Digital Piracy And Copyright Infringement Cases
1. United States v. Kim Dotcom (Megaupload Case)
Background:
Kim Dotcom was the founder of Megaupload, a file-sharing website that allowed users to upload and share content—often pirated films, software, and music.
Facts:
The U.S. government accused Dotcom and his associates of running a “mega conspiracy” to profit from hosting infringing content. Although the site had legitimate uses, evidence showed it was primarily used to share copyrighted content without permission.
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit racketeering
Criminal copyright infringement
Wire fraud
Money laundering
Outcome:
The U.S. indicted Dotcom and co-defendants in 2012. Though Dotcom remains in New Zealand fighting extradition, Megaupload was taken offline, and assets were seized.
Significance:
This case became one of the largest copyright enforcement actions in history. It highlighted the U.S. government's willingness to prosecute foreign nationals and take down overseas-hosted websites infringing U.S. copyright laws.
2. Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset
Background:
This was one of the first individual file-sharing cases brought to trial in the U.S. against a private citizen.
Facts:
Thomas-Rasset used the peer-to-peer file-sharing network Kazaa to share over 20 songs. Capitol Records and other labels sued her for copyright infringement.
Charges (Civil):
Unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works
Copyright infringement under the DMCA
Outcome:
The jury initially awarded damages of $222,000, later raised to $1.92 million, then reduced by the judge to $54,000. Appeals followed, and the legal saga lasted over a decade.
Significance:
This case drew attention to the harsh statutory damages individuals could face for sharing a small number of copyrighted songs, igniting debates on the proportionality of copyright law.
3. United States v. Gary Fung (isoHunt)
Background:
Gary Fung was the creator of isoHunt, a search engine for BitTorrent files that facilitated access to pirated movies, games, and software.
Facts:
Although isoHunt did not host content itself, it indexed torrent files linked to copyrighted material. It was found to actively promote infringing content and profit from ads.
Charges (Civil and settlement):
Inducement of copyright infringement
Secondary liability (facilitating infringement)
Outcome:
Fung settled with the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) for $110 million and shut down isoHunt in 2013.
Significance:
This case clarified that services that encourage piracy, even if they don’t host content themselves, can be held liable for inducing copyright infringement.
4. A&M Records v. Napster (2001)
Background:
Napster was one of the first peer-to-peer music sharing platforms, revolutionizing how users accessed music—but at the cost of copyright compliance.
Facts:
Users of Napster uploaded and downloaded copyrighted MP3s without authorization. Napster claimed it was just a platform and not responsible for user behavior.
Charges (Civil):
Direct and contributory copyright infringement
Outcome:
The Ninth Circuit ruled Napster could be held secondarily liable. Napster was ordered to prevent infringement and ultimately shut down.
Significance:
This landmark decision established that file-sharing platforms could be held liable for their users’ infringing activities if they failed to take reasonable measures to stop it.
5. United States v. YTS (YIFY Torrents)
Background:
YTS, associated with YIFY, was one of the world’s most popular torrent sites for pirated HD movies.
Facts:
The site distributed thousands of pirated films globally, causing major losses to film studios. Though the operation was anonymous, legal actions eventually identified key operators in various countries.
Charges (Civil and Criminal in different jurisdictions):
Copyright infringement
Distribution of copyrighted works
Civil liability for piracy
Outcome:
In 2020, a New Zealand-based operator settled with major studios and handed over user data. The YTS website was disabled in multiple regions, and damages were awarded.
Significance:
This case marked a significant coordinated global enforcement effort against piracy websites and opened the door to legal action against end users based on leaked data.
6. Viacom v. YouTube (Google)
Background:
In 2007, Viacom sued YouTube (then recently acquired by Google) for hosting clips of copyrighted shows like South Park, The Daily Show, etc., without authorization.
Facts:
Viacom argued that YouTube knew infringing content was being uploaded and did not act swiftly to remove it, benefiting from ad revenue.
Charges (Civil):
Copyright infringement
Willful blindness to infringing activity
Outcome:
After several years of litigation, the court ruled in favor of YouTube under the DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision, provided they removed infringing content upon notice.
Significance:
This case clarified the extent of platform immunity under the DMCA. So long as platforms respond promptly to takedown requests, they are generally shielded from liability.
✅ Common Legal Principles in These Cases:
| Legal Concept | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Direct Infringement | When someone copies or distributes copyrighted material without permission |
| Contributory Infringement | When a party knowingly enables or encourages infringement |
| Vicarious Liability | When a party benefits financially and has the ability to stop infringement |
| DMCA Safe Harbor | Protects platforms if they promptly respond to takedown notices |
| Statutory Damages | Courts may award set damages per infringement, regardless of actual harm |
RELATED Blog
0 comments