offense" nor "obviously unreasonable." It does not offend due process.
1152:
1895:
1796:
1617:
269:
102:
87:
2164:
1583:
1724:
1052:
382:
Accordingly, the District Court held that $ 675,000 award, as previously reinstated by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, stands.
211:
against the defense. In its detailed response five months later, the Court described Nesson's fair-use arguments as "perfunctory".
2017:
2179:
2169:
2041:
109:
reinstated the original damage award of $ 675,000 and remanded the case to the District Court, ruling that the judge should have
1058:
247:
On July 9, 2010, Judge Gertner reduced Tenenbaum's fines to $ 67,500, holding that arbitrarily high statutory damages violate
1954:
1772:
1748:
1497:
2182:
2095:
1212:
1455:
1352:
1083:
1408:
320:
283:
114:
402:
Throughout the case, Judge Gertner issued numerous admonishments of both the plaintiffs and the defense, and implored
1307:
1845:"Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, to Disregard Defendant's Reply Briefs"
1844:
1680:
2132:
2126:
2121:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131029204302/http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/25_1/0311-0346%20Moseley_Web.pdf
991:
955:
739:
539:
485:
1104:"Music downloading damages against BU student Joel Tenenbaum left intact by US Supreme Court - Boston.com"
356:
couldn't logically apply to statutory damages; and citing many examples of case law that support applying
185:
claim against the plaintiffs, excluded four of his expert witnesses, and denied his motion to exclude all
2199:
77:
2158:
2000:
1166:
457:
including the entire allowable range of statutory damages, to be applied to cases such as Tenenbaum's.
1479:
1242:] Records, Inc., et al. vs. Noor Alaujan, et al. / London-Sire Records, Inc., et al. vs. Does 1-4"
1431:"Court orders Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum to pay $ 675G for illegally downloading music"
1128:
2233:
996:
110:
1384:
2145:
829:
403:
2067:
1665:
2223:
798:
780:
762:
352:
had never been applied to statutory damages; reasoning that two of the three "guideposts" in
73:
1557:
94:
675,000, which the judge reduced to $ 67,500 on constitutional grounds, rather than through
1980:
1009:
919:
793:
775:
757:
721:
703:
593:
575:
503:
61:
1604:
8:
1869:"Plaintiffs' motion to strike, or in the alternative, disregard defendant's reply briefs"
199:
attorney, claimed this was unfair as Tenenbaum no longer had a trial by a jury of peers.
2192:
1174:
883:
865:
847:
660:
341:
248:
2081:
202:
In the month before the trial, Nesson petitioned the Court to be allowed to present a
2238:
2001:"Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 - Report [to accompany H.R. 1761]"
1653:
1146:
834:
256:
analogous file-sharing case, the award here is simply 'unprecedented and oppressive.'
175:
82:
76:, accused Joel Tenenbaum of illegally downloading and sharing files in violation of
232:
208:
182:
65:
1090:
634:
1333:
1986:
1704:"Supreme Court Turns Down File-Sharing Appeal Challenging Remittitur Procedure"
1276:"Memorandum and Order, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, et al., v. Joel Tenenbaum"
1064:
1027:
973:
942:
937:
901:
811:
685:
667:
647:
629:
616:
611:
562:
557:
544:
521:
490:
190:
69:
2133:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/IP/2010%20Tenenbaum%20Abridged.pdf
1084:
Stephanie Weiner, "Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum," August 12, 2009
2212:
2127:
http://www.casesofinterest.com/tiki/Sony+BMG+Music+Entertainment+v.+Tenenbaum
1821:"Defendant's Reply Brief to Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities"
1014:
2203:
2176:, no. 10–1947, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued April 4, 2011
1797:"Defendant's Reply Brief to Intervenor United States' Memorandum on Remand"
1480:"Memorandum & Order Re: Defendant's Motion for New Trial or Remittitur"
906:
134:
1520:"Sony v. Tenenbaum Saga: File-Sharing Case Makes Its Way to First Circuit"
1618:"Petition for Rehearing en banc of the Defendant, Apellee/Cross-Apellant"
1195:"Q&A: Tenenbaum says he faces bankruptcy after $ 675K piracy verdict"
924:
708:
690:
672:
186:
1374:"Case 1:07-cv-11446-NG Document 20: Testimony of Joel Tenebaum [
744:
309:
95:
362:
Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999
1920:"Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's amended further submission"
1032:
960:
652:
598:
580:
508:
2153:
726:
203:
195:
142:
57:
2188:
Charles Nesson discusses reasons for his loss in RIAA v. Tenenbaum
260:
On July 21, 2010, both parties filed notice to appeal the ruling.
