Results tagged “Criminal Copyright Violations” from The Federal Criminal Appeals Blog

November 14, 2012

The DC Circuit Vacates A Restitution Order In A Criminal Copyright Case - Or, Making Money Off Pirated Adobe Software Doesn't Necessarily Hurt Adobe As Much As It Helps The Person Making The Money

Gregory Fair was an internet entrepreneur. Of sorts.

Mr. Fair's Criminal Copyright Enterprise

He sold pirated copies of outdated Adobe software on Ebay. His customers could buy this outdated software, then, with an update code Mr. Fair was also able to provide, they could pay Adobe to upgrade their software to the most current version.

1335026_friendly_skull.jpgMr. Fair's customers would then pay, for example, $325 and a little bit of legwork for Adobe software that would cost more than $700 on the open market.

A deal like that sells itself, and over the course of six years his total sales came in around $1.4 million.

All good things must come to an end.

The Postal Service, after hearing complaints from Adobe, launched a sting. Mr. Fair was charged with a criminal copyright offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2319. He pled guilty.

Restitution Arguments at the Sentencing Hearing

Though the plea agreement contained a lot of concessions, it did not contain an agreement about any restitution amount.

Before sentencing, the government provided a spreadsheet of the amount of revenue that Mr. Fair made selling software as a part of his software enterprise. His total sales were $767,465.99. The government proposed that this would be an adequate measure of Adobe's loss for restitution purposes.

Mr. Fair disagreed. He argued that

(1) restitution under the MVRA must take the form of "actual loss" to the victim; (2) "actual loss cannot be equated to 'intended loss' or to gain by the defendant"; and (3) the government had offered "no proof . . . of any actual loss by [the victim,] Adobe Systems."

Moreover, in a move that may be genius or chutzpah, he argued that "his piracy might in fact have benefitted Adobe Systems by increasing consumers' awareness and use of its products."

A temperate man, he did not request payment from Adobe for his work as a part of the sentencing proceeding.

The district court agreed with the government. The district court reasoned that

"[i]t's undisputed that [Fair]'s revenue from the sales of pirated Adobe products was at least $767,000," and that "if anyone held the right to collect revenue from the sale of these products, it was Adobe [Systems]," and so it followed that "since the sales did occur and revenue was generated, and the right to the revenue was held by Adobe [Systems] and not by [Fair], that Adobe [Systems] has the right to be restored to the revenue that it lost [in] its right to collect on actual sales that were made."

Mr. Fair appealed.

Mr. Fair Goes To The D.C. Circuit

The D.C. Circuit, in United States v. Fair, reversed the restitution award.

About the district court's reasoning, the D.C. Circuit started by saying that just about no federal appellate court thinks the district court's approach is supported by the law.

The circuit courts of appeals are in general agreement that the defendant's gain is not an appropriate measure of the victim's actual loss in M[andatory Victim Restitution Act] calculations. See Zangari, 677 F.3d at 92-93 (2d Cir.); Arledge, 553 F.3d at 899 (5th Cir.); United States v. Gallant, 537 F.3d 1202, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008); Chalupnik, 514 F.3d at 754 (8th Cir.); United States v. Galloway, 509 F.3d 1246, 1253 (10th Cir. 2007); cf. United States v. Kuo, 620 F.3d 1158, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 341 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Badaracco, 954 F.2d 928, 942-43 (3d Cir. 1992).

So the amount that Mr. Fair made on the sales of copyright-violating software isn't the right measure of what Adobe lost. Fair enough. What is?

Sometimes, in a criminal copyright case, the copyright violator puts things into the market that completely block the legitimate seller from selling at all.

For example, if I sell bootlegged copies of The Green Bag ("an entertaining journal of law") for a mere $35 a subscription per year, it would prevent The Green Bag from being sold for many consumers.

In a case like that, the D.C. Circuit said, the restitution owed to The Green Bag would be not the cost of its lost sales - so not $40 per subscription I sold - but rather The Green Bag's profits per subscription. Or, as the D.C. Circuit put it,

the actual loss to the displaced (authentic) seller is the profit lost from the displaced sales -- not the retail value of the goods that would have been sold.

Here, though, the government put on no such evidence of Adobe's lost profits

the government offered no evidence of either the number of sales that Adobe Systems likely lost as a result of Fair's scheme or the profit that Adobe Systems would have made on any such diverted sales. The record contains only a spreadsheet tallying Fair's eBay sales and unsubstantiated, generalized assertions of government counsel regarding Adobe Systems' lost sales. . . . There thus was no evidentiary basis on which the district court could find that had Fair's customers not purchased pirated Adobe software from him at a greatly reduced price, all or any portion of them would have purchased full-priced versions from Adobe Systems.

