1oz61wa

Civil Remedies
the RIAA initiated lawsuits against over 18,000 individual users, most of whom paid a few hundred
dollars in settlements to avoid the potential for statutory damages of $150,000 per infringing
use. 204 More recently, the RIAA has abandoned its former policy of directly bringing cases against
consumers in favor of expanding its focus on educating the consuming public about avoiding
piracy. 205
The Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”) followed in the RIAA’s footsteps with its
own set of lawsuits directed against consumers who engaged in the illegal file sharing of copyrighted
films and other video, 206 though on a vastly smaller scale. It, too, later abandoned this
approach. 207
Based on the information currently available, the IPL Section does not believe that legislative
action directly targeting consumers would prove effective in reducing piracy or counterfeiting at
this time. Alternatively, a well-constructed and continuous public outreach campaign to educate
the public about piracy and counterfeiting, the negative impacts these activities have on the U.S.
economy and ways consumers can be proactive in trying to stop such conduct may have a longer
lasting positive impact. 208
IV.
CONCLUSION
In light of the analysis above, the IPL Section supports extending certain civil remedies to redress
online piracy and counterfeiting undertaken by foreign-based websites. The IPL Section recommends
a “follow the money” approach based around extending injunctive relief and monetary
damages as detailed more fully above.
Notes
1. Examples of such sites include thepiratebay.se (which originated in Sweden as thepiratebay.org until
February 2012 and still has connections there, but has since expanded to a number of other jurisdictions for
various parts of its service), and movie4K.to (whose url is registered in Tonga and whose service is currently
hosted in the Virgin Islands).
2. See, e.g., S. Rep. 112-39 at 3-4 (2011) (discussing “rogue Internet sites, which do nothing but traffic in
infringing goods”) (available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112srpt39/pdf/CRPT-112srpt39.pdf);
compare with Sen. Wyden Press Release, Wyden, Moran, Cantwell Introduce IP Protection Bill that Will Not
Break the Net (Dec. 17, 2011) (available at http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-morancantwell-introduce-ip-protection-bill-that-will-not-break-the-net)
(referring to “rogue websites” without
definition).
3. The suggestion to cut off the funding source for Predatory Foreign Websites (i.e., “follow the money”)
is not new. For instance, during the April 6, 2011 hearing before the House Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, several participants explored the possibility
of “cutting off the money” to these websites as a means to encourage their demise. E.g., Senator Conyers’
remarks (“Why don’t we just cut off all the money? Why don’t we eliminate some of the financial incentives by
cutting off funding from customer through the payment processing system, or cut off the funding from some of
the advertising networks?”); Kent Walker, Counsel to Google (recommending “cutting off the money to these
guys, cutting off the advertising . . . [and] the financial services.”); Christine Jones, Counsel to GoDaddy
(recommending “follow the money” as a means to combat predatory foreign sites); Hr’g Webcast (Apr. 6, 2011)
(available at http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2011/4/hearing-on-promoting-investment-and-protectingcommerce-online-legitimate-sites-v-parasites-part-ii-0).
Note that GoDaddy withdrew its support of PIPA and
SOPA in the wake of public pressure. See Daniel Nye Griffiths, “GoDaddy Retracts Support for SOPA,”
Forbes.com (Dec. 23, 2011) (available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnyegriffiths/2011/12/23/sopa-godaddy/).
Google has recently renewed its recommendation to use the money trail as a means to stop the websites engaged
in online piracy. Theo Bertram, “Follow the Money to Fight Online Piracy,” Google Europe Blog (July 2, 2012)
31