Internet-Downloading Copyright Rulings

Default Judgment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a default judgment, without a hearing, in favor of several TV-production studios that sued an individual for making their TV shows available to unauthorized peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharers. Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Delane, DKC 2005-1291. The studios accused the defendant, who operated www.btefnet.net, of making the plaintiffs' shows available to others through BitTorrent P2P software, which directs a user's computer through the Internet to the location of digital files. The court noted in its default-judgment ruling: '[Defendant] Delane used his [software] trackers and Web site to facilitate the reproduction and distribution of those copyrighted works and the site allowed users to sort torrents by the title of television shows available for download. Delane could view, in real-time, a list of all of the files his trackers were helping to distribute, he exercised total control over the infringing activity on his torrent site, and decided exactly what torrents were indexed on the site and what files his trackers were helping to distribute. Finally, these acts of infringement by Delane were willful, intentional, and purposeful.'

Preponderance of Evidence. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that Paramount Pictures established by a preponderance of the evidence that an individual infringed on the studio's copyright in the motion picture, 'Lemony Snicket's: A Series of Unfor-tunate Events' by making an illegal copy of the film available on the Internet. Paramount Pictures v. Davis, 05-0316. Based on information it obtained from the Internet detective agency, BayTSP, Paramount claimed the defendant had been the 'first propagator' when he posted the entire movie on the eDonkey peer-to-peer file-sharing network 1 week after the film's theatrical release. The district court decided that Davis ” who had cleaned his hard drive of all data after Paramount filed its suit ” had been correctly identified as the infringer by noting: 'Although BayTSP could not identify the type of computer the infringer was using, the operating system of the computer that distributed the motion picture, or the version of eDonkey that was used the upload the motion picture, BayTSP identified and tracked the motion picture file's metadata, the date and time at which the motion picture was downloaded, the infringer's IP address, the percentage available for download on the infringer's computer, and the infringing computer's unique hash number. Although [Davis's Internet service provider] Comcast did not track the bandwidth usage of the relevant computer, it thoroughly reviewed its subscriber logs and, using information supplied by BayTSP, identified Davis' account as the origin of the infringement. It was therefore not necessary for BayTSP and Comcast to have information regarding the type of computer, the operating system, and version of eDonkey to determine that the computer at his IP address was used to distribute an infringing copy of the motion picture. Similarly, Paramount need not produce an eye witness to Davis' infringement to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he illegally distributed the motion picture.'

Statutory Damages. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division, decided that a defendant who illegally downloaded sound recordings wasn't entitled to have a jury consider the statutory copyright-damages amount. Lava Records LLC v. Ates, 05-1314. The record companies sought the statutory minimum of $750 in damages for 25 of what they claimed were hundreds of records illegally downloaded by the defendant. The district court noted: 'If Plaintiffs sought more than the minimum statutory damages, then Defendant would be entitled to a jury trial on the amount. See, Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998). However, if, as in this case, Plaintiffs seek only the minimum statutory amount, then courts have routinely held that an award of $750 per work is appropriately awarded by summary judgment.'

Sufficiency of Pleading. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that record-company plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a claim of copyright infringement against an alleged illegal downloader. Maverick Recording Co. v. Goldshteyn, CV-05-4523 (DGT). The key portion of the complaint stated: 'Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiffs, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to download the Copyrighted Recordings, to distribute the Copyrighted Recordings to the public, and/or to make the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others. In doing so, Defendant has violated Plaintiffs' exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution.' The district court found this sufficient for stating a claim under the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that a complaint include a 'short and plain statement' that provides a defendant with 'fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.' The district court explained that a copyright plaintiff 'need not provide a description of the individual instances or exact times of infringement. ' By alleging reproduction and distribution of copyrighted files using the Internet, plaintiffs have alleged acts of copyright infringement and described the means by which Goldshteyn performed these acts. The complaint's failure to describe specific individual instances of infringement is not fatal to plaintiffs' claim; such details are rightly the province of the discovery phase and summary judgment.' The defendant also argued that the complaint failed to state when the infringing acts occurred. But the court noted that 'plaintiffs here have alleged a continuing violation, which fulfills the pleading requirements for a copyright claim.'

