### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51194

M AV ER I CKR EC OR DI NG C OMPA NY , AC a l i f o r n i a J o i n tV e n t u r e ; UMG R E C O R D IN G S IN C , AD e la w a r e C o r p o r a tio n ; A R IS T AR E C O R D S L L C , A De l a wa r e L i mi t e dL i a b i l i t yC o mp a n y ; W AR NER B RO T HER S R EC OR DS IN C , AD e la w a r e C o r p o r a tio n ; S O N YB M G M U S IC E N T E R T A IN M E N T , A D e l awar e G e ne r alPar t ne r s hi p P l a i n tiffs – A p p ell ee s -C ross -A p p ell a n ts v. W HI TNEY HARPER D efen da n t– A pp el l an t

- C ross - A pp el l ee

A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Texas

B ef ore D AV IS, C L E M E N T , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . E D ITH B R O W N C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg e: Rul i ng o n cr o s s - m o t i o ns f o rs um m ar y j udg m e nt , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und t h at appell an tW h i t n ey H arper i n f ri n gedcopyri gh t s hel d bya c o n so rt i u m of
r ec or d c om pani es i n 37 s ound re c or di ngs. I t al so f ound t hatw het herH ar perw as an “ i nnoce nti nf

r i nger” under 17 U

. S. C

. § 5 04(c ) ( 2) w as a que st i on f ort he j ury. O n Pl ai nt i f

fs ’ m o t i o n, t he c o ur t e nt e r e d a f i nal j udg m e nt ag ai ns tH ar pe ri n t he
am ou n tof

$20 0 per i n f

ri n ged w ork, t h e m i n i m u m am ou n t t h at coul d be aw arded fo r in n o c e n t in fr in g e m e n t. H a r p e r a p p e a le d a n d P la in tiffs c r o s s -a p p e a le d

. W e United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 25, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-51194 Document: 00511035257 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2010N o. 08- 51194

2 a ff i rm the district c o u r t’ s f i n d i n g o f cop yr i gh t i n fri n ge m en t bu t reve rse it s concl u si on t h at H arper coul d p ress t h e “i n n ocent i n f ri n ger” defen se. F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS In Ju n e 2 0 0 4 , M ed i a S en try, a com p a n y re tain ed b y P l a i n tiffs to i nves t i gat e t he i nf

r i ngem entof

t hei rc opyr i ght s ove rt he Int er net , i dent i f i ed an i n d ivid u a lu singa fil e-sh a ri n g p rog ra m to sh a re 5 4 4 digital a u d i o fil es w i th ot h er users of

a peer- t o- peer n et w ork. T h e sha red au di o f i l es i n cl u ded a nu m ber of P l ai n t i f

fs’copyrig h te d sou n d recor di n gs. B y t raci n g t h e user’ s I n t ernet pro t oc oladdr es s, Pl ai nti f fs ul t i m at ely i dent i f i ed H ar peras t he i ndivi dual
r es ponsibl e f

ort he f i l e s hari ng. T o ensu re t h at each of t h e 544 au di o f

i l es w a s a d o w n l oad able f i l e, M ediaS en t ry i n i t i ated a dow n l oad of t h e enti re group. Th e com pa n y captured
scr een shots show i n g al lof t h e f i l es t h at H arper w as sha ri n g. It al so c ap t u red t h e m et ad ata associ ated w i t h each f i l e, w h i ch i n cl u ded t h e n am e of th e a rtist and so ng. Th i s i nf

or m at i on al l ow ed P l ai nt i f fs t o i dent i f

y t hos e s ound re c or di ngs o n w h ic h th e y h e ld a c o p y r ig h t. M e d ia S e n tr yfu llyd o w n lo a d e ds ixo f th e a u d io f i l es f rom H arper’ s “ sha red f ol der. ” Su bsequ en tdi scovery i n di cat ed that H arper haddo w nl o ad e d a l lo f t he f i l e s f r o m t he I nt e r ne tt o t he co m put e rw i t ho utpa yi ng f or t h em , an d that she ha d n otcopi ed, or “ ri pp ed, ” an y of t h e songs f

