Criminal copyright law in the United States

Last updated

Criminal copyright laws prohibit the unacknowledged use of another's intellectual property for the purpose of financial gain. Violation of these laws can lead to fines and jail time. Criminal copyright laws have been a part of U.S. laws since 1897, which added a misdemeanor penalty for unlawful performances if "willful and for profit". Criminal penalties were greatly expanded in the latter half of the twentieth century, and those found guilty of criminal copyright infringement may now be imprisoned for decades and fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Contents

Criminal penalties, in general, require that the offender knew that he or she was committing a crime, while civil copyright infringement is a strict liability offense, and offenders can be "innocent" (of intent to infringe), as well as an "ordinary" infringer or a "willful" infringer.

History

In 1787, the Founding Fathers of the United States wrote the Copyright Clause into the U.S. Constitution, which granted the United States Congress the power, “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” [1] Copyright grants a limited monopoly to authors over the production and dissemination of their creative expression to incentivize further creative production. Protection is constitutionally limited in duration and scope to prevent detrimental monopolies on culture. [2] The copyright protection written into the Constitution was first enacted in the Copyright Act of 1790, which granted national protection to American authors for 14 years, with one optional 14-year renewal. Copyright remained comparatively limited for around a hundred years, and infringement remained a civil infraction. The Supreme Court has, in the past, interpreted this as establishing that copyright was not a natural law property right, but rather a limited statutory monopoly granted by Congress. [3]

The first criminal provision in U.S. copyright law was added in 1897, which established a misdemeanor penalty for “unlawful performances and representations of copyrighted dramatic and musical compositions” if the violation had been “willful and for profit.” [4] The length of protection has been increasing since the Copyright Act of 1909, which extended the term of copyright to 28 years with an optional 28-year extension. [5] At present, copyright protection lasts for the author's life plus 70 years or, in the case of anonymous works and works-for-hire, for 95 years from the date of publication or 120 from the year of creation, whichever expires first. [6]

Theoretical underpinnings

Assigning criminal liability to copyright violations is troubling in light of the general justifications of criminal sanction to punish harms to individuals or national policies, or to foster moral behavior that implicates societal interests. [7] In many cases what counts as criminal infringement or "theft" under the criminal copyright statues may not be considered irregular behavior by the society at large, and the harm done to the rightsholder differs from standard notions of larceny in that there has been no "trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with intent to steal the same." [8] Using criminal penalties in order to shape behavior is likely to fail where the rules and regulations are difficult to interpret, and may only result in a widespread chilling effect when citizens understand the threat but not the law.

Criminal copyright infringement requires that the infringer acted "for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain." 17 U.S.C. § 506(a). [9] To establish criminal liability, the prosecutor must first show the basic elements of copyright infringement: ownership of a valid copyright, and the violation of one or more of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. The government must then establish that defendant willfully infringed or, in other words, possessed the necessary mens rea . Misdemeanor infringement has a very low threshold in terms of number of copies and the value of the infringed works.

An individual may be liable if the infringement was committed: (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution. 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1).

Felony copyright infringement has a slightly higher threshold and possibly serious penalties. 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b). (1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500; (2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a felony and is a second or subsequent offense.

Without establishing the threshold value, legitimate infringement, or the requisite state of mind, there can be no criminal liability. If the defendant can show they had a legitimate copy or use – such as through the first-sale doctrine or the fair use doctrine – then the burden of proof falls on the government. [9]

Violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights can trigger civil, or possibly criminal, penalties. Statutory interpretations of criminal liability provisions have historically been more narrowly construed than those assigning civil penalties. Modern copyright provisions address both criminal and civil liability, as well as addressing the interests of both copyright holders and the public, though the reconceptualization of infringement as theft has led to a gradual worsening of criminal penalties. [10] While the legislative history states that “[i]n cases where civil liability is unclear – whether because the law is unsettled, or because a legitimate business dispute exists – the Committee does not intend to establish criminal liability” there remains a high degree of uncertainty in these cases. [11]

There are three levels of civil copyright infringement: civil infringers may be “innocent”, “ordinary”, or “willful”. There is a range of penalties which can be imposed on criminal infringers depending on the egregiousness of the offense and in deference to prosecutorial discretion. Innocent infringers are those who are “not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted infringement of copyright,” which implies that some degree of negligence or knowledge is required for ordinary civil infringement. Willful infringement, by extension, requires a higher degree of culpability. The degree of knowledge or “willfulness” required for civil liability for copyright infringement is rather low and undefined. No knowledge or intent is strictly necessary for a finding of civil infringement, insofar as it is a strict liability offense. While in certain cases there are indications that willful infringement in a civil suit requires some knowledge that the defendant knew that, “[h]is actions constituted copyright infringement or acted with a reckless disregard for the copyright holder’s rights,” this position is disputed and some Circuits merely require the infringement is “knowing” to warrant an aggravated penalty for the defendant.

