Is simple possession of a copyright-infringing item legal in the USA? There are quite a few laws in the USA (mostly at the Federal level) governing copyright and how to handle infringement. Most of these laws seem to establish criminal and/or civil liability for the act of copying rather than simple possession. So, my question is, if I have already come into possession of a tangible/physical item that violates copyright (e.g. a pirated video game cartridge, DVD, video tape, etc.), is there any law that creates civil or criminal liability for continuing to possess it? To be clear, I'm asking about bare possession, like keeping the item on my desk or something as a curiosity, rather than copying it further, importing it, exporting it, selling it, lending it, commercially exploiting it as part of a business venture, using it to assault a police officer, etc. As an analogy, most &quot;illegal&quot; drugs are illegal to simply possess. If I have some heroin in my desk drawer, that is illegal in itself even if I refrain from selling it to someone, shipping it across a border, etc. Is a copyright-infringing item similar to that or does the law only get involved when something else (e.g. further copying, sale, etc.) is done? Yes, it's possible that a law was broken in the acquisition of an infringing item. For the purposes of this question, that is irrelevant. In response to Nate Eldredge's comment, yes I am asking solely about bare possession. Maybe I plan to &quot;play&quot; or &quot;load up&quot; an infringing video game cartridge at some point in the indeterminate future, but what I care about now is whether I can be &quot;busted&quot; in the meantime just for having it or if a cause of action only arises when I play it. Of course, I am asking this as a hypothetical, and am interested in the theory of this rather than advice for any specific case or scenario. The problem I am having researching this is that a lot of actual court cases that seemingly involve possession of infringing items are actually about using or selling them. For example, physical shops selling pirated DVD's (which were actually a real thing 20 years ago) would occasionally get &quot;busted&quot; for selling the products or attempting to import them from whatever country it was that stamped them out by the dozen, not for simply having them on an upper shelf in the storeroom.
No, bare possession is not illegal under US law Nothing in Tile 17 of the US code (which is the copyright law) makes it illegal or even actionable to simply posses a single physical object (such as a game or a book) which constitutes a copyright infringement. Criminal copyright infringement is defined in 17 USC 506 and is limited to people who: Infringe for &quot;purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain&quot;; and Create infringing copies &quot;which have a total retail value of more than $1,000&quot; in a six-month period; or Infringe &quot;by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.&quot; However, in practice, the US Department of Justice only brings criminal copyright cases when infringement is carried on as a business, on a bulk or mass basis, and only when infringing copies are in fact distributed to the public. In practice the vast majority of copyright enforcement (both in the US and in other countries) is done by private suits by copyright owners or rights-holders. In the US such suits are generally to enforce the rights guaranteed in 17 USC 106. This protects six core rights (summarized): To make copies or phonorecords; To prepare derivative works; To distribute copies or phonorecords; To perform the copyrighted work publicly; To display the copyrighted work publicly; To perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. The copyright owner can do any of these or authorize other to do them. Anyone doing any of these without such permission is an infringer unless one of the exceptions or limitations in sections 107 thru 122 applies. There are also the &quot;moral rights&quot; specified in section 106A. These apply only to works of visual art in the US, and grant the artist the right to: Claim authorship of the work; Prevent the use of the person's name on any work s/he did not create; Prevent the use of the author's name on any work that has been changed so as to possibly harm the author's reputation; Prevent any &quot;intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation&quot;; and Prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature. Note that none of the six rights from sec 106 or the five moral rights from sec 106A covers possession of an infringing copy. One caution: so-called &quot;first-sale rights&quot; (from 17 USC 109) do not apply to an infringing copy, and it is infringement to knowingly sell, lend, rent or otherwise distribute an infringing copy. But the purchaser is not an infringer. Also, to play an infringing copy of a game might be a violation of the right to &quot;publicly perform&quot; the work, but not if done in private. However, in running a game it is likely that one or more temporary copies would be made. This is lawful if done from a lawful copy, but not if the person does not posses a lawfully-made copy. So playing an infringing copy of a game might well constitute an act of infringement, although a suit over a private act is unlikely.
It does not matter whether the document is authentic, because it is true, by law. Under copyright law, you must have permission of the copyright holder to copy any protected work (original creative work not created as a work of the US, as an example under US law). This is true whether or not the copyright holder tells you that copying requires permission. A matter for more concern is &quot;false permission&quot;, where a person without the right to grant permission utters something that the courts would usually interpret as being &quot;permission&quot;, for example releasing a Harry Potter book under CC-0. The legal requirement is that you have actual permission, not that a prohibition was not communicated to you. It is in your interest to know whether the actual person making available a work under some license actually has the right to grant a license. But there is no way to know for certain who holds copyright. You can, however, attempt to determine that a work has been registered with the US copyright office, looking here. Works are still protected when not registered, so failing to find a copyright registration does not guarantee that the work is &quot;open access&quot;. It would tell you who the registered copyright holder is. There is no &quot;innocent infringement&quot; defense, but under §504(c)(2), your liability for statutory damages can be reduced to as little as $200, if you can prove that there were no indications that the work is protected.
It depends where you and your friend are and where the copyright was created. Ripping music for personal use is considered fair use/fair dealing in most jurisdictions. Having multiple copies/devices for personal use is OK too - practically, you can't watch more than one at a time unless you have a very unusual brain. If the intention is that both you and he would have and use copies then that is a violation.
