Hong Kong: Hong Kong Magistrates´ Court Hands Down Conviction of BitTorrent Seeder

Last Updated: 16 November 2005
Article by Gabriela Kennedy

On 24 October 2005, a Hong Kong Magistrates' Court convicted Hong Kong resident Chan Nai-Ming ("the Defendant") for distributing 3 movie files over the Internet using the popular BitTorrent ("BT") P2P file-sharing tool ("the BT Case"). This is the first time criminal charges were successfully brought against a file sharer leading to a jail sentence. Mr. Chan was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, which is likely to have a strong deterrent effect on other file sharers in Hong Kong.

Before the Magistrate’s ruling, there had been much debate in Hong Kong as to whether the Defendant's file sharing activities fell within the scope of Section 118 of the Copyright Ordinance. The ruling clarifies that certain aspects of file sharing attract criminal liability under the Hong Kong Copyright Ordinance, but a number of issues remain to be clarified.


On 10 January and 11 January 2005, an officer of the P2P Task Force of the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department ("Hong Kong Customs") noticed that the Defendant had publicized three .torrent files on a BitTorrent newsgroup site. The files enabled third parties to download three films which the Defendant had copied from genuine VCDs and seeded on his own computer. The Hong Kong Customs officer downloaded and activated the .torrent files and found that the seeder's IP address was that of the defendant's computer. The Customs officer proceeded to download the film and soon there were forty other downloaders. The connection broke down when the Customs officer and two other downloaders completed downloading the film.

On 12 January 2005, Hong Kong Customs obtained a search warrant and raided the Defendant’s home. The Defendant was arrested and his computer was seized. At the time of his arrest, the Defendant was operating his computer. The Defendant did admit that he was the Internet account holder responsible for uploading the .torrent files onto the BT newsgroup. Interestingly, the Defendant used the Internet account in question under the pseudonym "Big Crook".

Criminal charges

Initially, three charges (one charge per film) were brought against the Defendant under S118(1)(f) of the Copyright Ordinance (Cap 528) ("the Copyright Ordinance") for attempting to distribute an infringing copy of a copyright work to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the rights of the copyright owner. The penalty for this criminal offence carries a maximum fine of HK$50,000 for each infringing copy and a maximum prison sentence of 4 years.

The case caused a lot of debate in Hong Kong with one camp claiming that the act of uploading the seeder .torrent files to the BT newsgroup only amounted to making available the .torrent files for download by third parties and the other claiming that the uploading amounted to distribution of the files. The difference between the two diverging views is that the act of "making available" copyright works without permission attracts civil liability while the act of distributing unauthorized copies of a copyright work attracts criminal liability under the Hong Kong copyright law.

Given this uncertainty, three alternative charges (one charge per film) of obtaining access to a computer with a view to dishonest gain for himself or another under Section 161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200) ("Crimes Ordinance") were subsequently laid against the Defendant, in case the charges under the Copyright Ordinance were not successful.


The Defendant's case was that even if his involvement with the .torrent files was proved as alleged, his acts did not amount to distribution under Section 118(11)(f) of the Copyright Ordinance. The Defendant's lawyers argued that the role of the Defendant was passive in that he did not actively distribute the films but did nothing more than share or make available the films to Internet users who wanted to download them. The significance of this distinction as noted above is that the act of making available to the public does not attract criminal liability but only civil liability under the Copyright Ordinance.

The Magistrate took a different view and considered that as a whole, the Defendant's acts were essential and continued throughout the downloading process and therefore they were an integral part of the enterprise of downloading the films to other computers. The Defendant's acts included:-

  • loading films onto his computer
  • creating the .torrent files
  • creating the images of the inlay cards and imprinting them with his logo
  • publishing the existence of the .torrent files and the names of the movies on the newsgroup so that others would know where to go to download them
  • activating the .torrent files
  • keeping his computer connected to enable downloading by others

Downloading from the seeder would not be possible if the seeder computer ie the Defendant's computer had been turned off or if the BT software was closed or otherwise blocked. Given that the Defendant kept his computer connected to the Internet and did not close the BT software the Court held that his acts were more than merely preparatory to distribution. They were at the very least an attempt to distribute.

Distinction between distributing and making available

A similar discussion of the term "to distribute" took place in the Canadian Federal Court case BMG Canada Inc. and others v Doe & Ors. A different interpretation of the term was offered in the Canadian case. The Canadian federal judge considered that the placing of personal copies of music files into shared directories which are accessible by other computer users did not amount to an act of distribution. The judge commented that there must be a "positive act by the owner of the shared directory" for there to be distribution. The judge distinguished the act of placing and making available copies which are passive acts from positive acts of sending copies to others or advertising the material’s availability for the purpose of illegal copying.