rom com pa ct d is c s th a t s h e h a db o u g h t le g a lly

. D ur i ng di s cov e r y, Pl ai nt i f fs e xa m i ne d H ar pe r ’ s c o m put e r . The
e x a m i n a t i o n s h o we d t h a t i t s o p e r a t i n gs y s t e m h a db e e n r e i n s t a l l e di n 2 0 0 5
. As
a resul t , m ost of t h e f i l es present on t h e com pu t er i n 200 4, w h en M edi aS en t ry p e r fo r m e dits in ve s tig a tio n , h a db e e n o v e r w r itt e n . T h e fo r e n s ic e x a m in a tio n d id
s ho w t h a t t h r e e f

i l e - s h a r i n g p r o g r a m s h a d b e e n i n s t a l l e d a n d u s e do n t he
com pu t er, i n cl u di n g a program kn ow n as L i m eW i re, w h i ch h ad been usedaf t er t h e operati n g syst em w as rei n st al l ed. I tal so r evealed a n e w cach e of ap pr o xi m at e ly 70 0 r e c ordi n gs dow n l oad ed si n ce t h e rei n st al l ati on . Fif t e e n o f the Case: 08-51194 Document: 00511035257 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2010N o. 08- 51194

3 copyri gh t s t h at Pl ai n t i f fs’sec on d am en ded com pl ai n tal l egedt h at H arper in fr in g e dca m e fr o m th is n e w lyd is c o v e r e dca c h e . In A u gu st200 8, t h e di st ri ct court gran t ed P l ai n t i f fs’m ot i on f

or s u m m ary j udg m e nto n t he i rc o py r i ghtc l ai m s f o r3 7 aud i o f

i l e s . By a gr e e m e nto f t he p a r tie s , th e co u r t a ls o e n te r e da n inju n c tio n a g a in s t H a r p e r . T h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed P l ai n t i f fs’request f

or s t atutor y da m ages. P l ai n t i f fs had requ est ed t h e m i n i m u m da m ages of $75 0 per i n f

ri n gedw ork set f ort h i n § 504(c) ( 1)

. H arper assert ed t h at h er i n f ri n gem en t w as “ i n n ocent” un der § 504 (c) ( 2) , w h i ch provides t h at “w h ere t h e i n f ri n ger sust ai n s the bu rden of provi n g . . . t h at [ she] w as not a w are a n d h ad n o reason to bel i eve t h at .
. . her
ac t s c ons t i t ut ed an i nf r i ngem entof

c opyr i ght , t he c our ti n i t s di sc r et i on m ay redu ce t h e aw ard of st atutor y da m ages t o a sum of not l ess t h an $20 0. ” H arper averred that s h e t h ou gh ther act i on s w ere equivalent t o li st en i n g t o a n I n t ernet
r adi o s t at i on. The di st r i c tc our tf ound t hatw het herheri nf r i ngem en tw as “i n n oce n t” p rese n teda d i sp u tedi ssu e of m a terialfa ct. The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d e ac h pa r t y’ s m o t i o n f o rr e c o ns i de r at i o n. I n do i ng so, i t cl a ri fi ed i ts f

i n d i n g th a t H a rp er infri n ge dP l a i n tiffs’ex cl u sive ri ght s to bo th
r e p r o d u c e a n dd is tr ib u te th e 3 7 s o n g s o n w h ic h th e yh e ldaco p y r ig h t. Res e r v i n gt h e r i g h tt o a p p e a lt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s l e g a lc o n c l u s i o n o n t he i n n ocent i n f

ri n ger i ssue i f

H arper ap pea l ed, P la in ti f fs m ovedf

or entr y of j udg m e nti n t he am o unto f $ 20 0 f o re ac h i nf

r i nge d wor k— t he m i ni m um a m o unt du e f rom an i n n ocent i n f

ri n ger. Th e courtgr an t ed P l ai n t i f fs’m ot i on an d en t ered j udg m e nta ga i ns tH ar pe r . H ar pe ra ppe al e d, a nd Pl ai nt i f fs c r o s s - ap pe al e d. H ar pe ra r gue s t hat , f o r31 of t he 3 7 r e c o r di ngs , t he r e w as i ns uf f i c i e nt evi den ce of

i n f ri n gem en tbecau se t h e au di o f i l es were n otf

ou n d on her com pu t er. She a l s o c o nt e nds t hats he di d no ti nf r i nge Pl ai nt i f

fs ’c o py r i ght s b y “ m ak i ng ava i l able” t h e au di o f i l es and t h at theCop yri ght A ct ’ s s t atutor y da m ages schem e Case: 08-51194 Document: 00511035257 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/25/2010N o. 08- 51194

Inher b rief, Harper asserts that the evi dencew as insufficient toshow theexistence 1 of 33 out of 3 9 audiofiles. Th at sum reflects amiscalculation. After the district court’s entry of j u dgme nt a s to 3 7au dio file s, sixof whichHarp era dmit s w ere onhercomputer, she mu st b e ch allengingth e suff iciencyof the evidenceon3 1 au dio file s.

