Also known as: piracies · copyright piracy · maritime piracy
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
Criminal violence or robbery committed at sea. The Constitution empowers Congress to define and punish such acts when they occur on the high seas.
Criminal violence or robbery committed at sea. The Constitution empowers Congress to define and punish such acts when they occur on the high seas.
Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of materials protected by copyright, patent, or trademark law.
Pierce Patterson operates a platform that distributes software enabling users to copy copyrighted music files. The service profits from the infringement and shows clear intent to induce copying. Studios sue successfully because the platform's design and marketing constitute contributory piracy.
Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of materials protected by copyright, patent, or trademark law.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Paul Peterson captains a vessel that seizes cargo on the high seas without authority. Congress exercises its power under Article I to enact a statute defining and punishing the conduct as piracy. The statute applies directly to Peterson's actions because they occurred beyond any state's jurisdiction.
Phoebe Park's ship takes enemy goods during hostilities. The United States later ratifies the seizure rather than treating it as unauthorized piracy. The court holds that sovereign adoption converts the act into lawful prize and removes any piracy label.
Open the case page for the full write-up.
View case2 common questions
Article I Section 8 grants Congress the power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas. This authority is distinct from state criminal jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
Intentional piracy can constitute a superseding cause when the third party's high culpability outweighs the ship owner's negligence in leaving access points unsecured. Courts weigh the degree of culpability under Restatement factors.
Supporting sources
Respondents Grokster, Ltd. and StreamCast Networks, Inc. distribute free software products that enable computer users to share electronic files through peer-to-peer networks. Grokster's software employs FastTrack technology while StreamCast distributes Morpheus software that relies on Gnutella technology. Users of either product can send requests for files directly to the computers of others on the network, with results communicated back and files downloaded directly from peers' computers without any central server intercepting the content. A group of copyright holders including motion picture studios, recording companies, songwriters, and music publishers, referred to collectively as MGM, sued Grokster and StreamCast in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. MGM alleged that the companies knowingly and intentionally distributed their software to enable users to reproduce and distribute copyrighted works in violation of the Copyright Act. MGM commissioned a statistician to conduct a systematic search, and his study showed that nearly 90% of the files available for download on the FastTrack system were copyrighted works. Well over 100 million copies of the software in question are known to have been downloaded, and billions of files are shared across the FastTrack and Gnutella networks each month. Grokster and StreamCast concede the infringement in most downloads, and it is uncontested that they are aware that users employ their software primarily to download copyrighted files. From time to time, moreover, the companies have learned about their users' infringement directly, as from users who have sent e-mail to each company with questions about playing copyrighted movies they had downloaded, to whom the companies have responded with guidance. MGM notified the companies of 8 million copyrighted files that could be obtained using their software. After the notorious file-sharing service, Napster, was sued by copyright holders for facilitation of copyright infringement, StreamCast gave away a software program of a kind known as OpenNap, designed as compatible with the Napster program and open to Napster users for downloading files from other Napster and OpenNap users' computers. The evidence that Grokster sought to capture the market of former Napster users is sparser but revealing. Grokster launched its own OpenNap system called Swaptor and inserted digital codes into its Web site so that computer users using Web search engines to look for "Napster" or "[f]ree filesharing" would be directed to the Grokster Web site. StreamCast monitored both the number of users downloading its OpenNap program and the number of music files they downloaded. It also used the resulting OpenNap network to distribute copies of the Morpheus software and to encourage users to adopt it. Internal company documents indicate that StreamCast hoped to attract large numbers of former Napster users if that company was shut down by court order or otherwise, and that StreamCast planned to be the next Napster. Finally, there is no evidence that either company made an effort to filter copyrighted material from users' downloads or otherwise impede the sharing of copyrighted files. Grokster and StreamCast receive no revenue from users, who obtain the software itself for nothing. Instead, both companies generate income by selling advertising space, and they stream the advertising to Grokster and Morpheus users while they are employing the programs. After discovery, the parties on each side of the case cross-moved for summary judgment. The court nonetheless granted summary judgment in favor of Grokster and StreamCast as to any liability arising from distribution of the then current versions of their software. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseParker Phillips compiles a telephone directory containing only names and numbers. A competitor copies the listings without permission. The court finds no piracy because the raw facts lack the originality required for copyright protection.
Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., is a certified public utility that provides telephone service to several communities in northwest Kansas. As a condition of its monopoly franchise, state regulation requires Rural to issue an updated telephone directory annually. Rural's directory consists of white pages listing subscribers' names, towns, and telephone numbers in alphabetical order, along with yellow pages featuring classified advertisements. Feist Publications, Inc., specializes in area-wide telephone directories covering larger geographical ranges than typical local directories. Feist's 1983 directory encompasses eleven telephone service areas in fifteen counties and contains 46,878 white pages listings. To compile its directory, Feist approached each of the eleven telephone companies operating in northwest Kansas and offered to pay for the right to use their white pages listings. Of the eleven companies, only Rural refused to license its listings. Feist then copied 1,309 listings from Rural's 1982-1983 white pages after first removing several thousand outside its geographic range and verifying the remaining data through additional investigation that added street addresses to many entries. Four of the copied listings were fictitious entries that Rural had inserted to detect copying. Rural sued Feist for copyright infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The district court granted summary judgment to Rural. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the copyright in Rural's directory protects the names, towns, and telephone numbers copied by Feist.
View casePerry Pratt records a rap version of a popular ballad that mocks the original lyrics. The new work adds substantial commentary and does not supplant the market for the original song. The court holds the parody is not piracy because it constitutes fair use.
In 1964, Roy Orbison and William Dees wrote a rock ballad called "Oh, Pretty Woman" and assigned their rights in it to respondent Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Acuff-Rose registered the song for copyright protection. Petitioners Luther R. Campbell, Christopher Wongwon, Mark Ross, and David Hobbs, collectively known as 2 Live Crew, wrote a song in 1989 entitled "Pretty Woman," which Campbell described in an affidavit as intended through comical lyrics to satirize the original work. On July 5, 1989, 2 Live Crew's manager informed Acuff-Rose that the group had written a parody of the song, that they would afford all credit for ownership and authorship to Acuff-Rose, Dees, and Orbison, and that they were willing to pay a fee for the use. Enclosed with the letter were a copy of the lyrics and a recording of 2 Live Crew's song. Acuff-Rose's agent refused permission. In June or July 1989, 2 Live Crew released records, cassette tapes, and compact discs of "Pretty Woman" in a collection of songs entitled "As Clean As They Wanna Be." The albums and compact discs identify the authors of "Pretty Woman" as Orbison and Dees and its publisher as Acuff-Rose. Almost a year later, after nearly a quarter of a million copies of the recording had been sold, Acuff-Rose sued 2 Live Crew and its record company, Luke Skyywalker Records, for copyright infringement. The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether 2 Live Crew's commercial parody could be a fair use.
View casePatrick Phan sells video recorders that consumers use to tape television programs. The manufacturer lacks intent to promote infringement and the devices have substantial noninfringing uses. Studios fail to prove piracy because the sale alone does not constitute contributory infringement.
In 1976, Universal City Studios, Inc., and Walt Disney Productions, owners of copyrights in motion pictures and other audiovisual works, commenced a copyright infringement action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Sony Corporation of America and related entities that manufacture and sell Betamax video tape recorders. The Betamax consists of a tuner that receives signals from the public airwaves, a recorder that places those signals on magnetic tape, and an adapter that converts the signals for playback on a television set. It includes a timer for unattended recording, a pause button to omit commercials, and a fast-forward control. Surveys of several hundred Betamax owners conducted by both parties in 1978 showed that the primary use for most owners was time-shifting, recording a program for single later viewing and then erasing it. Sony's survey indicated that over 80 percent of interviewees watched at least as much regular television as before owning a Betamax. Seven point three percent of use was to record sports events whose professional leagues had no objection to home recording, and representatives of religious and educational broadcasters also testified they had no objection. After a lengthy trial, the District Court in 1979 denied all relief to the respondents, finding that time-shifting was fair use, that Sony had no direct involvement with any infringing activity, and that the Betamax was a staple article of commerce capable of substantial noninfringing uses. The court noted Sony's instruction booklet warned that unauthorized recording of copyrighted material may violate copyright laws. The Ninth Circuit in 1981 reversed the District Court's judgment on the copyright claim, holding petitioners liable for contributory infringement without setting aside any findings of fact, and remanded for consideration of damages or a continuing royalty. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1982, ordered reargument in 1983, and issued its decision in January 1984.
View case3 common questions
Copying raw facts does not constitute piracy because copyright protects only original expression. A directory of names and numbers lacks the required originality.
Supporting sources
A parody that adds new expression and commentary qualifies as fair use. It does not supplant the market for the original work and therefore is not piracy.
Supporting sources
Distribution is not piracy if the device has substantial noninfringing uses and the seller lacks intent to promote infringement. The mere possibility of misuse does not create liability.
…the separate authority to establish post offices and post roads, cl. 7, or to grant patents and copyrights, cl. 8, or to "punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas," cl. 10. It might not even need the power to raise and support an Army and Navy, cls. 12 and 13, for fewer people would engage in commercial…