Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday February 20 2017, @04:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the sudden-outbreak-of-common-sense dept.

A District Court judge in Seattle has taken a novel approach in a series of default judgments targeting alleged BitTorrent pirates. Since the defendants are accused of sharing files in the same swarm, they should also share the penalty among each other, the judge argues. According to the order, these cases are not intended to provide a windfall to filmmakers.

Many Hollywood insiders see online piracy as a major threat, but only very few are willing to target alleged file-sharers with lawsuits.

LHF Productions, one of the companies behind the blockbuster "London Has Fallen," has no problem crossing this line. Since the first pirated copies of the film appeared online last year, the company has been suing alleged downloaders in multiple courts.

[...] This week, Judge Ricardo Martinez ruled over a series of LHF cases at the Seattle District Court. The movie company requested default judgments against 28 defendants in five cases, demanding $2,500 from each defendant

[...] The filmmaker had argued that $2,500, and even more in attorney's fees and costs, is a rather modest request. However, in his order this week the Judge sees things differently

[...] Instead, the Judge places the damages amount at the statutory minimum, which is $750.

Even more interesting, and the first time we've seen this happening, is that the penalty will be split among the swarm members in each case. The filmmakers alleged that the defendants were part of the same swarm, so they are all liable for the same infringement, Judge Martinez argues.

[...] This means that in one of the cases, where there are eight defaulted defendants, each has to pay just over $93 in damages.

As for the lowered damages amount itself, the Judge clarifies that these type of cases are not intended to result in large profits. Especially not, when the rightsholders have made little effort to prove actual damage or to track down the original sharer.

Source:

torrentfreak.com

Additional coverage on
fightcopyrighttrolls.com


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @06:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @06:11PM (#469354)

    Has there been any case law argued as to whether or not owning a physical copy and format shifting it has actually caused damage? (My theory is that in most torts there has to be measurable damage done to the business. No damage, not an actionable tort in most cases.) I think one could argue that Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) is relevant. Copyright is allowed for time shifting by recording to VCR. And I think a parallel can be created that "format shifting" can also be performed for the purposes of time shifting. (I don't want to drag the DVD player with me to the park to watch my content there.)

    But until case law settles that matter, well, law is what it is but isn't proven until the Supreme Court either says it is so or cert is denied.