United States v. Moran
757 F.Supp. 1046 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a criminal copyright infringement charge under 17 U.S.C. § 506(a), the term 'willfully' requires the government to prove that the defendant committed a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.
Facts:
- Dennis Moran, a full-time police officer, owned and operated a small video rental business.
- Moran purchased authorized, copyrighted video cassettes of motion pictures from distributors.
- To protect the original cassettes from damage or theft by customers, Moran made single unauthorized copies of the movies he purchased.
- He placed these unauthorized copies into inventory for rental to the public while keeping the original, purchased cassettes in storage.
- Moran affixed title labels and copies of the FBI copyright warning label to the duplicated tapes.
- Moran believed his practice of creating one backup copy, which he termed 'insuring', was legal so long as he owned the original and did not rent both the original and the copy at the same time.
- On April 14, 1989, FBI agents executed a search warrant on Moran's business and seized several unauthorized copies of movies.
- Moran fully cooperated with the agents, explaining his process and his belief that his actions were lawful.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States brought a criminal charge against Dennis Moran for willful infringement of copyrighted video cassettes in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a).
- The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
- The parties consented to a bench trial before a United States Magistrate Judge.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the term 'willfully' in the criminal copyright infringement statute, 17 U.S.C. § 506(a), require the government to prove that the defendant had a specific intent to violate a known legal duty?
Opinions:
Majority - Richard G. Kopf
Yes. To establish a criminal violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a), the government must prove the defendant acted 'willfully,' which means the defendant committed a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. The court analyzed the split in authority regarding the meaning of 'willfully' and found the specific intent standard, similar to that used in federal criminal tax statutes as articulated in Cheek v. United States, to be more persuasive. The court looked for guidance to the civil copyright statute, 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), where 'willful' infringement (which allows for enhanced damages) is distinguished from 'innocent' infringement, suggesting that 'willful' must mean the defendant knew their conduct constituted infringement. Applying this standard, the court found that Moran had a good faith, subjective belief that his actions were not illegal. This subjective belief, whether objectively reasonable or not, negates the element of willfulness required for a criminal conviction. The court found Moran credible and noted his actions, such as buying multiple originals to make only one copy of each, were inconsistent with a motive to maximize profit by knowingly violating the law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raises the burden of proof for the government in criminal copyright infringement cases within this jurisdiction. By importing the 'specific intent to violate a known legal duty' standard from complex tax law cases like Cheek, the court makes a defendant's subjective misunderstanding of the law a complete defense. This precedent means that prosecutors cannot secure a conviction merely by proving the defendant intentionally copied a work; they must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew their specific conduct was illegal. The ruling complicates prosecutions against small-scale infringers who may operate under a genuine, albeit legally incorrect, belief about the complexities of copyright law.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Moran