Policy

The regulatory proclivity to restrict access to copyrighted material has built up over time. There has been a continual increase in number of cases pursued and the seriousness of the penalties imposed by the U.S. government, which has recently announced its intention to prioritize criminal prosecution of copyright infringers. This is problematic[ fact or opinion? ] in that the thresholds are so low, the values of works tend to be liberally interpreted, and the potential penalties are so high. The civil statute imposes strict liability for infringement and high statutory damages while a wide range of behaviors could fall under the criminal statutes. The conflation of the lower civil thresholds with criminal penalties is more likely where there is no clear guidance, as with legislators trusting the courts to interpret “willfulness” in criminal copyright infringement proceedings, and in instances where the government has explicitly designated resources toward prosecuting a given crime.

Statutory inflation is common where courts are given uncertain or differing standards for violation of a statute which is both remedial and penal, where courts defer to legislators, and legislators write broad laws trusting to judicial restraint to restrict them from being applied to small actors. [12] While under other circumstances prosecutorial discretion might have proven a reliable protection against spurious prosecutions, the expansive writing the criminal copyright statute has allowed for the inclusion of small actors within the purview of criminal copyright law. When prosecutors within the Department of Justice are charged with bringing criminal infringement cases, they are more likely to pursue otherwise marginal cases and look for the courts to interpret the law as expansively as it is written.

See also

Related Research Articles

An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, entrapment and the statute of limitations.

The Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004, better known as the Pirate Act, was a bill in the United States Congress that would have let federal prosecutors file civil lawsuits against suspected copyright infringers. Prior to the introduction of this act, only criminal lawsuits could be filed against suspected infringers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">No Electronic Theft Act</span> US federal law passed in 1997

The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement under certain circumstances, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison with fines.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Family Entertainment and Copyright Act</span> U.S. federal law pertaining to copyright

The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, Pub. L. 109–9, 119 Stat. 218, is a federal legislative act regarding copyright that became law in the United States in 2005. The Act consists of two titles or subparts: Title I is called the Artist's Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005, which increases penalties for copyright infringement, and Title II is called the Family Movie Act of 2005, which permits the development of technology to "sanitize" potentially offensive DVD and VOD content.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense. The liability is said to be strict because defendants could be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.

Statutory damages are a damage award in civil law, in which the amount awarded is stipulated within the statute rather than being calculated based on the degree of harm to the plaintiff. Lawmakers will provide for statutory damages for acts in which it is difficult to determine a precise value of the loss suffered by the victim. This could be because calculation of a value is impractical, such as in intellectual property cases where the volume of the infringement cannot be ascertained. It could also be because the nature of the injury is subjective, such as in cases of a violation of a person's rights. The award might serve not only as compensation but also for deterrence, and it is more likely to succeed in serving a deterrence function when the potential defendants are relatively sophisticated parties. Other functions that can be served by statutory damages include reducing administrative costs and clarifying the consequences of violating the law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright notice</span> Notice to inform consumers of claimed copyright ownership

In United States copyright law, a copyright notice is a notice of statutorily prescribed form that informs users of the underlying claim to copyright ownership in a published work.

Conspiracy against rights is a federal offense in the United States of America under 18 U.S.C. § 241:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person [...] in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Act of 1976</span> United States law

The Copyright Act of 1976 is a United States copyright law and remains the primary basis of copyright law in the United States, as amended by several later enacted copyright provisions. The Act spells out the basic rights of copyright holders, codified the doctrine of "fair use", and for most new copyrights adopted a unitary term based on the date of the author's death rather than the prior scheme of fixed initial and renewal terms. It became Public Law number 94-553 on October 19, 1976 and went into effect on January 1, 1978.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1929, are in the public domain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright infringement</span> Illegal usage of copyrighted works

Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ages of consent in the United States</span> U.S. law on age of consent to sexual activity

In the United States, each state and territory sets the age of consent either by statute or the common law applies, and there are several federal statutes related to protecting minors from sexual predators. Depending on the jurisdiction, the legal age of consent is between 16 and 18. In some places, civil and criminal laws within the same state conflict with each other.

