Articles Posted in File Sharing

By

South Bend, Indiana – Michigan copyright attorney Paul Nicoletti, on behalf of Countryman Nevada, LLC (“Countryman”), sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that 16 CCPicture.jpgunidentified John Does infringed the copyright of the motion picture “Charlie Countryman,” which has been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office. The movie stars Shia LaBeouf, Evan Rachel Wood and Mads Mikkelsen. It was directed by Fredrick Bond.

Countryman alleges that the infringing transfer and copying of this movie, which was released on DVD in January 2014, was accomplished by Defendants using BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol. Plaintiff states that the BitTorrent protocol makes even small computers with low bandwidth capable of participating in large data transfers for copying large files such as movies.

In this Indiana lawsuit, the Doe Defendants are accused of deliberately participating in a peer-to-peer “swarm” and illegally reproducing and/or distributing portions of the movie “Countryman” in digital form with other Defendants. Countryman indicates in its complaint that it used geolocation technology to determine that the Doe Defendants were located in Indiana.

The complaint lists a single count: copyright infringement. The copyright lawyer for Plaintiff Countryman asks the court for permanent injunctions prohibiting infringement of Plaintiff’s movie by all Doe Defendants; the destruction of all copies of infringing works in any Defendant’s control; judgment that Defendants have willfully infringed Plaintiff’s copyrighted work; judgment that Defendants have otherwise injured the business reputation and business of Plaintiffs; actual damages or statutory damages; an order impounding all infringing copies of Plaintiff’s movie; attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.

Practice Tip: This is at least the second movie starring Shia LaBeouf which is the subject of copyright litigation in Indiana. In October 2013, a similar Indiana lawsuit regarding “The Company You Keep,” also starring LaBeouf, was filed in the Southern District of Indiana. That lawsuit was also filed by copyright lawyer Nicoletti. In addition to these lawsuits filed by the owners of the copyrighted movies, LaBeouf seems to have intellectual property concerns of his own, most recently having been served with another cease and desist letter for posts to his Twitter feed.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore of the Southern District of Indiana has recommended that Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc.’s request to void the judgment entered as a result of Plaintiff’s two earlier requests for voluntary dismissal of Defendant Derrick Lund be denied.

[Full Disclosure – Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of Indiana Intellectual Property Law News, represented the successful defendant in this case.]

Attorney Paul Nicoletti, copyright counsel for Plaintiff Patrick Collins, filed a complaint in June 2012 against thirteen “John Doe” Defendants identified only by their Internet Protocol addresses. Patrick Collins claimed that the Defendants had infringed upon its copyrighted films by downloading them using BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file-sharing service. Defendant Derrick Lund was identified following a subpoena to his internet service provider.

Initially, Lund filed neither an answer nor any other pleading. Consequently, a default judgment was granted against him. What followed was a series of requests to the court by counsel for Patrick Collins that was characterized by the court as a “complicated procedural history.” On the day following the default judgment against Lund, Nicoletti filed a notice of voluntary dismissal against Lund, seeking to dismiss him with prejudice. On that same day, Nicoletti also filed an unopposed motion making the same request: to vacate the default judgment against Lund and to dismiss him with prejudice. Judge Pratt granted Patrick Collins’ motion the next day.

One day following Judge Pratt’s order, Patrick Collins filed a motion to withdraw the voluntary dismissal. The court granted this motion and reinstated Lund as an active Defendant. Lund filed a motion for reconsideration on Lund’s reinstatement. The court granted Lund’s motion and vacated its reinstatement order, finding that Lund had not been properly served.

In this current opinion, the court again considered Patrick Collins’ motion to withdraw its voluntary dismissal, asking “whether Plaintiff can just ‘withdraw’ this notice of dismissal.” The court answered, “[s]imply, the answer is no, as the dismissal [constituted] a final judgment.” Once the Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal, “the case is closed and the plaintiff may not unilaterally withdraw or amend the notice.”

In its latest request to the court, Patrick Collins had neither cited Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor given reasons under this Rule that the judgment should be subject to vacatur. Instead, Plaintiff had simply argued that “the parties had not reached a settlement agreement and therefore the dismissal with prejudice was unintentional.”

Nonetheless, the court sua sponte considered whether the final judgment should be set aside under Rule 60(b). Again, the court was not inclined to grant the Plaintiff’s plea to void an order that the Plaintiff itself had requested.  While Rule 60(b) permits the Plaintiff to ask the court to vacate a dismissal, relief from a final judgment is an extraordinary measure and may only be granted in the exceptional circumstances.

Rule 60(b) permits a court to relive a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons:

1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
2) newly discovered evidence;
3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
4) the judgment is void;
5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
6) any other reason that justifies relief.

The court noted that “Plaintiff twice filed requests with the Court – each filing being hours apart – to not only dismiss the action against Lund, but to dismiss it with prejudice. These filings show an unequivocal intent to dismiss Lund with prejudice.” Magistrate Judge Dinsmore concluded that Patrick Collins had not demonstrated “how its argument amounts to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” and recommended that Judge Pratt deny Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw voluntary dismissal.

