Defendant uses his websites to disseminate to internet users content, in the form of both music and accompanying artwork, that has been unlawfully copied.... To listen to or download an infringing copy of a work, the user clicks on a link next to an image of the copyrighted album cover.... The user is then directed to a third-party website where the user may download the album that was uploaded onto the third-party website by Plaintiff.... Users are able to download unauthorized copies of the DFSB Plaintiffs' copyrighted material without Plaintiffs’ permission.

Moreover, it appears as though Defendant has specifically used several California companies to further his scheme of perpetrating illegal downloads. Tran uses California companies Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to promote the websites he operates, and to allow users access to the pirated copies of the copyrighted music and artwork. Additionally, it appears as though Defendant uses a privacy service located in California to shield his identity.... In light of the nature of the websites run by Defendant, it appears that Defendant’s activities are expressly aimed at California.

DFSB and the other plaintiffs, however, are not residents of California. Nonetheless, Defendant likely knew that his activities would cause harm in California. Tran relied on several California companies to further his scheme of providing copyrighted music to a world-wide audience of users. Additionally, given the evidence provided by Plaintiffs of the reach of Defendant’s activities, Tran likely knew that harm – in the form of distribution and download of copyright protected material – would be suffered in the forum state.

"In order to block competition coming from smaller businesses, the companies listed above rigged their own prices. By rigging the prices in compliance with one another, they placed great harm on the consumers and other businesses in the industry. Indeed, by equalizing the prices of their products, they've made the music industry believe that such a phenomenon was permanent. They have completely set up a blockade against the production of products that fit in different price categories. This is a violation of the consumer's right of choice."

"If this kind of UCC [User Created Content] is barred from uploading online, it results in a unnecessarily excessive restraint on the free expression."

Another interesting part of this ruling is that the court clearly found that the free expression under the constitution of South Korea must be considered fully and fairly in determining whether there exists a copyright infringement or not. Although the Korean Copyright Act has a fair-use-like clause, the clause is stated relatively narrowly so there has been a certain criticism that Korean court is not active in holding up a fair use defense. But this ruling held that the constitutional right of free expression has the equal value as a copyright stated in the Copyright Act which is a subordinate law to the constitution. That's why I welcome this ruling and expect to see the balance between the free expression and copyright with more fair use defences accepted in the Korean court in the future.

A police statement said they suspected Google has been collecting and storing data on "unspecified internet users from wi-fi networks"

"Today all of our new productions simultaneously come out in DVD, download and streaming on our website and on our partner's VOD platforms. Back then, we looked at the music market as an example of what not to do and how to react"

"If you leave unattended a bag of candy and some children, they will not understand why you punish them for eating the candy. Illegal files are 3 clicks away for just about anyone. It's normal that consumers will take advantage of those."

"Of course, the large majority of free and illegal content is low-end. [...] The public rejects this mass of identical video. Whatever small amount of high end content obviously stands out."