4 violates d u e p roce ss. P l a i n tiffs a rg u e t h a t th e dist ri ct cou rt erre d b y fa i l i n g to
r u le o u t t h e in n o c e n t in fr in g e rd e fe n s e a s am a tt e ro f la w . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW W e review a gr a n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo and appl y t he s am e l egal
s ta n d a r d a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Millerv . G o rs k i Wla dy sla w Esta te , 547 F. 3d 273, 277 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)

. Su m m ary j u dg m en tshou l d be ren dered i f t h e rec ord de m o ns t r at e s t hat“ t he r e i s no g e nui ne i s s ue as t o any m at e r i alfac ta nd t hatt he
m ov a n t i s en ti tl ed to j u d gm en t as a m a tter of l a w . ” F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 5 6 (c ). “[A]ll fa c ts a n de v id e n c e m u s t b e ta k e n in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e n o n -m o v a n t.” LeMai rev. La. D e

p’ tof Transp. & D e v. , 4 8 0 F .3d 3 8 3 , 3 8 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ).

DI S CU S S I ON A . Su f

f i ci en cy of

t h e E vi de n ce H arper ar gue s t hatPl ai nt i f fs di d no tpr e s e nts uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

o rt he di st ri ct court t o f

i n d t h at 31 of t h e 37 au di o f i l es at i ssue exi st ed on h er 1
c om put er . She do es notco n test the ex i st enc e o f t he s i x audi o f

i l es t hat M e d ia S e n tr yd o w n lo a d e din fu ll o v e rth e p e e r -to -p e e rfi l e - s h a r in gn e tw o r k in 200 4. S h e al so can n ot contest t h e exi st en ce of t h e 15 au di o f

i l es t h at w ere part
o f th e ca c h e o f a p p r o x im a te ly7 0 0 s o n g s d is c o v e r e do n H a r p e r ’ s h a r dd r iv e in 2008. Th e i ss ue, t hen, i s w het her Pl ai nt i f fs m ade an und i sput ed s how i ng t hat H a r p e rh a dd o w n lo a d e dth e re m a in in g1 6 a u d io file s . H a rp er’ s ar gu m en t re l i es o n the com p u ter f ore n sic ex p ert’ s i n a b i l i ty to
recovercom pl et e copi es of t h e 16 c on t est ed aud i o f i l es w h en t h e exp ertsearc h ed her c om put er ’ s hard drive i n 2008. Th at i nabi l i t y w as du e to th e 2 0 05
r e i ns t al l at i o n o f t he c o m put e r ’ s o pe r at i ng s ys t e m , w hi c h o ve r w r o t e m o s to f t he Case: 08-51194 Document: 00511035257 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/25/2010N o. 08- 51194

5 a u d io file s p r e s e n t in 2 0 0 4
. H a r p e ra s s e r ts th a t t h e 2 0 0 8 fo r e n s i c e v id e n c e is i nc o nc l us ive a nd t hataj ur y c o ul d f i nd t hatt he f

i l e re m nant s di s c o ve r e d i n t he 2 0 0 8 e x a m in a tio n w e r e s o m e th in go th e rth a n d o w n lo a d e da u d io file s . H ar per ’ s ar gum ent i gnor es t he vol um i nous and un di sput ed e vi denc e t hat she d ow n l oad ed an d sh ared the 16 contest ed au di o fil es. M edi aS en t ry’ s s creen shots of H arper’ s “ sha red f

ol der” i n di cat e t h at s h e w as shar in gthe con t est ed
au di o f i l es f rom h er com pu t er i n 200 4. M edi aS en t ry al so i n i t i ated dow n l oad s of th e a u d io file s to v e r ifyth e i re x is te n c e a n dre c o v e r e dm e ta d a ta fr o m w h ic h it
c o u ldid e n tifyth e a r tis t a n ds o n gtit le o f e a c h file

