case 2:05-cv-00315-PPS-APR document 12 filed 06/30/06 page 1 of 9
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`HAMMOND DIVISION
`
`NO: 2:05-CV-315
`
`)))))))))))))))
`
`MOTOWN RECORD COMPANY, L.P., a
`California limited partnership; ELEKTRA
`ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC., a
`Delaware corporation; SONY BMG MUSIC
`ENTERTAINMENT, a Delaware general
`partnership; and ARISTA RECORDS LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company,
`
`v.
`
`LAMONT HUGHES,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Application for Entry of Default Judgment [Doc. 11].
`
`Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Lamont Hughes used an online media distribution system to
`
`obtain copyrighted sound recordings owned by or licensed to Plaintiffs and distributed those
`
`recordings to other users of the system and/or made the recordings available to the public.
`
`(Compl. ¶¶ 10-12.) Because Defendant Lamont Hughes has failed to answer or otherwise defend
`
`this lawsuit, Plaintiffs’ Application for Entry of Default Judgment is granted.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiffs in this action are various recording companies, who are the copyright owners or
`
`licensees of exclusive rights under the Copyright Act of various recordings, including:
`
`1. “Ruffneck” by MC Lyte
`
`2. “Shake You Down” by Gregory Abbott
`
`3. “Miracle” by Whitney Houston
`
`4. “6, 8, 12” by Brian McKnight
`
`

`
`case 2:05-cv-00315-PPS-APR document 12 filed 06/30/06 page 2 of 9
`
`5. “Silly Ho” by TLC
`
`(Compl. Ex. A.) In the one count asserted in their complaint, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant,
`
`without their permission, used an online media distribution system to download, distribute, and
`
`make available for distribution these copyrighted recordings for which Plaintiffs are the
`
`copyright owners or exclusive licensees. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-12.) Plaintiffs allege that “Defendant's
`
`actions constitute infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright.”
`
`(Id. at ¶ 12.)
`
`Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this matter on August 19, 2005 [Doc. 1]. Defendant
`
`was served with the Summons and Complaint on November 16, 2005 by personal service [Doc.
`
`7]. Defendant failed to appear, plead or otherwise defend the lawsuit as provided by the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from Joel E. Tragesser, an attorney
`
`licensed to practice law in Indiana, stating that he is “informed and believe[s] that Defendant is
`
`not an infant or incompetent person and, after consulting available public databases, is not in the
`
`military service.” (Tragesser Aff. ¶ 7 [Doc. 11-2].) Furthermore, the process server, in his
`
`Affidavit of Service, estimated that Defendant was approximately thirty years old. (See Aff. of
`
`Service [Doc. 11-5].) Accordingly, Plaintiffs filed a Request to Enter Default with the clerk of
`
`the court on December 13, 2005 [Doc. 8], which the clerk entered on December 16, 2005 [Doc.
`
`9]. On January 12, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an Application for Entry of Default Judgment [Doc.
`
`11], which is presently before this Court.
`
`Plaintiffs seek an award totaling $4,085.00. This figure includes: (1) $3750.00 for the
`
`minimum statutory damages provided by 17 U.S.C. § 504 ($750 each) for the five alleged
`
`infringements; and (2) $335.00 in costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. (Pls.’ App. ¶ 4.)
`
`Additionally, Plaintiffs seek an injunction pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502. (Id.)
`
`2
`
`