978:
526:
406:
to take action to stop these kinds of lawsuits. Examples follow.
223:
138:
126:
2150:, no. 10–1947, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, at Justia
1955:"Sony BMG Music Entertainment, et al. v. Joel Tenenbaum - Order"
2187:
888:
870:
852:
181:
A few months before the trial, the court dismissed Tenenbaum's
171:
222:
Nesson argued that Tenenbaum's situation was similar to the
816:
2244:
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit cases
2042:"Joel Tenenbaum's $ 675,000 Music Downloading Fine Upheld"
1605:"http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2011/02/4_practice.html"
91:
2096:"Plaintiffs Supplemental Disclosure Statement 10.28.08"
1409:"Case 1:03-cv-11661-NG Document 909: Jury Instructions"
360:. The court also cited the legislative history of the
219:
The case went to trial in the last week of July 2009.
2200:
Confessions Of A Convicted RIAA Victim Joel Tenenbaum
2174:
Sony BMG Music Entertainment, et al v. Joel Tenenbaum
2147:
Sony BMG Music Entertainment, et al v. Joel Tenenbaum
423:
Gertner went on to admonish the plaintiffs directly:
1890:
1888:
1167:"Joel Fights Back - It's about more than just music"
1773:"Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities"
1681:"Court won't reduce student's music download fine"
1639:
1637:
1474:
1472:
460:
80:. It was only the second file-sharing case (after
1885:
1837:
1717:
1547:
1545:
1543:
1541:
1539:
43:Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum
2210:
1949:
1947:
1945:
1943:
1941:
1939:
1749:"Intervenor United States' Memorandum on Remand"
1498:"Labels file notice of appeal in Tenenbaum case"
1456:"Boston judge cuts penalty in song-sharing case"
53:Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum
1813:
1789:
1634:
1469:
1536:
1232:
1230:
1228:
1226:
1213:"RIAA Changes its Tune, But Lawsuits Continue"
291:. Tenenbaum argued for the application of the
274:Oral arguments in the appeal were held in the
1936:
1489:
1238:"Motion Hearing transcript, Capital [
397:
2010:
1993:
1861:
1765:
1383:. July 30, 2009. p. 102. Archived from
1188:
1186:
1184:
911:(You Gotta) Fight for Your Right (To Party)
289:St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams
1971:
1741:
1643:
1576:"Court upholds fine in music download case"
1349:"Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum"
1223:
2085:, Case 15-14315, District of Massachusetts
2219:Recording Industry Association of America
1695:
1305:
1270:
1268:
1181:
409:
270:Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum
88:Recording Industry Association of America
1573:
1495:
1428:
1053:Trade group efforts against file sharing
125:
1597:
1192:
1082:Harvard Journal of Law and Technology:
842:Mellon Collie and The Infinite Sadness
300:standard, which is less stringent than
2211:
2071:, no. 12-2146, (1st Cir June 25, 2013)
1678:
1517:
1346:
1265:
1151:: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
1059:Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset
432:
1896:"Further submission of the defendant"
1725:"Defendant's Opening Brief on Remand"
1701:
441:
113:by first considering remittitur. The
2161:, Tenenbaum's website about the case
1308:"How it feels to be sued for $ 4.5m"
1193:Vijayan, Jaikumar (August 7, 2009).
2229:United States file sharing case law
1558: Nos. 10-1883, 10-1947, 10-2052
13:
1977:
1672:
1281:. December 7, 2009. Archived from
319:Tenenbaum's lawyer then asked the
284:BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
14:
2255:
2154:Joel Tenenbaum's personal website
2139:
947:Look To Your Orb For The Warning
1518:Mackey, Alexandra (2011-04-08).
1347:Weiner, Stephanie (2009-08-12).
1306:Tenenbaum, Joel (27 July 2009).
438:illegal recordings on the web."
111:avoided the constitutional issue
2088:
2074:
2060:
2034:
1912:
1679:Lavoie, Denise (May 21, 2012).
1610:
1574:Valencia, Milton (2011-09-21).
