Case Studies On Online Media Piracy
✅ 1. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Legal Issue: Secondary liability for copyright infringement via peer-to-peer (P2P) software.
Facts:
Grokster and StreamCast distributed software that allowed users to share copyrighted music and movies.
They argued they were simply providing a technology, not engaging in infringement themselves.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of MGM Studios, holding that companies could be liable if they actively encouraged or promoted copyright infringement.
Legal Significance:
Established the “inducement rule”, meaning software creators can be liable if they intend for their tools to facilitate illegal downloads.
Shifted the responsibility from users alone to companies enabling piracy.
✅ 2. United States v. Kim Dotcom / Megaupload (2012)
Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement
Money laundering
Racketeering (RICO charges)
Facts:
Megaupload was a file-sharing service that hosted pirated movies, music, and software.
Dotcom and his associates profited by selling premium accounts, knowing the files were illegal.
Outcome:
U.S. government seized Megaupload assets and indicted Dotcom.
Legal battle over extradition to the U.S. continues for years (as of 2025).
Legal Significance:
Demonstrates criminal liability for operators of online piracy platforms, not just individual uploaders.
Reinforced that hosting pirated content for profit triggers RICO and copyright charges.
✅ 3. Capitol Records, LLC v. Thomas-Rasset (2007)
Court: U.S. District Court, D. Minn.
Legal Issue: Statutory damages for illegal music downloads.
Facts:
Jammie Thomas-Rasset was accused of illegally downloading and sharing 24 songs using Kazaa (P2P network).
Outcome:
Initially ordered to pay $1.92 million, later reduced on appeal to $222,000.
Legal Significance:
Highlighted how statutory damages under the Copyright Act can be enormous relative to the actual harm.
Emphasized that individual users can face massive liability, even for relatively small-scale piracy.
✅ 4. United States v. Shawn Fanning / Napster (2001)
Court: U.S. District Court, N.D. California
Legal Issue: Contributory and vicarious copyright infringement
Facts:
Napster created a file-sharing service that allowed millions to exchange MP3 music files for free.
Record labels sued, claiming Napster profited from facilitating piracy.
Outcome:
Court granted injunction shutting down Napster’s file-sharing service.
Napster eventually filed for bankruptcy and restructured as a legal music service.
Legal Significance:
Early landmark case establishing that platforms enabling mass copyright infringement are liable.
Precedent for Grokster and later online piracy cases.
✅ 5. Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum (2009)
Court: U.S. District Court, D. Mass.
Legal Issue: Statutory damages for P2P sharing.
Facts:
Joel Tenenbaum shared over 30 copyrighted songs using Kazaa.
Outcome:
Court imposed $675,000 in damages, later slightly reduced on appeal.
Legal Significance:
Reinforced that individuals can be personally liable for digital piracy.
Highlighted the courts’ willingness to impose high statutory damages to deter online piracy.
✅ 6. United States v. Patrick Reidy / Pirate Bay (2014)
Court: Swedish court (for reference) / U.S. coordination for international seizures
Facts:
Pirate Bay facilitated torrent file sharing for movies, music, and software.
U.S. authorities coordinated with Swedish courts for content and domain seizures.
Outcome:
Pirate Bay founders convicted of copyright infringement and fined.
Pirate Bay continues to exist in modified forms but faces ongoing legal battles globally.
Legal Significance:
Shows international enforcement challenges in online piracy cases.
Set precedent for cross-border cooperation in shutting down piracy sites.
✅ 7. Universal Music Group v. VidAngel (2017)
Court: U.S. District Court, C.D. California
Legal Issue: Streaming and filtering copyrighted content without permission
Facts:
VidAngel offered “filtered” versions of movies and streamed them to consumers without licensing.
Claimed “fair use” for filtering, but studios argued it was illegal streaming of copyrighted works.
Outcome:
Court ruled in favor of Universal Music Group, ordering VidAngel to pay $62 million in damages.
Legal Significance:
Demonstrates that streaming pirated content, even with modifications or filtering, violates copyright law.
Highlights challenges in emerging digital streaming services.
⭐ Key Lessons from Online Media Piracy Cases
Operators of piracy platforms can be criminally and civilly liable, not just individual users.
Statutory damages can vastly exceed actual losses, meant to deter piracy.
Secondary liability (inducing or facilitating infringement) is enforceable.
International piracy requires cross-border cooperation for enforcement.
Technological defenses (like “filtering”) do not shield against liability without licenses.
RELATED Blog
comments