. H ar pe rs ubm i t t e d no e vi de nc e t hatc al l s i nt o q ue s t i o n Pl ai nt i f fs ’s ho w i ng t hats he h ad dow nl oade d the audi o f i l es . I n herdepo sit i on, s he di d notdeny t hat
s he ha d d o w nl o ad e d the m . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t hats he ha d no tc o pi e d a ny o f t he
r e c o r di ng s t o h e rc o m p u t e rf r o m c o m p a c td i s c s t h a ts h e p u r c h a s e d , a n ds he
ac kno w l e dg e d us i ng a pe e r - t o - pe e rf i l e - s har i ng ne t w o r k a nd s t at e d t hats he
r ec ogni ze d “ so m e o f t he s ongs . . . as m usi c I l i st ened t o a n d m ay have d ow n l oa d ed to t h e com p u ter. ” The unc o nt r o ve r t e d e vi de nc e i s m o r e t han s uf f i c i e ntt o c o m pe laf

i ndi ng th a t H a rp er h a ddo w n l oa d ed the f i l es: th ere w a s n o ev i d en ce from w h i ch a fa ctf i nde rc o ul d dr aw a r e as o nab l e i nfe r e nc e t hatH ar pe rha d n o t dow n l oad ed them or th a t t h eyw ere som eth i n g o th er th a n au d i o fil es. H a rp er “ca n n o t d e feat a
m ot i on f

ors um m ar y j udgm entm er ely by c l ai m i ng s om e m et aphysi c aldoubtas to t h e m a terialfa cts. ” T h i bod eau x v. V

am os O i l& G as Co. , 487 F. 3d 288, 295 (5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( q u o t a t io n o m it t e d ). T h e d is t r ic tc o u r t p r o p e r lyr eje c t e dH a r p e r ’s
a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e e v id e n c e o f in fr in g e m e n t w a s in s u ffic ie n t. B. Copyr i ght I nf r i nge m e nt Sec t i on 1 0 6 of

t he C opyr i ghtA c tgr ant s c opyr i ghtow ner s t he e xc l usive ri gh t “to d o a n dto au th orize,” i n t er ali a , t h e reprodu ct i on of “ t h e copyri gh t ed
w ork i ncop ies orp h o n o re co rd s,” th e p re p a ra tion of “d e riv a tiv e w o rk s b a se d u pon Case: 08-51194 Document: 00511035257 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/25/2010N o. 08- 51194

6 t he c o py r i ght e d w ork, ” a nd t he di s t r ibut i o n o f “ c o pi e s o rpho no r e c o r ds o f t he
c opyr i ght ed wo r k t o t he p ub l i c b ys a l e o ro t he rt r a ns fe ro f o wne r s hi p , o rby
r e nt al , l e as e , o rl e ndi ng. ” 1 7 U

. S. C. § 1 06
. Pl ai nt i f fs ’ s e c o nd a m e nde d c o m pl ai nt contai n s on e c o u n t , f or c opy ri gh ti n f

ri n gem en t
. Plai n t i f

fs al l egedt h at H arper h ad vi ol ated t h ei r copyri gh t s i n tw o w ays: first , b y reprodu ci n g t h e copyri gh t ed
a u d io fil e s, a n dse co n d , b ym a k in gth e m a v a il a b le to oth e rs , w h ic h P la in tiffs ar gue i s tant am o untt o “ di s t r ibut i o n. ” The di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und t hatt he
u n d is p u te de v id e n c e s h o w e dH a r p e rh a dd o n e b o th

. H arper argu es t h at m ak i n g au di o f i l es avai l able t o ot h ers by p l aci n g t h em i n a “ sha red f

ol der” access ibl e by u sers of a peer- t o- peer f

i l e- sh ari n g n et w ork d o e s n o t c o n s tit u te “d i s t r ib u t [ i o n ]” u n d e r§ 1 0 6 (3 ). Cf

. Ele kt r a Ent m ’

tG r o up, Inc. v. B arker , 5 5 1 F

. S u p p . 2 d 2 3 4 , 2 3 9 -4 7 (S .D .N .Y

. 2 0 0 8 ) (c o lle c tin gca s e s in
w h i ch courts ha ve consi dered b u tnot em braced the “m ak i n g ava i l able” t h eory o f d is tr ib u tio n ). W e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s th e “m a k in ga v a ila b le ” a r g u m e n t a t t h is t i m e, how eve r , be c ause H ar perdi d notappealt he di st r i c tc ou rt’ s fi ndi ng t hat she had i nf

r i nged Pl ai nt i f

fs’ c opyr i ght s by dow nl oadi ng, and hence r epr oduc i ng, t he a udi o f

i l e s . Bec aus e P l ai nt i f fs onl y s e e k m i ni m um s t at ut o r y da m ag e s , t he q u estion be fore th e cou rt is w h eth er H a rp er’ s a cti on s violated the C op yr i gh t A ct,
n o t h o w o rto w h a te x te n t t h e yv io la te dit. S ee1 7 U

. S. C. § 5 04 (c ) ( 1) ( al l o w i ng c o p y r ig h t h o ld e r s to e le c t “t o r e c o v e r. . . a n a w a r do f s ta tu to r yd a m a g e s fo ra ll in fr in g e m e n t s in v o lv e di n t h e a c t io n , w it h r e s p e c tto a n yo n e w o r k ” ). H a r p e r ’s fai l u re t o contes tt h e al t erna t ive, i n dep en den tgroun d on w h i ch the di st ri ctcourt f o und he rl i ab l e f

o rc o py r i ghti nf

r i ngem en tr e nde r s s upe r f l uo us he ra r gum e nt
a g a in s t t h e “m a k in ga v a ila b le ” t h e o r y . E v e n if t h e co u r t a g r e e dth a t H a r p e rd id
n ot “distrib u te” t h e rec ord i n gs u n d er § 1 0 6 (3) b y m a k in gt h em av a i l a b l e to ot h ers, t h e un derl yi n g f i n di n g of

copyri gh ti n f

ri n gem en tpredi cat ed on
r e p r o d u c tio n w o u ldre m a in

. Case: 08-51194 Document: 00511035257 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/25/2010N o. 08- 51194

7 T h e di st ri ctcou rt ’ s u n cha l l en gedru l i n g t h at H arper i n f ri n gedP l ai n t i f

fs’
c o py r i ght s b y do w nl o ad i ng t he a udi o f i l es i s s upp o r t e d b y c as e l aw i n t hi s a nd
o t he r c i r c ui t s . I n A lcat elUS A , I n c. v. D G I T

echn ologi es, I

n c. , t hi s c our thel d t hat t he di s t r ibut i o n o f

am i c r o pr o c e s s o rc ar d t hatm ad e c o pi e s of a n o pe r at i ng
s ys t e m b y do w nl o ad i ng i tc aus e d us e r s t o v i o l at e t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s “ e xc l us ive r i ght to re p r o d u c e its s o ftw a r e .” 1 6 6 F .3 d 7 7 2 , 7 9 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); see § 1 0 6 (1). In BMG Mu si c v. G on zalez , t h e Sev en t h C i rcui thel d th a t a d efen da n ti n f ri n ged
c opyr i ght s by dow nl oadi ng m usi c t hro ugh a f i l e- shar i ng net w or k. 430 F. 3d 888 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), cer t
. den i ed , 5 4 7 U .S . 1 1 3 0 (2 0 0 6 ). G on zalez e xp l ai ne d t hatt he f o unda t i o n o f

t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s ho l di ng i n MG M S t u d i os, I

n c. v. G rokst er, Lt d. , 5 4 5 U

. S

. 9 1 3 (20 0 5 ), “i s a b eli ef th a t p eo p l e w h o pos t or do w n l oa d m u s ic file s a r e p r im a r yin fr in g e r s .” 4 3 0 F .3 da t 8 8 9 ; s e eals o I n r eAi m s t e rCopy r ight Li t ig. , 334 F

. 3d 643 , 645 ( 7th C i r. 200 3) (“ sw ap pi n g” m u si c f i l es over t h e I n t ernet “in fr in g e s co p y r ig h t” ); A & M R ecor d s, I

n c. v. Nap st er, I

n c. , 239 F. 3d 1004, 1014 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (“N a p s te ru s e r s w h o d o w n lo a df ile s co n ta in in gco p y r ig h te dm u s ic
v io la te p la in tiffs ’re p r o d u c tio n rig h ts .”). H arper i n f

