Date post: | 14-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | christopher-s-harrison |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 36
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
1/36Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2229376Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2229376Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2229376
1
CriminalCopyrightEnforcementAgainstFilesharingServicesBentonMartinandJeremiahNewhall
InJanuary2012anelitesquadofNewZealandantiterrorismofficers,underthe
directionoftheUnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice,stormedKimDotcomslavish$24millionmansion.1Equippedwithbodyarmor,tacticalfirearms,dogunits,andahelicopter,
thesquaduncoveredDotcomhidinginaspeciallydesignedsaferoom.2Ashewaswhisked
toapolicevan,Dotcomaskedthechargesagainsthim.Theanswerwastwowords:
Copyrightinfringement.3
TheindictmentofDotcomandhisinfamousfilesharingservice,Megaupload,
markedthestartofanewbattleinwhatreportershavechristenedthecopyrightwars.4
Yetitisnotthefederalgovernmentsonlyrecentforayintothefightagainstonline
filesharingservices,which,viewedashotbedforcopyrightinfringement,havebeenunder
adecadelongsiegeofcivillitigationfrommediacompanies.In2010,forexample,the
DepartmentofHomelandSecuritymountedOperationinOurSitestoseizethedomain
namesofwebsitesprovidingaccesstoinfringingcontent,5andtheoperationhassince
resultedintheseizureofmorethan400domainnames.6Theissuemorerecentlycaughtthe
attentionofCapitolHill,wherebillswereintroducedinboththeHouseandSenatetotarget
foreignwebsitesthatlinktoorhostinfringingcontent.7
Buttheseeffortshavenotalwaysbeeneffective.Formanyofthedomainnames
seizedbytheDepartmentofHomelandSecurity,thesameinfringingcontentquickly
1CharlesGraeber,10DaysInsidetheMansionandMindofKimDotcom,theMostWantedManonthe
Internet,WIRED,Nov.2012,at198,availableathttp://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/ffkimdotcom/.2Id.3Id.4DanMitchell,PiratesTakeSweden,N.Y.TIMES,Aug.19,2006,availableat
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/business/19online.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0.JackValenti,
presidentoftheMotionPictureAssociationofAmerica,hasgoneonestepfurther,comparingeffortsto
forceInternetserviceproviderstoremoveinfringingmaterialtofightingaterroristwar.AmyHarmon,
BlackHawkDownload;MovingBeyondMusic,PiratesUseNewToolstoTurntheNetIntoanIllicitVideoClub,
N.Y.TIMES,Jan.17,2002,availableathttp://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/17/technology/blackhawk
download
moving
beyond
music
pirates
use
new
tools
turn
net
into.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.
5U.S.INTELLECTUALPROPERTYENFORCEMENTCOORDINATOR,2010U.S.INTELLECTUALPROPERTY
ENFORCEMENTCOORDINATORANNUALREPORTONINTELLECTUALPROPERTYENFORCEMENT4(Feb.2011),
availableathttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/ipec_annual_report_feb2011.pdf.6U.S.INTELLECTUALPROPERTYENFORCEMENTCOORDINATOR,2012U.S.INTELLECTUALPROPERTY
ENFORCEMENTCOORDINATORJOINTSTRATEGICPLAN1(June2012),availableat
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/ipec_twoyear_anniversary_report.pdf.7SeeMikeBelleville,IPWars:SOPA,PIPA,andtheFightOverOnlinePiracy,26TEMP.INTL&COMP.L.J.
303,303(2012).
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
2/36Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2229376Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2229376Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2229376
2
appearedonsiteswithonlyslightlymodifiedwebaddresses,andafewsitesevengrewin
popularity.8Andthebacklashagainstthetwonewbillswasfierce:manypopularwebsites
stagedablackoutinprotest,includingtheonlineencyclopediaWikipedia,citingfears
thattheywouldfacesanctionsmerelyforlinkingtocontroversialsites,evenin
informationalarticles.9Meanwhile,othercountrieshaveseensomesuccessindirectlyprosecutingthe
operatorsoffilesharingservices.First,JapanconvictedIsamuKaneko,acomputerscience
researcherwhodevelopedWinny,anearlypeertopeerfilesharingsystem.10Kaneko
arguablyfostereddubioususesofhisservicebycollectingfeedbackandannouncing
updatesthroughananonymousInternetforumdedicatedtofilesharing.11Butalthough
KanekowasconvictedbyaJapanesedistrictcourt,theOsakaHighCourtreversedthe
convictionafterconcludingthatWinnywasvalueneutralessentially,capableofnon
infringingusesandthatKanekodidnotofferWinnyprimarilytopromoteinfringement,
evenifheknewthatitwasprobablybeingusedforthatpurpose.12Thisdecisiontoucheson
akeyquestioninthisarticle:ifafilesharingserviceisknowntohaverampantinfringing
uses,atwhatpointdotheservicesoperatorsopenthemselvestocriminalsanctions?
MoresuccessfulwasSwedensprosecutionoftheoperatorsofthePirateBay,then
oneoftheInternetslargestpeertopeerfilesharingservices.13TheoperatorsofthePirate
8AndySellers,TheInRemForfeitureofCopyrightInfringingDomainNames,at32
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1835604.Onsmash.commovedtofreeonsmash.com,
forexample,andincreasedfromthe9520thmostpopularwebsiteinthiscountrytothe7194th.Id.;seealso
RobFischer,ANinjainOurSites,THEAMERICANPROSPECT,Dec.15,2011,availableathttp://prospect.org/article/ninjaoursites(Notsurprisingly,theSpanishbasedRojadirectaenjoyeda
sizablebumpintrafficimmediatelyfollowingtheseizureofitsU.S.basedsite.).9NedPotter,WikipediaBlackout:WebsitesWikipedia,Reddit,OthersGoDarkWednesdaytoProtestSOPA,
PIPA,ABCNEWS,Jan.17,2012,http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wikipediablackoutwebsites
wikipediaredditdarkwednesdayprotest/story?id=15373251#.UNSZKax5Gq8;JennaWortham,With
Twitter,BlackoutsandDemonstrations,WebFlexesItsMuscle,N.Y.TIMES,Jan.18,2012,availableat
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/protestsofantipiracybillsunite
web.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.10SalilK.Mehra,KeepAmericaExceptional!AgainstAdoptingJapaneseandEuropeanStyleCriminalizationof
ContributoryCopyrightInfringement,13VAND.J.ENT.&TECH.L.811,817(2011).11
Id.at
81617.
12Id.at81819(2011)(citingKyotoChihoSaibansho[KyotoDist.Ct.]Dec.13,2006,Hei16(wa)no.726,
1229HanreiTimes105(Japan),revd,OsakaKotoSaibansho[OsakaHighCt.]Oct.8,2009,Hei19(wa)
no.461(Japan)).12OsakaKotoSaibansho[OsakaHighCt.]Oct.8,2009,Hei19(wa)no.461(Japan),astranslatedinMehra,
supranote10,at818.13StephenBright,CurrentDevelopment,TheCurrentStateofBitTorrentinInternationalLaw:WhyCopyright
LawisIneffectiveandWhatNeedsChange,17NEWENG.J.INTL&COMP.L.265,266(2011);JerkerEdstrom&
HenrikNillson,ThePirateBayVerdictPredictable,andYet...,31EUR.INTELL.PROP.REV.9,48387(2009).
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
3/36
3
Baymockedtheircontributiontoinfringingactivity,oftenpublishingandridiculing
complaintsfromcopyrightorganizations.14AlthoughSwedenoncehadareputationfor
relaxedcopyrightlaws,thecountryamendeditsCopyrightActin2005tomakeitacrimeto
transfercopyrightedcontentwithoutpermission.15Whenprosecutorsthenindictedfour
operatorsofthePirateBayin2008forcomplicityinviolatingtheAct,theoperatorsraisedthesameargumentsasKaneko:thattheirserviceshadnoninfringinguses,andthatthey
wereignorantofanyspecificinfringingactivity.16Butthecourtfoundthemguilty,
emphasizingthattheyhadprofitedfrominfringingcontentbycollectingadvertising
revenueandthatknowledgeofspecificinfringingcontentwasunnecessarygiventhatthey
hadcreatedconditionsthatfosteredinfringementandignorednoticesofinfringing
content.17Thedefendantsweresentencedtooneyearinprisoneachandorderedtopay
restitutionof$4.3million.18
Thesuccessofthisprosecutionhasbeenheraldedasharbingerofonesliketheaction
againstMegaupload.19Yetcriminalprosecutionoffilesharingservicesisanew
developmentintheUnitedStates,andonlytimewilltellwhetherthisnewapproachproves
effective,orunderwhatcircumstancesitshouldbeused.Thefutureholdsmanyquestions:
Whatpushesalegitimateonlinefilestoringbusinessovertheedgetocriminalenterprise?
Howmightcriminalcopyrightenforcementdiffermateriallyfromcivilenforcement?We
seektoanswerthesequestionsinthisarticle.Wefocusonthoseonlinebusinessesenabling
userstoshareinfringingcontentwithothersonline,andwerefertothesebusinessessimply
asfilesharingservices,intendingthisdefinitiontocoverdiversetypesoftechnology
includingcyberlockers
like
Megaupload,
which
host
files
on
servers
controlled
by
the
service,andtorrentsiteslikethePirateBay,whichprovidelinkstoconnectusersto
infringingfilesstoredbytheirpeers.20
14Bright,supranote13,at277;TaraTouloumis,BuccaneersandBucksfromtheInternet:PirateBayandthe
EntertainmentIndustry,19SETONHALLJ.SPORTS&ENT.L.253,265(2009).15Bright,supranote13,at277;BernardA.Mantel,TheGooglePolice:HowtheIndictmentofThePirateBay
PresentsaNewSolutiontoInternetPiracy,20U.MIAMIBUS.L.REV.77,8687(2011).16Mantel,supranote15,at84.17Mantel,supranote15,at89(citingTingsrtt[TR][StockholmDistrictCourt]20090417p.1B1330106at
24
(Swed.),
astranslated
by
the
International
Federation
of
the
Phonographic
Industry,
IFPI,
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_about/index.html).18Mantel,supranote15,at9091.19Bright,supranote13,at276;Mehra,supranote10,at822(Thepressuretointernationalizeand
harmonizetheresponsetoP2PalsoincreasesthepossibilityofAmericancriminalizationofcontributory
infringement.).20BillWyman,SoLong,andThanksforAllthePiratedMovies,SLATE,Jan.20,2012,
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/technology/2012/01/megaupload_shutdown_what_the_site_s_dep
arture_means_for_other_traffic_hogging_cyberlockers_.html.
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
4/36
4
Intheend,weconcludethatcriminalenforcementactionsshouldbelimitedtothose
filesharingserviceoperatorsthat,inordertoprofiteer21frominfringingcontent,foster
infringementbyegregiouslydefyingtheestablishedboundariesofcopyrightlawandcivil
meansofcopyrightenforcement.
Thisarticlewillproceedinthreeparts.Partonedescribesthehistoryofcriminalcopyrightenforcementaswellassignificantdevelopmentsincivilcopyrightlawclarifying
theliabilityoffilesharingservicesassecondaryinfringers.Parttwodigsintothedifferences
betweenthecivilandcriminalcopyrightlandscapeforfilesharingservicesandthepotential
forsafeharborsfromcriminalculpabilityforInternetservicesproviders.Finally,part
threeproposesguidelinesforcourtsandprosecutorstoconsiderwhenevaluatingthe
proprietyofacriminalenforcementactionagainstfilesharingservices.
I.A.WarBriefing:TheHistoryofCriminalCopyrightEnforcementCriminalcopyrightenforcementis,ofcourse,nothingnew.TheUnitedStatesfirst
criminalizedcopyrightinfringementin1897bymakingitamisdemeanortoconduct
unauthorizedperformancesofcopyrightedplaysandmusicaslongasthisinfringement
waswillfulandforprofit.22Thislawwasintendedtorespondtocomplaintsfromcopyright
holdersaboutthedifficultyofenforcingtheirrightsagainsttroupesoftraveling
performers.23Whentravelingperformersremainedaproblemadecadelater,Congress
expandedthelawtopunishallthenexistingformsofcopyrightinfringementandthe
peopleprimarilytheater
owners
and
agentsthat
aided
or
abetted
infringers.
