Criminal remedies for copyright infringement

Last updated

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.

Contents

The criminal penalties imposed for copyright infringement vary between the copyright laws of different jurisdictions. However, the justifications for the imposition of criminal penalties are common in the sense that certain kinds of copyright violations are considered as egregious enough to warrant state interference. [1] These kinds of copyright violations are seen as having a negative consequence affecting the entire community. [1] A criminal conviction for copyright infringement is also more punitive compared to a civil penalty and this increases the value of the punishment as a deterrent to prevent such violations in the future. [1] For these reasons, criminal penalties for copyright infringement are considered to be effective sanctions against violations. [2]

Internationally, Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement requires member nations to provide for criminal procedures and penalties "at least in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale". [3] In addition to the coming into force of the TRIPS Agreement, the rapid development of computer software during the 1990s led to a significant expansion in the degree and imposition of criminal penalties for copyright infringement, especially in the decades towards the end of the 20th century. [4] [5] The scope for copyright infringement of electronic material has proliferated following the advent of the Internet and this has become an underpinning reason for calls by copyright owners to increase reliance on criminal penalties which have a deterrent effect. [1] Nevertheless, there have also been arguments by scholars for reducing the severity of criminal copyright infringement penalties since such penalties could result in monopolistic profits for the copyright owner. [6]

In the U.S.

Legislative history

Criminal provisions for copyright infringement were initially inserted into U.S. Copyright Law in 1897. [7] [8] But this crime was limited only to unlawful performances or representations of copyrighted dramatic works or musical compositions. [7] The apparent reasoning behind such a narrow criminal provision was because of the difficulty faced by copyright owners of such works in detecting and punishing infringements of their works since these infringements were perpetrated by "hit and run"performing groups in remote areas far away from the location of the copyright owner's place of residence or work. [9] The criminal intent or mens rea that is required to be shown in case of any criminal offence of copyright infringement was also provided for in the 1897 law and it had to be shown that the conduct of the infringing party was both "wilful" and "for profit." [7]

The U.S. Congress expanded the scope of the criminal remedies in the Copyright Act of 1909 by applying criminal provisions to infringements of all kinds of copyrighted works under the statute except sound recordings. [7] [10] Once again, the mens rea requirement for conviction of a criminal offence necessitated that the infringement was done "wilfully" and "for profit." [10] This confined most criminal convictions to large-scale commercial activities. [9] Additionally, any person who "knowingly and wilfully" aided or abetted such infringement was also criminally liable under the statute. [10] The criminal offences under the Copyright Act of 1909 were punishable as misdemeanours and entailed either imprisonment or fines at the discretion of the court. [10] The criminal provisions under the old copyright law were interpreted rather generously by the judiciary and the evidentiary requirement of "for profit" was glossed over to mean that the infringing defendant's activities only needed to be for "the purpose" of profit and no actual generation of profits was necessary. [9] Subsequently, in 1971, following lobbying by the sound recording industry, the U.S. Congress extended federal copyright protection to sound recordings as well vide the Sound Recording Act of 1971. [11] This consequently led to criminal penalties being made available against wilful and for-profit infringement of sound recordings. [7]

The criminal remedies for copyright infringement in the U.S. have been increasingly expanded in both scope and degree by legislative measures following the software and digital revolution beginning in the early 1990s. [12]

In 1976, the U.S. Congress carried out, till date, the most recent general revision of the U.S. copyright law and the Copyright Act of 1976 was brought into force. [13] The Copyright Act of 1976 is the copyright law currently in force in the U.S. While this Act continued to provide for criminal remedies to copyright infringement, it removed the crime of aiding or abetting such infringement which had been included in the 1909 statute. [7] The mens rea requirement was also amended. Previously, under the 1909 statute, a person was criminally liable for copyright infringement if he or she committed the infringement "wilfully" and "for profit". While "wilful" commission of the infringement continued to remain a requirement for proving mens rea, the words "for profit" were amended to read as "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." [14]