Default Judgment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a default judgment, without a hearing, in favor of several TV-production studios that sued an individual for making their TV shows available to unauthorized peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharers. Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Delane, DKC 2005-1291. The studios accused the defendant, who operated www.btefnet.net, of making the plaintiffs' shows available to others through BitTorrent P2P software, which directs a user's computer through the Internet to the location of digital files. The court noted in its default-judgment ruling: '[Defendant] Delane used his [software] trackers and Web site to facilitate the reproduction and distribution of those copyrighted works and the site allowed users to sort torrents by the title of television shows available for download. Delane could view, in real-time, a list of all of the files his trackers were helping to distribute, he exercised total control over the infringing activity on his torrent site, and decided exactly what torrents were indexed on the site and what files his trackers were helping to distribute. Finally, these acts of infringement by Delane were willful, intentional, and purposeful.'

Preponderance of Evidence. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that Paramount Pictures established by a preponderance of the evidence that an individual infringed on the studio's copyright in the motion picture, 'Lemony Snicket's: A Series of Unfor-tunate Events' by making an illegal copy of the film available on the Internet. Paramount Pictures v. Davis, 05-0316. Based on information it obtained from the Internet detective agency, BayTSP, Paramount claimed the defendant had been the 'first propagator' when he posted the entire movie on the eDonkey peer-to-peer file-sharing network 1 week after the film's theatrical release. The district court decided that Davis ” who had cleaned his hard drive of all data after Paramount filed its suit ” had been correctly identified as the infringer by noting: 'Although BayTSP could not identify the type of computer the infringer was using, the operating system of the computer that distributed the motion picture, or the version of eDonkey that was used the upload the motion picture, BayTSP identified and tracked the motion picture file's metadata, the date and time at which the motion picture was downloaded, the infringer's IP address, the percentage available for download on the infringer's computer, and the infringing computer's unique hash number. Although [Davis's Internet service provider] Comcast did not track the bandwidth usage of the relevant computer, it thoroughly reviewed its subscriber logs and, using information supplied by BayTSP, identified Davis' account as the origin of the infringement. It was therefore not necessary for BayTSP and Comcast to have information regarding the type of computer, the operating system, and version of eDonkey to determine that the computer at his IP address was used to distribute an infringing copy of the motion picture. Similarly, Paramount need not produce an eye witness to Davis' infringement to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he illegally distributed the motion picture.'

Statutory Damages. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division, decided that a defendant who illegally downloaded sound recordings wasn't entitled to have a jury consider the statutory copyright-damages amount. Lava Records LLC v. Ates, 05-1314. The record companies sought the statutory minimum of $750 in damages for 25 of what they claimed were hundreds of records illegally downloaded by the defendant. The district court noted: 'If Plaintiffs sought more than the minimum statutory damages, then Defendant would be entitled to a jury trial on the amount. See, Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998). However, if, as in this case, Plaintiffs seek only the minimum statutory amount, then courts have routinely held that an award of $750 per work is appropriately awarded by summary judgment.'

Sufficiency of Pleading. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that record-company plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a claim of copyright infringement against an alleged illegal downloader. Maverick Recording Co. v. Goldshteyn, CV-05-4523 (DGT). The key portion of the complaint stated: 'Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiffs, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to download the Copyrighted Recordings, to distribute the Copyrighted Recordings to the public, and/or to make the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others. In doing so, Defendant has violated Plaintiffs' exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution.' The district court found this sufficient for stating a claim under the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that a complaint include a 'short and plain statement' that provides a defendant with 'fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.' The district court explained that a copyright plaintiff 'need not provide a description of the individual instances or exact times of infringement. ' By alleging reproduction and distribution of copyrighted files using the Internet, plaintiffs have alleged acts of copyright infringement and described the means by which Goldshteyn performed these acts. The complaint's failure to describe specific individual instances of infringement is not fatal to plaintiffs' claim; such details are rightly the province of the discovery phase and summary judgment.' The defendant also argued that the complaint failed to state when the infringing acts occurred. But the court noted that 'plaintiffs here have alleged a continuing violation, which fulfills the pleading requirements for a copyright claim.'