24
Criminalcopyrightlawremainedunchangeduntilthe1970s,whenconcernsabout
piracyofsoundandvideorecordingsledtoitsrapidexpansion.25TheSoundRecordingAct
21Theprofitsatissue,however,mustbeinreal,nonInternetdollars.BrownmarkFilms,LLCv.Comedy
Partners,682F.3d687,694(7thCir.2012).FormorediscussionofInternetmoney,seeid.at689.22ActofJan.6,1897,ch.4,29Stat.481.23I.TrotterHardy,CriminalCopyrightInfringement,11WM.&MARYBILLRTS.J.305,315(2002)(citing
RevisionofCopyright
Laws:
Hearings
Before
the
Joint
Comm.
on
Patents,
60th
Cong.
24
(1908)
(statement
of
LigonJohnson,representingtheNationalAssociationofTheatricalManagers),reprintedin5LEGISLATIVE
HISTORYOFTHE1909COPYRIGHTACT,pt.K,at24(E.FultonBrylawski&AbeGoldmaneds.,1976);H.R.
REP.No.9153(1894),andMichaelCoblenz,IntellectualPropertyCrimes,9ALB.L.J.SCI.&TECH.235,238
39(1999).).24CopyrightActof1909,ch.320,35Stat.1075;seeMiriamBitton,RethinkingtheAntiCounterfeitingTrade
AgreementsCriminalCopyrightEnforcementMeasures,102J.CRIM.L.&CRIMINOLOGY67,85(2012);Note,
CriminalizationofCopyrightInfringementintheDigitalEra,112HARV.L.REV.1705,1707(1999).25Bitton,supranote24,at8589.
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
5/36
5
of1971firstaddedprotectionforsoundrecordings,26andfiveyearslater,the1976
CopyrightActincreasedcriminalfinesforgeneralinfringement(upto$10,000)andadded
evenstifferpenaltiesforrepeatinfringersorinfringersofsoundrecordingsandmotion
pictures.27The1976Actalsomaderepeatinfringementafelonyandchangedthefor
profitrequirementtoitscurrentforminfringementforpurposesofcommercialadvantageorprivatefinancialgain28toclarifythatinfringersneedonlyintendfinancial
gaintobeguilty.29Althoughthe1976Actdroppedallmentionofaidingandabetting
fromthecopyrightstatute,itappearsthatthischangewasintendedmerelytoremove
surplusagebecausethisconductwasstillacrimeunder18U.S.C.2.30(Moretothepoint,
whetherornottheintentwastoremovesurplusage,thatwastheeffect:Aidingand
abettingcriminalcopyrightremainsacrimeunder2(a).31)Thispatternofincreasing
penaltiescontinuedintothe1980sasCongressrespondedtolobbyingbytheentertainment
industryforevenharshercriminalsanctions,inpartbymakingfirsttimeinfringement,at
leastofsignificantquantitiesofaudiovisualworks,afelony.32
Unsurprisingly,popularizationofpersonalcomputersandtheInternetinthe1990s
furtherspurredconcernsaboutpiracy,especiallyofsoftware.33Inresponse,Congress
enactedtheCopyrightFelonyActof1992,expandingfelonypenaltiestoalltypesof
copyrightinfringersandincreasingthegeneralmaximumpunishmentforfirsttime
offenderstofiveyearsimprisonment,a$250,000fine,orboth,aslongastheinfringer
reproducedordistributedatleasttencopies,worthmorethan$2,500,withinasixmonth
26Pub.L.No.92140,85Stat.391(1971);H.R.Rep.No.931581,at4(1974),reprintedin1974U.S.C.C.A.N.
6849,6852;seeNote,supranote24,at1708.27SeeNote,supranote24,at1709.28See17U.S.C.506(a)(1)(A).29IrinaD.Manta,ThePuzzleofCriminalSanctionsforIntellectualPropertyInfringement,24HARV.J.L.&
TECH.469,481(2011);Note,supranote24,at170809.30Note,supranote24,at1709n.39(citing4MelvilleB.Nimmer&DavidNimmer,NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT,
15.01[A][2],at1510(1998),andJamesLincolnYoung,CriminalCopyrightInfringementandaStepBeyond,
30COPYRIGHTL.SYMP.(ASCAP)157,169(1983)).31Infact,thestatutecoversnotonlyaidingandabettingbutwillfullycausingacrimetobecommittedby
another:
(a)
Whoever
commits
an
offense
against
the
United
States
or
aids,
abets,
counsels,
commands,
inducesorprocuresitscommission,ispunishableasaprincipal.(b)Whoeverwillfullycausesanacttobe
donewhichifdirectlyperformedbyhimoranotherwouldbeanoffenseagainsttheUnitedStates,is
punishableasaprincipal.18U.S.C.2.32LydiaPallasLoren,Digitization,Commodification,Criminalization:TheEvolutionofCriminalCopyright
InfringementandtheImportanceoftheWillfulnessRequirement,77WASH.U.L.Q.835,84243(1999).33Note,supranote24,at171011(Softwaremanufacturersarguedforstricterpenaltiesforsoftware
copyrightinfringement,claimingthatthepiracyproblemsthathadplaguedtherecordandmotion
pictureindustryadecadeagowerenowattackingthesoftwareindustry.).
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
6/36
6
timeframe.34In1996Congressmadecounterfeitingcopyrightedworksaracketeering
offenseundertheRacketeerInfluencedandCorruptOrganizationsAct.35Thenin1997came
theNoElectronicTheftAct(NETAct),throughwhichCongresssoughttodeterevennot
forprofitinfringementbyexpandingthedefinitionoffinancialgaintocoverreceipt,
orexpectationofreceipt,ofanythingofvalue,includingthereceiptofothercopyrightedworksandaddingpenaltiesforanywillfulinfringerwhoreproducedordistributed
$1,000worthofinfringingcopies,regardlessofintendedgain.36
Theimpetusforthe1997NETActforeshadowedtheMegauploadprosecution.
BeforetheActsenactment,theDepartmentofJusticehadattemptedtoconvictstudent
DavidLaMacchiaformaintaininganonlinebulletinboardfullofinfringingsoftwarefiles.37
BecauseLaMacchiahadntsoughtprofitandthusfelloutsideexistinglimitsoncriminal
copyrightliabilitythegovernmentindictedhimforwirefraudrathercopyright
infringement.Butafederaldistrictcourtdismissedthecase,relyingonDowlingv.United
States,473U.S.207(1985),whichoverturnedtheconviction,forinterstatetransportationof
stolengoods,ofabootlegrecordtransporterasanimpermissiblesubversionofcarefully
circumscribedcopyrightlaw.38Likewise,theLaMacchiacourtconcluded,ifnotpunishable
undercopyrightlaw,nonprofitinfringersshouldnotbepunishedforwirefraud.39This
controversialdecisioniswidelyreportedtohavemotivatedCongresssexpansionof
criminalcopyrightliabilityintheNETAct.40
Sincethattime,Congresshascontinuedtoratchetupcriminalcopyrightpenalties.
DiscontentwiththeNETActslackofdeterrenteffect,CongressenactedtheDigitalTheft
andCopyright
Damages
Improvement
Act
of
1999
to
increase
the
civil
damages
and
to
clarifythatitintendedtheUnitedStatesSentencingCommission,whichsetsguidelinesfor
allfederalsentencings,tomaketheguidelinesforintellectualpropertyoffenses
sufficientlystringentbyincreasingtherecommendedpenaltyforcrimesinvolvinghigh
3418U.S.C.2319;Note,supranote24,at171112.35AnticounterfeitingConsumerProtectionActof1996,Pub.L.No.104153,110Stat.1386;seeBen
Shiffman,
Danielle
Goldman,
&
Lauren
Pomeroy,
IntellectualProperty
Crimes,
49
AM.
CRIM.
L.
REV.
929,
965(2012);Manta,supranote29,at484.36See17U.S.C.A.101;Note,supranote24,at1715.37UnitedStatesv.LaMacchia,871F.Supp.535,53637(D.Mass.1994).38Id.at545.39Id.at54344.40See,e.g.,Bitton,supranote24,at87(Congresswasthusspurredbythecourtsandtheaffected
industriestobroadenthescopeofcriminalliabilitytodetercopyrightoffenderswhohadnofinancial
motivation.).
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
7/36
7
valueorhighquantityinfringement.41Thenin2004and2005Congresscreatednew
copyrightcrimes:traffickingofcounterfeitlabelsonprotectedworks42andrecording
motionpicturesintheaters.43Finally,in2008,Congresstargetedcounterfeitersagain,
throughthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyAct(PROIP
Act),increasingcriminalpenaltiesforcounterfeitingthatmaycausebodilyinjury(aswithknockoffpharmaceuticals)andexpandingthegovernmentspowertoseizecounterfeit
goodsandthetoolsusedtomakethem.44TheActalsocreatedanewexecutivepositionto
coordinatefederalcopyrightenforcement,theIntellectualPropertyEnforcement
Coordinator,whoisadvisedbyrepresentativesfromtheRegisterofCopyrightsandthe
CriminalDivisionoftheDepartmentofJustice,amongothers.45
I.B. EnforcementAgainstFilesharingServicesButalthoughthisdiscussionsofarhasfocusedoncriminalenforcement,muchofthe
developmentoftheapplicationofcopyrightlawtofilesharingserviceshasarisenincivil,
ratherthancriminal,actions.Keystonedevelopmentsincludejudicialrecognition,through
federalcommonlaw,ofsecondaryliabilityforcopyrightinfringementandrelativelyrecent
additionstodigitalpiracylawscreatingsafeharborsforInternetserviceproviders.Any
discussionofcriminalenforcementagainstfilesharingservicesmustthereforeaddress
paralleldevelopmentsflowingfromcivillitigation.
PerhapsthemostsignificantstatutorychangeshavebeengeneratedbytheDigital
MillenniumCopyright
Act
(DMCA),
enacted
ayear
after
the
NET
Act
in
an
attempt
to
balancemediaindustryconcernsoverinfringementwithangstinthetechindustryabout
hinderingdigitalinnovation.46AlthoughtheActexpandedthescopeofcriminalliability
41Pub.L.No.106160,113Stat.1774;Manta,supranote29,at48384(quotingH.R.REP.NO.106216,at
2);seealsoAndrewW.Eichnet,FileSharing:AToolforInnovation,oraCriminalInstrument,2011B.C.
INTELL.PROP.&TECH.F.1n.98(2011)(citingH.R.3456,106thCong.(1stSess.1999)).42AntiCounterfeitingAmendmentsActof2004,Pub.L.No.108482,tit.I,118Stat.3912,391216.43ArtistsRightsandTheftPreventionActof2005,Pub.L.No.1099,tit.I,119Stat.218,21823.ThisAct
was
actually
a
sub
part
of
a
larger
piece
of
legislation
titled
the
Family
Entertainment
and
Copyright
Act
of2005,PublicLaw1099,119Stat.21827.44PrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008,Pub.L.110403,Sec.1(a),
122Stat.4256.BeverlyEarle,GeraldA.Madek,&ChristinaMadek,Combatingthenewdrugtradeof
counterfeitgoods:aproposalfornewlegalremedies,20TRANSNATLL.&CONTEMP.PROBS.69798(2012).4515U.S.C.8111(b)(3).ThecoordinatorfacilitatesthecreationandimplementationofaJointStrategic
Plan.Id.8111(b)(1).46Note,supranote24,at171718(citingWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganizationCopyrightTreaty,Dec.
20,1996,36I.L.M.65(1997);WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganizationPerformancesandPhonograms
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
8/36
8
makingitacrimetocircumvent,ortraffickdevicesdesignedtocircumvent,technological
measureslimitingaccesstocopyrightedwork47theActalsocreatedsafeharborsfor
copyrightinfringementbyvariousInternetbusinesses,includingInternetserviceproviders
likeMegauploadthathostuseruploadedcontent.48Thepopularvideosharingsite
YouTubehasusedthisrelativelynewdoctrineinongoinglitigationagainstitbyentertainmentcompanies,49successfullyarguingthatitcannotbeliableforinfringing
videosifitdidnotreceivepropertakedownnoticesaboutthem.50Thisdecisionhasgiven
risetospeculationabouttheMegauploaddefendantsabilitytoavailthemselvesofthis
defense,51thoughasdiscussedlater,eveniftheyotherwisemettheprovisions
requirements,thedefenseappearstobelimitedtocivilactionsalone.
