United States v. Liu

731 F.3d 982 (2013)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Liu

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
731 F.3d 982 (2013)


Julius Liu (defendant) owned a company called Super DVD, which replicated compact discs (CDs) and digital versatile discs (DVDs) on a commercial scale. The process for commercial replication requires the producer to have a master stamper of the requested media content. The master is created based on some source material providing the content to be replicated, such as an original recording or compilation of recordings. Liu would replicate media as requested by his clients. Clients were required to sign a document confirming the client had the right to reproduce the media. In 2003, Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided the warehouse of one of Liu’s clients, Vertex International Trading (Vertex), and discovered copies of computer software in which Vertex did not have a copyright interest. Documents at the scene, such as purchase orders and shipping labels, confirmed that Liu had made some of the counterfeit software CDs. Liu’s company also replicated, among other things, DVD copies of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Crouching Tiger) and several different CD compilations with the Beatle’s hit songs, rap, and Latin music. Liu asserted that the Crouching Tiger source discs had simply been labeled as Tiger. Liu said that as soon as Liu realized what the content was and that the client did not have a copyright interest, Liu sued the client for misrepresentation. Additionally, Liu stated that he had not known anything about most of the music-compilation CDs, but he had met and discussed a Latin music compilation provided by Juan Valdez. Liu stated that Valdez claimed he’d had purchased copyright licenses in the music and had performed the vocals himself. Liu listened to some tracks and believed them to have been sung by Valdez. The government charged Liu with criminal copyright infringement based on counterfeit software CDs, music-compilation CDs, and the Crouching Tiger DVDs. The jury received instructions that stated that Liu should be found guilty if the government proved that Liu had willfully infringed and that infringement had been done willfully if it was done knowingly and intentionally, rather than by accident or mistake. The court’s instructions did not include instructions requested by Liu, and agreed to by the government, that specified that evidence of reproduction, on its own, was not evidence of willfulness. The jury convicted Liu of all charges and sentenced him to four years in prison. Liu appealed based on the jury instructions.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Nguyen, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 743,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership