Inglewood Told To Pay $118k Of Taxpayer Money For Abusing Copyright Law To Silence A Critic
from the democracy! dept
Remember the City of Inglewood, California? The city where mayor James Butts was so annoyed that an online critic, Joseph Teixeira, had made some mocking videos using clips from city council meetings, that he allotted $50,000 of taxpayer money to fund a lawyer to file an absolutely bogus copyright lawsuit against Teixeira? This lawsuit alleged that Teixeira somehow infringed on the copyright of the City by adding commentary to these videos. There was so much wrong with the lawsuit that it was a total embarrassment for the city and the lawyer, Joanna Esty, who claims to be a “seasoned” lawyer with expertise in intellectual property law.
The court did not take long in dismissing the lawsuit and benchslapping the city for filing the lawsuit in the first place. The court allowed Teixeira to seek legal fees, and while the city pushed back, the court has now told the city to pay another $117,741 in legal fees to Teixeira’s lawyers, noting that the entire lawsuit was “objectively unreasonable.”
Judge Michael Fitzgerald has another opportunity to smack Inglewood around for filing such a bogus lawsuit in the first place, and notes that it’s pretty damn clear that the entire purpose behind this lawsuit was to silence a critic, not because of any legitimate belief that a copyright was being infringed.
It is, of course, impossible to know with certainty what prompted the City to bring this lawsuit. The City avers that its only motivation was to enforce the rights it believed it had in the videos…. But the Court is not persuaded. As Defendant rightly notes, the main justification of the Copyright Act is ?the protection of the commercial interest of the author.?… California law, however, prohibits the City from charging anything more than the ?direct costs of duplication? when providing public records…. Pecuniary gain, therefore, could not have been the motivating factor in filing this action. As the Court made clear at the hearing, the City?s most plausible purpose was to stifle Defendant?s political speech after he harshly criticized the City?s elected officials. As such, this factor weighs heavily in favor of an attorneys? fees award.
At the hearing, counsel for Plaintiff implied that this Court was basing its ruling on the reaction of the press or the academic community. The Court does not do so.
The judge also notes that he’s worried that, if left unpunished, Inglewood or other cities might do this again:
The Court is also persuaded that a fee award is necessary to deter future meritless litigations of this kind. The City argues that the attorneys? fees ?will have absolutely no deterrent effect? on a municipality that intends to file no future copyright lawsuits…. Even if true, the Court notes that deterrence is a broad value that is not limited to the individual litigants here. Indeed, a reasonable award of fees will serve to deter other entities, whether public or private, that contemplate bringing unreasonable suits to pressure an individual into abandoning protected activity.
So, between the original $50,000 allotted and this $117,741, that’s an awful lot of taxpayer money being spent just to try to stifle someone’s First Amendment rights. It kind of makes you wonder what they’re doing with the rest of the taxpayer funds they have access to.
Filed Under: censorship, copyright, copyright as censorship, free speech, inglewood, james butts, joanna esty, joseph teixeira
Comments on “Inglewood Told To Pay $118k Of Taxpayer Money For Abusing Copyright Law To Silence A Critic”
Well I’m glad everyone learned their lesson!
Re: Lessons Learned
Yes, the City of Inglewood learned that Texeira’s speech was free, for everyone but them.
Re: Re: Lessons Learned
there is no free (as in beer) speech any longer, its all fee speech, babykins, you got to pay to play…
besides, i’m sure The They ™ have learned their ‘lesson’, and will just find some other ‘legal’ means of exacting their revenge…
Just another day of typical government malfeasance in action
So, between the original $50,000 allotted and this $117,741, that’s an awful lot of taxpayer money being spent just to try to stifle someone’s First Amendment rights. It kind of makes you wonder what they’re doing with the rest of the taxpayer funds they have access to.
Based on their level of self-importance and incompetence, I’ll bet it is mostly on this.
what a shame no judge has the balls to take a similar line against the various sections of the entertainment industries and Hollywood. perhaps there would be a diminishing of the ridiculous ‘cease and desist’ threats those industry heads issue, knowing full well they have not the slightest right to do so
4 comments and no jokes?
Re: 4 comments and no jokes?
I’m so disappointed with my fellow TD readers I hit enter by mistake!
Come on, the name is James Butts people!
Ahem.
Re: Re: 4 comments and no jokes?
James might be the Butts of his own joke, maybe no one feels a need to ‘crack’ another one?
Re: Re: 4 comments and no jokes?
Rupture is his middle name.
Re: Re: Re: 4 comments and no jokes?
I’m sorry that was terrible, If I report my own post will it be deleted?
Re: Re: 4 comments and no jokes?
That makes him “Jim Butts 2″I know a jim butts but in a different state. He’s the Butt of many jokes tho…
(he tells jokes all the time)
Cadillac v Chevy
From the Judge Fitzgerald’s order:
(Emphasis added; citations omitted.)
I would agree that the City should not be forced to pay for a chartered helicopter when an automobile would have sufficed. But neither should defendants run the risk of getting stuck with a Trabant. When hauled into an American court, defendants may reasonably expect an American-made car.
Re: Cadillac v Chevy
Or at least a American-made foreign car.
Re: Cadillac v Chevy
No worries, a Trabant isn’t road-legal in the US. I don’t think defendents can reasonably expect an American-made car (why would that be a reasonable expectation?), but they can reasonably expect a car that is road-legal and in good working order.
In the city of Hawthorne on Hawthorne blvd there is a spaceX monumental statue and there is (or at least used to be) speakers surrounding it that say taking pictures is prohibited and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if you do.
Re: Re:
(this is a public display btw).
Here is a google street view link to it
Re: Re: Re:
oops, forgot to include the link,
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9153596,-118.352397,3a,46.4y,348.72h,105.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGJ1Qu38p7RAA89pX1hTcTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Re: Re: Re: Hawthorne
I imagine that has more to do with discouraging people from standing there taking pictures in the middle of the street where there’s no stoplight or crosswalk.
Re: Re: Re:2 Hawthorne
If so, then why don’t they just enforce the already existing laws against standing in the middle of the street?
Re: Re: Re:3 Hawthorne
Because a recorded announcement saying “move along, nothing to see here” is a hell of a lot cheaper than assigning a cop to hang around the statue full time.
And this is relevant how?
Re: Re:
Penalization of copyright law abuse is extremely relevant, because it rarely ever happens.
Esty=””Copyright Troll”
Karot
Karot işleri – Karot uygulamaları bir çok alanda kullanılmakta ve çözümler sunmaktadır.
Karot işi, matkap şeklindeki karotcu makinaları olarak adlandırılan makinalarla yapılmaktadır. İşlevi nedeniyle bir çok alanda ihtiyaca cevap veren uygulamadır. Bu makineler ile beton yapıdan silindir şeklinde parça çıkarılmaktır. Buna karot alma denilmektedir.
Re: Re:
Is this spam or not? The rough Google Translation is:
“Core work – Core applications are used in many areas and offers solutions.
Carotene work is done with machines called karotc machines shaped drill. The function is responsive to the needs of applications in many fields due. These machines will be removed with the cylindrical part of the concrete structure. This is called coring.”
Re: Re: Re:
It’s obviously spam. But even if it’s not, it’s still radially off-topic and deserving of a report just for that.
The internet is dying a slow death, but the lawyers aren’t done bleeding dry the goose that laid the golden egg, yet. I hope they are happy with what they have accomplished and guess they will have to revert to chasing ambulances again when it is all said and done.
What’s really sad is that a simple little court case like this costs as much as buying a house.