Copyright Troll Ordered To Pay $17k To 'Pirate' It Falsely Accused

from the the-receding-wave dept

There is a beautiful passage in Hunter S. Thompson's otherwise largely overrated book, Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas, that always stuck out to me. Speaking on the anti-war and free-love movements of the sixties, he writes:

There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. . . .So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.

This idea of a positive movement cresting like a wave before rolling back fits other narratives as well, and not all of them positive. Whatever despair might be felt for Thompson's cause receding back into the ocean might transform into joy as we might be watching something similar happen to the scourge that are copyright trolls. They too crashed onto the scene a decade or so ago like a wave, rolling over the legal systems of many nations and drowning them and the public with lawsuits, legal notices, and threats. But perhaps that wave has also crested, given the recent actions taken by ISPs to protect their customers, by courts that have begun casting narrow glances in the trolls' direction, and by the fall of several of the more notable copyright trolls entirely.

But the real sign that things on the matter have taken a turn has always been when the copyright trolls begin facing a price for their actions. That too seems to be beginning, at least in the case of one falsely accused "pirate" who has been awarded $17k to cover his legal ordeal. The lawsuit had been over the downloading of an Adam Sandler movie at a foster care home.

The defendant in question, Thomas Gonzales, operates an adult foster care home where several people had access to the Internet. The filmmakers were aware of this and during a hearing their counsel admitted that any guest could have downloaded the film. Still, the filmmakers decided to move their case ahead, and for this decision they may now have to pay. After the case was dismissed, the wrongfully accused ‘pirate’ asked to be compensated for the fees he incurred during his defense.

In a findings and recommendations filing published last Friday (pdf), Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman concludes that the filmmakers went too far.

Within the opinion itself, the court noted that it agreed with Gonzales' claim that the whole point of these legal threats by the copyright troll was to extract large settlements before the trial had actually begun, which meant that the troll would levy the harshest accusations in order to make its settlement offers appear reasonable by comparison. This, despite the facts that would make the accusations clearly silly.

The Court shares Gonzales’ concern that Plaintiff is motivated, at least in large part, by extracting large settlements from individual consumers prior to any meaningful litigation. On balance, the Court has concerns about the motivation behind Plaintiff’s overaggressive litigation of this case and other cases, and that factor weighs in favor of fee shifting.

Compensating Gonzales will encourage future defendants with valid defenses to litigate those defenses, even if the litigation is expensive. Conversely, and perhaps more importantly, awarding fees to Gonzales should deter Plaintiff in the future from continuing its overaggressive pursuit of alleged infringers without a reasonable factual basis.

In those last two lines, you can clearly see a court that is entirely fed up with having its docket filled with actions brought by copyright trolls. If other courts take up the cause, the possibility of financial penalty to bringing spurious copyright suits might finally roll back the wave, as it were. That would be a huge win for the practice of justice on matters of copyright.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 7 Dec 2016 @ 12:42pm

    Silly question I'm sure...

    ... but what happens when/if they decide not to pay?

    Trolls are in it to make money, not spend it, hence the attempts to avoid court entirely via threats. As such it wouldn't surprise me overly much if a whole avalanche of 'unavoidable delays and problems' cropped up and delayed the court ordered fine from actually being paid out, all the while they simply look for a more gullible judge and easier mark.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2016 @ 12:54pm

      Re: Silly question I'm sure...

      And then the owners of the troll shell company move all of that company's money to a different company, and then let the company that owes money go bankrupt.

      "We can't pay you because the company that owes you money doesn't have any."

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

      • icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Dec 2016 @ 7:04am

        Re: Re: Silly question I'm sure...

        It would end poorly for them, as all of their other active cases would be collapsed by that action.
        It wouldn't shock me to see Judges dismissing all of the other cases with prejudice, removing a large pool of targets from their sights.

        $17K is tiny compared to how much they take in from these schemes, so quickly and quietly paying would be the smart play. Then they would pray it doesn't get much more attention, citing this ruling in other cases would tend to make Judges concerned about how these cases proceed.

        They should be much more concerned about all of the faked documents that have been submitted in various cases, citing companies & people that don't appear to exist. The cabal they are using to provide evidence has been playing fast and loose with reality and its going to blow up once a Judge gets curious.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2016 @ 5:13am

      Re: Silly question I'm sure...

      Send it to collection,

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2016 @ 12:52pm

    They should be thanking pirates that d/l Adam Sandler movies. How else will these movies stay alive?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2016 @ 1:28pm

    Hey Whatever, come back! You got some crow to eat buddy.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2016 @ 4:27pm

      Re:

      "Dicks out for Sandler!" cried Whatever, streaking along the street as salty tears streamed down his blubbery cheeks.

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

  • icon
    nasch (profile), 7 Dec 2016 @ 1:40pm

    Confusing headline

    Maybe I'm just being thick today but I found that headline perplexing and had to read it several times before I got it. I suggest one word would make it much clearer:

    "Copyright Troll Ordered To Pay $17k To 'Pirate' Who* It Falsely Accused"

    * or whom, as appropriate. I can't be bothered to try to figure it out.

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

  • identicon
    Digitari, 7 Dec 2016 @ 2:19pm

    IP numbers are...

    made of people, just not always "A" person....

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2016 @ 3:10pm

      Re: IP numbers are...

      Don't give the IP lobby any ideas! At birth, an IP address is assigned... tagged within a subdermal RFID chip... just like a MAC address is assigned at the "birth" of a device. Think of the biometric data they'd have access to!

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

    • icon
      Wyrm (profile), 8 Dec 2016 @ 6:45pm

      Re: IP numbers are...

      By that reasoning, printers are people too.
      More seriously, just no: IP addresses don't refer to one individual, but they might not even refer to people at all. IP addresses point to devices, some being totally automated tools.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    VODLOCKER, 7 Dec 2016 @ 3:07pm

    Thloolm

    thp

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

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 8 Dec 2016 @ 10:08am

    It's just a cost of doing business

    This shouldn't be a big deal to the copyright trolls- it's simply a cost of doing business. You win some and you lose some.
    All they have to do is send out another batch of extortion, I mean "settlement" letters. If they can get 9 people to settle for $2,000, then they've more than made up for this loss.

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

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Dec 2016 @ 4:37pm

      Re: It's just a cost of doing business

      They need more than 9 people.
      You are forgetting the cut for the lawyer & the cut for our shady German friends who supply the 'evidence' & don't forget the producer who somehow manages to never tell others invested in the project how much they've gotten from their anti-piracy campagin.

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.