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.

Comments

About time

[willthiswork89]

It's about time the court system grow a backbone and say something to these wankers. What really needs to happen is a lawsuit filed for intimidation by the defendants.

Re:About time

[h4rr4r]

Not intimidation, more like a protection racket.

You pay $7500 or you pay a lot more to a lawyer and risk losing.

Re:About time

[h4rr4r]

Not at all. The issue I have is the discrepancy in amounts. $7500 is targeted to make it just cheaper than dealing with a lawyer. The $150k is statutory damages designed to deal with commercial infringement.

Settling out of court is fine if it is in good faith. This is not a good faith offer, it is merely a protection racket. They don't even need to have a case since it will cost you more to fight than to pay.

Re:About time

[meglon]

Yeh.... they even have a saying for that....

Re:About time

[IndustrialComplex]

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.

Re:About time

[Penguinisto]

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.

Re:About time

[Beardo the Bearded]

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.

Re:About time

[h4rr4r]

You will need to file all kinds of paperwork for appeals and evidence.

This is a civil case, so they are only going to try to meet a preponderance of evidence. There is no proving yourself innocent, just defending against that.

lawyers and judges are not godlike, but just as they have no idea how to do my job, I have no idea how to do theirs. We could both attempt it, but the results are not going to be pretty in either case.

Re:About time

[wvmarle]

I thought small claims court meant "no lawyers". So not only can you represent yourself, you pretty much have to represent yourself, as you can't get a lawyer to represent you.

It also means that the other party (the firm sending those letters) must send a non-lawyer to court to represent the company. That person may have the backing of lawyers in preparing the case but they have to argue the case there and then.

Re:About time

[azadrozny]

You usually have the right to bring a lawyer with you to court. Small claims courts exist to bundle smaller less complicated cases into one system. The rules are usually simpler, and judges are more tolerant of errors made by the litigants since they typically do act as their own lawyer.

Re:About time

[jedidiah]

The problem with the troll claims is that you've got a state of affairs that boils down to "Tort reform for the rich, and Crime and Punishment for the Poor".

Most tort case don't have the benefit of extreme and unjust statutory damages. In most tort cases, you actually have to prove harm. Media moguls don't have to do that. They can dodge the issue entirely. Beyond that, you have a well cultivated hatred of lawyers coupled with tort reform movement that's been pretty effective in gutting civil remedies in non-copyright cases.

In your average tort case, you don't have the benefit of a credible threat of multi-million dollar damages for trivial infractions.

Mass Extortion

[onyxruby]

It's about time judges start to see these campaigns as the mass extortion cases that they are. If this was being done by anyone else there would have been RICO charges filed long ago. These cases have nothing to do with preserving copyright and everything to do with extorting the public. A $7500 settlement instead of a $150,000 for a $10 movie, how on earth can this possibly be anything other than sheer extortion?

Re:Mass Extortion

[hedwards]

The problem is that the people running the legal system are themselves attorneys with little sense of what laypeople really have to put up with. Yes, it might technically be in the fine print of something that we signed, but there's no reason to believe that we understood the terms we were agreeing to. What's more, very, very few people can afford to have an attorney go over every ToS, EULA and such that we're asked to agree to. That alone would likely run into the thousands of dollars every year, assuming that the agreements are straightforward, which they usually aren't.

Until the justice system understands that these aren't real contracts which have been negotiated and agree to with informed consent, it's going to keep up like this. Sure, I signed a contract to get phone service, but it's not like I had other options other than not having a phone at all.

Re:Mass Extortion

[sanosuke001]

There is no EULA or ToS; when you download a movie from bittorrent or some other such service, all the FBI warnings etc have already been removed. I'm not saying what they're doing is right (it isn't); just saying that it isn't an EULA or ToS issue.

Re:Mass Extortion

[Migraineman]

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!

Unknown Lamer, that's not how justice works

[GodfatherofSoul]

If judgments only made me pay for what I stole, there'd be no incentive NOT to steal! It would become a "catch me if you can, then I'll make good" game.

Re:Unknown Lamer, that's not how justice works

[tepples]

Besides, "infringement" and "stealing" are separate crimes in the first place.

Re:Unknown Lamer, that's not how justice works

[h4rr4r]

This is not theft, it is copyright infringement.

In the case of theft of $10 your fines would never exceed hundreds of dollars.

Re:Unknown Lamer, that's not how justice works

[DanTheStone]

Three times the value ("treble damages") is pretty typical for a "fair amount" in more sane arenas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treble_damages

Re:Unknown Lamer, that's not how justice works

[bzipitidoo]

Analogy? I don't see any analogy, I see only a point, and a not very relevant one at that.

