BMG Music v. Cecilia Gonzalez

Notable Items:

Issue(s) Before the Court:

Appellant's Claim(s):

Appellee's Claim(s):

Holding(s) and Disposition:

Material Facts:

• Cecilia Gonzalez downloaded copyrighted music through Kazaa file-sharing network...contends that her activites were fair use rather than infringement.
• Gonzalez, it is undisputed, downloaded more than 1,370 copyrighted songs during a few weeks and kept them on her computer until she was caught.
• ... she concedes that she has never owned legitimate copies of 30 songs she downloaded. (how many of the remainder [1,340?] is disputed.)
• these 30 songs formed the basis of the damage award [!!]
• A full recounting of the facts is available below

Procedural History:

• district court granted summary judgement for the copyright proprietors (BMG Music).
• court enjoined Gonzalez from further infringement and awarded $22,500 in damages...
• Gonzalez appealed.

Rationale

Majority Opinion

• 17 USC 107 provides that when considering a defense of fair us the court must take into account
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commericial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substaniality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
• appellate decision on point had held that downloading copyrighted songs cannot be defended as fair use, whether or not the receipent plans to buy the songs...
• Gonzalez has access to notice of copyright appearing on phonorecord label or container.
• Gonzalez readily could have learned, had she inquierd, that the music was under copyright.
• A full description of the rationale is available below

Full Recounting of Facts

• Cecilia Gonzalez downloaded copyrighted music through Kazaa file-sharing network...contends that her activites were fair use rather than infringement.
• district court granted summary judgement for the copyright proprietors (BMG Music).
• court enjoined Gonzalez from further infringement and awarded $22,500 in damages...
• Gonzalez, it is undisputed, downloaded more than 1,370 copyrighted songs during a few weeks and kept them on her computer until she was caught.
• ... sampling music to determine what she liked enough to buy retail.
• ... she concedes that she has never owned legitimate copies of 30 songs she downloaded. (how many of the remainder [1,340?] is disputed.)
• these 30 songs formed the basis of the damage award [!!]
• 17 USC 107 provides that when considering a defense of fair us the court must take into account
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commericial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substaniality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
• Gonzalez claims downloading on a try-before-you-buy basis is good advertising for copyright proprietors, expanding the value of their inventory.
• Supreme Court said otherwise in Grokster
• appellate decision on point had held that downloading copyrighted songs cannot be defended as fair use, whether or not the receipent plans to buy the songs...
• downloads compete with licensed broadcast and hence undermine the income available to authors.
• [legally available alternatives to downloading means that downloading cannot be considered fair use.]
• BMG Music elected to seek statutory damages under 17 USC 504(c)(1) instead of proving actual injury.
• ...not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just.
• Gonzalez has access to notice of copyright appearing on phonorecord label or container.
• Gonzalez readily could have learned, had she inquierd, that the music was under copyright.
• A private party's discontinuation of unlawful conduct does not make the dispute moot, however.
• The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prospective relief.
• Affirmed.
• A list of the material facts is available above

Majority Full Argument

• The core of the rationale is available above