`
`case 2:05-cv-00315-PPS-APR document 12 filed 06/30/06 page 3 of 9
`
`A. Entry of Default Judgment
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the entry of default and default
`
`judgment. See Lowe v. McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., 361 F.3d 335, 339 (7th Cir. 2004) (“The Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure make a clear distinction between the entry of default and the entry of a
`
`default judgment.”) Prior to obtaining a default judgment under Rule 55(b)(2), there must be an
`
`entry of default as provided by Rule 55(a). See Hill v. Barbour, 787 F. Supp. 146, 148 n.4 (N.D.
`
`Ill. 1992). Under Rule 55(a), the clerk is to enter the default of a party against whom a judgment
`
`is sought when that party has failed to plead or otherwise defend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). “This
`
`entry is recognition of the fact that a party is in default for a failure to comply with the rules.”
`
`See Hill, 787 F. Supp. at 148 n.4 (citing 6 Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.03 (2d ed.
`
`1985)).
`
`As the clerk has entered default against Defendant in this case [Doc. 9], this Court may
`
`now enter a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). Rule 55(b) gives
`
`district courts the power to enter default judgment, but requires courts to exercise sound judicial
`
`discretion when doing so. See O’Brien v. R.J. O’Brien & Assocs., Inc., 998 F.2d 1394, 1398 (7th
`
`Cir. 1993); Davis v. Hutchins, 321 F.3d 641, 646 (7th Cir. 2003). To enter default judgment, the
`
`Court must conclude that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Cass County
`
`Music Co. v. Muedini, 55 F.3d 263, 265 (7th Cir. 1995). “In making this inquiry, the court must
`
`assume that the factual allegations are, by reason of the default, true.” Id. at 265-66.
`
`When deciding a motion for default judgment, a court may consider a number of factors
`
`presented in the record, including the amount of money potentially involved, whether material
`
`issues of fact or issues of substantial public importance are to be decided, whether the default is
`
`3
`
`

`
`case 2:05-cv-00315-PPS-APR document 12 filed 06/30/06 page 4 of 9
`
`largely technical, whether plaintiffs have been substantially prejudiced by the delay involved,
`
`and whether the grounds for default are clearly established or are in doubt. 10A C. Wright, A.
`
`Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2685 (3d ed. 1998); see also
`
`American Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Alps Elec. Co., Ltd., No. 99 C 6990, 2002 WL
`
`484845, at *1 (N.D. Ill. March 29, 2002) (citing Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2685).
`
`In this case, the grounds for default judgment are clearly established. First, the default
`
`goes beyond a mere technicality, as Defendant has not filed an answer or any responsive
`
`pleadings since Plaintiffs filed their complaint on August 19, 2005. Defendant cannot be
`
`allowed to completely ignore this suit. See Pyramid Energy, Ltd. v. Heyl & Patterson, Inc., 869
`
`F.2d 1058, 1062 (7th Cir. 1989) (“A trial court is entitled to say, under proper circumstances,
`
`that enough is enough.”).
`
`Further, material issues of fact are not in dispute. In order for Plaintiffs to establish the
`
`prima facie case of direct copyright infringement, they must satisfy two requirements: (1) they
`
`must show ownership of the allegedly infringed material; and (2) they must demonstrate that the
`
`alleged infringers violated at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders. See 17
`
`U.S.C. §§ 106, 501(a). The Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals have each
`
`recently relied upon the assumption that posting or downloading music files constitutes primary
`
`copyright infringement. See BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, 889 (7th Cir. 2005), cert.
`
`denied, 126 S. Ct. 2032 (U.S. May 16, 2006) (citing MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 125 S.
`
`Ct. 2764 (2005)); In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643, 645 (7th Cir. 2003). Here,
`
`Plaintiffs pled that they owned the copyrighted materials specified in Exhibit A and that
`
`Defendant violated their exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the copyrighted recordings
`
`to the public by downloading and distributing the copyrighted recordings via an online media
`
`4
`
`

`
`case 2:05-cv-00315-PPS-APR document 12 filed 06/30/06 page 5 of 9
`
`distribution system. Therefore, the facts as stated in the Complaint establish direct copyright
`
`infringement by Defendant.
`
`Finally, Plaintiffs are entitled to the damages they request. Plaintiffs request minimum
`
`statutory damages for each copyright violation as well as a permanent injunction barring
`
`Defendant from further infringing activity. They also request an award of the costs of bringing
`
`this action. The total monetary award equals a relatively small figure ($4,085.00), and Plaintiffs’
`
`requests are reasonable and proper.
`
`B. Monetary and Injunctive Relief
`
`Normally, upon considering a motion for default judgment, a court must have a hearing
`
`to determine damages. See Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Prods., Inc., 722
`
`F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983). However, a hearing is not required if damages can be
`
`ascertained from the documentary evidence or in detailed affidavits. See id. An evidentiary
`
`hearing is unnecessary in this case.
`
`The Copyright Act provides for both monetary and injunctive relief. First, it provides
`
`that “an infringer of copyright is liable for either (1) the copyright owner’s actual damages and
`
`any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or (2) statutory damages, as
`
`provided by subsection (c).” 17 U.S.C. § 504(a). Under § 504(c), the copyright owner may
`
`choose to recover statutory damages in lieu of actual damages any time prior to the entry of final
`
`judgment. § 504(c)(1). “This section provides that the author’s entitlement, per infringed work,
`
`is ‘a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just.’” BMG Music,
`
`430 F.3d at 891. Second, § 502 authorizes the court to “grant temporary and final injunctions on
`
`such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.” 17
`
`5
`
`