YouTubeisnottheonlycompanytoprovokelitigationoveritsfilesharingservices,
andthislitigationhasledcourtstoaddresswhethertheseservicesareliableascontributory
andvicariousinfringers,despitenostatuteexplicitlyendorsingsuchsecondaryliability.
Theresultsaremixed:TheNinthCircuit,forexample,concludedthatthepopular
filesharingserviceNapstercouldbeliableasacontributoryinfringeraslongasithad
actualknowledgeofitsusersinfringingactivities.52ButtheSeventhCircuitdisagreed,
concludingthatknowledgeofinfringementwasnotitselfenoughtoholdliableasimilar
servicecalledAimster.53TheSupremeCourt,theSeventhCircuitnoted,haddecidedtwo
decadesearlierthatSonywasnotliablewhenpurchasersofitsBetamaxvideorecorder
usedittocreateinfringingcopiesoftelevisionprograms,sincetherecorderwaswidely
Treaty,Dec.20,1996,36I.L.M.76(1997);StatementbyPresidentWilliamJ.ClintonUponSigningH.R.
2281,in1998U.S.C.C.A.N.677,677.)4717U.S.C.1201.4817U.S.C.512(c);seeViacomIntl,Inc.v.YouTube,Inc.,676F.3d19,25(2dCir.2012)(interpreting
512(c)).49SeeViacomIntl,Inc.v.YouTube,Inc.,676F.3d19,25(2dCir.2012).50ViacomIntl,Inc.v.YouTube,Inc.,718F.Supp.2d514(S.D.N.Y.2010).TheSecondCircuitaffirmedthe
courtscorelegalconclusion,thoughittookadifferentviewoftheevidenceofYouTubesknowledgeof
specificinfringingvideos,andreversedonthatbasis.SeeViacomIntl,676F.3dat3234.51Graeber,supranote1,at193(ButunliketheViacomversusYouTubecase,thechargesagainst
Megaupload
are
not
civil
but
criminal;
the
key
players
arent
being
sued,
theyre
facing
jail.
Not
for
the
firsttime,Kimfindshimselfembroiledinacriminalcasebasedonuncertaintechprecedent.Doessafe
harborevenapplyinacriminalcase?Itsnotclearthatacriminalstatuteagainstsecondpartycopyright
violationevenexists.WelcometothegrayestgrayzoneontheInternet.);Mantel,supranote15,at98
(Today,thesamechargesasthoseagainstThePirateBaycreatorswouldnotlikelysurviveagainst
GoogleintheUnitedStates.ThisislargelyduetothefactthattheDMCAexemptsserviceproviders
fromliability[underthesafeharborprovision].)(citationomitted).52A&MRecords,Inc.v.Napster,Inc.,239F.3d1004,1020(9thCir.2001).53InreAimsterCopyrightLitigation,334F.3d643,649(7thCir.2003).
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
9/36
9
usedforlegitimate,unobjectionablepurposes.54Butevenso,theSeventhCircuit
concluded,Aimstercouldnotescapeliabilitybywillfullyblindingitselftoitsusers
activities(throughencryptionsoftware),especiallysincetherewasnoevidencethatthe
serviceeverwasusedforlegitimatepurposes.55TheSeventhCircuitalsoexpressed
skepticismattheideathatAimstermightbevicariouslyliablelikeatheaterownerheldliablefornotpolicinginfringingperformersbutnotedthatsufficientevidenceof
contributoryinfringement,throughwillfulblindness,madethequestionofvicarious
liabilitymerelyacademic.56
Eventually,theSupremeCourtweighedin,concludingunanimouslyinMetro
GoldwynMayerStudiosInc.v.Grokster,Ltd.,545U.S.913,93233(2005),thatGroksterand
StreamcastservicesthathadsoughttoreplaceNapsterinthewakeofitslitigationwoes
couldbeliableassecondaryinfringersevenwithoutevidencethattheyknewaboutspecific
infringingvideos.57TheCourtemphasizedthattheseserviceshadshownintenttopromote
infringementby,amongotherthings,advertisingthemselvesasalternativestoNapsterand
failingtodevelopfilteringtoolstocurbinfringement.58Thisevidenceofintenttoencourage
infringement,theCourtreasoned,distinguishedtheseservicesfromSonysBetamax,
despitetheirmanypotentialnoninfringinguses.59Asweexplainlater,thisfocusonintent
causesthestandardforsecondarycivilcopyrightliabilitytoapproachalignmentwiththe
willfulnessstandardforcriminalcopyrightculpability.60
Itwasonlyamatteroftime,then,beforeU.S.prosecutorsbuoyedbyGroksters
endorsementofsecondaryliabilityandSwedenssuccessfulconvictionofthePirateBay
soughtcriminal
penalties
for
filesharing
services.
The
first
of
these
efforts
began
in
2010,
as
theUnitedStatestargetedNinjaVideo(aserviceasmuchaboutdirectinfringementas
54SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios,Inc.,464U.S417,442(1984).55InreAimster,334F.3dat65053.56Id.at65455.57MetroGoldwynMayerStudiosInc.v.Grokster,Ltd.,545U.S.913,93233(2005).58Grokster,545U.S.at93839(2005).TheCourtobservedthatGrokstersnameisapparentlyderived
fromNapster.Id.at939.ThoughnotnotedbytheCourt,GroksterisanapparentportmanteauofGrok
andNapster;theformerisaneologismbyRobertHeinleinmeaningTounderstandintuitivelyorby
empathy.
OXFORD
ENGLISH
DICTIONARY
(2013);
seealso
ROBERT
A.
HEINLEIN,
STRANGER
IN
A
STRANGE
LAND213(Acemassmarketed.1987)([If]yougrokit,understanditsothoroughlythatyoumergewith
itanditmergeswithyou.).GrokstersnameconveyedtofansofNapsterthatGroksterunderstoodand
empathizedwiththem.59Grokster,545U.S.at93335.60Thisalignmentisparticularlyacuteif,asProfessorTimothyHolbrookargues,Groksterisreadtorequire
intenttoinduceinfringementratherthanmerelyintenttoinducetheacts.SeeTimothyR.Holbrook,
SymposiumReview,TheIntentElementofInducedInfringement,22SANTACLARACOMPUTER&HIGHTECH.
L.J.399,408(2006).
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
10/36
10
secondary),whichwascreatedtoshowcasecollectionsofinfringingcontentuploadedbyits
founderHanaBeshara,whoselists,accordingtoonereport,hadbecomefamousinthe
onlinecommunitydevotedtouploadingandpiracy.61NinjaVideocollectedmorethan
$500,000inadvertisingrevenueanddonationsforprovidinglinkstocontentuploadedby
Besharaandotheruploaders,someofitstoredthroughMegaupload.62AspartoftheNinjaVideoinvestigation,theDepartmentofJusticeobtainedasearchwarrantfor
MegauploadcontrolledserversinVirginia,gatheringevidenceleadingtotheindictmentof
Beshara,whopleadedguiltyandwasorderedtoserve22monthsinprisonandpay
$200,000inrestitution.63
ThegovernmentalsopursuedtheoperatorsoftwoservicesTVShack.netand
channelsurfing.netthatprovidedlinksto(ofteninfringing)streamingvideoof
copyrightedtelevisionshows.64ButastheSeventhCircuitnotedrecentlyinrejectinga
preliminaryinjunctionagainstsocialbookmarkingsitemyVidster,theliabilityofservices
allowinguserstopostinfringinglinkstocontenthostedbythirdpartiesisaparticularly
closequestion,turningontheextentoftheservicescontributionto,andintentto
encourage,infringement.65Thus,thecaseagainstChannelSurfingsoperator(indictedin
2011)isstillongoing,andtheinitiallyapprovedextraditiontheBritishcreatorofTVShack
stalledonappeal,promptingtheUnitedStatestoofferdeferredprosecutioninexchangefor
himpayingasmallfine.66Bythattime,however,thegovernmenthadmounteditscase
againstMegauploadafilehostingratherthanlinklistingsitewhichatthetime,
61Fischer,supranote8.62TimothyB.Lee,HowtheCriminalizationofCopyrightThreatensInnovationandtheRuleofLaw,in
COPYRIGHTUNBALANCED:FROMINCENTIVETOEXCESS6364(2012Ed.JerryBrito);DavidKravets,
MegauploadAssistedU.S.ProsecutionofSmallerFileSharingService,WIRED(Blog),Jan.20,2012,
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/11/megauploadinvestigationroots/.63Kravets,supranote62;DepartmentofJustice,PressRelease,LeaderofNinjaVideo.netWebsiteSentencedto
22MonthsinPrisonforCriminalCopyrightConspiracy,Jan.6,2012,availableat
http://www.justice.gov/usao/vae/news/2012/01/20120106ninjavideonr.html.
Query
whether
this
prosecutionprimarilyservedtobuildacaseagainstMegaupload,alreadyunderinvestigationbyU.S.
officials.Kravets,supranote62.64TimothyB.Lee,UKTVShackadminwontfacetrialinUSoncopyrightcharges,ARSTECHNICA,Nov.28,
2012,http://arstechnica.com/techpolicy/2012/11/uktvshackadminwontfacetrialinusoncopyright
charges/.ChannelSurfingsoperatorwasindictedin2011,andthecaseisstillongoing.Fischer,supranote
8;UnitedStatesv.McCarthy, 1:11cr00900TPG,ECFDoc.15(S.D.N.Y.Oct.21,2011).65SeeFlavaWorks,Inc.v.Gunter,689F.3d754(7thCir.2012)(Posner,J.).66Lee,supranote64.
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
11/36
11
accordingtotheindictment,wasthe13thmostfrequentlyvisitedwebsiteontheentire
Internet.67
II.NewBattlegrounds:ChallengesinProsecutingFilesharingServicesSowhatdoesthishistorymeanforonlinefilesharingservices?Heretheindictment
againstMegauploadbecomesavaluableguide,servingasalookingglassintothefutureof
criminalcopyrightliabilityforthistypeofonlinebusiness.Theindictmentchargesthe
defendants,aspartofaMegaConspiracy,withcommittingsixdifferentfederalcrimes.68
Twoofthesecrimesderivefromallegationsthatthedefendantsaidedandabetted
infringers,alongwithdirectlyinfringingcopyrightthemselves.69Othersinvolve
conspiraciesflowingfromthisinfringingactivity:conspiracytoinfringe,racketeering(by
organizinginfringingactivities),andmoneylaundering(bytransferringmoneyfrom
infringingactivities).70Finally,theindictmentchargesthewhitecollarcrimestandby,wire
fraud,forthedefendantsallegedlyconningcopyrightholdersintobelievingtheirworks
werebeingremovedaftertakedowncomplaints.71
ButthetruesinequanonoftheMegauploadprosecutioniscriminalcopyright
infringement,justasthepolicetoldKimDotcomathisarrest.Thatcrimehasthree
elements:(1)willful(2)infringement,(3)forcommercialadvantageorfinancialgain.72This
67UnitedStatesv.Dotcom,No.1:12CR3,ECFDoc.34,at23(E.D.Vir.Feb.16,2012)[hereinafter
Indictment],availableathttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/business/documents/megauploadindictment.pdf.68Indictment,supranote67,at1.69Indictment,supranote67,at7176(theseaccusationsactuallyconstitutecountsfourtoeightofthe
indictment;fivetoeightallegemultipleviolationsof18U.S.C.2and2319,and17U.S.C.506).70Indictment,supranote67,at2271.71Indictment,supranote67,at7780(theseaccusationsconstitutecountsninetothirteen,whichallege
fiveseparateviolationsof18U.S.C.2and134).72Therelevanttextofthestatute:
(a)Criminalinfringement.
(1) In general.Any personwhowillfully infringes a copyright shallbe punished as
provided
under
section
2319
of
title
18,
if
the
infringement
was
committed
(A)forpurposesofcommercialadvantageorprivatefinancialgain;
(B)by thereproductionordistribution, includingbyelectronicmeans,duringany
180dayperiod,of1ormorecopiesorphonorecordsof1ormorecopyrighted
works,whichhaveatotalretailvalueofmorethan$1,000;or
(C)by thedistribution of aworkbeing prepared for commercialdistribution,by
makingitavailableonacomputernetworkaccessibletomembersofthepublic,
if such person knew or should have known that theworkwas intended for
commercialdistribution.
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
12/36
12
sectionwillfocusontheinterplayofthefirsttwoelements;theformerisuniquetocriminal
prosecutions,andthelatterimportstothecriminallawmostofthedefensestocivil
liability.73Butapplyingtheseelementsrequiresapplyingthemtosomething,andsoitisa
worthydiversiontoexaminejustwhatunderlyinginfringementtheindictmentactually
alleges.First,therearechargesofdirectinfringement.TheindictmentchargesMegaupload
employeeswithuploadingcopiesofcopyrightedworks,suchasthefilmTaken.74The
applicationoftheelementsofinfringementtothatconduct,ifproven,willbe
straightforward:ThegovernmentallegesthatMegauploadcopiedtheseworksforfinancial
gain,withfullknowledgethattheywereundercopyright.75
ButlikeGroksterandNapster,thebulkofMegauploadsallegedinfringement
liabilityissecondary,thatis,Megauploadisnotchargedwithcommittingmostofthe
allegedinfringementitself,76butwithaidingandabettingthatinfringementbyothers.77
17U.S.C.512(a)(1).AswenotedinSectionI,supra,copyingordistributionofcopyrightedworkswitha
valueofmorethan$1,000wouldalsosatisfythethirdelement,aswoulddistributionofayetunreleased
workbeingpreparedforcommercialdistribution(i.e.anunreleasedfilm).Seeid.;seealsoNIMMERON
COPYRIGHT15.01(2012).73SeeNIMMERONCOPYRIGHT,15.01(A).74InTaken,OscarTMwinnerLiamNeesonportraysBryanMills,aretiredCIAblackopsagentandthe
fatherofakidnappedwoman.Onthephonewiththekidnappers,Millstriestodissuadethemfrom
takinghisdaughter:
Idontknowwhoyouare.Idontknowwhatyouwant.Ifyouarelookingforransom,I
can tellyou Idonthavemoney.Butwhat Idohaveareaveryparticularsetofskills;skillsIhaveacquiredoveraverylongcareer.Skillsthatmakemeanightmareforpeople
likeyou.Ifyouletmydaughtergonow,thatllbetheendofit.Iwillnotlookforyou,I
willnotpursueyou.But ifyoudont,Iwill lookforyou,Iwillfindyou,andIwillkill
you.
TAKEN(20thCenturyFox2009).Sincethefilmspremiere,theTakenspeechhasbecomeapopular
meme,withpeopleparaphrasingittodissuadelunchthieves(Idontknowwhoyouare.Idontknow
whatyouwant.Ifyouarelookingforcherrycola,IcantellyouthatIdonthaveanybecausesome
unscrupulousbeastdrankmine.),tobreakupwithapassiveaggressiveboyfriend,(Butwhatyoudo
haveareaveryparticularsetofpassiveaggressiveskills;skillsthatmakeyouanightmareforgirlfriends
likeme.),ortobanarmchairgrammariansfromtheirFacebookpage(Ifyouletmygrammaticalerror
go
now,
thatll
be
the
end
of
it.
But
if
you
dont,
I
will
hide
you,
I
will
unsubscribe
from
you,
and
I
will
unfriendyou.).SeeHAPPYPLACE,UsingtheTakenSpeechInEveryAspectofYourLife,
http://www.happyplace.com/18230/howtobehavelikeliamneesonintakenineveryaspectofyour
life.Inthatspirit,weofferacaveattocopyrightinfringers:Prosecutorsmaynotknowwhoyouare,and
theymaynothavejurisdiction,butwhattheydohaveareaveryparticularsetofpowers;powersthat
includeextradition.Theywilllookforyou,theywillfindyou,andtheywillextraditeyou.75SeeIndictment,supranote67,at49.76Although,again,ahandfulofMegauploademployeesallegedlyuploadedinfringingcopiesofworks.77SuprasectionII.A.
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
13/36
13
Whothenaretheactualinfringers?Atfirstblushtheymightappeartobethemanyviewers
drawntoMegauploadwhostreamunlicensedbroadcastsofcopyrightedcontent.Buteach
ofthethousands,possiblymillions,78ofunauthorizedviewersofcopyrightedworkson
Megauploadisnomoreacopyrightinfringerthanifhehadsnuckintoamovietheater
andwatchedacopyrightedmoviewithoutbuyingaticket.79Theonlyothercandidatestheonlyotherpeopleinvolvedaretheuploadersoftheinfringingmaterial.Butonitsface,
uploadingcopyrightedmaterialtoaremoteserver,anactivitywidelypromotedby
technologyandmediacompaniesheraldingthefutureofcloudcomputing,isasmuchafair
useastapingaprogramforlaterviewing.80
Copyingisnot,however,theonlyexclusiverightofcopyrightholders:Theyalso
havetheexclusiverightofperformance,whichincludesbroadcastsofaudiovisualworks.81
Soitisnottheuploaderscopyingbuttheirsharingofthestoredfilewithothersthat
violatesthecopyrightact,andthatistheprimaryinfringementthatMegauploadisalleged
tohaveaidedandabetted.82
Afewcommentatorshavearguedthatthereshouldbenocriminalliabilityfor
filesharingservicesforthecopyrightinfringementoftheirusers,viewingtheprosecutions
theorytotheextentitseekstoholdtheMegaconspiratorsliableforconductotherthan
78TheindictmentsummarizesthepotentialbreadthofinfringingactivityonMegaupload:
Megaupload.comwasatonepointinitshistoryestimatedtobethe13thmost frequentlyvisitedwebsite
ontheentireInternet.Thesiteclaimstohavehadmorethanonebillionvisitorsinitshistory,morethan
180,000,000registereduserstodate,anaverageof50milliondailyvisits,andtoaccountfor
approximatelyfourpercentofthetotaltrafficontheInternet.Indictment,supranote67,at23.79FlavaWorks,Inc.v.Gunter,689F.3d754,758(7thCir.2012).QuerywhetherJudgePosnersmetaphorof
sneakingintoamovietheaterwithstandscloserinspection.Theactualperformance,inthiscaseaswellas
inFlavaWorks,isstartedandstoppednotbytheuploader(or,inthatcase,thecopyrightholder)butby
thepersonstreamingthevideo.Whyshouldtheuploaderbedirectlyliable,asopposedtosecondarily
liable,foraninfringingperformancestartedandstoppedbysomeoneelse?Butwhatevertheanswer,
someonehasviolatedthecopyrightholdersrightofperformance,andMegauploadstandsaccusedof
encouraginguploadersandviewersalike.80SeeSonyCorp.ofAmerica,Inc.v.UniversalCityStudios,Inc.,464U.S.417(1984);seealsoInreAimster
CopyrightLitig.,334F.3d643,647(7thCir.2003).81See17U.S.C.106(4);NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT__;FlavaWorks,Inc.,689F.3dat758(Therightto
control
copying
is
not
the
only
exclusive
right
of
a
copyright
owner.
That
would
make
life
too
simple
for
us.).82AlthoughtheindictmentchargesMegauploadwithsecondaryliabilityfordistribution,aright
codifiedin106(3),thatisinapplicabletoMegauploadunlesstheworksweredownloaded,asopposed
tostreamed.Generallyspeaking,streamingisaprocessbywhichacomputermakesatemporary
buffercopyofavideofile,whichisdestroyedasthevideoisplayed.Downloadingcreatesa
permanentcopyofthevideofileonthecomputersharddrive.SeeJohnC.Dvorak,ChrisPirillo,&
WendyTaylor,ONLINE!THEBOOK399(2003).Ifthegovernmentintendstoproveinfringementbydistribution,thentheprimaryinfringerswouldbetheindividualswhodownloadedcopies.
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
14/36
14
theirowninfringinguploadsasanoverextensionofthedoctrineofsecondary
infringementendorsedbytheSupremeCourtinGrokster.83Wesuspectthatthisposition
reflectshostilitytothestrengthofU.S.copyrightprotectionsgenerally,ratherthana
principleddistinctionbetweenGroksterandthisprosecution.Butthereissomesubstanceto
theargumentthatjudgesarefreetocreatevarioustheoriesofliabilityincivillaw,butnotincriminallaw.84Infact,theruleoflenityreflectsajudicialwillingnesstofindexceptionsto
liabilityincriminallaw.85Sowherecanvicariousorcontributoryorinducement
liabilitybefoundinthestatute?
Allofthesecivilliabilitytheoriescorrelatewithvariantsofwhatwebroadlyreferto
asaidingandabettingunder18U.S.C.2.86Andwecansimplifythatanalysisby
lumpingtheciviltheoriestogetherunderthetermsecondaryliability.AstheSeventh
CircuitnotedinAimster,Sonytreatsvicariousandcontributoryinfringement
interchangeably.87AndthoughGrokstergivesthetwotermsdistinctdefinitions
postulatingthatapersoninfringescontributorilybyintentionallyinducingorencouraging
directinfringementandinfringesvicariouslybyprofitingfromdirectinfringementwhile
decliningtoexercisearighttostoporlimititinafootnotethedecisionstripsawaythis
definitionalclarity,quotingSonysconclusionthatthelinesbetweendirectinfringement,
contributoryinfringementandvicariousliabilityarenotclearlydrawn.88Ontopofthat,
theCourtconcludedthatitneedntanalyzethequestionofvicariousliabilitybecauseitwas
83Lee,supranote62,at6770(arguingthatsecondaryliabilityshouldnotbeextendedinthecriminal
contextbecausethedoctrinehasbeenfleshedoutbythecourtsnotCongress);JenniferGranick,
Megaupload:ALotLessGuiltyThanYouThink,THECENTERFORINTERNETANDSOCIETYBLOG,Jan.26,2012,http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2012/01/megauploadlotlessguiltyyouthink(Butthefirstquestion
fromadefenseperspectivehastobeCantheGrokstertheoryofCIVILliabilityevenbethebasisfor
CRIMINALcopyrightclaims?ThishasneverbeendecidedbyanyCourt.).84SeeRICHARDA.POSNER,HOWJUDGESTHINK48(2008)(positingthatevenmostlegalistsarewillingto
allowcommonlawjudges(andalmostallAmericanjudgeshaveacommonlawaswellasastatutoryand
constitutionaljurisdiction)tooverruleanddistinguishprecedentsandcreatenewcommonlawrulesand
standards);seealsoANTONINSCALIAANDBRYANA.GARNER,READINGLAW:THEINTERPRETATIONOF
LEGALTEXTS,319(2012)(distinguishingjudgemade,policydrivenchangestothecommonlawfrom
changesofthesameilktostatutorylaw,andfindingonlytheformerpermissible).85See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Costello,666F.3d1040,1048(7thCir.2012) (Posner,J.)(Wemustntforgettherule
of
lenity
in
the
interpretation
of
criminal
statutes,
or
the
words
of
the
great
nineteenth
century
EnglishjuristofcriminallawJamesFitzjamesStephen:Beforeanactcanbetreatedasacrime,itought..
.tobeofsuchnaturethatitisworthwhiletopreventitattheriskofinflictinggreatdamage,directand
indirect,uponthosewhocommitit.)(citationsomitted);seealsoSCALIA&GARNER,supranote84,296
302(advocatingapplicationofruleoflenityasacanonofconstruction).86Thestatuteactuallycoversmuchmorethanaidingandabetting,andweusethephraseasa
shorthandforalloftheconductcoveredin2.87InreAimsterCopyrightLitig.,334F.3d643,654(7thCir.2003).88MetroGoldwynMayerStudiosInc.v.Grokster,Ltd.,545U.S.913,at930&n.9(2005).
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
15/36
15
resolvingthecasebasedonaninducementtheory.89Weavoidthisconfusionbyreferring
tovicarious,contributory,orinducedinfringementasdifferenttheoriesleadingtoaclaim
ofsecondaryliability.90
Becauseaidingandabettingisthecriminalcorollarytosecondaryliability,91inour
viewthetwoconceptscoverthesameconduct.Allofthevarianttheoriesofsecondaryliabilityboildowntointentionallyencouragingotherstoinfringe,orhelpingthemtodoit.
Inthecriminalcontext,thatsameconductisreferredtoasaidingandabetting.Andunlike
vicarious,contributory,orinducementliability,aidingandabettingisacreatureofstatute,92
sonocommonlawtheoriesofliabilityarerequired.