1567:
1511:
1448:
1429:Standora, Leo (July 31, 2009).
1422:
1401:
1366:
1340:
1326:
1247:. June 17, 2008. Archived from
461:Songs at issue and implications
251:and are thus unconstitutional,
2018:"Defendant's Notice of Appeal"
1496:Sheffner, Ben (22 July 2010).
1458:. Associated Press. 2010-07-09
1299:
1205:
1159:
1114:
1096:
1076:
327:
107:First Circuit Court of Appeals
33:First Circuit Court of Appeals
1:
1702:Weiss, Debra (May 21, 2012).
1070:
1037:Water Song/Janie's Got A Gun
242:
156:
121:
992:Sony BMG Music Entertainment
956:Sony BMG Music Entertainment
839:Bullet With Butterfly Wings
740:Sony BMG Music Entertainment
540:Sony BMG Music Entertainment
486:Sony BMG Music Entertainment
161:
7:
1524:Intellectual Property Brief
1046:
698:Three Dollar Bill, Y'all$
10:
2260:
929:The KKK Took My Baby Away
878:The Marshall Mathers (EP)
398:Admonishments by the court
340:On August 23, 2012, Judge
267:
86:) to go to verdict in the
1985:Vol. 145, Page
263:
38:
28:
23:
1093:, accessed April 4, 2012
997:Rage Against the Machine
214:
1646:"Practitioner Insights"
893:Cleaning Out My Closet
1607:, accessed May 4, 2011
1004:Battle Of Los Angeles
830:Virgin Records America
642:The Perfect Drug (EP)
603:Nice Guys Finish Last
454:
430:
421:
410:Against the plaintiffs
392:
380:
258:
130:
16:American music company
2068:Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum
1553:Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum
799:Red Hot Chili Peppers
781:Red Hot Chili Peppers
763:Red Hot Chili Peppers
449:
425:
416:
387:
366:
253:
129:
24:Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum
1981:Congressional Record
1603:Harvard Law School:
1010:Warner Bros. Records
920:Warner Bros. Records
794:Warner Bros. Records
776:Warner Bros. Records
758:Warner Bros. Records
722:Warner Bros. Records
704:Warner Bros. Records
594:Warner Bros. Records
576:Warner Bros. Records
504:Warner Bros. Records
62:Warner Bros. Records
1435:New York Daily News
1219:. 21 December 2008.
731:Be Quiet And Drive
585:When I Come Around
433:Against the defense
374:Hon. Rya W. Zobel,
101:After both parties
2193:Harvard Law Record
1683:. Associated Press
1664:has generic name (
1171:joelfightsback.com
1089:2012-04-29 at the
1022:Dizzy Up The Girl
950:Dopes To Infinity
884:Interscope Records
866:Interscope Records
848:Interscope Records
749:Killing Me Softly
680:Significant Other
661:Enema of the State
442:To the legislature
278:on April 4, 2011.
131:
78:U.S. copyright law
2196:, 4 December 2009
2180:31 songs at stake
2165:trial transcripts
2098:. 28 October 2008
2082:Joel N. Tenenbaum
1644:Thomson Reuters.
1564: 2011-09-16).