ri n gedP l ai n t i f

fs’excl u sive ri gh tt o reprodu ce t h ei r c opy ri gh t ed
w o r ks b y do w nl o ad i ng t he 3 7 aud i o f i l e s t o he r c o m put e rw i t ho uta ut ho r i z at i o n. T h e di st ri ctcourtcor rect l y gran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en ton the i ssue of in fr in g e m e n t. C . D u e P ro ce ss H ar pe r c o nt e nds t hat t he s t at ut o r y s c he m e o f da m ag e s f o rcopyri ght vi o l at i o ns o ut l i ne d i n § 5 04 , a s ap pl i e d t o he r , vi o l at e s due pr o c e s s b y i m po s i ng gr o s s l y e xc e s s ive da m ag e s . She ar gue s t hat , a tt he t i m e o f t he i nf r i nge m e nt , s he
w as young an dd i dn o tk no w t ha twha ts he was d o i ngwas u nl a wf ul , a ndt hat f i n i n g h er s everalhu n d re d d o l l ars per s on g f or il l egal dow n l oad i n g does n ot
c o m p o r t w ith s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p r o c e s s . Case: 08-51194 Document: 00511035257 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/25/2010N o. 08- 51194

8 H arper, how ever, w aivedher con stit u t i on alchal l en ge by fai l i n g t o rai se it b e lo w in a m a n n e rt h a t w o u lda llo w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t t o ru le o n it. “Itis w e ll
s e t t l e d i n t hi s Ci r c ui tt hatt he sc o pe of appe l l at e re vi e w o n as um m ar y j udg m e nt ord er is li m i tedto m a tters pr ese n tedto t h e d i stri ct cou rt. ” K eela n v. Maj esc o S of t w are, I n c. , 407 F. 3d 332, 339 ( 5t h C i r . 2005)

. “ I f a par t y w i she s t o pr es erve an ar gum e ntf

o ra ppe al , ” i t “ ‘ m us tpr e s s a nd n o tm e r e l y i nt i m at e t he a r gum e nt d u ri n g t h e pro cee d i n gs be fore th e d i stri ct cou rt. ’” I d. at340 ( quot i ng New Y ork L if eI n s . Co . v . B r o wn , 8 4 F .3 d1 3 7 , 1 4 1 n .4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 )). “I f a n a r g u m e n t is
n otrai sed t o such a deg ree that the di st ri ctcou rth as a n op portun i t y t o ru l e on i t, w e w i l ln ot ad d ress i t on ap p e a l.” F D ICv. Mijalis , 15 F

. 3 d13 1 4 , 13 2 7 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). I n he r o ppo s i t i o n t o Pl ai nt i f fs ’ m o t i o n f

o r s um m ar y j udg m e nt , H arper s t at e d t hats he ha d no t i f i e d t he di s t r i c tc o ur to f he ri nt e ntt o c h al l en ge t he constit u t i on al i t y of

t h e C opy ri gh tA ct
. Sh e t h en presented t h e w h ol e of her
c ons t i t ut i onala r gum ent : “W hi t ney H ar perbe l i eve s t hatt he c opyr i ghtl aw , as bei ng appl i ed byt he pl ai nt i f f i s unfai rand ov er - r eac hi ng an d ex ac t s an
unr e as on able puni s hm e nt
. ” H ar pe rdi d no tc i t e a ny pr o vi s i o n o f t he C o n s t i tu tio n o re x p la in w h yth e p u n is h m e n t w a s s o u n r e a s o n a b le th a t it vi o l at e d d ue pr o c e s s . The di st ri c tc o ur tdi d no tr ul e o n he rc o nc l us o r y and unsup p orted a ss er t i on. I tw as notr em i ss i n fai l i ng t o do s o. The poi ntw as si m pl y notpr es se d i n H ar per ’ s br i ef i n a c ogni zabl e fa sh i on . Inst ead, i tw as “p r e s e n te din ac u r s o r ym a n n e r” in s u ffic ie n t t o p r e s e r v e it fo ra p p e a l. In re Esp i no , 8 0 6 F .2 d1 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 2 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). D . “In n o ce n t I n f ri n g er” D efen se I n de nyi ng Pl ai nt i f

fs ’m o t i o n f

o rs um m ar y j udgm en ta s t o da m ag e s , t he di st ri ctcourth el d t h at there w as a g en u i n e is sue of m ater i alfacta s to w h et h er H ar pe rw as a n i nno c e nti nf r i nge r . The i nno c e nti nf r i nge rde fe ns e gi ves t he d i stri ct cou rt discreti on to red u ce t h e m i n i m u m statu toryda m a ge s f rom $7 5 0 to Case: 08-51194 Document: 00511035257 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/25/2010N o. 08- 51194

