The plaintiffs were the owners of copyrighted movies that could be searched for through
the index of dot-torrent files on the defendants’ sites, then downloaded by users using the
BitTorrent client software on their computers. They sought to hold the defendants secondarily
liable for the downloading of infringing copies of their copyrighted content by users of the
defendants’ sites. The court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on the issue of liability
based on a theory of inducement.^2198
Because BitTorrent users could be scattered throughout the world, to establish liability
for inducement, the plaintiffs needed to establish that instances of direct infringement by
BitTorrent users had taken place in the United States. The court rejected the defendants’
argument the plaintiffs were required to provide evidence that both the transferor and the
transferee of infringing content were located in the United States.^2199 “[T]he acts of uploading
and downloading are each independent grounds of copyright infringement liability. Uploading a
copyrighted content file to other users (regardless of where those users are located) violates the
copyright holder’s § 106(3) distribution right. Downloading a copyrighted content file from
other users (regardless of where those users are located) violates the copyright holder’s § 106(1)
reproduction right. Plaintiffs need only show that United States users either uploaded or
downloaded copyrighted works; Plaintiffs need not show that a particular file was both uploaded
and downloaded entirely within the United States.”^2200 Plaintiffs had adequately provided
sufficient evidence to establish acts of direct infringement in the United States through IP
address data that located defendants’ users and showed that particular infringing downloads took
place in the United States.^2201
Turning to the facts of the case, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment on the issue of inducement liability based on the following acts by the defendants:
- Defendants’ messages to users had stimulated others to commit infringement: The
defendants web site had a “Box Office Movies” feature that periodically posted a list of the top
20 highest-grossing films then playing in the United States, which linked to detailed web pages
concerning each film. Each of these pages contained “upload torrent” links allowing users to
upload dot-torrent files for the films. The defendants’ web sites presented available torrent files,
the vast majority of which pointed to infringing content, in browseable categories and provided
further information about the content. The defendants also generated lists of the most popular
files in categories like “Top 20 Movies.” The sites’ operator, Fung, made statements on the site
encouraging or assisting infringement, such as posting a message telling the site’s users that they
should try a particular software application could be used to frustrate copyright enforcement
against file sharers. He also provided a link to a torrent file for the recent film Lord of the Rings:
Return of the King and stated, “if you are curious, download this.” Fung also created a
(^2198) Id. at 3.
(^2199) Id. at 28-29.
(^2200) Id. at 29-30.
(^2201) Id. at 32.