Criminal Copyright Enforcement

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).


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).


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.


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.


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.).


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.).


7/36

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


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).


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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).


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.


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).


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).


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


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.).


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).


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.


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


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


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).


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.


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

Google

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


29/36

29

someservicesscofflawattitudesmayspringfrompoliticaldisdainforcopyright

protectionsthePirateBayisaffiliatedwithSwedensPirateParty158andKimDotcomhas

publiclydisagreedwithprotectionsforfilmreleases159oppositiontocopyrightisnota

crime.Whatshowsprosecutablecontemptforthelawarethestepstheiroperatorstookto

scorntakedowncomplaintsandprofiteerfromblatantinfringement:ThePirateBayoperatorsrakedinadvertisingrevenueswhilepubliclyridiculinginfringementcomplaints,

andMegauploadlikewisemademillionsbysellingadsoninfringin

Documents

Criminal Copyright Enforcement