You made a point, a good point, about stealing. But this is a case about copying, not stealing. Copying is not stealing no matter how many times others try to equate the 2 actions. Don't fall for these sleazy media companies ongoing efforts to confuse the public on this. Don't talk of this matter as if it is or could be some form of theft, you just help these media trolls when you do.

Nor should copying be considered some heinous crime. It isn't. It shouldn't even be considered a petty infraction. Speeding, one of the lightest infractions on the books, is a more serious offense as it can endanger lives. But copying? Not only should copying not be considered an offense at all, it should be encouraged because it is a huge social good. It is sharing of knowledge, the "standing on the shoulders of giants", that put humanity at the top of the animal kingdom, not sheer intelligence alone. These media trolls want to set themselves up as the gatekeepers through which all sharing must occur, and to collect heavy tolls. It's very nearly as bad as selling the "rights" to breathable air to private interests, and forcing everyone to pay for their air. You benefit from fresh air, so you should pay for it, right? Don't fall for their propaganda and allow them to further muck up our society with their attempts to control all information.

Re:Unknown Lamer, that's not how justice works

[AthanasiusKircher]

I think the current copyright system is broken, and I do NOT approve of the actions of the MPAA, RIAA, etc. in these frivolous and ridiculous legal actions. However:

Copying is not stealing no matter how many times others try to equate the 2 actions.

I agree that "copying is not stealing" in a strict sense, but I also don't think copying is always the noble deed you make it out to be.

And, although you don't accept the analogy between copying and stealing, it doesn't mean there aren't some things in common.

Here's a simple hypothetical situation:

Suppose you hire a lawyer to draw up some important legal document for you (a will or something). You need the help of an expert to be sure the language is legally binding. Say you go over to his office, he shows you the will, and then he says, "My fee for this is $500."

He gets up and goes to the bathroom. You go over to his computer and use your USB drive to make a copy of the electronic file of the will. You then get up and leave. Or, you wait for him to come back and say, "Well, I can't pay $500, so no thanks" and then leave. Whatever. You file the legal document.

Is that "stealing"? You only made a copy of an electronic document. Isn't "information supposed to be free"?

If it troubles you that you inappropriately accessed his computer, suppose he (stupidly) sends you the document via email, along with his bill. You mutter something about the fee being too high and refuse to pay and claim to "return" the electronic copy he sent. You then go ahead and use your copy of the document anyway.

In this case, you hired someone to do something for you, and you made an implicit agreement to pay his fee if you want the product. It shouldn't matter whether the form of the product is easily copyable or not: whether you paid a carpenter to build you a new porch or a lawyer to write you a new will, you owe them money for their work.

Is this strictly "stealing"? No. But it does violate an implicit contract, and I don't think it's too far-fetched to consider it to be akin to theft if you go behind your lawyer's back and still use your copy of the document without paying his fee. You effectively "took" his time and work without paying anything, which sounds very much like "stealing."

Now, suppose you do the same thing, except you hire a composer to write a new song for your wedding. Again, you refuse the $500 fee, because you can't afford it or don't like the song that much or whatever... but you take the mp3 and use the song at your wedding anyway. Isn't that also akin to "theft," even if it isn't strictly stealing?

Okay, you might say, but these are clear examples of work-for-hire, so you owe the creator something because you implicitly agreed to pay for their work by asking them to do it.

Now, we get to a real-world copyright example. Now our songwriter decides, rather than only writing single songs for rich guys and their weddings, that he'd rather contribute his work to society at large. He could solicit some sort of "subscription" for his songs, charging prospective buyers a few dollars each. (This sort of thing did and still does happen for certain types of publications, though in the past it wasn't just for periodicals -- large books and even printed song collections were sometimes printed under subscription.)

But a young composer without a "big name" doesn't have that option. So he writes a song and arranges for a recording. Rather than charging someone $500 for writing a single song, he figures if he can get 1000 people to pay him 50 cents each, he'll make the same amount. And the U.S. copyright system seems to back him up on this idea.

