Federal Court Imposes Jail Time In Copyright Infringement Case

• Published date: 11 September 2025
• Subject Matter: Intellectual Property, Copyright
• Law Firm: Aird & Berlis LLP
• Author: Daniel Kim and Kaitlin Soye

Introduction

In a recent decision by the Federal Court (or the "Court"), Bell Media Inc. et al. v. Marshall Macciacchera dba Smoothstreams.tv et al., 2025 FC 1378 ("Macciacchera"), Chief Justice Paul Crampton ("Chief Justice") issued an order to incarcerate two defendants for contempt of court. The two defendants had twice been found in contempt of court for disobeying an Anton Piller order. By the third hearing, the Chief Justice found that there were sufficient grounds to imprison one defendant for six months and the other for four months for their non-curable failure to comply with the Anton Piller order. Both defendants will be further incarcerated for a maximum five years less one day or until they comply with the Anton Piller order.

This case adds to the rare collection of jurisprudence from the Federal Court that involves defendants facing time in prison for issues related to copyright infringement. The Chief Justice's analysis provides a clear example of how sentencing principles work for incarceration cases in the Federal Court. The key takeaway, however, is the Chief Justice's obiter comments, which suggest that the Federal Court may become more willing to impose incarceration penalties.

Background

The defendants were operating an online platform that provided its subscribers with unauthorized access to a large number of movies and television shows for which the copyright was owned by various rights holders, including the plaintiffs. Consequently, on June 17, 2022, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for infringing the plaintiff's copyright. On application of the plaintiff, the Federal Court issued an Anton Piller order with extension provisions for search, seizure and preservations of evidence and equipment, and requiring disclosure of information about the infringing services and financial assets.

In the words of the Court, the defendants "flagrantly" disobeyed the Anton Piller order. The defendants refused to assist in the search and access of their properties, including refusing to give passwords to computers and failing to authorize their Hong Kong banks to provide the requested information. As a result, the defendants were found guilty of contempt in two separate hearings ahead of this third hearing before the Chief Justice.

At the third contempt hearing, all parties agreed that incarceration would be an appropriate penalty. The only issue was the severity of the penalty.

Analysis by the Chief Justice

The Chief Justice noted that the...