Section 506(a) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 1976 (Title 17 of the U.S. Code) defines the offence of criminal infringement. [14] However, the punishments prescribed for criminal copyright infringements are laid down under Section 2319 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code (Crimes and Criminal Procedure). [15] This segregation initially came about in 1982 following representations by the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. and the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. that called for an increase in penalties for film and sound recording piracy and counterfeiting. These two trade associations asserted that civil infringement actions had little to no effect in deterring criminals engaged in piracy and counterfeiting activities of motion pictures and sound recordings and, moreover, that the modest penalties imposed for criminal infringement discouraged efforts to enforce the same. [16] The U.S. Congress responded to these industrial copyright concerns by restructuring the criminal remedies for copyright infringement and by enacting certain felony provisions for copyright infringement under Section 2319 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. [17] These criminal copyright infringement provisions have been periodically amended in line with current developments and now encompass all copyrighted works. Most notably, Section 2319 of U.S.C. Title 18 was significantly amended by the Copyright Felony Act of 1992 which imposed felony penalties for mass piracy of all types of copyrighted works including computer programs while simultaneously lowering the threshold for imposing felony penalties. [18] The criminal penalties under Section 2319 of 18 U.S.C. consist of substantially prohibitive sanctions comprising either imprisonment or fines or both. Section 506(b) also provides for the criminal forfeiture of the infringing property and subsequent destruction of the same at the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings. [14]

No Electronic Theft Act of 1997

The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act was enacted by the U.S. Congress and came into effect in 1997. This Act amended Section 506 of the U.S. Copyright Act and the corresponding sections of the federal criminal code (Title 18 of the U.S. Code) in order to prohibit large-scale copyright infringement through the Internet. The NET Act revised Section 506 in order to close the "LaMacchia Loophole" which had emerged following the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in the case of United States v. LaMacchia in 1994. Prior to the enactment of the NET Act, the law required that, in order to prosecute for criminal copyright infringement, the infringement be carried out for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain. In the LaMacchia decision, the district court cast doubt on the effectiveness of the law by ruling that the commission of copyright infringement for non-commercial motives cannot be prosecuted under criminal copyright law. [19] [20] The NET Act removed this loophole by defining the term "financial gain" to include "the receipt of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works" and enabling prosecutors to pursue criminal infringement suits against infringers even in the absence of any private financial gain provided that the reproduction or distribution (even through electronic means) of the copies of the copyrighted works have a total retail value of more than $1000. [19] [21]

In 1998, the U.S. Congress adopted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) [22] which introduced criminal anti-circumvention provisions to prevent copyright infringement. This Act was enacted to implement the provisions of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty in the U.S. and to prevent circumvention of Digital Rights Management systems. Section 1204 of the U.S. Copyright Act imposes serious criminal penalties on persons who wilfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, circumvent technological protection measures or traffic in any such circumvention technology. [23] The DMCA distinguishes between first-time offenders and repeat offenders and the criminal sanctions that can be imposed are either imprisonment or fines, or both. [23]

Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendments Act of 2004

The U.S. Congress adopted the Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendments Act (also known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Amendments Act) in 2004. [24] This law expanded criminal penalties to criminalize trafficking of counterfeit copyrighted works. [25] The criminal remedies available under the Act include imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or a fine or both. [25]

In 2005, the U.S. Congress adopted the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act which criminally penalised the wilful reproduction of works for commercial distribution. [26] More specifically, it prohibited the recording of copyrighted audiovisual works like movies without the prior permission of the copyright owner from the public performance of such works in a theatre or other similar facility. [27] This Act distinguishes between first-time offenders and repeat offenders and the criminal sanctions include a fine and/or imprisonment. [27]

Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (Pro-IP Act)

The Pro-IP Act, adopted by the U.S. Congress in 2008, markedly amended the U.S. copyright law concerning criminal remedies by converting to felonies many copyright infringement offences that were previously considered misdemeanours. This enhanced the criminal sanctions for infringements classified as felony offences. [14]

In India

Chapter XIII (Sections 63 to 70) of the Indian Copyright Act of 1957 addresses the subject of criminal offences for copyright violations in India.

Section 63 of the Indian Copyright Act is the primary provision imposing criminal sanctions for copyright infringement or the violation of any other right conferred under the Indian Copyright Act. [28] The mens rea requirement under the Indian law states that a person must "knowingly" infringe or abet the infringement of a copyrighted work. In contrast to the U.S. Copyright Act which removed criminal sanctions for abetting copyright infringement, a person who abets another in the infringement of a copyrighted work under the Indian copyright law is liable to criminal sanctions as per Section 63.