1044:
1043:
835:Smashing Pumpkins
639:The Perfect Drug
621:Heart Shaped Box
231:Gertner issued a
176:statutory damages
83:Capitol v. Thomas
48:
47:
2251:
2159:Joel Fights Back
2108:
2107:
2105:
2103:
2092:
2086:
2078:
2072:
2064:
2058:
2057:
2055:
2053:
2038:
2032:
2031:
2029:
2028:
2022:
2014:
2008:
2007:
2005:
1997:
1991:
1990:
1989:(August 2, 1999)
1975:
1969:
1968:
1966:
1965:
1959:
1951:
1934:
1933:
1931:
1930:
1924:
1916:
1910:
1909:
1907:
1906:
1900:
1892:
1883:
1882:
1880:
1879:
1873:
1865:
1859:
1858:
1856:
1855:
1849:
1841:
1835:
1834:
1832:
1831:
1825:
1817:
1811:
1810:
1808:
1807:
1801:
1793:
1787:
1786:
1784:
1783:
1777:
1769:
1763:
1762:
1760:
1759:
1753:
1745:
1739:
1738:
1736:
1735:
1729:
1721:
1715:
1714:
1712:
1710:
1699:
1693:
1692:
1690:
1688:
1676:
1670:
1669:
1663:
1659:
1657:
1649:
1641:
1632:
1631:
1629:
1628:
1622:
1614:
1608:
1601:
1595:
1594:
1592:
1591:
1582:. Archived from
1571:
1565:
1555:
1549:
1534:
1533:
1531:
1530:
1515:
1509:
1508:
1506:
1504:
1493:
1487:
1486:
1484:
1476:
1467:
1466:
1464:
1463:
1452:
1446:
1445:
1443:
1441:
1426:
1420:
1419:
1417:
1416:
1405:
1399:
1398:
1396:
1395:
1389:
1382:
1370:
1364:
1363:
1361:
1360:
1351:. Archived from
1344:
1338:
1337:
1330:
1324:
1323:
1321:
1319:
1303:
1297:
1296:
1294:
1293:
1287:
1280:
1272:
1263:
1262:
1260:
1259:
1253:
1246:
1234:
1221:
1220:
1209:
1203:
1202:
1190:
1179:
1178:
1173:. Archived from
1163:
1157:
1156:
1150:
1142:
1140:
1139:
1133:
1127:. Archived from
1126:
1118:
1112:
1111:
1106:. Archived from
1100:
1094:
1080:
1001:Guerrilla Radio
932:Pleasant Dreams
914:Licensed To Ill
770:Californication
767:Californication
567:Come As You Are
531:Wheelz of Steel
477:Recording Title
471:Copyright Owner
468:
467:
378:
304:, should apply.
233:directed verdict
209:summary judgment
183:abuse of process
174:, and demanding
66:Atlantic Records
21:
20:
2259:
2258:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2234:Sony litigation
2209:
2208:
2142:
2111:
2101:
2099:
2094:
2093:
2089:
2079:
2075:
2065:
2061:
2051:
2049:
2048:. June 25, 2013
2046:Huffington Post
2040:
2039:
2035:
2026:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2015:
2011:
2003:
1999:
1998:
1994:
1976:
1972:
1963:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1952:
1937:
1928:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1917:
1913:
1904:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1893:
1886:
1877:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1866:
1862:
1853:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1842:
1838:
1829:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1818:
1814:
1805:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1794:
1790:
1781:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1770:
1766:
1757:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1746:
1742:
1733:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1722:
1718:
1708:
1706:
1700:
1696:
1686:
1684:
1677:
1673:
1661:
1660:
1651:
1650:
1642:
1635:
1626:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1615:
1611:
1602:
1598:
1589:
1587:
1572:
1568:
1551:
1550:
1537:
1528:
1526:
1516:
1512:
1502:
1500:
1494:
1490:
1485:. July 9, 2010.
1482:
1478:
1477:
1470:
1461:
1459:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1439:
1437:
1427:
1423:
1414:
1412:
1411:. July 31, 2009
1407:
1406:
1402:
1393:
1391:
1387:
1380:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1358:
1356:
1345:
1341:
1334:"Professor CVs"
1332:
1331:
1327:
1317:
1315:
1304:
1300:
1291:
1289:
1285:
1278:
1274:
1273:
1266:
1257:
1255:
1251:
1244:
1236:
1235:
1224:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1191:
1182:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1144:
1143:
1137:
1135:
1131:
1124:
1122:"Archived copy"
1120:
1119:
1115:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1091:Wayback Machine
1081:
1077:
1073:
1049:
860:The Slim Shady
806:One Hot Minute
734:Around The Fur
635:Nine Inch Nails
463:
444:
435:
412:
400:
379:
373:
333:opening brief.
330:
272:
266:
245:
217:
164:
159:
124:
56:, record label
50:In the case of
17:
12:
11:
5:
2257:
2247:
2246:
2241:
2236:
2231:
2226:
2221:
2207:
2206:
2197:
2185:
2177:
2167:
2162:
2156:
2151:
2141:
2140:External links
2138:
2137:
2136:
2130:
2124:
2118:
2110:
2109:
2087:
2073:
2059:
2033:
2009:
1992:
1970:
1935:
1911:
1901:. June 5, 2012
1884:
1860:
1836:
1812:
1788:
1764:
1740:
1716:
1694:
1671:
1633:
1623:. Oct 31, 2011
1609:
1596:
1566:
1535:
1510:
1488:
1468:
1447:
1421:
1400:
1365:
1339:
1325:
1298:
1264:
1222:
1204:
1180:
1177:on 2009-08-03.