Butwhatactivitymustthegovernmentprovethatafilesharingserviceaided?Must
thegovernmentprovethattheunderlyinginfringementwasalsocriminal,meetingthe
samestandardofwillfulness?Thatwouldforcethegovernmenttoprovethatatleastone
userwillfullyandforcommercialadvantageinfringedacopyright.Itwouldnothaveto
convictanyoneofthatunderlyinginfringementinordertoconvictoperatorsofafilesharing
service,butitwouldhavetoprovethattheinfringementhappened.Thinkofprosecuting
someoneforaidingandabettingabankrobbery:Youhavetoprovetherobberyhappened,
evenifyouneverprosecutetheactualrobber.Andagooddefenseattorneywillarguethat
partofthecrimeofrobberyisintent,justaspartofthecrimeofcopyrightinfringementis
willfulness.Sodoesthegovernmenthavetoprovethatunnameduserswillfully
infringedtheuploadedworks,inadditiontoprovingthatoperatorsofafilesharingservice
willfullyaidedthem?
Althoughsome
copyright
scholars
have
latched
onto
this
dubious
theory,
93in
our
viewtheanswerisclearlyNo.Criminallawisnotanendlessfractalofintent,delving
89Id.90See,e.g.,PamelaSamuelson,BookReview,IsCopyrightReformPossible?,126HARV.L.REV.740,775
(2013)(Throughacommonlawprocess,courtshavedevelopedthreedifferenttheoriesofsecondary
liability:oneforcontributoryinfringement,oneforvicariousliability,andoneforinducing
infringement.);JayDratler,Jr.,CommonSense(Federal)CommonLawAdriftinaStatutorySea,orWhy
GroksterwasaUnanimousDecision,22SANTACLARACOMPUTER&HIGHTECH.L.J.413,437(2006)(Ifit
wereuptome,Iwouldjunkallthetermsinducement,vicariousliabilityandcontributory
infringement
in
referring
to
a
legal
cause
of
action
and
use
a
single,
consistent
termsecondary
liabilityforallclaimsofthiskind.).91InreAimster,334F.3dat651(Thereareanalogiesinthelawofaidingandabetting,thecriminal
counterparttocontributoryinfringement.);JacquelineC.Charlesworth,TheMoraloftheStory:What
GroksterHastoTeachAbouttheDMCA,2011STAN.TECH.L.REV.6,4346(2011).9218U.S.C.2.93See,e.g.,RickSanders,Megaupload:LegalObstacleCourseforProsecutors:Copyright,AARONSANDERS
PLLC,Feb.27,2012,http://www.aaronsanderslaw.com/blog/megauploadlegalobstaclecoursefor
prosecutorscopyright.
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
16/36
16
downanddownlikeAlicesrabbithole.Onceagain,ithelpstothinkofaidingandabetting
acrimeintheanalogworld,suchasrobbery.Othershavebeenquicktopointoutthat
drivingarobbertoabankisnotacrimeifyouhavenoknowledgeoftherobbery.94Butthe
reversealsoholds:IfyoudrivetheJoker95toGothamBankknowingthathewillcommita
robbery,buttheJokerisacquittedbyreasonofinsanity,hisinabilitytounderstandtheconsequencesofhisactionsdoesnotacquityou.96Returningtothedigitalworldofonline
copyrightinfringement,ifoperatorsofafilesharingservicewillfullyassistusersin
infringement,theuserssubjectivebeliefthattheiruploadsareafairuse(iftheyindeed
holdsuchabelief)wouldnotprotecttheservicesoperators.Norshouldit.Otherwise,
ignoranceoftheprimaryinfringerwouldbeashield,andcunningcriminalscouldusethe
niveasunwittingtoolsofcrime.
Sothechallengestoextendingsecondaryliabilitytocriminalcopyrightlaware
overblown.AlthoughMegauploadmayhaveastrongerdefense,aswelldiscusslater,the
allegationsthatMegauploadknowinglyassistedwidespreadinfringementforprofitwould,
ifproven,easilyconstitutecriminalaidingandabettingofthatinfringement.
Allegationsarenotproof,however,andthegovernmentwillhaveahighbarto
clear.TowinitscaseagainstMegaupload,thegovernmentmustprovethesamefacts
requiredforacivillawsuit,butitmustprovethembeyondareasonabledoubt(asopposed
tothecivilstandardofpreponderanceoftheevidence),anditmustprovethatthe
infringementwaswillfulandforcommercialgain.97Becausethegovernmentmustprove
thesamefacts(plusonemorewillfulness),mostofthesamedefensesavailableinacivil
lawsuitare
also
available
in
acriminal
prosecution:
The
defenses
of
fair
use,
implied
license,andabandonmentofcopyrightareallavailabletothecriminaldefendant.Buta
handfulofdefensesavailableincivilactionsareinapplicabletocriminalprosecution:most
94Seeid.(Ifyourbuddyjustaskedyouforaridetothebankyouwouldntbeaidingandabettingthe
bankrobbery.)95AlthoughinthishypotheticaltheJoker(clownfacednemesisofcomicbookheroBatman)isrobbinga
bank,heisalsonostrangertocopyrightcrime,althoughofanunusualkind.TheJokeroncedumped
chemicalsintoGothamBaythatmutatedallofthefish;thesemutantfishworetoothygrinswithwhite
facesreminiscentoftheJokersownface.DubbingthemJokerFish,theJokerplottedtogetrichby
copyrighting
them
and
earning
a
royalty
from
every
fish
stick.
But
when
he
broke
into
the
office
of
the
CommissionerofCopyright,theCommissionerrefusedtoregisterhiswork,insisting:Nobodycan
copyrightfishorevenfishfaces!Theyreanaturalresource!TheJokerwasunmoved:Butthefish
sharemyuniqueface!Ifcolonelwhatshisnamecanhavechickens,whentheydontevenhave
mustaches!Andyoudenythistome!YouseewhyIamforcedtocrime!SeeSteveEnglehart&
MarshallRogers,TheLaughingFish!475BATMANSDETECTIVECOMICS910(DCComics,Feb.1978).9618U.S.C.2(b).97Or,asnoted,thatthevalueoftheworksinfringedinasixmonthperiodexceeded$1,000.17U.S.C.
512(a).
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
17/36
17
notably,thefailuretoregisteraworkwiththecopyrightofficeandtheDMCAssafe
harbor.
Theavailabilityofdefensesincivilsuitsthatareunavailableincriminal
prosecutionsrunscountertocommonsense.Whyshouldafilesharingservicebecriminally
prosecutedforactsthatdonotwarrantcivilliability?Indeed,thepreeminentcopyrighttreatiseNimmeronCopyrighthasevendeclaredsuchaprosecutionimpossible:Conduct
thatdoesnotgiverisetocivilliabilityforcopyrightinfringementcannotconstitutecriminal
infringementeither.98Butanexaminationofthesedefensesdemonstrateswhytheyare
inapplicabletocriminalcasesandwhythisshouldnotbetroubling.
Thefirstdefenseapplicableonlytocivilactionsisfailuretoregisterawork.
AlthoughCongressnolongerrequiresregistrationbeforecopyrightprotectionapplies,no
civilactionmaybebrought(exceptforrightsofattribution)untilaworkhasbeen
registered.99Butthestatuteinstitutingthislimitationsaysnothingofcriminalsanctions,
andthiswasnodraftingerror;Congressintentionallyeliminatedtheregistrationhurdlein
criminalcaseswiththe2008PROIPAct.100WhydidCongresswantittobeeasiertoenforce
copyrightcriminallythancivilly?Congresssanswer,asmemorializedinthehousereport
correspondingtothePROIPAct,wasthattheblameworthinessofinfringementdoesnot
dependuponregistration:Thelackofaregistrationdoesnotmakethecriminalactivity
anylessegregious.101Butthatrationaleapplieswithequalforcetocivilactions;asan
explanation,itisincomplete.
Onepieceofamorecompleteansweristhatcriminalenforcementisaimedat
infringementthat
may
never
be
the
subject
of
civil
actions.
For
example,
foreign
works
donthavetoregistertoobtaincopyrightprotection,butthegovernmentwouldstillwant
topoliceagainsttheirinfringement.Andcriminalinfringementcaninvolveaslewof
differentworks,someregistered,somenot.Manyworkscarryapreregistrationproblem:
98NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT15.01(A)(2).99[N]ocivilactionforinfringementofthecopyrightinanyUnitedStatesworkshallbeinstituteduntil
preregistrationorregistrationofthecopyrightclaimhasbeenmadeinaccordancewiththistitle.17
U.S.C.
411.
100PrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyAct(PROIPAct)of2008,Pub.L.110
403,Sec.1(a)et.seq.,122Stat.4256;seealso17U.S.C.411(a);NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT15.07.Beforethe
amendment,itwasanopenquestionwhether411appliedtocriminalandcivilactions.SeeMichaelM.
DuBose,CriminalEnforcementofIntellectualPropertyLawsintheTwentyFirstCentury,29COLUM.J.L.&
ARTS481,488(whetherornotthetermactionin411includescriminalprosecutionsisahighly
relevantquestionfortodaysprosecutors.Unfortunately,thereisnoreporteddecisionaddressingthe
issueinthecontextofthecurrentcopyrightstatutes.).101H.Rep.(PROIP),p.23.
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
18/36
18
Adraftmemoir,102orearlycutofananticipatedmovie,103orevenworksneverintendedfor
publicationatall104maybeparticularlyattractivetoinfringersdespitetheirunregistered
status.Andcriminalinfringersmightcopymanyworksthinkmassproductionof
DVDsandthegovernmentsinterestinpunishingthatinfringementdoesnotvarywhen
someworksareregisteredandothernot.Thatlastpointisthemostcrucial:Thepublichasadifferentinterestincriminal
prosecutionthananauthorhasincivilenforcement.Thedesiretoenforceobediencetothe
lawsisverydifferentthananauthorsdesireforcompensationfortheirworks.Giventhe
benefitstotheauthorofcopyrightlaw,requiringauthorstotakethebeneficialstepof
registeringtheirworksbeforetheycanreapthebenefitsofcopyrightlawisequitableand
efficient.Butnointerestisservedinrequiringthegovernmenttopersuaderightsholdersto
registertheirworksbeforeprosecutingcriminals.Theattachmentofcopyrightatthe
momentofcreationnotthemomentofregistrationwouldbeafictionifenforcementof
copyrightwereimpossibleabsentregistration.
Asapracticalmatter,however,mostcriminalprosecutionswillfocuson
infringementofregisteredworks,105especiallysinceanelementofinfringementisthatthe
workusedbeundercopyrightofanother,106andregistrationisusuallythemostexpeditious
waytoproveavalidcopyright.107Sowhiletheauthorsfailuretoregistercopyrightisnota
defenseagainstcriminalprosecution,itisameanstocastdoubtuponauthorship.
TheseconddefenseapplicableonlytocivilactionsisthesafeharboroftheDMCA.
ThatprovisionshieldsinternetserviceproviderslikeMegauploadfromsuitsformonetary
relief,or
injunctive
or
other
equitable
relief.
108But
the
provision
says
nothing
about
criminalsanctions.Muchinkhasbeenspilledspeculatingabouttheeffectofthatomission,
102See,e.g.,Harper&RowPublishers,Inc.v.NationEnterprises,471U.S.539,54748(1985)(registrationof
PresidentFordsmemoirrequiredforcivilsuit,thoughithadnotyetbeenpublished,whennews
magazinecopiedkeyexcerpts).103Toaddressthisproblemforthemovieindustry,Congresscreatedapreregistrationregime,see17
U.S.C.408(f),topreservearighttostatutorydamageswhenanunpublished(andincomplete)workhas
beeninfringed.SeeSleepSci.Partnersv.Lieberman,0904200CW,2010WL1881770(N.D.Cal.May10,
2010)(notingthatCongress,inenactingpreregistration,wasconcerned,inlargepart,withthepiracyof
movies).
104See,e.g.,Salingerv.RandomHouse,Inc.,811F.2d90,93opinionsupplementedondenialofreh g,818F.2d
252(2dCir.1987).(Authorforcedtoregistercopyrightinunpublishedletterstopreventtheir
publication).105NIMMERONCOPYRIGHT,15.01(A)(2).10617U.S.C.501(a).107See17U.S.C.410(c)(Inanyjudicialproceedingsthecertificateofaregistrationshallconstitute
primafacieevidenceofthevalidityofthecopyright.).10817U.S.C.512(c).