The case was appealed and the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal judge queried whether the Federal Court judge had erred in his interpretation because it was not clear to him that distribution under the Canadian Copyright Act required a "positive act" and there was no authority cited in support of the view of the lower court judge.

In the BT Case, the Magistrate viewed the Defendant’s acts as not merely preparatory but as positive acts, especially when coupled with his intention, and as amounting to distribution of illegal copies of films. The Defendant was therefore not merely making available to public the .torrent files.

In Hong Kong at least, it would appear that the test which the court may likely adopt in future cases is to look at the active and passive elements in each particular act as a whole in order to determine whether such acts would amount to distribution or not. In the present case, the Defendant did not initiate the transfer of the films from his computer but he did copy them from genuine VCDs, seeded them on his computer and then actively publicized the existence of the .torrent files containing the films on Internet newsgroups. In the words of the Court, he invited the public to come and get illegal copies of the films.

Prejudicial Effect

The Magistrate also had to consider whether the Defendant distributed to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the interests of the copyright owners. The Magistrate made it clear that the measure of prejudice is not necessarily restricted to economic prejudice measured by loss of sales. Other factors to be considered should include non-economic prejudice caused by the mere existence of the films on the Internet which significantly undermined the business of copyright owners and the impact on their rental market.

Although the evidence before the court was of one whole film completely downloaded by the Customs officer from the Defendant’s seeder computer which barely amounted to significant prejudice, the Magistrate inferred from the Defendant's acts that his intention must have been to distribute much more widely than simply to one downloader. Thirty to forty downloaders had joined the Customs Officer by the time he finished downloading the films and the distribution to thirty to forty downloaders would certainly cause prejudice to copyright owners through unauthorized distribution and lost sales. The Magistrate therefore concluded that the Defendant's acts amounted to an attempt to distribute to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the rights of the copyright owners.


The Magistrate gave his Sentence on 7 November 2005.

In attempting to pass an appropriate penalty against the Defendant, the Magistrate referred to an earlier Hong Kong Court of Appeal case where a firm and deterrent based sentencing policy had been adopted for violations of intellectual property rights. The Magistrate emphasized that custodial sentences rather than suspended sentences are appropriate for copyright violations unless there are truly exceptional circumstances present.

In cases involving trading in the counterfeit CDs and DVDs for commercial gain, the general starting point for assessing penalty is a prison sentence of 6 to 12 months. The exact sentence will, of course, depend on the scale and circumstances of each offence.

In the BT case, the Magistrate first distinguished cases involving dealings in infringing CDs or DVDs for commercial gain from the present case where the Defendant did not make any commercial gain. The Magistrate concluded that the legislation did not make a distinction between offences based on whether or not a commercial gain had been made. The absence of commercial gain is of limited significance in assessing the seriousness of the offence and the appropriate penalty for the offence.

The Defendant was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment (which will be served concurrently) for each of the three charges brought under Section 118(1)(f) of the Copyright Ordinance. Since the charges under the Copyright Ordinance were successful, the Magistrate made no ruling on the three alternative charges under the Crimes Ordinance.

Given that the Defendant had no prior conviction record, the Magistrate took into account a number of factors in handing down the sentence which included the fact that:-

i) the Defendant was fully aware of the illegality of seeding copyright material using BT file sharing tools

ii) there is only a minor distinction between a manufacturer or a distributor of infringing discs and a BT seeder

iii) the potential damage to the film industry is huge

iv) there is no difference in terms of harm to copyright owners between file sharing and distribution of infringing discs

A prison sentence for an infringer who did not profit from his acts of copyright infringement may seem harsh. However, given the widespread use of file sharing tools by Internet users and the damage they appear to have done to copyright owners, the Magistrate found the need to send a strong deterrent message to all file sharers in order to demonstrate that copyright laws do work in Hong Kong to protect and safeguard the interests of copyright owners. The opening remarks in his Sentence have made this clear: "I must say this first of all: that Hong Kong carefully guards intellectually property rights. These rights are not illusory, they are not something which exists only in theory and not in practice. They are real, they are valuable and they amount to genuine property. And the owners of those rights are entitled to the same level of protection from dishonest appropriation as the owners of ordinary, more tangible property".