<i>Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC</i>

Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, is a U.S. court case between a publisher of an adult entertainment magazine and the webhosting, connectivity, and payment service companies. The plaintiff Perfect 10 asserted that defendants CCBill and CWIE violated copyright, trademark, and state law violation of right of publicity laws, unfair competition, false and misleading advertising by providing services to websites that posted images stolen from Perfect 10's magazine and website. Defendants sought to invoke statutory safe harbor exemptions from copyright infringement liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512, and from liability for state law unfair competition, false advertising claims and right of publicity based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).

F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc. nicknamed The Cocker Spaniel Case, 344 U.S. 228 (1952), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding copyright infringement. The Copyright Act of 1909 allows recovery of either the profits of the infringing company or of the damages suffered by the copyright holder as the legal remedies. When the actual damages cannot be determined, statutory damages can be levied instead. At issue, is whether the trial judge can impose statutory damages when the actual profits of the infringer are known.

<i>Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum</i> U.S. court case

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum is the appeals lawsuit which followed the U.S. District Court case Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum, No. 07cv11446-NG.

<i>United States v. LaMacchia</i>

United States v. LaMacchia 871 F.Supp. 535 was a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts which ruled that, under the copyright and cybercrime laws effective at the time, committing copyright infringement for non-commercial motives could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law.

<i>United States v. Vampire Nation</i>

United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189, is a 2006 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and asset forfeiture. A three-judge panel unanimously affirmed the conviction and sentence of Frederick Banks, a Pittsburgh man, on numerous felony charges resulting from fraudulent schemes carried out over the Internet. The case takes its title, which has been singled out as memorable and included among lists of amusingly titled cases, from one of Banks' aliases, an electronic music group of which he was the sole regular member. He had filed the appeal under that name while representing himself.

<i>Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.</i>

Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 724, was a United States district court case in which the visual artist Sheila Wolk brought suit against Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Photobucket.com, Inc. for copyright infringement. Users uploaded Wolk's work to Photobucket, a user-generated content provider, which had a revenue sharing agreement with Kodak that permitted users to use Kodak Gallery to commercially print (photofinish) images from Photobucket's site—including unauthorized copies of Wolk's artwork.

Remedies for copyright infringement in the United States can be either civil or criminal in nature. Criminal remedies for copyright infringement prevent the unauthorized use of copyrighted works by defining certain violations of copyright to be criminal wrongs which are liable to be prosecuted and punished by the state. Unlike civil remedies, which are obtained through private civil actions initiated by the owner of the copyright, criminal remedies are secured by the state which prosecutes the infringing individual or organisation.

References

  1. ↑ U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 8, Cl. 8.
  2. ↑ Charles Von Simson, Feist or Famine American Database Copyright As an Economic Model for the European Union, 20 Brook. J. Int'l L. 729, 733-35 (1995).
  3. ↑ Dowling v. United States , 473 U.S. 207, 216 (1985).
  4. ↑ Act of Jan. 6, 1897, ch. 4, 29  Stat.   481.
  5. ↑ Copyright Act of 1909, Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States)  60–349, 35  Stat.   1075, § 28.
  6. ↑ 17 U.S.C.   § 302(c).
  7. ↑ Geraldine Szott Moohr, The Crime of Copyright Infringement: An Inquiry Based on Morality, Harm, and Criminal Theory, 83 B.U. L. Rev. 731, 753 (2003).
  8. ↑ Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Law 234 (2d ed. 1969); cited in Loren, supra note 3, at 858.
  9. 1 2 United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 1977)("Any act which is inconsistent with the exclusive rights of the copyright holder... constitutes infringement").
  10. ↑ Geraldine Szott Moohr, Defining Overcriminalization Through Cost-Benefit Analysis: The Example of Criminal Copyright Laws, 54 AM. U. L. REV. 783, 802 (2005).
  11. ↑ Legislative History – Copyright Felony Act. H.R. REP. NO. 997.
  12. ↑ Lawrence M. Solan, Statutory Inflation and Institutional Choice, 44 WM. & MARY L. REV. 2209, 2215 (2003).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.