1oz61wa

Civil Remedies
124. Id. at 5.
125. Id. at 8-9.
126. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Intern. Service Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788, 806 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hard Rock
Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Concession Servs., Inc., 955 F.2d 1143, 1150 (7th Cir. 1992)).
127. Rosetta Stone, 676 F.3d at 165.
128. 494 F.3d at 808.
129. Id.
130. The operators of the Pirate Bay have even proposed placing their servers on aerial drones to prevent
copyright owners from locating them. See http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-03/pirate-bay-wantsput-network-nodes-sky-aboard-small-aerial-drones.
131. Written Statement of Maria A. Pallante, Acting Register of Copyrights before the Subcommittee on
Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet, House Committee on the Judiciary (Mar. 14, 2011) (available
at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031411.html).
132. Capitol Records, LLC v. VideoEgg, Inc., 611 F. Supp. 2d 349, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); see also Realuyo
v. Villa Abrille, No. 01 Civ. 10158, 2003 WL 21537754, *6 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), aff’d 93 Fed. Appx. 297 (2d Cir.
2004) (“sheer availability” of allegedly defamatory article on a website insufficient to support jurisdiction despite
registered users of the website located in New York). Similarly, courts have declined to exercise personal
jurisdiction over individual users who participated in BitTorrent swarms that resulted in copyrighted works
being distributed to computers in the forum, holding that such swarms by themselves are insufficient to confer
specific jurisdiction over a defendant. See, e.g., Berlin Media Art v. Does 1–654 v. e.k., No.: 11-03770 (JSC),
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120257, at *4–8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2011); Millennium TGA v. Doe, No. 10 C 5603,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110135, at *2–8 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2011); On The Cheap, LLC v. Does 1–5011, No.
C10-4472 BZ, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99831, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2011); see also Citigroup Inc. v. City
Holding Co., 97 F. Supp. 2d 549, 565-66 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (distinguishing three different types of uses of an
internet website—passive, active and in-between—and holding that only uses of the latter two types show a
sufficient connection to the jurisdiction to subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction).
133. See, e.g., VideoEgg, Inc., 611 F. Supp. 2d at 360 (finding personal jurisdiction where defendant “sold
advertisements to New York companies and sought to participate in advertising campaigns specifically directed
at New York users”); DFSB Kollective Co., Ltd. v. Tran, No. 11–CV–01049, at 3-4, 2011 WL 6730678, at *2-3
(N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (finding personal jurisdiction where “websites run by [defendant] allow users to
request music, and personally download the information” and defendant “uses California companies Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube to promote the websites he operates, and to allow users access to the pirated copies of the
copyrighted music and artwork.”); Arista Records, Inc. v. Sakfield Holding Co. S.L., 314 F. Supp. 2d 27, 31-33
(D.D.C. 2004) (holding that personal jurisdiction existed over Spanish operator of website where site “allowed
users to register for the service but then receive 25 free music files before the user had to pay for further
downloads”; holding that “the download of music files by [defendant] constitutes transacting business in the
District” of Columbia and is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction); International Printer Corp. v. Brother
Int’l Corp., No. 2–07–CV–361, at 1, 2008 WL 4280345, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2008) (specific personal
jurisdiction over foreign defendant based in Netherlands was proper where plaintiff presented evidence that
foreign defendant’s website allowed “users to download allegedly infringing software in Texas” and defendant
actually offered allegedly infringing products for sale at a trade show in Texas).
134. 17 U.S.C. §502(a) (emphasis added).
135. See Bryant v. Gordon, 503 F. Supp. 2d 1062, 1065-66 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (holding that “because [the
defendant] prevailed on [plaintiff’s] claim against him, entry of injunctive relief” against the photographer was
“improper. . . . The jury’s finding that [plaintiff] failed to prove that [photographer] infringed his copyright is
binding on the Court with regard to the request for an injunction.”); cf. Societe Civile Succession Richard Guino
v. Int’l Foundation for Anticancer Drug Discovery, 460 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 1110 (D. Ariz. 2006) (remedy of
impoundment under §503 of Copyright Act “applies only to infringers”; followed by Bryant court).
136. See General Building Contractors Association, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 399 (1982) (stating,
in a case under 42 U.S.C. §1981, that court may have power to impose on non-liable entities “such minor and
ancillary provisions of an injunctive order as the District Court might find necessary to grant complete relief to
[the plaintiffs].” (emphasis added)); U.S. v. Local 30, 871 F.2d 401, 406-07 (3rd Cir. 1989) (affirming a “district
court’s authority to subject [a party] to injunctive relief [trusteeship] even though the [party] itself was not liable
under either §1962(b) or §1962(c) and was only nominally a defendant in the case,” noting that “district court
can bind a party to an injunction if that party is a nominal party in the action and has an opportunity to respond
41