1158:
1113:
1110:on 2012-10-10.
1095:
1074:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1065:The Pirate Bay
1062:
1055:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1035:
1030:
1028:UMG Recordings
1024:
1023:
1020:
1017:
1012:
1006:
1005:
1002:
999:
994:
988:
987:
984:
981:
976:
974:Arista Records
970:
969:
966:
963:
958:
952:
951:
948:
945:
943:Monster Magnet
940:
938:UMG Recordings
934:
933:
930:
927:
922:
916:
915:
912:
909:
904:
902:UMG Recordings
898:
897:
894:
891:
886:
880:
879:
876:
873:
868:
862:
861:
858:
855:
850:
844:
843:
840:
837:
832:
826:
825:
822:
819:
814:
812:UMG Recordings
808:
807:
804:
801:
796:
790:
789:
786:
783:
778:
772:
771:
768:
765:
760:
754:
753:
750:
747:
742:
736:
735:
732:
729:
724:
718:
717:
716:Hybrid Theory
714:
711:
706:
700:
699:
696:
693:
688:
686:UMG Recordings
682:
681:
678:
675:
670:
668:UMG Recordings
664:
663:
658:
655:
650:
648:UMG Recordings
644:
643:
640:
637:
632:
630:UMG Recordings
626:
625:
622:
619:
614:
612:UMG Recordings
608:
607:
604:
601:
596:
590:
589:
586:
583:
578:
572:
571:
568:
565:
560:
558:UMG Recordings
554:
553:
552:Make Yourself
550:
547:
542:
536:
535:
532:
529:
524:
522:Arista Records
518:
517:
514:
511:
506:
500:
499:
496:
493:
488:
482:
481:
478:
475:
472:
462:
459:
443:
440:
434:
431:
411:
408:
399:
396:
371:
329:
326:
268:Main article:
265:
262:
244:
241:
216:
213:
193:, Tenenbaum's
191:Charles Nesson
163:
160:
158:
155:
137:networks like
123:
120:
74:UMG Recordings
70:Arista Records
46:
45:
40:
39:Full case name
36:
35:
30:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2256:
2245:
2242:
2240:
2237:
2235:
2232:
2230:
2227:
2225:
2222:
2220:
2217:
2216:
2214:
2205:
2201:
2198:
2195:
2194:
2189:
2186:
2184:
2181:
2178:
2175:
2171:
2170:Oral argument
2168:
2166:
2163:
2160:
2157:
2155:
2152:
2149:
2148:
2144:
2143:
2134:
2131:
2128:
2125:
2122:
2119:
2116:
2113:
2112:
2097:
2091:
2084:
2083:
2077:
2070:
2069:
2063:
2047:
2043:
2037:
2019:
2013:
2002:
1996:
1988:
1984:
1982:
1974:
1956:
1950:
1948:
1946:
1944:
1942:
1940:
1921:
1915:
1897:
1891:
1889:
1870:
1864:
1846:
1840:
1822:
1816:
1798:
1792:
1774:
1768:
1750:
1744:
1726:
1720:
1705:
1698:
1682:
1675:
1667:
1662:|author=
1655:
1647:
1640:
1638:
1619:
1613:
1606:
1600:
1586:on 2012-01-06
1585:
1581:
1577:
1570:
1563:
1562:First Circuit
1559:
1554:
1548:
1546:
1544:
1542:
1540:
1525:
1521:
1514:
1499:
1492:
1481:
1475:
1473:
1457:
1451:
1436:
1432:
1425:
1410:
1404:
1390:on 2011-08-19
1386:
1379:
1377:
1369:
1355:on 2012-04-29
1354:
1350:
1343:
1335:
1329:
1313:
1309:
1302:
1288:on 2012-05-22
1284:
1277:
1271:
1269:
1254:on 2012-05-22
1250:
1243:
1241:
1233:
1231:
1229:
1227:
1218:
1214:
1208:
1200:
1199:Computerworld
1196:
1189:
1187:
1185:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1162:
1154:
1148:
1134:on 2013-10-29
1130:
1123:
1117:
1109:
1105:
1099:
1092:
1088:
1085:
1079:
1075:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1054:
1051:
1050:
1039:
1036:
1034:
1031:
1029:
1026:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1016:
1015:Goo Goo Dolls
1013:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1003:
1000:
998:
995:
993:
990:
989:
985:
982:
980:
977:
975:
972:
971:
967:
964:
962:
959:
957:
954:
953:
949:
946:
944:
941:
939:
936:
935:
931:
928:
926:
923:
921:
918:
917:
913:
910:
908:
905:
903:
900:
899:
895:
892:
890:
887:
885:
882:
881:
877:
874:
872:
869:
867:
864:
863:
859:
856:
854:
851:
849:
846:
845:
841:
838:
836:
833:
831:
828:
827:
823:
820:
818:
815:
813:
810:
809:
805:
802:
800:
797:
795:
792:
791:
787:
784:
782:
779:
777:
774:
773:
769:
766:
764:
761:
759:
756:
755:
751:
748:
746:
743:
741:
738:
737:
733:
730:
728:
725:
723:
720:
719:
715:
712:
710:
707:
705:
702:
701:
697:
694:
692:
689:
687:
684:
683:
679:
676:
674:
671:
669:
666:
665:
662:
659:
656:
654:
651:
649:
646:
645:
641:
638:
636:
633:
631:
628:
627:
623:
620:
618:
615:
613:
610:
609:
605:
602:
600:
597:
595:
592:
591:
587:
584:
582:
579:
577:
574:
573:
569:
566:
564:
561:
559:
556:
555:
551:
548:
546:
543:
541:
538:
537:
533:
530:
528:
525:
523:
520:
519:
515:
512:
510:
507:
505:
502:
501:
497:
494:
492:
489:
487:
484:
483:
479:
476:
473:
470:
469:
466:
458:
453:
448:
439:
429:
424:
420:
415:
407:
405:
395:
391:
386:
383:
377:
370:
365:
363:
359:
355:
351:
345:
343:
338:
334:
325:
322:
321:Supreme Court
317:
313:
311:
305:
303:
299:
294:
290:
286:
285:
279:
277:
276:First Circuit
271:
261:
257:
252:
250:
240:
236:
234:
228:
225:
220:
212:
210:
205:
200:
198:
197:
192:
188:
184:
179:
177:
173:
168:
154:
150:
146:
144:
140:
136:
128:
119:
116:
115:Supreme Court
112:
108:
104:
99:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
79:
75:
71:
67:
63:
60:, along with
59:
55:
54:
44:
41:
37:
34:
31:
27:
22:
19:
2224:File sharing
2204:TorrentFreak
2191:
2173:
2146:
2100:. Retrieved
2090:
2080:
2076:
2066:
2062:
2050:. Retrieved
2045:
2036:
2025:. Retrieved
2023:. 2012-09-17
2012:
1995:
1979:
1973:
1962:. Retrieved
1960:. 2012-08-23
1927:. Retrieved
1925:. 2012-07-06
1914:
1903:. Retrieved
1876:. Retrieved
1874:. 2012-02-13
1863:
1852:. Retrieved
1850:. 2012-02-16
1839:
1828:. Retrieved
1826:. 2012-02-06
1815:
1804:. Retrieved
1802:. 2012-02-06
1791:
1780:. Retrieved
1778:. 2012-01-27
1767:
1756:. Retrieved
1754:. 2012-01-27
1743:
1732:. Retrieved
1730:. 2012-01-03
1719:
1707:. Retrieved
1697:
1685:. Retrieved
1674:
1625:. Retrieved
1612:
1599:
1588:. Retrieved
1584:the original
1580:Boston Globe
1579:
1569:
1552:
1527:. Retrieved
1523:
1513:
1503:September 7,
1501:. Retrieved
1491:
1460:. Retrieved
1450:
1438:. Retrieved
1434:
1424:
1413:. Retrieved
1403:
1392:. Retrieved
1385:the original
1375:
1368:
1357:. Retrieved
1353:the original
1342:
1328:
1316:. Retrieved
1312:The Guardian
1311:
1301:
1290:. Retrieved
1283:the original
1256:. Retrieved
1249:the original
1239:
1216:
1207:
1198:
1175:the original
1170:
1161:
1136:. Retrieved
1129:the original