`
`case 2:05-cv-00315-PPS-APR document 12 filed 06/30/06 page 6 of 9
`
`U.S.C. § 502(a). Finally, the Court has discretion to award costs and fees to the prevailing party.
`
`See § 505.
`
`Here, Plaintiffs seek the minimum statutory damages ($750.00) for each of the five
`
`infringements alleged in the Complaint, for a total of $3,750.00. (Pls.’ App. at ¶ 4.) Awards of
`
`statutory damages within the “statutory limits for copyright infringement damages is wholly
`
`within the trial court’s discretion and sense of justice.” Weintraub/OKUN Music v. Atlantic Fish
`
`& Chips, Inc., No. 90 C 4938, 1991 WL 34713, at *5 (N.D. Ill. March 13, 1991) (citations and
`
`internal quotations omitted). While the actual damage to Plaintiffs by one individual
`
`downloading five songs via an online media distribution system may be minimal, default
`
`judgment establishes that Plaintiffs are entitled to damages as a matter of law. See Doehrer v.
`
`Caldwell, No. 79 C 394, 1980 WL 1158, at *2 (N.D. Ill. March 28, 1980). Thus, the Court finds
`
`that: the damages sought by the Plaintiff are ascertainable from the Complaint; an evidentiary
`
`hearing is unnecessary; and an award of $3,750.00 representing the minimum statutory damages
`
`for all five works infringed is appropriate.
`
`Additionally, Plaintiffs request a permanent injunction barring Defendant from
`
`reproducing or distributing any of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works as well as requiring Defendant to
`
`destroy any works that he has already reproduced or distributed via the online media system.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiffs request the following:
`
`Defendant shall be and hereby is enjoined from directly or indirectly infringing
`Plaintiffs' rights under federal or state law in the Copyrighted Recordings and any
`sound recording, whether now in existence or later created, that is owned or
`controlled by Plaintiffs (or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate record label of
`Plaintiffs) (“Plaintiffs' Recordings”), including without limitation by using the
`Internet or any online media distribution system to reproduce (i.e., download) any
`of Plaintiffs' Recordings, to distribute (i.e., upload) any of Plaintiffs' Recordings,
`or to make any of Plaintiffs' Recordings available for distribution to the public,
`
`6
`
`

`
`case 2:05-cv-00315-PPS-APR document 12 filed 06/30/06 page 7 of 9
`
`except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of Plaintiffs.
`Defendant also shall destroy all copies of Plaintiffs' Recordings that Defendant
`has downloaded onto any computer hard drive or server without Plaintiffs'
`authorization and shall destroy all copies of those downloaded recordings
`transferred onto any physical medium or device in Defendant's possession,
`custody, or control.
`
`(Pls.’ App. at 8.)
`
`District courts in the Seventh Circuit have approved permanent injunctions when
`
`granting default judgments against individuals whose actions infringed copyright law. In
`
`Columbia Pictures, the district court granted default judgment against a website operator who,
`
`without authorization, allowed users to download copyrighted movies and television shows.
`
`Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. May, No. 04-C-1192, 2006 WL 1085120, at *1-2 (E.D. Wis.
`
`April 24, 2006). In addition to granting statutory damages, the court, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §
`
`502(a), permanently enjoined the defendant from continuing to infringe the plaintiffs’
`
`copyrights. See id. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs’ injuries were “irreparable” and could
`
`not be adequately compensated by monetary damages alone. Id. at *1. The court concluded that
`
`the plaintiffs risked continued injury unless the defendant was permanently enjoined from
`
`infringing the plaintiffs’ copyrights. Id.
`
`Similarly, this Court previously issued the same injunction sought in the present action,
`
`thereby enjoining a defendant from unlawfully downloading and/or distributing copyrighted
`
`recordings. See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Davito, No. 2:04CV479, 2005 WL 3776349 (N.D. Ind.
`
`June 17, 2005). In UMG Recordings, this Court acknowledged that monetary damages
`
`inadequately address the harm caused by copyright infringement through unauthorized use of
`
`online media distribution systems accessible by “tens of millions of potential users.” Id., at *3
`
`7
`
`

