Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Federal Judge Dismisses Movie Piracy Complaint

Posted by Unknown on from the steve-seagal-will-punch-them-instead dept.

cluedweasel writes "A Federal judge in Medford, OR has dismissed a piracy case lodged against 34 Oregonians. Judge Ann Aiken ruled that Voltage Pictures LLC unfairly lumped the defendants into what she called a 'reverse class action suit' to save on legal expenses and possibly to intimidate them into paying thousands of dollars for viewing a movie that could be bought or rented for less than $10." The judge was not enthused that they offered to settle for $7500 while noting that potential penalties could be as much as $150,000.

2 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. Lawsuit piracy by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Funny

    "... the manner in which plaintiff is pursuing the Doe defendants has resulted in $123,850 savings in filing fees alone."

    So... they only paid for a single instance of the lawsuit, then unfairly duplicated it, when they should have paid for each individual instance of the lawsuit?

    That's lawsuit piracy! Think of all the lawyers who could have been employed had they filed individuals lawsuits.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  2. Re:Mass Extortion by Migraineman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Would have been an interesting case to sit-in on. I can imagine that the dialogue went something like this:

    Lawyer: Your honor, the court needs to understand that the motion picture industry employs hundreds of people in the process of making a feature length film.
    Judge: Uh huh.
    Lawyer: When these dirty internet pirates steal the movie, they are stealing the food from the children of these good people.
    Judge: So you suffer losses?
    Lawyer: Yes! Almost incalculable losses. That's why we seek the statutory penalty of $150,000 per individual.
    Judge: [types on computer] I see that the film in question is available on Amazon for nine bucks.
    Lawyer: Uhm, yes, I believe that is the correct amount.
    Judge: So an individual who purchases this item through Amazon and watches it generates $9 in revenue, minus Amazon's overhead?
    Lawyer: Uhhhh ... yes.
    Judge: So your client receives up to $9 for the legitimate viewing, but somehow suffers $150,000 in damages because the method of viewing changed?
    Lawyer: Your honor, it's complicated.
    Judge: Enlighten me. Where does this $150,000 delta come into play?
    Lawyer: Uhm ... pain and suffering.
    Judge: Pain and suffering?
    Lawyer: Yes ... mine. OH GOD, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT'S LIKE WORKING FOR THESE PEOPLE!