This answer is limited to United States law. The situation in other countries is definitely different. Under United States law, the owner of a lawfully made copy of a copyrighted work has, as a right of the physical possession of that work, the right to the work's ordinary use. Licenses grant you additional rights such as the right to make derivative works, the right to make copies beyond what's needed for ordinary use, and so on. A pure license doesn't ask for anything in return, it just gives you new rights. Those rights may be conditional, but the conditions are just things you have to do to get new rights. They're not conditions imposed on any existing rights you had. A contract is an agreement between two parties. Both parties must agree to a contract for the contract to be enforceable. Contracts can take away rights you otherwise have. You don't need a license or contract to use a copyrighted work if you lawfully possess a copy of that work. Say you download a copy of a work covered by the GPL. You can refuse to accept the GPL license and you can still use that work. Why? Because no law prohibits you from doing so and there is no civil cause of action for using a lawful copy of a work under US law. But now say you want to give a copy of that work to your friend. This is illegal under US law because 17 USC 106 restrict that right to the copyright holder and there's no applicable exception since that's not part of the ordinary use. For a work covered by the GPL, the license offers to give you that right, a right you wouldn't otherwise have. It imposes conditions on you that are specifically in exchange for the grant of the new right. If you do accept the GPL, it functions as a contract. You got in exchange a right you didn't have before and if you don't comply with the GPL's terms, you don't have the copyright holder's permission to exercise those rights which is required under the law. By contrast, a click-through or EULA takes effect when you agree to it and such agreement is a condition for using the software. That's a pure contract and usually doesn't give you any rights you wouldn't have in the absence of such an agreement other than the use of the software.
Both the displayed site (including all text and images) and the html, css, javascript and other code that generates the display are protected by copyright. This is true in pretty much every country. You would not be able to reuse them lawfully without permission, unless an exception to copyright applies. If no exception applies, and you have not obtained permission, this is copyright infringement. In most cases copyright infringement is treated as a tort (a civil matter), not as a crime. This means that law enforcement generally will take no action and have no interest in such a situation. The copyright owner could sue for infringement, and possibly collect money damages. In the US, statutory damages can be as high as $30,000, or up to $150,000 for &quot;wilful&quot; infringement, or as low as $750 (per work infringed). Or actual damages can be collected instead. In other countries, actual damages plus costs of suit are more likely, but the rule can be different in each country. The possible exceptions to copyright vary significantly in different countries. In the US the major exception is Fair use. See Is this copyright infringement? Is it fair use? What if I don&#39;t make any money off it? and I have a question about copyright. What should I read before I ask it? for more information In general short snippets of code can probably be used under fair use, but substantial parts of the code or the displayed site are less likely to qualify as fair use. And if it is illegal then why are there so many legal open source or paid software and applications for cloning of website like httrack, cyotek, webcopy etc? Most of these tools have legitimate uses, including learning how a site is constructed without distributing copied content; and cloning or partial cloning of a site with permission. Even if the tools were mostly used for unlawful copying, that might well not be a high priority for law enforcement, and cross-border law enforcement (which this in many cases would involve) is often much harder for the police and other authorities.
Hypothetically speaking, if a program doesn't come with a EULA, does that mean someone in possession of it (who isn't the owner) would be breaking the law if they used it? If the copy on the stick was lawfully made with permission of the copyright holder, then you can lawfully use the software. Someone who lawfully comes into possession of a lawfully made copy of the software (that was not a backup) has the right to use that software in the ordinary way. For example if someone found a USB stick lying on the ground and it had software on it but no EULA, could they use the software? Maybe, but it would be hard for them to know whether they could or not. It might be a backup. It might be an unlawful copy. There was a case where a person found a CD in the trash that was clearly an original. The package had a shrink wrap agreement, but he found the CD without the package. The court held that he had every right to use the software on the CD (since it was a lawfully-made copy and not a backup) and was not bound by the EULA (since he hadn't opened the package). But he was very fortunate in being able to demonstrate these facts.
Yes So far so good. This is a copyright violation but it is probably fair use - certainly there is case law permitting a copy of a backup digital asset to be made so I don’t see why a similar argument wouldn’t work with backing up a physical book. Clear copyright violation. Alice can rent out the original under the first sale doctrine but the ‘backup’ is not so protected. It’s not fair use because it’s use is commercial, the work is a type of work the author expects to profit from, the entire work has been copied and the use is deleterious to the market i.e. the renters are less likely to buy an original - it falls foul of all four factors of the fair use test.
There's no "common law copyright" in the US. There's common law trademark, but copyrights and trademarks are different things. All copyright is based on federal copyright statutes, and an unregistered copyright is just called an unregistered copyright. What an unregistered copyright gives you is almost the same thing as a registered copyright: the exclusive right to exercise various rights (reproduction, distribution, public performance/display, etc.) Registration is required before you can actually file an infringement lawsuit, but it's OK if you only registered it after learning about the infringement. The main reason to register the work early is that you might be able to collect higher damages if it was registered before the infringement. If the work was unregistered when the infringement happened, you can only collect actual damages. If it was already registered, you can instead opt to collect statutory damages. Statutory damages don't require you to show actual loss; instead, the court awards between $750 and $30,000 per work based on what it considers fair. The lower limit can go down to $200 if the infringer had no reason to think they were infringing, and the upper limit can go up to $150,000 if the infringement was willful. You can also collect attorney's fees if it was already registered. In the comments, the question was raised of whether someone else might be able to register the copyright for your work before you and what would happen then. When I say "registration is required before filing a lawsuit," the requirement is that you submit the registration paperwork properly, pay the fee, and wait for the Copyright Office to act on the application. If they accept the registration, you're all set. Even if they refuse, though, you can still file an infringement claim -- you just have to also serve the head of the Copyright Office, who has the option of jumping into the case to argue about whether the work could legally be registered. You can also sue the Copyright Office to get judicial review of a denial under the Administrative Procedure Act (refusal still lets you file infringement lawsuits, but you can't get statutory damages or attorney's fees against an infringer unless the Copyright Office actually accepted the registration).