9 $2 00 pe ri nf

r i nge d w o r k i f

i tf i nds t hatt he i nf

r i nge r“ w as no ta w ar e a nd h adno
r e a s o n to b e lie v e th a t h is o rh e r a c ts c o n s tit u te da n in fr in g e m e n t o f c o p y r ig h t.” 17 U

. S. C. § 504 (c ) ( 2)

. H ar pe ra ve r r e d i n a n a f f i da vitt hats he di d no tund e r s t and th e n a tu r e o f file -s h a r in gp r o g r a m s a n dt h a t s h e b e lie v e dt h a t lis te n in gto m u s ic f rom f i l e- sha ri n g n etw orks w as ak i n t o l i st en i n g t o a non - i n f ri n gi n g Inter n et
r ad i o st at i o n. The di s t r i c tc o ur tr ul e d t hatt hi s a s s e r t i o n c r e at e d at r i ab l e i s s ue a s to w h e th e r H a rp e r’s i n frin g e m e n t w a s “in n o ce n t” u n d e r § 5 0 4 (c)(2 ). A ss um i ng argue ndo th a t H a r p e rm a d e a p r im a fa c ie c as e t hats he w as an i n n ocent i n f

ri n ger, w e hol d that t h e defen se w as un ava i l able t o her as a m att er o f l a w. Th e i n n o c e n t i n f r i n g e r d e fe n s e i s l i m i t e d b y 1 7 U. S

. C. § 40 2: w i t h o ne e xc e pt i o n no tr e l e va nthe r e , w he n apr o pe rc o py r i ghtno t i c e “ ap pe ar s o n t he pub l i s he d .

. . phon o r e c o r ds t o w hi c h a def e nda nt
. . . had ac c e s s , t he n no wei ght
s hallb e g ive n t o s uc h ade fe nda nt ’ s i nt e r po s i t i o n o f a de fe ns e b as e d o n i nno c e nt i n fri n ge m en t i n m i ti ga ti on of a ctu a lor statu toryda m a ge s. ” I d. § 4 0 2 (d ). T h e di st ri ctcourtackn ow l edg ed t h at P l ai n t i f fs provi ded proper noti ce on eac h of t he publ i she d phonor ec or ds f r om w hi c h t he audi o f i l es w er e t aken. It f ou n d, how ever, t h at r egard l ess of H arper’ s acc ess t o t h e pu bl i shed pho no r e c o r ds , s uc h a c c e s s w o ul d no tne c e s s ar i l y puthe ro n no t i c e o f t he copyri gh t s: “ a qu est i on rem ai n s as to w h et h er D efen da n tkn ew t h e w arn i n gs on com pa ctdi scs w ere app l i cabl e i n t h i s [f i l e- sha ri n g n et w ork] sett i n g. ” T h e court di scoun t ed the argu m en t“ t h at one need onl y h ave access t o som e C D an d see t hatt he r e c o r di ng i s s ubj e c tt o c o py r i ght” f o r§ 4 02 ( d) t o b art he i nno c e nt in fr in g e rd e fe n s e , b e c a u s e k n o w le d g e t h a t s o m e C D s a r e co p y r ig h te dd o e s “lit tle t o estab l i sh th a t, as a m at t erof l aw . . . an i ndivi dualknew t hats he w as a cces singcop yr i gh t m a terialf rom an en ti ty th a t d idn ot h a ve pe rm i ssion to di st ribu t e s u ch m ater i al

. ” I n her bri ef opp osi n g sum m ary j u dg m en tan d bri ef
on app eal , an d at oral argu m en t , rat h er t h an contestt h e factof “ access , ” H arper Case: 08-51194 Document: 00511035257 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/25/2010N o. 08- 51194

An d copyright infringe ment itself ha s no mens reaele me nt. 2 -7 M ELVI LLE B. N I M M ER 2 & D A V I D N I M M ER , N I M M E R ON C O PYRI G H T § 7 .0 2&n .2 6 .1 (2 0 0 9). 10 c o nt e nde d o nl y t hat s he w as t o o yo ung and naive t o unde r s t and t hatt he
c o p y r ig h ts o n p u b lis h e dm u s ic a p p lie dto d o w n lo a d e dm u s ic

