Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson and students in his CyberOne class helped Boston University graduate student Joel Tenenbaum challenge the recording companies’ copyright case on constitutional grounds. Those arguments were the defense’s position, not a court ruling. The case later went to a jury, and the First Circuit ultimately held that its $675,000 award did not violate due process.
What the Harvard class challenged
In 2008, Nesson and students in Harvard Law’s CyberOne class assisted Tenenbaum in a copyright case brought by recording companies as part of the Recording Industry Association of America’s litigation campaign. Tenenbaum was a Boston University graduate student, not a Harvard student. Contemporary coverage described the defense as challenging both the constitutionality of statutory damages and the use of private civil lawsuits to enforce copyright claims. Those were arguments advanced on Tenenbaum’s behalf, not conclusions accepted by a court. BetaNews reported on the defense in November 2008; Harvard’s CyberOne archive provides the class’s own advocacy context.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Copyright Law: Cases and Materials (v8.0) | $21.70 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Music Copyright Law | $32.95 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Understanding Copyright Law (Understanding Series) | $55.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Copyright Law | $33.62 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Copyright Law in a Nutshell | $65.00 | Buy on Amazon |
What the 2008 report said—and what the jury later considered
The November 2008 BetaNews report said Tenenbaum was accused of downloading seven songs and making 816 songs available for download. It also reported that a jury trial scheduled for December 1 had been adjourned. These are allegations and scheduling details from that contemporary account, not the eventual jury’s findings. The later trial and appellate record concerned thirty recordings.
Why the $675,000 award was reduced, then reinstated
The jury awarded the recording companies $675,000 in statutory damages: $22,500 for each of thirty recordings. The district court later reduced the award to $67,500, finding that the original amount violated due process. In 2011, the First Circuit reversed that reduction. It reasoned that the district court should have considered common-law remittitur—a court’s authority to reduce an excessive jury award—before reaching the constitutional question. The appellate ruling reinstated the jury award and sent the case back; it did not simply endorse the district court’s constitutional analysis. The First Circuit’s 2011 opinion also rejected Tenenbaum’s other challenges raised in that appeal.
#1 Best Overall
What the First Circuit held in 2013
In 2013, the First Circuit addressed the due-process question and affirmed the $675,000 award. The court stated: “We hold that the award did not violate Tenenbaum’s right to due process, and we affirm.” The opinion identified the statutory range for willful infringement as $750 to $150,000 per work. The First Circuit’s 2013 opinion, authored by Judge Howard, is the controlling distinction from the defense’s earlier constitutional arguments: the court ultimately held that this award did not violate due process.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
Rank #2
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