Practice Tip #1: This case highlights the distinction between a dismissal “with prejudice” and “without prejudice.” The opinion focuses on whether Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc. could obtain “relief” from its own dismissal. Why would a litigant need “relief” from a court order granting its own motion? Because the dismissal was “with prejudice,” meaning that Patrick Collins was not allowed to simply file a second suit asserting the same claim. Because the dismissal was “with prejudice,” the defendant may be a considered a “prevailing party,” even though a judgment was never entered in either party’s favor. Nonetheless, because the Copyright Act allows a “prevailing party” to recover its attorney’s fees, the defendant can recover them.

Practice Tip #2: Patrick Collins, Inc. is represented by Paul Nicoletti, one of the country’s most notorious “copyright troll” attorneys. In addition to filing suits on behalf of Patrick Collins, Inc., he has also sued hundreds of defendants on behalf of copyright trolls Malibu Media, LLC and TCYK, LLC. (Search for these company names on this site to find articles about those other suits, or visit www.fightcopyrighttrolls.comor www.dietrolldie.com.)

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana — Copyright lawyer Paul Nicoletti has sued fourteen additional Doe Defendants, all allegedly located in Indiana, in the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of TCYK, LLC of Los Angeles, California (“TCYK”) alleging infringement of the copyrighted movie “The Company You Keep,” which has been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office.  The movie stars Robert Redford, Susan Sarandon, Shia LaBeouf, Anna Kendrick, Julie Christie and Nick Nolte.  It was directed by Robert Redford. 

TCYK alleges that the infringing transfer and copying of this movie, which was released on DVD on August 13, 2013, was accomplished by Defendants using BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol.  Specifically, the Doe Defendants are accused of deliberately participating in a peer-to-peer “swarm,” and illegally reproducing and/or distributing portions of the movie in digital form with other Defendants.  TCYK indicates in its complaint that it used geolocation technology to determine that the Doe Defendants were located in Indiana. 

The complaint lists a single count: copyright infringement.  The intellectual property attorney for Plaintiff TCYK asks the court for permanent injunctions prohibiting infringement of Plaintiff’s movie by all Doe Defendants; the destruction of all copies of infringing works in any Defendant’s control; judgment that Defendants have willfully infringed Plaintiff’s copyrighted work; judgment that Defendants have otherwise injured the business reputation and business of Plaintiffs; for actual damages or statutory damages; and for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.

Practice Tip:

Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), a copyright owner may elect actual or statutory damages.  Statutory damages range from a sum of not less than $750 to not more than $30,000 per infringed work.  The determination of the exact amount is left to the discretion of the court. 

If a defendant fails to appear, the court will take as true all of the plaintiff’s well-pled allegations.  That typically leads to a default judgment against the defendant.  There is a significant disparity in the dollar amounts awarded in default judgments against defendants in copyright infringement cases involving BitTorrent.  In two separate cases, Judge William T. Lawrence recently ordered two defendants who failed to appear to pay $20,000 in statutory damages for copyright infringement that was deemed to have been admitted by the defendants’ failure to defend against the allegations.  See here and here.  However, in a similar case, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ordered an entry of default judgment against a defendant for $151,425.  Judge Sarah Evans Barker has issued several default judgments for $36,000 plus attorneys’ fees against BitTorrent defendants who failed to appear.

 

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana — Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the Southern District of Indiana has entered a default judgment for copyright infringement in favor of Malibu Media, LLC of Los Angeles, California.  The copyrighted works at issue had been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office.

In June 2012, copyright attorney Paul Nicoletti filed another copyright infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of serial plaintiff Malibu Media.  The lawsuit listed multiple defendants, including William Meeks Sr. of Decatur, Indiana.  In its complaint, Malibu Media alleged that Meeks had infringed 16 copyrighted works.  Specifically, Malibu Media contended that Meeks and others directly and contributorily infringed its copyrighted works when they downloaded and disseminated all or a portion of the works using BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol.  The initial complaint was served upon 23 defendants.  Discussed in this opinion are the allegations, findings and judgments against Meeks only.

Judge Barker held that, as a result of his failure to defend against Malibu Media’s assertions, Meeks was deemed to have admitted to willful copyright infringement.  Judge Barker also held that, without an injunction, Meeks’ use of the BitTorrent protocol would continue to cause Malibu Media irreparable injury, stating that there existed a “threat of continued violations” of Malibu Media’s exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform and display the 16 copyrighted works. 

The court entered a permanent injunction against Meeks after finding that such an injunction promoted creativity and individual effort and was therefore in the public interest.  Meeks was also ordered to pay to Malibu Media $36,000.00 in statutory damages, as authorized under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), and $2,645.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs, as authorized under 17 U.S.C. § 505, for a total of $38,645.00.  He was further ordered to pay post-judgment interest accruing under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 as of the date of the default judgment until the date of its satisfaction.  Finally, Meeks was ordered to destroy all copies of Malibu Media’s works that he had downloaded onto any computer hard drive without proper authorization, including all copies that he had in his possession, custody or control.

