How do circuits differ in rulings about viewing criminal content without downloading it?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal courts and Congress have drawn a line between passively viewing streamed content and creating copies, producing uneven outcomes across circuits: many courts and commentators treat private streaming as unlikely to trigger felony criminal liability absent willfulness and commercial gain [1] [2], while recent statutes and appellate rulings have increased exposure for large-scale operators and raised novel contributory-liability questions for intermediaries [3] [4].
1. What federal law says and why “viewing” matters
The criminal copyright statutes historically penalized willful reproduction or distribution for commercial advantage, so courts have focused on whether streaming creates a “copy” or is merely transient viewing — a distinction many commentators and academic notes say preserves private streaming from felony exposure while making downloading or distribution criminal [5] [1].
2. How circuits have responded: a patchwork, not a single rule
Several appellate courts and legal commentators have effectively treated private, noncommercial streaming as outside traditional felony reach, with law reviews and defense counsel pointing out that streaming “privately is not a violation but any downloading … is” because downloading makes a copy [1] [2]; at the same time, circuits have split or produced evolving standards on secondary liability and contributory infringement, as shown by the Fourth Circuit’s decision upholding contributory liability against Cox for facilitating downloads on its network [4].
3. The Protecting Lawful Streaming Act changed the stakes — unevenly
Congress closed part of the gap in 2020 by making large-scale, willful streaming for commercial advantage punishable as a felony, which legal scholars say targets commercial operators while explicitly preserving civil doctrines and not altering civil exceptions [3] [6]; still, circuit courts must apply the statute’s “willful” and “commercial advantage” language, producing varying outcomes when fact patterns are close or when defendants argue good-faith licensing disputes [7] [8].
4. Secondary liability and ISPs: circuit conflict on remedies and consequences
The Fourth Circuit’s approach in the Cox litigation — affirming contributory liability for failing to curb users who downloaded infringing material — demonstrates a more aggressive stance toward intermediaries, a posture the Supreme Court was asked to review because it could force ISPs to take concrete steps like shutting off alleged infringers [4] [9]; other circuits have been more cautious about imposing penalties that might chill speech or overbroadly cut access, reflecting divergent balances between copyright enforcement and access concerns [9].
5. Practical differences in enforcement and interpretation
In practice, courts and litigants distinguish three axes — whether the act creates a copy (download vs streaming), whether it is willful and commercially motivated (triggering felony risk under the PLSA), and whether a service provider knowingly facilitates infringement (contributory liability) — and appellate panels have weighted those axes differently, resulting in predictable shielding of individual viewers in many jurisdictions but greater exposure for site operators and, in some circuits, ISPs [1] [2] [4].
6. Policy disputes, hidden agendas and the road ahead
Industry supporters of tougher criminal penalties framed the PLSA as closing a “streaming loophole” exploited by commercial pirates [3] [5], while civil-liberties groups warn that aggressive contributory rules can incentivize overbroad shutdowns and self-censorship by platforms and ISPs [9]; appellate variation means that until the Supreme Court or Congress provides a definitive interpretive guide, circuit courts will keep shaping the boundary between mere viewing and criminality on fact-intensive lines [4] [3].
Conclusion
Circuits differ mainly because of how they treat ephemeral streaming versus durable copying, how they interpret “willful” and “for commercial advantage” after the PLSA, and how willing they are to impose secondary liability on intermediaries — a mosaic that generally protects private viewers in many courts but exposes large-scale streamers and some service providers to felonies or heavy civil liability depending on the circuit and the facts [1] [3] [4].