Moreover, to the extent that the government thought that it could simply use the guidelines infringement loss number as a restitution amount, the court of appeals slapped it down

To the extent the government defends the use of gross proceeds as "consistent with the calculation of loss under the Sentencing Guidelines," Appellee's Br. at 15, it ignores the different approaches in the Guidelines and the M[andatory Victims Restitution Act]. Essentially, the government blurs the line between the "infringement amount" calculated under Sentencing Guidelines § 2B5.3 in criminal copyright cases, which is derived by multiplying the retail value of the infringed or infringing items by the quantity of infringing items, and the restitution amount calculated under the MVRA, which must reflect the actual, provable loss suffered by the victim.

But that's not all, gentle readers.

No Second Bite on Remand

The government, perhaps seeing which way the wind was blowing, asked the D.C. Circuit to limit the damage. If we lose, the government asked, please at least remand for a new hearing on restitution.

The government wanted another bite at the apple.

The D.C. Circuit was having none of it.

No special circumstances are present that would warrant reopening the record on restitution in Fair's case. The government's burden to prove actual loss under the MVRA was well-established before sentencing. See also Tr. Oct. 22, 2009 at 23 (government counsel stating, "[w]e welcome the burden to prove restitution."). The government was allowed to present evidence . . . . Indeed, whether the government had offered evidence demonstrating actual loss was the central issue addressed during the parties' restitution discussion at the sentencing hearing.

Because the government already had a full and fair opportunity to prove that restitution was appropriate, and it failed to do so, the D.C. Circuit vacated the restitution award and denied the government another chance to meet its burden.

Fair enough.

November 12, 2012

Short Wins - It's a Good Week For Remands In Fraud Cases

It's a good week for reversals in fraud cases.

The Second Circuit sent two fraud cases back for resentencing, and vacated a conviction in its entirety! And they're cool issues -- for example, for the "mass marketing" enhancement under the fraud guidelines to apply, the government has to show not just that mass marketing happened, but that mass marketing happened to victims. A number of convictions were also vacated in a criminal tax prosecution, and the Second Circuit found a violation of the defendant's public trial right.

The D.C. Circuit entered the fraud remand fray, sending a criminal copyright case back because of errors in the restitution order.

Exciting stuff.

For those who are obsessive about extraterritorial criminal law (a growing number of folks, these days), the Eleventh Circuit vacated a few convictions for people convicted of violating U.S. drug trafficking laws for things they did in Panamanian waters.

To the victories!

1155650_berlin_siegessule.jpg1. United States v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, Eleventh Circuit: As a result of observations by the United States Coast Guard in the territorial waters of Panama, four people were convicted in the United States of engaging in a drug trafficking conspiracy. Panama consented to prosecution in the United States. Because drug trafficking is not "an offense against the Law of Nations" under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, Congress exceeded its power under the Act's Offenses Clause when it proscribed the conduct in the territorial waters of Panama. Consequently, the Act is unconstitutional as applied to these four individuals and, as a result, the convictions were vacated.

2. United States v. Marquez, First Circuit: In crack cocaine distribution case, appellant was sentenced to 121 months in prison based on the district court's finding that he had acquired for distribution 304 grams of crack in two 152-gram allotments. Although it was not error to attribute the first 152-gram allotment to appellant, the court committed clear error in attributing the other 152-gram acquisition to appellant because there was no evidence to support the finding that the additional quantity was actually 152 grams. This secondary finding had a "dramatic leveraging effect," as it triggered a 120-month mandatory minimum. Consequently, appellant's sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

3. United States v. Lacy, Henry, Second Circuit: In mortgage fraud case, the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement to appellants' sentences for an offense "committed through mass-marketing" under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(ii) without making sufficient findings to show that the targets of the mass-marketing scheme were also in some way victims of the scheme. Consequently, remand for additional findings was required. The court also failed to credit any of the value of the collateral in formulating its restitution orders, warranting remand for recalculation of the restitution amount.

4. United States v. Gyanbaah, et al., Second Circuit: Appellant was convicted of five offenses arising out of his participation in a fraudulent tax return scheme. Because there was insufficient evidence to convict him of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft related to the bank fraud, his convictions on these counts were vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

5. United States v. Gupta, Second Circuit: In immigration fraud cause, appellant's sixth amendment right to a public trial was violated when the district court intentionally excluded the public from the courtroom during the entirety of jury selection without first considering the following factors: (1) the party seeking to close the proceeding must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; (2) the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest; (3) the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding; and (4) the trial court must make findings adequate to support the closure. Consequently, appellant's conviction was vacated.

6. United States v. Fair, DC Circuit: In copyright infringement and mail fraud case, the district court erred in entering a restitution order against appellant because the government failed to meet its burden under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act to present evidence from which the court could determine the victim's actual loss. Consequently, the restitution order was vacated.

7. United States v. Woodard, Tenth Circuit: Appellant's conviction for possession of more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute was reversed because there was a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different result had appellant been allowed to cross-examine a witness about a prior judicial determination that the witness was not credible.