Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judge Dismisses Movie Piracy Complaint
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.
Besides, "infringement" and "stealing" are separate crimes in the first place.
Not intimidation, more like a protection racket.
You pay $7500 or you pay a lot more to a lawyer and risk losing.
No. See Federal Rule of Evidence 408(a)(1) ("Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party — either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction: furnishing, promising, or offering . . . a valuable consideration [i.e. money] in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim").
Three times the value ("treble damages") is pretty typical for a "fair amount" in more sane arenas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treble_damages
A person who represents himself has a fool for a client.
- paraphrase of a well known quote whose origins I've forgotten
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
One of the key differences is that when entities settle out of court, the plaintiff sets a settlement cost at an amount which would be reasonable to offset their losses.
ie: You broke my fence, I am typically entitled to the cost to a repair of that fence and attributable damages (cows wandered out via the gap). Such a cost might be $4000. However, perhaps we agree that because the fence was pretty degraded, it isn't fair for you to have to pay for the cost of replacing the fence (effectively giving me a NEW fence for free) but a portion of the cost commensurate to the value of the original needing repairs anyway fence.
The main difference, of course, is that the settlement amount tends to focus on repairing the actual harm done.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
He understands, but both of you missed one important distinction here:
With most torts, there's no question raised as to whether or not the defendant was involved. Instead, the big disagreement in most lawsuits is over whether or not the defendant's actions caused damages, and/or if their subsequent results are damaging enough to warrant a monetary (or other) redress.
With the trolls at Voltage, there's no way to tell (or even reliably prove) that the defendant and/or his products/property/whatever had any involvement at all.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Yep, that's what my lawyer said. It'll cost about $10k to get her into court, and court is always a gamble. Bear in mind I'm in Canada where court is significantly cheaper.
The upshot is that if it's less than $25k, it goes to small claims, which means you can represent yourself. If the other side shows up with an army of lawyers, the judge will probably take them to task.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.