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.

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

[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!

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.

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

[tepples]

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

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?