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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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").

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