A crucial difference between the Indian copyright law and the U.S. copyright law is that the Indian law prescribes both imprisonment and fine to be imposed by the court in case of a criminal copyright offences whereas the U.S. law allows the court to impose imprisonment and/or a fine. The Indian legislative policy regarding criminal copyright violations appears to favour imprisonment as a mandatory criminal sanction for copyright offences. However, the proviso to Section 63 allows the court to impose a lower punishment with regard to the term of imprisonment and the amount of fine if the infringement was not made for gain the course of trade or business. [28] Section 63A of the Indian Copyright Act prescribes an enhanced penalty for repeat offenders of copyright infringement. [29]

There has, however, been slight disagreement between the High Courts in India regarding question of whether a criminal offence is bailable or is non-bailable. The Delhi High Court [30] and the Andhra Pradesh High Court [31] have held that offences under Section 63 and 63A are bailable. But, the Gauhati High Court [32] has stated such criminal offences to be non-bailable. Furthermore, the Kerala High Court [33] has held criminal offences under Section 63 to be cognizable in nature, meaning that a police officer may arrest an accused without a warrant for the alleged commission of a criminal offence under the Indian Copyright Act.

Section 63B of the Indian Copyright Act was inserted by the Copyright (Amendment) Act of 1994 and it classifies the knowing use of an infringing copy of a computer programme by any person as an offence which is punishable with both fine as well as imprisonment. [34] Where the computer programme has not been used for gain or in the course of trade or business, the court may, after recording its reasons, not impose any sentence of imprisonment and can reduce the amount of the minimum fine prescribed. [34]

Section 64 of the Indian Copyright Act affords power to a police officer, who is above or at the rank of a sub-inspector, to seize without warrant any infringing copies of copyrighted material if he or she believes that an offence under Section 63 is being, or is likely to be, committed. [35] The constitutional validity of the power afforded to a police officer by this provision was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court in Girish Gandhi v. Union of India. [36]

Cognizance of offences under the Indian Copyright Act can only be taken by a Court of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class. [37]

The Indian Copyright Act has two provisions to prevent circumvention of Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems. Sections 65A and 65B were both inserted following the Copyright (Amendment) Act of 2012. Section 65A deals with the protection of technological measures and imposes criminal sanctions on any person who circumvents an effective technological measure with the intention of infringing any of the rights conferred by the Indian Copyright Act. Note that Section 65A requires the mens rea element of "intention" to be shown and proved for a conviction under the said Section. This is a fairly high bar for conviction which is in contradistinction to the U.S. Copyright Act (as amended by the DMCA) which does not require proof of "intention" in case of a circumvention of a technological measure by any person. [38] The DMCA effectively classifies this kind of an offence as a strict liability offence. Compared to the DMCA, the exceptions under the Indian Copyright Act are also much broader since:

  1. Section 65A does not prohibit any person from doing anything for a purpose not expressly prohibited under the Indian Copyright Act;
  2. Section 65A allows third parties to facilitate circumvention of a technological protection measure provided that the third party maintains a complete record of the details and the purpose for which such circumvention was facilitated; and
  3. It specifically exempts from criminal liability the circumvention of technological measures for the purpose of certain activities as listed under Section 65A.

Section 65B addresses the issue of protection of Right Management Information and imposes a criminal sanction consisting of both imprisonment as well as fine on any person who knowingly commits such offence. The criminal penalties provided for under this section are in addition to the civil remedies provide for under Chapter XII of the Act.

The DRM provisions introduced by the 2012 Amendment of the Indian Copyright Act have been criticised by certain commentators since India is not a party to either the WIPO Copyright Treaty or the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty and had no obligation to enact such provisions. [39] In effect, these two provisions have been criticised for creating a para-copyright regime which affords greater protection to DRM-protected works while detrimentally affecting the fair dealing defence available to the general public under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act. [39]

Related Research Articles

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the crime of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. A similar attitude toward a legislative body is termed contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress. The verb for "to commit contempt" is contemn and a person guilty of this is a contemnor or contemner.

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when someone is killed in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime, the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.

Anti-circumvention refers to laws which prohibit the circumvention of technological barriers for using a digital good in certain ways which the rightsholders do not wish to allow. The requirement for anti-circumvention laws was globalized in 1996 with the creation of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Copyright Treaty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span> Death penalty in India, its states and union territories

Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution as given under Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.

Capital murder refers to a category of murder in some parts of the US for which the perpetrator is eligible for the death penalty. In its original sense, capital murder was a statutory offence of aggravated murder in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, which was later adopted as a legal provision to define certain forms of aggravated murder in the United States. Some jurisdictions that provide for death as a possible punishment for murder, such as California, do not have a specific statute creating or defining a crime known as capital murder; instead, death is one of the possible sentences for certain kinds of murder. In these cases, "capital murder" is not a phrase used in the legal system but may still be used by others such as the media.

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of other crimes. Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.

An Act to amend the Copyright Act was a proposed law to amend the Copyright Act initiated by the Government of Canada in the First Session of the Thirty-Eighth Parliament. Introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women Liza Frulla and then Minister of Industry David Emerson as An Act to Amend the Copyright Act, it received its First Reading in the House of Commons of Canada on June 20, 2005. On November 29, 2005, the opposition to the government tabled a non-confidence motion which passed, dissolving Parliament and effectively killing the bill. The subsequent government tabled a similar bill called C-61.

Although the legal system of Singapore is a common law system, the criminal law of Singapore is largely statutory in nature and historically derives largely from the Indian penal code. The general principles of criminal law, as well as the elements and penalties of general criminal offences such as assault, criminal intimidation, mischief, grievous hurt, theft, extortion, sex crimes and cheating, are set out in the Singaporean Penal Code. Other serious offences are created by statutes such as the Arms Offences Act, Kidnapping Act, Misuse of Drugs Act and Vandalism Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">FAIR USE Act</span>

The "Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing United States Entrepreneurship Act of 2007" was a proposed United States copyright law that would have amended Title 17 of the U.S. Code, including portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to "promote innovation, to encourage the introduction of new technology, to enhance library preservation efforts, and to protect the fair use rights of consumers, and for other purposes." The bill would prevent courts from holding companies financially liable for copyright infringement stemming from the use of their hardware or software, and proposes six permanent circumvention exemptions to the DMCA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Law Act 1967</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Law Act 1967 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made some major changes to English criminal law, as part of wider liberal reforms by the Labour government elected in 1966. Most of it is still in force.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act</span> 1998 U.S. federal law

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional 'safe harbor' for online service providers (OSP), a group which includes Internet service providers (ISP) and other Internet intermediaries, by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users.

The WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act, is a part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 U.S. law. It has two major portions, Section 102, which implements the requirements of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and Section 103, which arguably provides additional protection against the circumvention of copy prevention systems and prohibits the removal of copyright management information.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hate speech laws in Canada</span> Canadian laws relating to hate speech

Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code, as well as statutory provisions relating to hate publications in three provinces and one territory.

<i>Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.</i> Lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States

Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. is a lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Power Ventures Inc., a third-party platform, collected user information from Facebook and displayed it on their own website. Facebook claimed violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. According to Facebook, Power Ventures Inc. made copies of Facebook's website during the process of extracting user information. Facebook argued that this process causes both direct and indirect copyright infringement. In addition, Facebook alleged this process constitutes a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). Finally, Facebook also asserted claims of both state and federal trademark infringement, as well as a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Code of Criminal Procedure (India)</span> Erstwhile Code of Criminal Law of India

The Code of Criminal Procedure commonly called Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was the main legislation on procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was enacted in 1973 and came into force on 1 April 1974. It provides the machinery for the investigation of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person and the determination of punishment of the guilty. It also deals with public nuisance, prevention of offences and maintenance of wife, child and parents.

<i>321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc.</i>

321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 1085, is a district court case brought by 321 Studios seeking declaratory judgment from the court that their DVD ripping software, i.e. DVD Copy Plus and DVD X Copy do not violate the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), or, in the alternative, that the DMCA is unconstitutional because Congress exceeded its enumerated powers, these provisions are unconstitutionally vague and/or violate the First Amendment.

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.