But after two guys buy the song (giving him a total of $1 in revenue), you come along and start shouting: "Information should be FREE! Copying is a noble act! Share! Share! Share!" One of those guys uploads the song somewhere on the internet, and several hundred people g

Re:Unknown Lamer, that's not how justice works

[bzipitidoo]

You are confused on a number of points. Copyright is only a means by which artists are encouraged to produce art. A lot of people are still convinced that there is no other way and that without copyright artists will starve and we'll have no more art. That is of course hysterical nonsense. There are many other ways. Patronage is a big one that is centuries old. You express grave doubts that patronage can be effective. I think you ought to give it another chance, rather than continue to cling to copyright which has so obviously failed in so many ways. With our greatly enhanced ability to communicate, we, the people, should be able to do patronage far, far better than it ever was done in Mozart's day, and we are. The Humble Bundles are a form of patronage. There's also merchandizing and endorsements, public performances, contests with money prizes, and, one you mentioned, work for hire. Kickstarter is work for hire distributed amongst many payees.

You, like many others, are also stretching what copyright does. It is simply what its name says it is, the "right" to make copies. That right is totally artificial, requiring constant and very expensive enforcement by our governments to work at all. Even so, it would have no chance whatsoever of working were it not for the majority of people believing that it is only fair to compensate artists, and mostly accepting the system we have in place for doing so. But the more these trolls abuse the system, the greater that public awareness rises that copyright has big problems. It's too late to save copyright, not that we would want to anyway. Copyright isn't dead yet, but it will be in another few generations.

Copyright is only the right to make copies. It is not a defense against plagiarism, a preventer of fraud and cheating, or a guardian of privacy. Further, the kind of rights that a Hollywood studio negotiates in order to turn a book into a movie is totally different than the kind they'd like to deny to private individuals who just want to make a backup copy or do a time or format shift, whatever conflation the media trolls try to make. We should use different names for these different things. Your examples about the lawyer drawing up a will for you or a musician composing music for your wedding that you then take (doesn't matter whether it's by copying or outright theft of the original media) without paying are not violations of copyright, they are violations of other things such as labor laws and contracts. Suppose you called a plumber who fixed your plumbing and then you refused to pay? Suppose you saw a doctor, got treated, and whether or not the treatment was successful, you refused to pay? (Maybe your medical problem was too difficult to fix in a 15 minute office visit, and all the doctor could do was identify the problem and send you to on to appropriate specialists.) Suppose you're a programmer and your employer fires you and refuses to pay you for the work you did during the last month you were with them, claiming it was no good and so they shouldn't have to pay? That's the same sort of thing as not paying the lawyer or musician in your examples, and is covered under other laws. Copyright is hardly the only thing holding society together!

Your next example, about the young, unknown artist who sells 2 copies, and then can't sell any more because there are free copies available, merely illustrates that copyright is a broken business model. The young artist will simply have to use a different business model, that's all. Stop crying over this and face it, copyright does not work. Certainly we should not go to the lengths required to make copyright work in spite of natural law. DRM is such an abysmal failure that it is a farce. Consider that a public library can buy just one copy of a work, and then loan it out to dozens of people. A used book and record store does much the same. Even if you think banning used bookstores and shutting all our public libraries is necessary for the sake of copyright, friends can still swap books, CDs, flash drives, and the like in private quite easily. That makes for hundreds of people who got to consume a work without paying, something you seem to find morally repugnant. But it is entirely legal. And good.

Lawsuit piracy

[langelgjm]

"... 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.

If it's so wrong...

[DoofusOfDeath]

The judge was not enthused that they offered to settle for $7500 while noting that potential penalties could be as much as $150,000.

How is this different han what DA's do with the accused?

Re:If it's so wrong...

[PhxBlue]

Way to miss the point. GP is referring to DAs' sometimes ridiculous overprosecution of cases, e.g. Aaron Schwartz.

Re:Actual damages

[cdecoro]

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").

Re:Cool web site

[cffrost]

It sounds like you accidentally failed to install NoScript.

Re:Cool web site

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy to resolve: if you're using Firefox go to Tools / Options / Advanced - and then check Warn me when websites try to redirect or reload the page.

You'll get a nice warning which you don't allow and can actually read the site.

self representation = not smart

[davidwr]

A person who represents himself has a fool for a client.

- paraphrase of a well known quote whose origins I've forgotten

Reading comprehension fail

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

cluedweasel says in the parent post:
"The judge was not enthused that they offered to settle for $7500 while noting that potential penalties could be as much as $150,000."

While technically accurate, it's extremely misleading. That makes it sound like the judge got angry that they were letting people off the hook for "only" $7500 when they could have asked for more. In fact, the judge's point was that a movie that could be legally purchased on Amazon as a disc ($9) or a rental ($3,.99) should not have a settlement offer of $7500. The $150,000 issue wasn't made by the judge and is in fact essentially irrelevant to the ruling. Once again the person who posts something interesting on Slashdot icnorrectly seizes on a relatively minor point as being the key issue of the post.