United States v. Roosevelt Anderson, Jr.
741 F.3d 938
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Anderson, a Las Vegas cab driver, sold burned Adobe software discs online (Pricegrabber, Anderson9000.com) using the seller name “Moneyworld123,” including serial numbers from a key generator.
- Adobe purchased undercover copies, traced ~350 sales (209 copies of Photoshop CS3 and 30 of CS3 Extended) totaling ~$70,551; police later found blank discs, key-generator disc, and plug-ins in Anderson’s car.
- Anderson admitted selling the software but claimed misunderstanding about OEM/backup exceptions and that terms claiming "archival" use accompanied discs (customers could install without seeing them). Some customers complained and received refunds.
- He was convicted of criminal copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(1); sentenced to 24 months imprisonment and ordered to pay $247,144 restitution to Adobe.
- On appeal Anderson challenged (1) the willfulness jury instruction, (2) admission of uncharged-act evidence (Fireworks sale and discs found), and (3) the restitution calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury willfulness instruction | Government: instruction correctly allowed conviction if defendant knew actions may infringe | Anderson: instruction misstated law; must prove specific intent to violate law (knew conduct was illegal) | Instruction imprecise (use of "may") but no plain error given counsel acquiesced and instructions read as whole required knowledge that actions constituted infringement; conviction affirmed |
| Admission of uncharged acts | Government: Fireworks sale and possession evidence intrinsic to pattern/business and necessary for coherent story | Anderson: evidence was 404(b) "other act" evidence and prejudicial under Rule 403 | Evidence admissible as intrinsic/contextual and not unfairly prejudicial; no abuse of discretion |
| Restitution valuation method | Government: restitution measured by retail price × number of infringing copies sold | Anderson: should use prices charged or give credit for returns; or use victims’ lost profits rather than retail value | District court erred: MVRA requires restitution reflect victim's actual loss (typically lost profits on diverted sales); retail-price-based restitution vacated and remanded for recalculation on open record |
| Victim identification for restitution | Government: Adobe is the victim and entitled to restitution | Anderson: customers or retailers are actual victims; returns should offset amount | Adobe is a proper victim, but restitution amount must be based on actual harms (lost profits for diverted sales); returns and other offsets must be considered on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Liu, 731 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2013) (willfulness in §506(a) requires voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty)
- United States v. Fair, 699 F.3d 508 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (restitution for copyright fraud measured by victim’s lost profits on diverted sales; gross proceeds inappropriate)
- United States v. Chalupnik, 514 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2008) (actual loss for merchant goods is lost profits, not defendant’s gross revenues)
- United States v. Yeung, 672 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 2012) (MVRA requires restitution to reflect victim’s actual loss; district court must provide adequate evidentiary basis for amount)