Contributory copyright infringement is a way of imposing secondary liability for infringement of a copyright. It is a means by which a person may be held liable for copyright infringement even though he or she did not directly engage in the infringing activity. In the United States, the Copyright Act does not itself impose liability for contributory infringement expressly. It is one of the two forms of secondary liability apart from vicarious liability. Contributory infringement is understood to be a form of infringement in which a person is not directly violating a copyright but induces or authorises another person to directly infringe the copyright.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Hardy, I. Trotter (2002). "Criminal Copyright Infringement". William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal. 11 (1): 312.
  2. ↑ Grossman, George S. (2001). Omnibus Copyright Revision Legislative History. New York: William S. Hein & Co. Inc. p. 139.
  3. ↑ "WTO | intellectual property (TRIPS) - agreement text - enforcement". www.wto.org. Retrieved 2017-05-06.
  4. ↑ Hardy, I. Trotter (2002). "Criminal Copyright Infringement". William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. 11 (1): 317.
  5. ↑ "Section 63B in the Copyright Act, 1957". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2017-05-06.
  6. ↑ Arai, Yasuhiro (July 2010). "Civil and Criminal Punishments for Copyright Infringement". Information Economics and Policy. 23: 270–280. doi:10.1016/j.infoecopol.2011.08.001.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Saunders, Mary Jane (1993–94). "Criminal Copyright Infringement And The Copyright Felony Act". Denver University Law Review. 71: 673–74.
  8. ↑ Act of January 6, 1897, ch. 4, 29 Stat. 481-82.
  9. 1 2 3 Hardy, I. Trotter (2002). "Criminal Copyright Infringement". William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal. 11 (1): 315–16.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Section 28, Copyright Act of 1909, available at https://www.copyright.gov/history/1909act.pdf
  11. ↑ Sound Recording Act of 1971, Pub. L. No. 92-140, 85 Stat. 391 (1971), amended by Pub. L. No. 93-573, 88 Stat. 1873 (1974) (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. § 102).
  12. ↑ Haber, Eldar (2014). "THE CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT GAP" (PDF). Intellectual Property Scholars Conference (IPSC) Paper: 5–8.
  13. ↑ Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541 (codified at 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-801).
  14. 1 2 3 4 "17 U.S. Code § 506 - Criminal offenses". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  15. ↑ "18 U.S. Code § 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  16. ↑ Saunders, Mary Jane (1993–94). "Criminal Copyright Infringement And The Copyright Felony Act". Denver University Law Review. 71: 675.
  17. ↑ Act of May 24, 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-180, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 96 Star. 91.
  18. ↑ Copyright Felony Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-561, 106 Stat. 4233 (1992).
  19. 1 2 Traphagen, Mark (1998–99). "Criminal Copyright Infringement". Entertainment & Sports Law.
  20. ↑ "United States v. LaMacchia". www.loundy.com. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  21. ↑ No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, 111 Stat. 2678 Public Law 105–14 — Dec. 16, 1997
  22. ↑ Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998) (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. §§ 512, 1201-1205, 1301-1332 & 28 U.S.C. § 4001 (2012)).
  23. 1 2 "17 U.S. Code § 1204 - Criminal offenses and penalties". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  24. ↑ Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendments Act, Pub. L. No. 108-482, 118 Stat. 3912 (2004) (amending 18 U.S.C. § 2318)
  25. 1 2 "18 U.S. Code § 2318 - Trafficking in counterfeit labels, illicit labels, or counterfeit documentation or packaging". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  26. ↑ Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-9, 119 Stat. 218 (2005) (codified as 18 U.S.C. § 2319B (2012).
  27. 1 2 "18 U.S. Code § 2319B - Unauthorized recording of Motion pictures in a Motion picture exhibition facility". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  28. 1 2 "Section 63 in the Copyright Act, 1957". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  29. ↑ "Section 63A in the Copyright Act, 1957". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  30. ↑ "State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Naresh Kumar Garg on 20 March, 2013". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  31. ↑ "Amarnath Vyas vs State Of A.P. on 19 December, 2006". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  32. ↑ "Hridayanada Sharma vs State Of Assam on 17 September, 2003". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  33. ↑ "Abdul Sathar vs Nodal Officer, Anti-Piracy Cell ... on 29 May, 2007". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  34. 1 2 "Section 63B in the Copyright Act, 1957". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  35. ↑ "Section 64 in the Copyright Act, 1957". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  36. ↑ "Girish Gandhi And Etc. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 1996". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  37. ↑ "Section 70 in the Copyright Act, 1957". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2017-05-08.
  38. ↑ "17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  39. 1 2 Pratap, Divyesh (30 August 2015). "Is 'Fair Use' of Copyrighted Work a thing of the past?". Lexpress. Retrieved 8 May 2017.
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.