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
19/36
19
andwhetherMegauploadwillattempttousetheDMCAssafeharborasadefenseagainst
theJusticeDepartment.109
Asitturnsout,thesafeharborisaredherring.110Despiteconcernsexpressedby
observers,111theDMCAssafeharborprovisionwillnotfeatureprominentlyinthe
Megauploadprosecution,noranyother.Tounderstandwhy,keepinmindthatthesafeharborprovision(theparticularoneforwhichmostfilesharingservicesareeligible,thatis;
thereareseveralintheDMCA)hasthreeelements:(1)Lackofknowledgeofawarenessof
infringement,(2)lackoffinancialbenefitfrominfringementunderdefendantscontrol,and
(3)expeditiousresponsetorequeststoremoveinfringingmaterial.112Thecommonparlance
forthethirdelementisnoticeandtakedown,113andseveralcompaniessuchas
YouTube,asdiscussedearlierhavesuccessfullydefendedagainstcivilsuitsinpartby
demonstratingtheirnoticeandtakedowncompliance.114Butthepopularfocusonthethird
element,theexpeditiouscompliancewithnoticeandtakedown,neglectsthefirst:Lackof
109See,e.g.,Graeber,supranote1,at193.110TheuseofredherringtomeanadiversionorfalsetraillikelyoriginatedfromatalebyMichael
Quinion,whotrainedhisdogstohuntbydraggingaredherring(socalledbecausethesmokingand
saltingprocessturnedthemeatred)behindhim;redherringswereknowntobeespeciallypungent,and
thescentwouldhavebeeneasyforadogtofollow.SeeWILLIAMCOBBETTETAL.,XICOBBETTSPOLITICAL
REGISTER232(1807).111Mantel,supranote15,at98.11217U.S.C.512(c):
(c)Informationresidingonsystemsornetworksatdirectionofusers.(1)Ingeneral.Aserviceprovidershallnotbeliableformonetaryrelief,or,exceptasprovided
in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyrightby
reason of the storage at the direction of a user ofmaterial that resides on a system or
networkcontrolledoroperatedbyorfortheserviceprovider,iftheserviceprovider
(A)
(i)doesnothaveactualknowledgethatthematerialoranactivityusingthematerialon
thesystemornetworkisinfringing;
(ii)intheabsenceofsuchactualknowledge,isnotawareoffactsorcircumstancesfrom
whichinfringingactivityisapparent;or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or
disable
access
to,
the
material;
(B)doesnotreceivea financialbenefitdirectlyattributable to the infringingactivity, ina
caseinwhichtheserviceproviderhastherightandabilitytocontrolsuchactivity;and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds
expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be
infringingortobethesubjectofinfringingactivity.113See,e.g.,ViacomIntl,Inc.v.YouTube,Inc.,676F.3d19,27(2dCir.2012)(commonlyknownasa
takedownnotice).114See,e.g.,Perfect10,Inc.v.Google,Inc.,653F.3d976(9thCir.2011).
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
20/36
20
knowledgeorawarenessofinfringement.Thisisasubsetofthefirstelementofacriminal
prosecution:Willfulness.
Infact,thewillfulnessrequirementprovidesevenmoreprotectionthantheDMCAs
safeharbor.Courtshavedisagreedaboutexactlywhatconstituteswillfulinfringement,115
butataminimumtheinfringermustknowthattheyarecopyingorperformingawork(orincasesofsecondaryliability,aidingandabettingothersincopyingorperforming).116
AnyonewhosatisfiedthefirstelementofDMCAssafeharborwouldhavealready
defeatedacriminalprosecution,becausewillfulinfringementcannotbedonewithout
knowledgeorawarenessofinfringement.Nomatterhowquicklyasitesownerscomply
withnoticeandtakedownrequests,iftheyknowtheyarehostinginfringingmaterial,orare
willfullyblindtoit,theycannottakeadvantageofthesafeharborprovision.Theymight,
however,beabletodefeatacriminalprosecutioniftheycanprovethattheywereignorant
oftheirinfringement,despiteknowingtheiractions;i.e.,thattheywerenotwillful.
ThemostfamousexampleisthatofDennisMoran,amomandpopvideorental
storeownerandpoliceofficer.117TheFBIarrestedMoranformakingasinglecopyof
CrocodileDundeeII,amongstothermovies,andthenrentingthecopiesinlieuofthe
originals.118Whenfederalagentsarrived,Moranledthemdirectlytotheoriginalsofthe
copiedmovies,andtoldtheagentsexactlywhathedbeendoingandthathebelievedhis
copyingwasperfectlylegal,solongashemadeonlyonecopyofeachvideocassette.Ina
benchtrial,thejudgeacquittedMoran,findingthathisinfringementwasnotwillful.
Moranwasunsophisticated,cooperatedwithpolice,andpurchasedmultiplecopiesofthe
samemovie
rather
than
make
more
than
one
copy
of
each
video.
119Though
he
shifted
the
riskoflossfromofeachvideofromhimselftothecopyrightowner,hebelieved,
erroneouslybuthonestly,thatthiswasapermittedfairuse.120
TheMorancasehasinspiredwhatwetermtheTinkerBelldefense121:Believethat
youractionsdonotviolatecopyrightlaws,andyoucanneverbeconvictedofcriminal
115SeeNIMMERONCOPYRIGHT15.01.116Id.117UnitedStatesv.Moran,757F.Supp.1046(D.Neb.1991).118
Id.
at
1047.
119Id.at1052.120Id.Moranisanextremecase,andrepresentsthemoststringentwillfulnessstandardappliedina
criminalcontext.SeeNimmer,15.01(2).Othercourtshaveheldthatinfringementiswillfulwhenthe
infringerintendstheiractions,evenifthedefendanterroneouslybelievestheiractsarenotinfringing.Id.;
see,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Backer,134F.2d533(2dCir.1943).121TinkerBellisafairyfromthechildrensplayPeterPan.Intheplay,TinkerBell(portrayedasa
brightspotoflight)drinkspoisonmeantforPeter,savinghislife.Thefairynearlysuccumbstothe
deadlypoison,buttellstheaudience(throughPeter,theonlyonewhocanunderstandherspeech,which
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
21/36
21
copyrightinfringement.Thatargumenthasbecomeanunfortunatedarlingoflegal
academia.122Inourview,thisrepresentsacaseofliteralwishfulthinkingbutopponentsto
criminalcopyrightcannotwishitaway.
Thereisacrucialdifferencebetweensomeonewhodoesnotknowthathisactions
arewrong,likeMoran,andsomeonewhoknowshisactionsarewrongbutbelievesthathehasfoundagapinthelawthathecanexploit.Thelatterconstituteswillfulnessevenif
honestlybelieved.Forexample,arecurringargumentraisedbyprosecriminaldefendants
isthatthestatutegivingfederaldistrictcourtsoriginaljurisdictionincriminalcases,18
U.S.C.3231,wasimproperlyenactedandthusallfederalcriminalprosecutionsareillegal.
Thatargumenthasbeenthoroughlydiscredited,123butmanydefendantsnonetheless
honestlybelieveitshouldthatbeliefdefeatthewillfulnessrequirementincriminal
copyrightcases?
WebelievethattheanswermustbeNo.Thewillfulnessrequirementexiststo
protecttheaccidentalinfringer,nottheHolmesianbadman.124Afterall,thebadmanis
motivatedtolearnthelawonlyinordertoavoidentanglementwithit;werehetoldthatby
dintofhisownbeliefhecouldrenderhimselfimmunetoprosecution,hewouldneverlearn
thelawatall,orlearnitwrongonpurpose,andcertainlyneverobeyitunlessitsuited
him.125Thatcannotberight.Instead,weconcludethatdefendantswhoknowinglyaidor
abettheinfringementofcopyrightarenotanylesswillfulforbelievingthataflawinthe
isdepictedastinklingbells)thatshewillgetbetterifchildrenbelieveinfairies.Peterurgesthe
audience,Doyoubelieveinfairies?Ifyoubelieve,clapyourhands!Theaudiencesapplausethen
revivesTinkerBell.SeeJ.M.BARRIE,PETERPAN,act4(1904).122See,e.g.,EricGoldman,CommentsontheMegauploadProsecution(aLongDelayedLinkwrap),TECHNOLOGY
&MARKETINGLAWBLOG,Apr.30,2012,http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/04/megaupload.htm
(Megauploadsbusinesschoicesmaynothavebeenideal,butMegauploadhasanumberofstrong
potentialdefensesforitsusers activities,including512(c),lackofvolitionalconductandmore.Whether
itactuallyqualifiedfortheseisirrelevant;Megauploadssubjectivebeliefinthesedefensesshould
destroythewillfulnessrequirement.).123See,e.g.,Mimsv.UnitedStates,No.9:06CV166,2006WL2559534(E.D.Tex.Sept.1,2006);Derlethv.
UnitedStates,No.L05205,2006WL1804618(S.D.Tex.June27,2006);UnitedStatesv.Risquet,426F.
Supp.2d310(E.D.Pa.2006);Jonesv.UnknownWarden,No0682,2006WL389833(E.D.Mo.Feb.17,2006);
UnitedStatesv.Lawrence,No.02CR200,2006WL250702(N.D.Ill.Jan27,2006).124
Oliver
Wendell
Holmes,
ThePath
ofthe
Law,
10
HARV.
L.
REV.
457,
459
(1897)
([A]
bad
man
has
as
muchreasonasagoodoneforwishingtoavoidanencounterwiththepublicforce,andthereforeyou
canseethepracticalimportanceofthedistinctionbetweenmoralityandlaw.Amanwhocaresnothing
foranethicalrulewhichisbelievedandpractisedbyhisneighborsislikelyneverthelesstocareagood
dealtoavoidbeingmadetopaymoney,andwillwanttokeepoutofjailifhecan.).125Seeid.(Ifyouwanttoknowthelawandnothingelse,youmustlookatitasabadman,whocares
onlyforthematerialconsequenceswhichsuchknowledgeenableshimtopredict,notasagoodone,who
findshisreasonsforconduct,whetherinsidethelaworoutsideofit,inthevaguersanctionsof
conscience.).
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
22/36
22
statuteprotectsthem.Andinourview,afilesharingservicethatknowsitsusersare
infringinguponcopyrightedworksbuterroneouslybelievesthatitmayqualifyforthe
DMCAsafeharborbytakingdowninfringingvideosandthenrepostingthemisjustas
willfulasadefendantwhointentionallycommitsacrimebutbelievesthatnocourtwill
havejurisdictiontotryhim.InMegauploadscase,itsstrongestdefenseagainstthechargesmayindeedbealack
ofwillfulnessifMegauploadhonestlybelievedthatitwaseffectivelypolicingagainst
infringingcontent,thenitisnotguiltyofaidingandabettingcriminalcopyright
infringement.ButwedisagreewithcommenterswhoarguethatMegauploadssubjective
beliefthatitcompliedwiththesafeharborprovisionwoulddefeatthewillfulness
requirement.126Aswehavesaid,ifMegauploadfailstoqualifyforthesafeharbor,itwillbe
becausethegovernmentprovesthatMegauploadknewabouttheinfringingcontent(andif
thegovernmentdoesnot,Megauploadwillsurelybeacquittedoftheaidingandabetting
charge).Wedonotthinkthatthemistakenbeliefthatoneisimmunefromprosecutionfor
aidingandabettingconductoneknowsisillegaldisproveswillfulness.