Alternative charges under the Crimes Ordinance

Although the charges under the Crimes Ordinance did not need to be considered, obiter dicta in the judgment suggest that the Magistrate was of the view that the Defendant's acts of publishing .torrent files on the newsgroup computer would also be caught under Section 161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance. But would Section 161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance apply to illegal file sharing activities on the Internet? The legislative intent of the Computer Crimes Ordinance which introduced Section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance was to clarify and amend the criminal law relating to the misuse of computers, and for related matters. The Magistrate did seem swayed by the argument that the Defendant's intention was to obtain dishonest gain for another (ie the downloaders of his .torrent files). However, no consideration appears to have been given to the first part of Section 161(1) namely "obtaining access to a computer". If "obtaining access to a computer" were to be interpreted as broadly as it appears to have here, then anyone sending spam with false advertisements will also be caught by Section 161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance.

Issue regarding the liability of downloaders

The BT Case leaves some questions unanswered - would BT downloaders also be criminally liable under the Copyright Ordinance and/or the Crimes Ordinance ?

Technically, it might be arguable that third party downloaders could themselves be held to be distributing the files if they enable sharing by other Internet users.

One day after the BT Case verdict, a Swedish court also handed down an Internet piracy conviction. On this occasion, the Swedish court fined the infringer for using a file-sharing tool to distribute one movie although no prison sentence was imposed. However, a number of Swedish lawyers commented that had the illegal uploading involved more than a few movies, the Swedish court would have handed down a prison sentence. The Magistrate's ruling in Hong Kong seems to be in line with overseas developments in file sharing cases against seeders.


Do these recent court victories herald the beginning of the end of Internet piracy ? Or are these court rulings just small victories in a continuing war against Internet piracy? Since the Defendant was arrested in January 2005, the Hong Kong Customs Department has noticed that illegal file sharing activities in Hong Kong have fallen by 80%. The Magistrate sent an unambiguous message to future offenders in Hong Kong as he ended his judgment with the warning that "…[future offenders] might expect greater [prison] terms to be imposed, perhaps not very different to those handed down to sellers of infringing discs".

Soon after the sentencing in the BT Case, seven leading Hong Kong record companies started a civil action in Hong Kong seeking disclosure by Internet service providers of the identities of 22 individuals alleged to have engaged in illegal file-sharing activities including uploading songs through WinMX technology. Internet users in Hong Kong who engage in illegal file sharing activities are now faced with the prospect of both civil and criminal actions.

Although the Magistrate's ruling has no binding effect on other courts, the analysis in the BT Case is likely to have high persuasive value if future file sharing cases are brought before higher courts in Hong Kong. In the meantime, the Defendant is appealing the Magistrate's conviction.

© Gabriela Kennedy and John Tai

November 2005

The authors are partner and solicitor respectively working in the IP and Technology Media and Telecoms Groups of Lovells in Hong Kong. For further questions regarding the issues raised in this article please contact either author at gabriela.kennedy@lovells.com or john.tai@lovells.com.


1 HKSAR v Chan Nai Ming (TMCC1268/2005)

2 A .torrent file (ie file with the extension .torrent) is a file created by the seeder which contains, amongst other things, the IP address for the seeder computer. The seeder needs to activate the .torrent file to connect the seeder computer to a tracker server, which is a computer responsible for linking downloaders with the seeder computer and with each other, and which enables them to download the files in the .torrent files

3 Section 118(1)(f) of the Copyright Ordinance provides that "A person commits an offence if he, without the licence of the copyright owner, distributes (otherwise than for the purpose of, in the course of, or in connection with, any trade or business) to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, an infringing copy of a copyright work". It should be emphasized that although the wording in S118(1)(f) of the Copyright Ordinance does not expressly specify "attempting to distribute" as an offence, pursuant to Section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap.200) an attempt to commit an offence is also an offence.

4 BMG Canada Inc. and others v Doe & Ors, 2004 FC 488

5 BMG Canada Inc. and others v Doe & Ors, 2005 FCA 193

6 Secretary for Justice v Choi Sai-lok [1999] 4 HKC 334

7 Section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance provides that "Any person who obtains access to a computer-

(a) with intent to commit an offence;
(b) with a dishonest intent to deceive;
(c) with a view to dishonest gain for himself or another; or
(d) with a dishonest intent to cause loss to another,

whether on the same occasion as he obtains such access or on any future occasion, commits an offence and is liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for 5 years."

8 The purpose of the Computer Crimes Ordinance which introduced Section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance was to clarify and amend the criminal law relating to the misuse of computers, and for related matters.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions