Uwe Boll's Mass Automated Copyright Lawsuits Registered The Copyright Too Late

from the well,-look-at-that dept

We recently wrote about the newly filed tens of thousands of lawsuits claiming copyright infringement in the US as part of a "monetization" plan for some independent filmmakers. We didn't realize at the time, but it's no surprise that at least one of the filmmakers involved is Uwe Boll, famous for his previous rants against piracy. However, given that the lawsuits are really more about just trying to get people to cough up some cash, rather than any serious legal question, is it any surprise that the lawsuits themselves may be pretty weak?

Someone who prefers to remain anonymous notes that, in the lawsuit over Boll's Far Cry, a film supposedly released in 2008, the lawyers for the so-called US Copyright Group point to the fact that the copyright registration that the lawsuits are based on was not granted until January of 2010:
Here's the lawsuit filing that highlights this particular copyright:
Ah, but all those thousands of accused infringers? The vast, vast, vast majority of them were accused of infringing before the registration. Take a look
And, of course, while you can sue over unregistered copyrights, you're greatly limited in what you can do with those lawsuits -- especially when it comes to remedies. If I remember correctly, by registering more than 3 months after publication and doing so after infringement occurs, you can no longer seek statutory damages -- just "actual damages" and the infringer's profits (in this case, absolutely nothing). So, basically, it appears these lawsuits are meaningless. They basically can't win any money -- but, of course, the purpose isn't to actually win money in a lawsuit. It's to scare people into paying up -- and most recipients of the threat letters won't realize that the copyright registration was too late and that the lawsuit likely won't go anywhere.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2010 @ 11:02am

    date of copyright being granted isnt important when there is a date of production. copyright begins at the moment the work is complete. another nice try masnick

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 1st, 2010 @ 11:05am

    Re:

    date of copyright being granted isnt important when there is a date of production. copyright begins at the moment the work is complete. another nice try masnick

    Read the law. For lawsuits, date of registration is what matters.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2010 @ 11:08am

    This raises the obvious question: Who in the hell would want to download a Uwe Boll movie, even for free?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2010 @ 11:10am

    Re: Re:

    Laws aren't that important when copyright infringement, sorry, stealing is at stake.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Robert Ring (profile), Apr 1st, 2010 @ 11:11am

    Re:

    Yeah, you're confusing copyright with registered copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Robert Ring (profile), Apr 1st, 2010 @ 11:12am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Considering copyright is entirely created *by law*, I'd say laws are all that are important when dealing with copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2010 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There's a reason why the eleventh commandment is: "Thou shalt not make copies."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Apr 1st, 2010 @ 11:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 11th Commandment

    I thought it was "Distribute these commandments far and wide, so our Doomsday Cult will last until the end of time!"

    Also--"commandment" is a bad translation. In the original Aramaic it reads "God's 10 suggestion for better living."
    That whole "immutable laws" things is bullshit made up by the church.

    Have a nice day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    robphelan (profile), Apr 1st, 2010 @ 11:29am

    Re:

    i bet they thought it was the game, not the movie...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2010 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 11th Commandment

    "Distribute these commandments far and wide . . . ."

    That's illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Neil (SM), Apr 1st, 2010 @ 11:45am

    scare tactics

    RE: "It's to scare people into paying up -- and most recipients of the threat letters won't realize that the copyright registration was too late and that the lawsuit likely won't go anywhere."

    I get that, and I'm sure some might be intimidated. But I think nobody is going to just pay up without consulting a lawyer first. And then they will likely know what we know about this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 1st, 2010 @ 11:50am

    Re: scare tactics

    I get that, and I'm sure some might be intimidated. But I think nobody is going to just pay up without consulting a lawyer first. And then they will likely know what we know about this.

    According to the article, a bunch of people have already paid up... so...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Michael (profile), Apr 1st, 2010 @ 12:19pm

    Is this mass FUD our new spam 2.0?

    I don't understand how it can be legal to spam out threatening legal letters to people with the intention of scaring them into paying you, especially when so many of these lawsuits used to intimidate are so baseless.

    Is this the next form of successful Spam? The messages are propogated massively, meant to mislead, and the justification used to send them to people ("Your IP came up in our system!") is frail at best.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 1st, 2010 @ 12:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 11th Commandment

    "Also--"commandment" is a bad translation. In the original Aramaic it reads "God's 10 suggestion for better living."
    That whole "immutable laws" things is bullshit made up by the church."

    Correct. Which is what makes the stance of the Babism and Baha'i faiths so stunningly awesome. They essentially say, "people need rules to live by, so we give them the rules they need. Then, when those rules become outdated, we say another 'divine ruler' has come about to give us brand new teachings".

    They're effectively admitting that they just change things as needed....AS A RELIGION!

    That is power....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2010 @ 12:52pm

    I wonder...