. Thes e a r gum e nt s a r e i ns uf f i c i e ntt o de fe att he i nt e r po s i t i o n o f t he § 4 02 ( d) l i mi t a t i o n o n t h e i n n o c e n ti n f r i n g e rd e fe n s e . Ha r p e r ’ s r e l i a n c e o n h e ro wn
u n derst an di n g of

copyri gh tl aw
— or l ack thereof

— i s irrel evan ti n the contextof § 4 02( d)

. The pl ai n l anguage of t he st at ut e sho w s t hatt he i nf r i nger ’ s know l edge or i n t e n tdoes not af fecti t s app l i cat i on . La ck of l egal soph i st i cat i on cann ot 2
overcom e a prope rlya ss ert ed § 402 ( d) l i m i t ati on t o t h e i n n ocent i n f ri n ger d e fe n s e . Thi s und e r s t and i ng i s s upp o r t e d b y t he hi s t o r i c als t r uc t ur e o f t he
c o py r i ghtl aw. W hati s no w § 4 02 ( d) w as a m e nde d a s pa r to f t he Ber ne C onvent i on I m pl em ent at i on A c t( “ B C IA” ) , P ub. L

. N o. 100- 568, 102 St at
. 2853 (198 8)

. B ef

ore t h e B erne C on ven t i on w as adop t ed, pu bl i shers ran the ri sk of pl aci n g t h ei r w o rk in to th e pu bl i c dom ai n by fai l i n g t o i n cl u de a n ot i ce of
c opyr i ght

. “U ndert he B C IA , ” how eve r , “ not i c e i s no l onger r equi r ed at p u b li ca tion .” 2 -7 M ELVI L L E B. N I MMER & D AVI D N I MMER , N I MMER ON C OPYR I GHT § 7. 02( C ) ( 3) ( 2009)

. B ut t he B C IA , i n par t t hro ugh § 402( d) , “ pre se r ves a n i n cen tive for u se of th e sa m e typ e of cop yr i gh t no ti ce.” I d. Tha ti nc e nt ive i s t he ba rt o t he i n n ocenti nf r i nge rde fe ns e . U nde rt hi s s c he m e , i tw o ul d m ak e no sense f or a c opy ri gh tdefen da n t ’ s s u bj ect ive i n t en tt o e rod e t h e w orki n g of § 4 02 ( d) , w hi c h g ive s pub l i s he r s t he o pt i o n t o t r ad e t he e xt r a bur de n o f pr o vi di ng copyri gh tnoti ce f

or ab sol u t e p rot ect i on a gainstthe i n n ocent i n f ri n ger defen se. H a rp er ca n n ot rely on h er p u rp orted leg a ln a ive ty to d efea t th e § 4 0 2 (d) ba r to h er i n n ocent i n f

ri n ger defen se. In s ho r t , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und a ge nui ne i s s ue o f fac ta s t o w h et h er H arper i n t en ded t o i n f rin ge P l ai n t i f

fs’copyri gh t s, bu tt h at i ssue w as not Case: 08-51194 Document: 00511035257 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/25/2010N o. 08- 51194

11 m a teri al : § 402(d) f

orecl oses, as a m att er of l aw , H arper’ s i n n ocent i n f ri n ger defense. B ecau se t h e defen se does not ap pl y, P l ai n t i f fs are en t i t l ed to st atutor y da m ages. A n d becau se Plai n t i f fs r equ est ed the m i n i m u m sta t u t ory dam ages
u n d e r § 5 0 4 (c)(1 ), H a rp e r’s cu lp a b il ityis n o t a n issu e a n dth e re a re n o issu e s le ft f or t ri al

. Plai n t i f

fs m u stbe aw arded st atutor y da m ages of $75 0 per i n fri n ged
w o r k

. CO NC L US I ON T h e di st ri ctcourtcor rect l yfo u n d that H arper i n f ri n gedP l ai n t i f

fs’
c opyr i ght s by do w nl oadi ng t he 37 audi o f i l es ati ss ue. I ter red , th ou gh, by
a llo w in gH a r p e r ’ s in n o c e n t in fr in g e rd e fe n s e to s u r v iv e s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t. W e AF FI RM t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f i ndi ng o f

c o py r i ghtl i ab i l i t y, RE VE RSE i t s f i ndi ng t h a tt h e i n n o c e n ti n f r i n g e rd e fe n s e p r e s e n t e da n i s s u e fo rt r i a l , a n dR EMAND fo rfu r th e rp r o c e e d in g s co n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . Case: 08-51194 Document: 00511035257 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/25/2010