1116:
1108:the original
1098:
1078:
1057:
907:Beastie Boys
896:Eminem Show
875:Drug Ballad
824:Mellow Gold
657:Adam's Song
480:Album Title
464:
455:
450:
445:
436:
426:
422:
417:
413:
401:
393:
388:
384:
381:
367:
357:
353:
349:
346:
342:Rya W. Zobel
339:
335:
331:
318:
314:
306:
301:
297:
292:
288:
282:
280:
273:
259:
254:
246:
237:
229:
221:
218:
201:
194:
180:
169:
165:
151:
147:
132:
100:
81:
52:
51:
49:
42:
18:
983:Rosa Parks
968:Nine Lives
925:The Ramones
857:My Name Is
803:My Friends
788:By The Way
785:By The Way
709:Linkin Park
691:Limp Bizkit
677:Rearranged
673:Limp Bizkit
328:Post-appeal
249:due process
187:MediaSentry
2213:Categories
2027:2012-09-18
1978:1999
1964:2012-09-10
1929:2012-09-10
1905:2012-06-05
1878:2012-09-10
1854:2012-09-10
1830:2012-09-10
1806:2012-09-10
1782:2012-09-10
1758:2012-09-10
1734:2012-09-10
1627:2012-06-05
1590:2011-10-09
1529:2011-09-15
1462:2010-07-09
1440:August 26,
1415:2011-04-05
1394:2011-04-05
1359:2011-11-23
1292:2018-08-27
1258:2018-08-27
1138:2013-04-30
1071:References
752:The Score
745:The Fugees
570:Nevermind
549:Pardon Me
310:remittitur
243:Post-trial
157:Court case
122:Background
96:remittitur
2102:11 August
1033:Aerosmith
986:Aquemini
961:Aerosmith
713:Crawling
653:Blink-182
624:In Utero
599:Green Day
581:Green Day
513:Minority
509:Green Day
495:New Skin
162:Pre-trial
2239:Sony BMG
2052:June 26,
1654:cite web
1314:. London
1147:cite web
1087:Archived
1047:See also
727:Deftones
534:Atliens
516:Warning
498:Science
404:Congress
372:—
358:Williams
298:Williams
204:fair use
196:pro bono
143:Limewire
103:appealed
58:Sony BMG
2190:in the
2172:(MP3),
1709:May 22,
1687:May 22,
1318:31 July
1217:PCWorld
979:Outkast
617:Nirvana
606:Nimrod
588:Dookie
563:Nirvana
545:Incubus
527:Outkast
491:Incubus
474:Artist
376:D. Mass
224:Napster
139:Napster
2183:source
1560: (
1556:,
1378:]"
889:Eminem
871:Eminem
853:Eminem
821:Loser
695:Leech
264:Appeal
105:, the
72:, and
2021:(PDF)
2004:(PDF)
1987:H6798
1958:(PDF)
1923:(PDF)
1899:(PDF)
1872:(PDF)
1848:(PDF)
1824:(PDF)
1800:(PDF)
1776:(PDF)
1752:(PDF)
1728:(PDF)
1621:(PDF)
1483:(PDF)
1388:(PDF)
1381:(PDF)
1286:(PDF)
1279:(PDF)
1252:(PDF)
1245:(PDF)
1132:(PDF)
1125:(PDF)
1040:Pump
1019:Iris
965:Pink
215:Trial
172:Kazaa
29:Court
2104:2009
2054:2013
1711:2012
1689:2012
1666:help
1505:2010
1442:2010
1320:2009
1153:link
817:Beck
354:Gore
350:Gore
302:Gore
293:Gore
287:and
141:and
2202:by
1376:sic
1240:sic
428:it.
135:P2P
2215::
2044:.
1983:,
1938:^
1887:^
1658::
1656:}}
1652:{{
1636:^
1578:.
1538:^
1522:.
1471:^
1433:.
1310:.
1267:^
1225:^
1215:.
1197:.
1183:^
1169:.
1149:}}
1145:{{
145:.
98:.
92:$
68:,
64:,
2135:.
2129:.
2123:.
2117:.
2106:.
2056:.
2030:.
2006:.
1967:.
1932:.
1908:.
1881:.
1857:.
1833:.
1809:.
1785:.
1761:.
1737:.
1713:.
1691:.
1668:)
1648:.
1630:.
1593:.
1532:.
1507:.
1465:.
1444:.
1418:.
1397:.
1362:.
1336:.
1322:.
1295:.
1261:.
1201:.
1155:)
1141:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
