Abstract:
In Japan, some users who originally thought they could obtain adult videos for free through BitTorrent are facing unexpected legal consequences. As copyright owners intensify the pursuit of online infringements, some users have successively received relevant court documents or high claims for compensation. What may have seemed like hidden downloading behavior may turn into costly legal disputes.
A report released by Japan's Kyodo News Agency in October 2026 pointed out that users who use BitTorrent to download adult videos are receiving more and more attention. Unlike ordinary direct downloads, BitTorrent uses a peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing mechanism. While users obtain files, they may also upload file fragments to other users. This technical feature makes the relevant behavior not only involve downloading, but also may involve unauthorized dissemination of copyrighted works.
One of the reported cases occurred in Tokyo. A freelance male in his 40s had learned about BitTorrent through the Internet and started using related software to download adult videos. He typically starts the download before going to bed and closes it the next morning, allowing him to access a large number of videos without directly paying for them.
However, in May this year, he suddenly received a letter from the court. At first, he had no idea what the letter was about. The court has approved the release of identifying information, including name, address and phone number, documents show.
About 20 days later, he received another letter from a lawyer. Lawyers representing a video production company asked him to pay 500,000 yen and said further civil or criminal legal action may be taken if he refused to deal with it.
The man initially suspected that he had encountered a scam, but after carefully examining the files, he gradually realized that it might be related to his use of file sharing software. He then sought help from a lawyer and did not immediately pay the requested amount. Currently, the two parties are negotiating to reduce the claim amount.
This incident reflects that Japanese copyright owners are adopting a more systematic approach to pursue online file sharing behavior. According to data from the Tokyo District Court, the number of user identity information disclosure applications accepted by the intellectual property department of the court has increased significantly in recent years: 814 in 2023, 2,454 in 2024, and 5,320 in 2025.
A survey by Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications also showed that 95.6% of the identity information disclosure requests received by major Internet service providers and other institutions in 2024 involved cases suspected of infringing the copyright of adult films.
This ratio shows that adult film copyright disputes account for a considerable proportion of related online infringement cases in Japan. However, this number refers to disclosure requests received by institutions covered by the investigation, and does not mean that all related requests are ultimately approved by the court, nor does it mean that every user under investigation will ultimately be held liable for compensation.
The reason why copyright owners are able to gradually expand the scope of tracing is closely related to BitTorrent’s technical mechanism.
BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol. While traditional downloads typically involve a server serving files to users, BitTorrent allows multiple participants to exchange file data directly. A file will be split into multiple data fragments. Users can obtain these fragments from different participants at the same time and then combine them into a complete file locally.
This mechanism can improve the efficiency of the distribution of large files, but it also brings about a problem that is easily overlooked by ordinary users: when using common BitTorrent clients, users often not only download files, but also automatically upload obtained data fragments to other participants during the download process.
In other words, even if users think they are only obtaining videos, they may also be participating in the dissemination of related works. If these works are protected by copyright and the user has not obtained the corresponding authorization, then the uploading behavior may constitute copyright infringement.
Japanese copyright owners have begun to use specialized monitoring systems in recent years to identify network addresses suspected of distributing works through file sharing software. Relevant systems can record information such as participants' IP addresses and communication times, and then the copyright owner applies to the Internet service provider through legal procedures to disclose the user's identity.
After obtaining relevant identity information, the copyright owner or its attorney can file a claim against the identified user, or seek further legal relief based on specific circumstances.
It should be noted that the IP address itself does not always directly prove that a specific person has committed an infringement. It is often an important clue in the investigation and still needs to be judged in combination with network connection records, user identification information and other evidence. Whether the court approves the disclosure of information is also related to the evidence submitted in the specific case and the applicable law.
Relevant legal procedures in Japan allow copyright owners to require Internet service providers to disclose the identity information of alleged infringers through the courts when statutory conditions are met. Some previous judgments of the Tokyo District Court have also recognized the claim that BitTorrent may infringe copyright by distributing copyrighted works.
In the reported case, after receiving the lawyer’s claim letter, the man chose to contact a law firm he found through online reviews. The lawyer told him that there was no need to pay immediately just because he received a claim for 500,000 yen, and he should not make his own decision without fully understanding the situation.
Because the case involved adult videos, the man even had difficulty explaining his troubles to his family. He said that even in the workplace, he would suddenly think of the incident and suffer obvious psychological pressure.
After the lawyer took over the communication with the other party, his anxiety eased. Currently, the two parties are negotiating and hope to reduce the amount of compensation proposed by the other party. He said he was glad that he did not simply ignore the letter but sought professional advice, and admitted that he regretted using the software.
Lawyer Toda Izumi, who represents video production companies and other copyright holders, reminds users not to believe the claims on the Internet that "as long as you ignore the claim and wait until the statute of limitations expires, everything will be fine."
He pointed out that if the party concerned does not respond at all, the copyright owner may think that the problem cannot be solved through negotiation, and then consider filing a criminal complaint and other legal actions. He said he had handled many similar cases.
Toda also believes that using BitTorrent usually requires users to actively install and configure software, which may make the copyright owner believe that the relevant behavior is not entirely accidental, but is implemented after certain preparations. However, whether infringement is constituted, whether the parties are at fault, and what legal liability they should bear must still be judged based on specific facts and applicable laws. The conclusion cannot be drawn directly just by installing the software.
At the same time, copyright owners do not necessarily want to push every case to court trial or criminal prosecution. Toda said that from the perspective of video production companies, these alleged infringing users may also become paying consumers. If the other party can respond seriously and there are specific circumstances worthy of consideration, the parties may still negotiate to lower the settlement amount.
Another lawyer Yasushi Sasami pointed out that some video production companies have established a relatively mature batch recovery process. He said he has provided legal advice to more than 1,000 people facing similar claims, including the Tokyo man in the report.
Sasanami believes that copyright owners have been able to file claims in batches in a relatively standardized way, and this business model may also become a source of income for related companies.
He also reminded that even if users reach a settlement with a copyright owner, it does not necessarily mean that all potential disputes have ended. Because many users have downloaded a large number of videos from different production companies, different copyright owners may file separate claims, so the same user may receive multiple notifications demanding payment.
Sasanami also questioned the amount claimed in some cases. He believes that the amount of compensation required for a single work may be relatively high and may not be fully commensurate with the severity of the specific act, and calls on the court to further clarify the criteria for determining the amount of reasonable compensation.
This also shows that the relevant disputes are not just about whether users use BitTorrent, but also involve broader legal issues such as copyright protection, damage calculation, and how large-scale rights protection mechanisms should operate.
For ordinary users, the most alarming aspect of this type of case is that the working method of BitTorrent is significantly different from traditional direct downloading. Users may think they are simply obtaining files from the network, but automatically provide copyrighted content to other participants without fully understanding the mechanics of the software.
In addition, receiving court documents or a lawyer’s notice of claim does not mean that every amount claimed by the other party has been finally determined by the court. Users should carefully verify the authenticity of documents, understand the basis for claims, and seek advice from qualified lawyers based on specific circumstances, rather than paying blindly, nor simply thinking that they can avoid all consequences by not responding.
Recent cases of this kind in Japan show that as copyright owners’ monitoring capabilities and identity information disclosure procedures become increasingly mature, file sharing behaviors that were considered covert by some users in the past are facing higher legal risks. For users who want to avoid disputes, the safest approach is still to obtain copyrighted works through legal channels and avoid unauthorized downloading and dissemination of related content.
Comments