Forthatreason,ifthefactsallegedintheindictmentareproved,wethinkthatthe
willfulrequirementwillbemet.Accordingtotheindictment,theoperatorsof
MegauploadwereasintentionalintheircopyrightinfringementasthePirateBay,collecting
advertisingrevenuesgeneratedbyinfringingcontentandexchangingincriminatingemails
showingthattheyknewabouttheinfringementontheirservice.Inoneexchange,one
operatorjokestoanotherthattheyhaveafunnybusiness...moderndayspirates:),to
whichhis
co
conspirator
responds,
we
re
not
pirates,
we
re
just
providing
shipping
servicestopirates:).127Megauploadalsosoldpremiumaccesstounlimitedstreamingof
uploadedcontent,andfinanciallyrewardeduserseventhosepreviouslycaught
uploadinginfringingmaterialforuploadingpopularcontentandforpostinglinkstothat
126See,e.g.,Goldman,supranote122(Megauploadssubjectivebeliefinthesedefensesshoulddestroythe
willfulnessrequirement.).127Indictment,supranote67,at3,42.Inanotherexchange,KimDotcomsentanemployeeanemailfroma
broadbandserviceprovider,whichhadcomplainedthatitsuserswerehavingtroubledownloading
contentfromMegaupload.com.Id.at47.Theindictmentsaysthatthescreenshotsintheemailappeared
to
be
an
ongoing
download
of
an
episode
of
the
television
series
The
Simpsons
entitled
Treehouse
of
HorrorXIII. Id.Unfortunately,Megauploadfailedtolearnthatepisodesmoralaboutthedangersof
unauthorizedcopying.InthesegmentSendintheClones,Homer(thepatriarchoftheeponymous
family)buysahammockwithaterriblecurse:Itclonesanyonewhousesit.Homercloneshimselfseveral
times,butfindsthattheclonedHomersgethimintotrouble.Heabandonsthemandthehammockina
distanttown,buttheclonesbeginsomeunauthorizedcopyingoftheirown,makinganarmyofHomer
clonesthatoverrunSpringfield.Copyrightinfringers,takenote:Whenthefederalgovernmentgets
involvedatthesegmentsend,thingsendbadlyfortheunauthorizedcopiers.SeeTheSimpsons:Treehouse
ofHorrorXIII,SendintheClones(FOXtelevisionbroadcastNov.3,2002).
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
23/36
23
contentonotherwebsites.128Thispracticenotonlydroveuptrafficbutallowed
Megauploadtoavoidlistinginfringingvideosdirectlyonthesite,concealingthescopeof
theinfringingcontentonitsservers.129Torebutclaimsofinfringement,Megauploadhad
institutedanAbuseToolallowingcopyrightholderstoreport,andpurportedlyremove,
infringingcontent,but,theindictmentsays,thecompanyreceivedmillionsofrequeststoremoveinfringingcontentand,atbest,onlydeletedtheparticularURLofwhichthe
copyrightholdercomplained,andpurposefullylefttheactualinfringingcopyofthe
copyrightedworkontheMegauploadcontrolledserverandallowedaccesstothe
infringingworktocontinue.130
Iftheseallegationsaretrue,Megauploadislikelysubjecttonotonlycriminalbut
civilliabilityaswell.Andinfactthecompanywassuedbyadultentertainmentcompany
Perfect10,evenbeforetheDepartmentofJusticesteppedin.131Butthecasewasshortlived:
itsettledearlyintheproceedingafterthedistrictcourtdeniedMegauploadsmotionto
dismiss,reasoningthat,iftheplaintiffsallegationsweretrue,anylackofknowledgeon
Megauploadspartabouttheinfringementonitssitewaswillfulblindness.132
III.RulesofEngagement:WhenCriminalProsecutionisWarranted
128Indictment,supranote67,at67,3233.
129Indictment,supranote67,at67.130Indictment,supranote67,at1011.131Perfect10,Inc.v.Megaupload,Ltd.,No.11cv0191.Doc.16,at9(S.D.Cal.July26,2011).132Id.BecauseMegauploadsettledthelawsuit,itprobablycannotseekcontributionfromanyuserswho
mayhavebeenthedirectinfringers,evenifitfacedonlysecondaryliability.See,e.g.,JeremiahNewhall,
ClaimsforContributionAgainstNonsettlingCoTortfeasors,26CBARECORD,no.5,Sept.2012,at4041.Since
theprosecution,twomusiccompanieshavesoughtmillionsindamagesfromMegaupload,buttheirsuit
isstayedpendingfurtherdevelopmentsinthecriminalcase.JeremyKirk,MegauploadFilesMotionto
DelayCivilSuit,PCWORLD,May10,2012,
http://www.pcworld.com/article/255423/megaupload_files_motion_to_delay_civil_suit.html;Microhits,
Inc.v.Megaupload,Ltd.,No.12cv00327,ECFNo.36(E.D.Vir.June15,2012)(denyingplaintiffsmotion
to
reconsider
an
earlier
imposed
stay).
Interestingly,
it
was
actually
Megaupload
that
was
the
more
aggressivelitigator,suingUniversalMusicGroupforallegedlyunlawfullyremovingfromYouTubea
videoshowcasingmusicstarsendorsingMegaupload.EriqGardner,MegauploadDropsLawsuitAgainst
UniversalMusicOverViralVideo(Exclusive),THEHOLLYWOODREPORTER,Jan.21,2012,
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thresq/megauploaduniversalmusicgrouplawsuitdropped
283767.ThislawsuitwasdismissedwithoutprejudiceinJanuary2012.Id.Thevideofeatured
endorsementsfromartistsWilliamAdams(will.i.am),JamieFoxx,KanyeWest,SeanCombs(Diddy),
JonathanSmith(LilJon),andChrisBrown,andprofessionalcelebrityKimKardashian,andisavailable
athttp://vimeo.com/33424808.
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
24/36
24
Evenwiththehighbarofwillfulness,therearealmostcertainlymorefilesharing
servicessubjecttocriminalliabilitythancanbeprosecuted.Consider,forinstance,thata
2011studyconcludedthatintheUnitedStatesalone17.53%ofInternettrafficwas
estimatedtobeinfringing,excludingpornography.133Yetin2012theDepartmentofJustice
receivedonly79investigativemattersrelatedtocopyrightinfringementunder18U.S.C.2319,andfiledonly40casesagainst59defendants.134Thetrendhasbeensimilarinyears
past:in2011,of82investigativematters,only46caseswerefiled;in2010,itwas74cases
outof132.135Andthatdataincludesalltypesofcopyrightinfringers,notjustInternet
infringers.136
Prosecutionsfailforavarietyofreasons,butanyincreaseincriminalcopyright
enforcementfacesuniquechallengesevenasidefromprovingacase.Forexample,
anticopyrightadvocatescanbeavocalgroupintheUnitedStates,readytoincitepublic
backlash:Megaupload,forexample,garneredthesupportofimportantInternet
personalitiesrangingfromrespectedentrepreneurSteveWozniak137cofounderofApple
ComputerstothenotorioushackergroupAnonymous,138whichmountedattacks
133ENVISIONAL,ANESTIMATEOFINFRINGINGUSEONTHEINTERNET3(Jan.2011),
http://documents.envisional.com/docs/EnvisionalInternet_UsageJan2011.pdf.Whyexclude
pornography?Theinfringingstatuscanbedifficulttodiscern.Id.at2.134SeeU.S.DEPTOFJUSTICE,FY2012PERFORMANCEANDACCOUNTABILITYREPORTapp.D,atD3(2013)
[hereinafter2012ACCOUNTABILITYREPORT].135SeeU.S.DEPTOFJUSTICE,FY2011PERFORMANCEANDACCOUNTABILITYREPORTapp.D,atD3(2012);
U.S.DeptofJustice,FY2010PerformanceandAccountabilityReportapp.E,atE3(2011).
136See2012ACCOUNTABILITYREPORT,supranote134,atD1.137AaronSouppouris,SteveWozniakspeaksoutinfavorofnetneutrality,supportsMegaupload,THEVERGE,
June27,2012,http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/27/3120355/stevewozniaknetneutralitymegaupload
support.138MoredeservestobesaidaboutthegroupAnonymous,whichhasitsoriginsinacopyrightdispute
withtheChurchofScientology.Simplyput,thereisnoevidenceofacapitalAanonymous,onlyof
anonymousindividualswhocommitactsascribedtoAnonymous,withnoevidenceofcentral
coordinationorthatmostofthepurportedmembersknow,orevenagreewith,oneanother.Inthis
sense,itismoreakintoamassmovement,alatheOccupyWallStreetprotests.TheAnonymouslegend
appearstohaveitsoriginsinareportbyalocalnewsteamfortheLosAngelesFoxtelevisionaffiliate,
whichdescribedahackergroupcalledAnonymous.ButasonlinemagazineWiredexplained,Fox11
actually
stumbled
across
the
/b/
channel
of
4chan
(or
possibly
420chan)
an
image
sharing
and
posting
sitewhereeveryposterpostsasAnonymous.Heresupremelybored15yearoldspostobscenepictures
andstupidphotoshoppedimagesforotherstocommenton. Theyalsorandomlyswarmandtryto
overwhelmonlinesitesandforumstheyconsiderannoying.SeeRyanSingel,InvestigativeReportReveals
HackersTerrorizetheInternetforLULZ,WIRED,July27,2007,availableat
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/07/investigativer/.Thefirstinstanceofanyonepubliclyclaiming
toactforAnonymousasagroupcameintheformofapressreleaseposted(anonymously)through
freepressreleasegeneratorPRlog.org,andheraldingadenialofserviceattackagainsttheChurchof
ScientologyinJanuary2008.(Thepressreleaseisavailableathttp://www.prlog.org/10046797internet
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
25/36
25
followingtheindictmentthatbrieflydisabledseveralgovernmentandmusicindustry
websites.139Addtothatthetroubleofprosecutinginfringerswhooftenliveoutsideofthe
UnitedStatesandoperateconspiraciesthatspanacrosstheglobe.Barely10%ofInternet
usersareintheUnitedStates,140andmanyInternetserviceprovidershavespreadtheir
operationsacrossmultiplejurisdictions,asMegauploaddid:thecompanywasbasedinHongKong,buthadserversintheUnitedStatesandelsewhere,anditsoperatorswere
capturedinbothEuropeandNewZealand.141
Giventhesecosts,wesuggestthatprosecutorssavetheirpowderforwhencriminal
prosecutionismostnecessary,ratherthanfiringatwillwheneveraninfringingwebsite
comeswithintheirjurisdiction.Butdoprosecutorsevenhaveachoiceaboutwhetherto
enforcecriminalcopyrightlaws?Andwhatarethelimitsofthatprosecutorialdiscretion?
Federalprosecutorswereonceaffordedwidediscretionindecidingwhethertobring
chargesagainstcriminals,butbeginningin2003,AttorneyGeneralJohnAshcroftamended
therulestocreateastraightforwardapproachtoprosecutorialdiscretion:Therewasnt
any.142UnitedStatesAttorneyswererequiredtochargeandpursuethemostserious,
groupanonymousdeclareswaronscientology.html.)Theauthorofthepressreleasefoundthechurchs
useofcopyrighttopreventpublicationandcriticismofitsteachingstobeobjectionable,especiallywhen
thechurchissuedtakedownnoticestowebsiteshostingavideoofaTomCruiseinterviewaboutthe
church.Shortlythereafter,anumberofprotestsagainstthechurcharose,atwhichpeopleworeGuy
FawkesmasksbasedonthemaskwornbyprotagonistVinthegraphicnovelandfilmVfor
Vendetta,inwhichamaskedterroristblowsupParliamentandinspiresahordeofimitators.See
generallyALANMOOREANDDAVIDLLOYD,VFORVENDETTA(DCComics1982);VFORVENDETTA(Warner
Bros.2005).139JoshHalliday,AnonymouslaunchesattacksinwakeofMegauploadclosure,THEGUARDIAN,Jan.20,2012,
availableathttp://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/20/anonymousattacksaftermegauploads
closure.Recently,openinformationactivistshaveturnedtheirattentiontoAaronSwartz,who
committedsuicideinthemidstoffederalprosecutionforhisroleinobtainingacademicarticlesfromthe
onlinedatabaseJSTORthatheapparentlyplannedtodistributeforfree.CarolineBankoff,AaronSwartzs
SuicideSpursOutrageatProsecutors,NEWYORKMAGAZINE,Jan.13,2013,availableat
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/swartzssuicidespursoutrageatprosecutors.html.140InternetWorldStats,Top20CountrieswiththeHighestNumberofInternetUsers,
http://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm.141NickPerry,PopularfilesharingwebsiteMegauploadshutdown,USATODAY,Jan.20,2012,availableat
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012
01
19/megaupload
feds
shutdown/52678528/1
(describingthecompanyasbasedinHongKong).AsareporterwhovisitedDotcomafterthe
indictmentnoted,theMegaconspiratorsmadetheirhomesallovertheglobe:AndrusNomm,aresident
ofbothTurkeyandEstonia,wascapturedinHolland;SvenEchternachescapedtohishomeinGermany
(whichdoesnotextraditeitscitizens);andJuliusBenckoofSlovakiaremainsatlarge.Theotherthree
were,likeKim,nabbedinNewZealand.Graeber,supranote1,at192.142JohnAshcroft,U.S.DeptofJustice,DepartmentPolicyConcerningChargingCriminalOffenses,Disposition
ofChargesandSentencing(Sept.22,2003),availableat
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/September/03_ag_516.htm;seealsoMichaelA.Caves,TheProsecutors
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
26/36
26
readilyprovableoffenseoroffensesthataresupportedbythefactsofthecase.143That
strictadherencetotheletterofthelawcallstomindInspectorJavertspursuitofJean
Valjean.Itspringsfromaphilosophyoflegalfidelitythatregardsprosecutorialdiscretion
asantidemocratic:Congressenactsthelawaccordingtothewillofthepeople,the
argumentgoes,andappointedjudgesandprosecutorsshouldstringentlyenforcethoselaws.144Ifthelawisunjust,itsrigidenforcementwillforcetheCongresstoamendit;
makingexceptionswouldonlypermitunjustlawstolingeronthebooks.Andithasthe
addedbenefitofuniformity:Theeliminationofdiscretionadmitsnospacefor
discrimination;itistrulyblindtotheaccusedscolor,race,gender,orcreed.145
Butindiscriminateprosecutionisalsoinefficient.Acriminalcodethataccountedfor
everyeventualitywouldbetoocumbersometoadminister.Evennow,theUnitedStates
Codeisfartoovoluminousforanypersontoknowallthelawsthattheyareobligedto
obey,andithasgrowneachyear.146Prosecutorialdiscretion,bycontrast,isbothmore
Dilemma:ObligatoryChargingUndertheAshcroftMemo,9J.L.&SOC.CHALLENGES1,12(2008).Weslightly
overstatesthereality.Thememocouldnoteliminateprosecutorialdiscretionascompletelyasitintended:
ItstillremainedfortheU.S.Attorneytodecidewhetheranoffensewassupportedbythefactsofthe
case,anobjectivestandard,butonepliableenoughthatasympatheticprosecutorcoulddeclineto
pursuechargesinanextremecase.ConsiderthehypotheticalofJohnMcClane,aNewYorkCitypolice
officerwho,whilevisitinghisestrangedwifeatherofficesholidaypartyinLosAngelessNakatomi
Plaza,encountersagroupofinternationalterroristswhotakehiswifeandherworkcolleagueshostage.
McClaneknowsthatheisnotallowedtopossessamachinegun,see18U.S.C.922(o);UnitedStatesv.
Rybar,103F.3d273,283(3dCir.1996)(Alito,J.)(upholdingconstitutionalityof922(o)),butnonethelessMcClanekillsaterrorist,takeshismachinegun,andrescueshiswifeandallofthehostages(exceptfor
HarryEllis).AU.S.AttorneywouldbeobligedtoprosecuteMcClaneunderthispolicy,butmight
nonethelessdeclinetoprosecute,arguing(implausibly)thatthechargeofpossessionofamachinegun
wasnotsupportedbythefactsofthecase.(Ofcourse,McClanehasaveryplausibledefenseof
necessity,buttheelementsofthechargearenonethelesspresent.)SeealsoDIEHARD(20thCenturyFox
1988).143JohnAshcroft,U.S.DeptofJustice,DepartmentPolicyConcerningChargingCriminalOffenses,Disposition
ofChargesandSentencing(Sept.22,2003),availableat
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/September/03_ag_516.htm.144SeeErikLuna,PrincipledEnforcementofPenalCodes,4BUFF.CRIM.L.REV.515,534n.94(2000);Jeffrey
Reiman,
IsPolice
Discretion
Justified
in
aFree
Society?,
in
HANDLED
WITH
DISCRETION:
ETHICAL
ISSUES
IN
POLICEDECISIONMAKING71(JohnKleiniged.,1996).145Indeed,uniformitywasakeyconcernraisedintheAshcroftmemorandum,whichconcludes,
Fundamentalfairnessrequiresthatalldefendantsprosecutedinthefederalcriminaljusticesystembe
subjecttothesamestandardsandtreatedinaconsistentmanner.Ashcroft,supra,note__.146GeneHealy,GODIRECTLYTOJAIL:THECRIMINALIZATIONOFALMOSTEVERYTHINGvii(2004)
(maintainingthat,asaresultoftheincreaseinfederalcrimes,listedthroughouttheU.S.Codeand
incorporatingviolationsoffederalregulations,eventeamsoflegalresearchersletaloneordinary
citizenscannotreliablyascertainwhatfederallawprohibits).
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
27/36
27
efficientandmorejust.147RatherthanrequiringCongresstocodifyeveryexceptionto
criminalliability,Congresscancriminalizeabroadcategoryofusuallyblameworthy
conductwidespreadcopyingofprotectedworks,forexamplealongsidearangeof
punishments.Thepeoplethentrustprosecutorstodiscernwhichinfringementistruly
reprehensible,andtrustjudgestopunishthecondemnedcopiersaccordingtotheirculpability.True,thismethodadmitsthehumanfrailtiesofprejudiceanddiscrimination,
butitalsofostersthevirtueofmercy.148
SotherestorationofprosecutorialdiscretionintheUnitedStatesAttorneysoffices
in2010cameasawelcomechange.149Theattorneygeneralnowregardsprosecutorial
discretionasessentialtothefair,effective,andevenhandedadministrationofthefederal
criminallaws.150Accordingly,eachofficeoftheUnitedStatesAttorneymustmaintainits
ownwrittenguidelinesfortheexerciseofdiscretion.151
Wethusproposetwoguidelinestoshapethatdiscretion.Wedonotsuggestthat
theyarerulesthatwouldbeanathematotheindependentdiscretionwehopetofoster.
Butwhollyuntethereddiscretionleadstounpredictableresults;itpreventstheHolmesian
badmanfromknowingthepriceofhistransgressions.
First,wesuggestthatcriminalenforcementofcopyrightshouldproceedonlyon
establishedtheoriesofliability.TheimportanceofthisguidelineisunderscoredbytheU.S.
AttorneysManualonprosecutingcopyrightcases,whichcautionsthatunsuccessful
prosecutionmaybecounterproductivenotonlyintermsofallocationofresources,butalso
withrespecttodeterrence.Thus,prosecutorsareinstructedtocarefullyevaluate
potentiallegal
problems
with
their
case,
particularly
with
regard
to
criminal
intent.
152
Additionally,andperhapsmoreimportant,prosecutorsshouldbehesitanttocharge
offensesthathavenotalreadybeenclearlydefinedbycivilcourtstoavoidpunishing
147SeegenerallyAmieN.Ely,Note,ProsecutorialDiscretionasanEthicalNecessity:TheAshcroft
MemorandumsCurtailmentoftheProsecutorsDutytoSeekJustice,90CornellL.R.237,27778(arguing
thattheAshcroftMemoranduminappropriatelyconstrainedprosecutorialdiscretion).148Appropriateprosecutorialdiscretionalsoguardsagainstasituation,asHarveySilvergatevividlyputs
it,
where
the
federal
criminal
justice
system
has
become
a
crude
conviction
machine
instead
of
an
engine
oftruthandjustice.HARVEYSILVERGLATE,THREEFELONIESADAY:HOWTHEFEDSTARGETTHEINNOCENT
lxvi(LargePrinted.2010).149EricHolder,U.S.DeptofJustice,DepartmentPolicyonChargingandSentencing(May19,2010),available
athttp://edca.typepad.com/files/holdermemorechargingandsentencingdecisions1.pdf.150Id.151Id.152UNITEDSTATESATTORNEYSMANUAL971.010,availableat
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/71mcrm.htm.
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
28/36
28
peoplebeforetheymightreasonablybeexpectedtoknowthatwhattheyredoingisa
crime.153
Wevealreadyaddressedwhythetheoryofsecondaryliabilityisestablishedenough
toproceedwithprosecutionagainstserviceslikeMegaupload.154Althoughsomecritics
decrythistheoryasnovelasappliedtocriminallaw,155itsnot:Itsnearlyasoldascriminalcopyrightlawitself,datingbacktowhenCongressin1909addedthecrimeofaidingand
abettingtotheCopyrightActtotargetthetheatermanagerswhohelpedconnecttraveling
infringerstotheiraudiences.156Inthesameway,especiallyinthewakeofGrokster,the
groundworkhasbeenwelllaidforthegovernmenttotargetfilesharingservicesthathelp
infringinguploadersreachtheglobalInternetcommunity.Asshownbythedistrictcourts
decisiverejectionofMegauploadsmotiontodismissinthePerfect10case,thetimeisripe
toholdserviceslikeMegauploadaccountable.
Second,weproposelimitingcriminalcopyrightenforcementtocircumstanceswhere
thereisevidencethatcivillitigationwillbefutile.Themostobviouswaythatthisfutility
arisesiswhenoperatorsofafilesharingservicerefusetorespondtocivilmeansof
copyrightenforcement.ThisideaisechoedintheU.S.AttorneysManual,which
recommendsthatpeoplewhohavecontinuedtoinfringeforfinancialgainaftercivil
remedieshavebeensuccessfullyinvokedshouldreceiveparticularattention.157
Accordingly,inourview,criminalprosecutionshouldbesavedforfilesharing
servicesforwhichthereisevidenceofegregiousdisregardforcopyrightlaw.Although
153AttorneyHarveySilvergaterecalls,inhisbookThreeFeloniesaDay,noticingthat,ascriminalstatutesproliferated,federalprosecutorsgrewmoreinclinedtobringcriminalchargesfordeedsthat,at
most,constitutedarguable(sometimesbarelyarguable)civiloffenses.Thequestionsraisedinthese
criminalcases,heargues,shouldhavebeenresolvedincivilproceedingswherethecitizen,ifwrong,
wouldhavetopayapricemeasuredindollars;andoncetheclearmeaningofthestatuteorregulation
wasestablished,thecitizenwouldbeexpectedtoadheretoit,nexttimeonpenaltyofcriminalindictment
andconviction.Silvergate,supranote148,atliii.154Wecaution,however,that,asexemplifiedbyFlavaWorks,Inc.v.Gunter,689F.3d754,758(7thCir.
2012),theliabilityofsocialbookmarking,andbythatsametokenlinkingsites,thatdonotactively
encourageinfringement,isstillanevolvingareaoflaw.SeealsoPerfect10,Inc.v.Amazon.com,Inc.,508
F.3d1146,116977(9thCir.2007)(concludingthatadultentertainmentcompanywasunlikelytosucceed
in
claim
that
Amazon
and
secondarily
infringed
by
displaying
thumbnail
images
of
the
sites
photosasreproducedoninfringingsites).155See,e.g.,Granick,supranote83(ButthefirstquestionfromadefenseperspectivehastobeCanthe
GrokstertheoryofCIVILliabilityevenbethebasisforCRIMINALcopyrightclaims?Thishasnever
beendecidedbyanyCourt.).156SeeRossDrath,Hotfile,Megaupload,andtheFutureofCopyrightontheInternet:WhatCanCyberlockersTell
UsAboutDMCAReform?,12J.MARSHALLREV.INTELL.PROP.L.205,218(2012)(Thebreathtaking
indictmentallegescriminalsecondaryinfringement,atheorythathasnotyetbeentestedincourt.).157UNITEDSTATESATTORNEYSMANUAL971.010
7/30/2019 Criminal Copyright Enforcement
29/36
29
someservicesscofflawattitudesmayspringfrompoliticaldisdainforcopyright
protectionsthePirateBayisaffiliatedwithSwedensPirateParty158andKimDotcomhas
publiclydisagreedwithprotectionsforfilmreleases159oppositiontocopyrightisnota
crime.Whatshowsprosecutablecontemptforthelawarethestepstheiroperatorstookto
scorntakedowncomplaintsandprofiteerfromblatantinfringement:ThePirateBayoperatorsrakedinadvertisingrevenueswhilepubliclyridiculinginfringementcomplaints,
andMegauploadlikewisemademillionsbysellingadsoninfringin