Court Refuses To Allow Defendant In Copyright Trolling Case To Proceed, But Hints At Reform

from the losing-but-winning dept

Over the course of the last year or so, coverage of copyright trolling stories turned up a common movie multiple times. That film was The Hitman's Bodyguard, and the outfits contracted to push for fees via settlement letters were both prolific and devious in trying to manipulate the settlement offer amounts to achieve the highest conversion rates. Whatever the level of intelligence that goes into these operations, however, there will almost always be a misfire, with a wrong target picked in the wrong court in such a way that makes the troll look like, well, a troll.

Such appears to be the case when Bodyguard Productions went after Ernesto Mendoza in court, claiming that he downloaded the film via bittorrent. The problem with the case is that Mendoza is both very, very insistent on his innocence and also manages to cast about as sympathetic a figure as one might be able to find. Mendoza is in his 70s and has end-stage cancer. When Bodyguard Productions attempted to voluntarily dismiss the case when it became clear that Mendoza wasn't going to settle, he tried to push the court to force the case to go forward so that he could recover his legal expenses. Sadly, the court refused.

After hearing both sides, Illinois District Court Judge Robert Dow decided to dismiss the case, ordering both parties to pay their own fees. This was a huge disappointment for the alleged file-sharer, who now has to bear the costs for a case that he isn't allowed to fight. According to his attorney Lisa Clay, the Court should ensure that plaintiffs are ready and willing to prove their case.

“Unfortunately, the Court’s recent order does not,” Clay tells TorrentFreak. “Granting the Plaintiff’s disingenuous motion to dismiss without penalty has the real consequence of strengthening the troll business model."

That's exactly correct. The fact that copyright trolls can simply back out of a case they aren't going to have settled -- the entire point of the troll's business model -- acts as an insurance policy against its efforts. By not forcing trolls to face the potential penalty of paying legal fees, there is essentially no consequence to firing off lawsuits with no regard to the facts. That's a truck-sized loophole in the legal system that clearly does an injustice to the accused party in copyright lawsuits.

It seems that even the court in this case recognizes the problem.

On a broader scale, there’s a positive note for future defendants. In the order, Judge Dow notes that the Court should re-evaluate how it handles these cases. In addition, the potential for abuse may also deserve the attention of the Rules Committee.

“[T]he points advanced by Defendant about the potential for abuse across the universe of peer-to-peer copyright infringement cases convince the Court that it should re-evaluate its own overall treatment of these cases and consider whether to suggest that the Rules Committee in this district look into the matter as well,” Judge Dow writes.

Which is great, except we still have a 70-year-old cancer patient out legal fees after a copyright troll cut and run from its own lawsuit simply because the troll was careless in filing its lawsuits. It's quite obvious that whatever that is, it sure isn't justice.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, ernesto mendoza, illinois, the bodyguard
Companies: bodyguard productions


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Howie Much, 27 Feb 2019 @ 7:47pm

    How much does it cost to write: "False. See you in court."

    Because that IS all Defendant needed to do here.

    Now, the usual fanboys are going to say "NO even defending if totally innocent is not so simple, you arrogant, heartless copyright maximalist demon, you."

    Well. To begin with, you are simply assuming that this person isn't a particularly aggressive pirate who thought to turn table on what you deem -- it's even stated so by Geigner -- a "copyright troll". But we don't know the truth here. -- "We" includes you. -- You're simply going on your bias.

    Now, the real criminals, as you must at least half agree are LAWYERS. I include any lawyer that Defendant hired, because a letter with the above 5 words is about all that's even possible with an innocent defendant. There's less to "investigate" when innocent than with a speeding ticket! -- Oh, sure, lawyer might have to go to court a couple times, but only to increase fee: otherwise just state will contest, get a court date for jury trial, then wait for it to be dropped.

    So where EXACTLY do huge lawyer fees for Defendant arise here?

    Of course ANY fee for lawyer when innocent will SEEM outrageous, but any innocent people being forced to spend is due to you pirates who flout The Law, NOT any "copyright troll" no matter how evil you believe that practice is, nor me.

    So until you can state why a HUGE fee in this, all that you're doing is defending piracy -- perhaps not a pirate here -- but piracy, as usual.


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
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.