    I wonder how many people searched for their IP address in the list :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, Apr 1st, 2010 @ 1:37pm

    hrm

    and i wonder how many of those ips just got world wide banned from like everywhere

    and if there are any NON lawsuited ips in the list from countries i dunno like canada with very strong privacy laws

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2010 @ 2:08pm

    Re: hrm

    My right to privacy trumps your fight on piracy. True story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Any Mouse, Apr 1st, 2010 @ 2:20pm

    Re: I wonder...

    Nah, I did check to see if my ISP was even listed. They aren't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2010 @ 4:34pm

    Watching Uwe Boll movies: the REAL international media crisis.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2010 @ 5:18pm

    Re:

    Even their existence is a crisis.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Steve R. (profile), Apr 1st, 2010 @ 5:20pm

    Lawyer Competance?

    Lawyers are supposed to know the law, they also get paid big bucks for performing. It astounds me at the number of simple mistakes lawyers make, such as missing a deadline. Not only that but they are sloppy, some lawyers like to use intimidation rather than using the law in a correct manner. Makes you sick. No wonder our country is going down.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2010 @ 5:20pm

    For once, this is a lawsuit we can all support. ANYTHING done to get Uwe Bolls movies out of distribution is a good thing. Now maybe those movies can die a nice death into obscurity so no one else will scratch their eyeballs out after watching them.

    Anyway, since torrents distribute as they download, I figure anyone who's distributing an Uwe Boll movie deserves what they get.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    IANAL, Apr 1st, 2010 @ 6:08pm

    Hello, DA? AG? Anyone out there?

    I would think this is fraud and extortion, possibly racketing depending upon how the extortion is implemented.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 2nd, 2010 @ 8:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 11th Commandment

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 2nd, 2010 @ 3:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 11th Commandment

    You forgot the five that Moses dropped.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 2nd, 2010 @ 4:53pm

    Re: Re:

    Mike -

    "Read the law."

    I'd suggest that you take a healthy dose of your own advice. Given that you constantly embarrass yourself with your clear lack of familiarity with copyright law, perhaps you should write about another subject matter entirely if you're not willing to do the basic research required.

    17 USC 412(c) notes that a plaintiff will be precluded from recovering attorney's fees or statutory damages for infringements of a copyright occurring prior to its registration in only two circumstances, the most important of which, for purposes of this suit, is:

    "(2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work"

    A simple review of the copyright registration shows that the date of publication of the work was 11-24-2009 and the effective date of the registration is 01-19-2010. This falls clearly within the three month window provided for in the statute, therefore the plaintiff may proceed for statutory damages and attorneys fees for any infringements occurring before that time.

    This is simple stuff, really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 2nd, 2010 @ 5:09pm

    This sounds a bit like a variation on an old scam.
    In australia ,There have been people who send out thousands of phony invoices to thousands of businesses. These 'invoices' are below the threshhold for being given serious attention by a large biz and apparently quite a few of these biz just automaticaly pay these phony invoices.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Fred von Lohmann (profile), Apr 5th, 2010 @ 8:06am

    Section 412(c)

    I think Comment #26 might have you on this one, Mike. Section 412(c) does let a copyright owner that registers within 3 months of first publication get statutory damages and attorneys fees back to the publication date. It is interesting that at least one of the defendants is alleged to have distributed the film **before** the initial publication date listed on the registration. I wonder how that happened?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    It's the little things that add up, Apr 5th, 2010 @ 5:26pm

    Don't forget that "actual damages" would include the plaintiff's share of the theater tickets that each of these defendants would have purchased, but for their dastardly deeds. Those are real claims, which protect those responsible for filing this mess from any liability -- even if it would be difficult to collect on 2000+ judgments at a buck or two apiece.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Jay N., Apr 7th, 2010 @ 1:06pm

    Anonymous coward is right

    It matters when the movie was released in the US, not abroad, which was within the 3 month window allowing for statutory damages. Mike is just plain wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Johnny Movie Fan, Apr 8th, 2010 @ 5:29am

    Re: Re: hrm

    That doesn't make a bit of sense. Your right to privacy doesn't trump anything relating to the fight on piracy. If peoples' IP address comes up as indicating a download, that is plenty of probable cause to subpeona the information and pursue legal action. The "privacy right" isn't a right to steal content.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2010 @ 2:32am

    utorrent isnt on that list. does that mean im safe-ish?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 17th, 2010 @ 8:15pm

    utorrent is all over that list, so probably not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2010 @ 1:03pm

    @32

    ae torrent is utorrent

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Suzanne Maule, Aug 21st, 2010 @ 3:04pm

    Boll

    I just got paperwork I am one of over 2,000 being sued in this law suit! HELP!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 11:25am

    your wrong guys

    original article poster is right, person who thought he was really clever is wrong,

    your law states that there can be 3 months before first publication and copyright application

    the copyright was applied for november 2009 and the registration was january 2010 - yes

    but the film was released in October 2008 (first publication release date) and the copyright application was november 2009 so that is 13 months, not 3

    you were looking at the wrong thing, and i didnt even have to use clever words to make the guy look stupid

    well done OP on a good article :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 7th, 2011 @ 3:45pm

    Re:

    The problem is there are people being sued who didn't even copy or distribute his stupid movie!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This