Copyright Infringement Prosecutions
Overview
Copyright infringement occurs when a party violates the exclusive rights granted to a copyright holder under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., by reproducing, distributing, performing, publicly displaying, or creating derivative works without permission.
Key Elements of Copyright Infringement
Ownership of a valid copyright.
Copying of original elements of the work.
Unauthorized use by the defendant.
(In criminal cases) Willful infringement for commercial advantage or private financial gain.
Legal Framework
1. Civil Remedies (17 U.S.C. §§ 502-505)
Injunctions
Actual or statutory damages
Attorney’s fees
2. Criminal Penalties (17 U.S.C. §§ 506, 18 U.S.C. § 2319)
Willful infringement for profit can result in fines and imprisonment.
Penalties depend on the scale and nature of infringement.
Detailed Case Law with Analysis
1. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
Facts:
Sony was sued for manufacturing Betamax video recorders that enabled consumers to record copyrighted television programs.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that the sale of copying equipment does not constitute infringement if the product is capable of substantial non-infringing uses (“substantial noninfringing use” test).
Significance:
Limited liability for technology providers; emphasized user’s fair use rights.
2. United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994)
Facts:
LaMacchia operated a bulletin board system distributing copyrighted software without authorization.
Holding:
The court found no criminal liability due to absence of commercial gain, highlighting a gap in criminal copyright enforcement.
Importance:
Led to legislative changes resulting in the No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act) of 1997, which criminalizes infringement even without direct financial gain.
3. Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 692 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2012)
Facts:
Jammie Thomas-Rasset was sued for illegally sharing over 1,700 songs on a file-sharing network.
Outcome:
The court affirmed statutory damages totaling $222,000, reduced from initial millions.
Significance:
Emphasized the severity of statutory damages in peer-to-peer file-sharing cases, but also the need for reasonable damage awards.
4. United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012)
Facts:
Aleynikov was prosecuted for copying proprietary computer code from his employer and transmitting it overseas.
Outcome:
Convicted under the Economic Espionage Act and the National Stolen Property Act; the decision was later reversed on appeal on some charges but affirmed on others.
Significance:
Illustrated criminal prosecution of digital copyright theft and trade secret misappropriation.
5. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005)
Facts:
Grokster was sued for distributing software that facilitated peer-to-peer file sharing of copyrighted works.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that distributors can be liable if they actively induce infringement.
Significance:
Clarified liability for technology companies that promote copyright infringement.
6. United States v. Swartz, 2013 (Prosecution of Aaron Swartz)
Facts:
Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for downloading millions of academic articles from JSTOR without authorization.
Outcome:
Although criminal charges were eventually dropped after his tragic death, the case raised significant issues on the scope of criminal copyright enforcement and prosecutorial discretion.
Significance:
Highlighted controversies over criminal enforcement and access to information.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Court | Key Issue | Outcome/Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios | 1984 | U.S. Supreme Court | Liability for technology enabling copying | Established “substantial noninfringing use” test |
| U.S. v. LaMacchia | 1994 | D. Mass. | Criminal liability without financial gain | Led to NET Act, closing enforcement loophole |
| Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset | 2012 | 8th Circuit | File-sharing statutory damages | Upheld significant statutory damages |
| U.S. v. Aleynikov | 2012 | 2d Circuit | Theft of proprietary code | Demonstrated criminal prosecution of digital theft |
| MGM Studios v. Grokster | 2005 | U.S. Supreme Court | Liability for inducement of infringement | Clarified inducement theory of liability |
| U.S. v. Swartz | 2013 | Federal District | Unauthorized mass downloading | Raised issues of enforcement scope and policy |
Conclusion
Copyright infringement prosecutions range from civil actions to criminal prosecutions depending on the severity and intent. Courts have balanced protecting rights holders with innovation and fair use. The key precedent cases above show how liability is determined for direct infringers, technology providers, and conspirators.
RELATED Blog
0 comments