`
`case 2:05-cv-00315-PPS-APR document 12 filed 06/30/06 page 8 of 9
`
`(internal citations omitted). With these considerations in mind, the Court finds that the
`
`permanent injunction requested here is appropriate.
`
`Finally, Plaintiffs request their costs of $335.00. (Pls.’ App. at ¶ 4.) 17 U.S.C. § 505
`
`provides that “recovery of full costs” may be granted by the Court in the exercise of its
`
`discretion. 17 U.S.C. § 505. Defendant failed to respond in any manner to this lawsuit.
`
`Accordingly, an award of Plaintiffs’ full costs are appropriate, and Plaintiffs’ request of $335.00
`
`is reasonable.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Application for Entry of Default Judgment [Doc.
`
`11] is GRANTED. It is also ORDERED that:
`
`1. Plaintiffs seek the minimum statutory damages of $750 per infringed work, as
`
`authorized under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1)), for each of the five sound
`
`recordings listed in Exhibit A to the Complaint. Accordingly, having been adjudged to be in
`
`default, Defendant shall pay damages to Plaintiffs for infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights in the
`
`sound recordings listed in Exhibit A to the Complaint, in the total principal sum of Three
`
`Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($3,750.00);
`
`2. Defendant shall be and hereby is enjoined from directly or indirectly infringing
`
`Plaintiffs’ rights under federal or state law in the following copyrighted sound recordings:
`
`“Ruffneck” on album “Ain't No Other” by artist MC Lyte (SR# 168-042);
`
`“Shake You Down” on album “Shake You Down” by artist Gregory Abbott (SR# 71-
`
`785);
`
`“Miracle” on album “I'm Your Baby Tonight” by artist Whitney Houston (SR# 137-024);
`
`8
`
`

`
`case 2:05-cv-00315-PPS-APR document 12 filed 06/30/06 page 9 of 9
`
`“6, 8, 12” on album “Back At One” by artist Brian McKnight (SR# 279-471);
`
`“Silly Ho” on album “Fanmail” by artist TLC (SR# 298-454);
`
`and in any other sound recording, whether now in existence or later created, that is owned or
`
`controlled by Plaintiffs (or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate record label of Plaintiffs)
`
`(“Plaintiffs' Recordings”), including without limitation by using the Internet or any online media
`
`distribution system to reproduce (i.e., download) any of Plaintiffs' Recordings, to distribute (i.e.,
`
`upload) any of Plaintiffs' Recordings, or to make any of Plaintiffs' Recordings available for
`
`distribution to the public, except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of
`
`Plaintiffs. Defendant also shall destroy all copies of Plaintiffs' Recordings that Defendant has
`
`downloaded onto any computer hard drive or server without Plaintiffs' authorization and shall
`
`destroy all copies of those downloaded recordings transferred onto any physical medium or
`
`device in Defendant's possession, custody, or control; and
`
`3. Defendant shall further pay Plaintiffs’ costs of suit herein in the amount of Three
`
`Hundred and Thirty Five Dollars ($335.00).
`
`The Clerk is directed to enter FINAL JUDGMENT stating that Plaintiffs are entitled to
`
`the relief stated herein. The Clerk is further directed to treat this matter as TERMINATED.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`ENTERED: June 30, 2006
`
`s/ Philip P. Simon
`PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`9