Practice Tip #1:  

Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), a copyright owner may elect actual or statutory damages.  Statutory damages range from a sum of not less than $750 to not more than $30,000 per infringed work.  The determination of the exact amount is left to the discretion of the court. 

There is a significant disparity in the dollar amount awarded in default judgments against defendants in copyright infringement cases involving BitTorrent.  In two separate cases, Judge William T. Lawrence recently ordered two defendants who failed to appear to pay $20,000 in statutory damages for copyright infringement that was deemed to have been admitted by the defendants’ failure to defend against the allegations.  See here and here.  However, in a similar case, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ordered an entry of default judgment against a defendant for $151,425.  Judge Barker has issued several prior default judgments in this case, each for $36,000 plus attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip #2:

Deciding to simply ignore a complaint, as William Meeks Sr. apparently did, can be a costly error.  Failing to present the defendant’s version of the facts and arguments results in the court considering only the plaintiff’s side of the story.  Here, because the defendant chose to leave the complaint unanswered, the well-pled allegations of the plaintiff relating to liability were taken as true.

After the entry of default judgment, the court then conducted an inquiry to ascertain the amount of damages with “reasonable certainty.”  Again, in such circumstances, it serves a defendant well to plead his case — to present the court with reasons that the plaintiff should not get 100% of what he requests.

Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this website, has represented several hundred persons and businesses regarding copyright infringement and similar matters.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana — An intellectual property attorney has filed seven new copyright suits in the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of Malibu Media, LLC of Los Angeles, California alleging that seven John Doe defendants infringed Malibu Media’s copyrighted works.

Copyright lawyer Paul Nicoletti is again in federal court on behalf of Malibu Media asserting infringement of the company’s intellectual property.  In this current round, Malibu Media’s latest incursion into the federal court system, seven new and nearly identical lawsuits have been filed against anonymous John Doe defendants, each claiming copyright infringement.  The Defendants allegedly used the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol to illegally download, copy and distribute elements of various works of Malibu Media’s copyrighted material.

Malibu Media seeks a permanent injunction barring the Defendants from engaging in infringing activities; an order by the court to remove infringing materials from all computers of each Defendant; an award of statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed work and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Practice Tip: There is a significant disparity in the dollar amount awarded in default judgments against defendants in copyright infringement cases involving BitTorrent.  In two separate cases, Judge William T. Lawrence recently ordered two defendants who failed to appear to pay $20,000 for the copyright infringement that was deemed to have been admitted by the defendants’ failure to defend against the allegations.  See here and here.   However, in a similar case, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ordered an entry of default judgment against a defendant for $151,425, the full amount requested.

Continue reading

By

Hammond, Indiana — Copyright lawyers for TCYK LLC of Los Angeles, CA sued for copyright infringement in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that John Does 1-9, all allegedly located in Indiana, infringed the copyrighted work “The Company You Keep,” which has been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office.

The movie stars Robert Redford, Susan Sarandon, Shia LaBeouf, Anna Kendrick, Julie Christie and Nick Nolte.  It was directed by Robert Redford.  TCYK alleges that the infringing transfer and copying of this movie, which was released on DVD on August 13, 2013, was accomplished by Defendants using BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol.  Specifically, the Doe Defendants are accused of deliberately participating in a peer-to-peer “swarm,” and illegally reproducing and/or distributing portions of the movie in digital form with other Defendants.  TCYK indicates in its complaint that it used geolocation technology to determine that the Doe Defendants were located in Indiana. 

The complaint lists a single count of copyright infringement.  Copyright attorneys for Plaintiff ask the court for permanent injunctions prohibiting infringement of Plaintiff’s movie; the destruction of all copies of infringing works in any Defendant’s control; judgment that Defendants have willfully infringed Plaintiff’s copyrighted work; judgment that Defendants have otherwise injured the business reputation and business of Plaintiffs; for actual damages or statutory damages; and for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.

Practice Tip #1: The impact of distributing large files on servers and networks can be reduced by using BitTorrent.  Instead of downloading a file from a single server, the BitTorrent protocol allows users to join a “swarm” of hosts, each of which downloads and uploads data from the others simultaneously. 

Practice Tip #2: TCYK has filed dozens of lawsuits in federal courts claiming copyright infringement of “The Company You Keep”, including courts in Indiana, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.  It is estimated that thousands of defendants have been sued by TCYK on the allegation that they have infringed this copyrighted work.  TCYK is also featured in an interesting article on the growing practice of using the court system to monetize infringement committed by individual infringers. 

Practice Tip #3: It is curious that apparently neither the filing fee nor form AO 121 (Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action or Appeal Regarding a Copyright) was submitted to the court in conjunction with the filing of this complaint.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has granted a motion by Malibu Media of Los Angeles, California for default judgment against Kenny Griffith for infringement of the copyrighted work “Slow Motion” which has been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office.

In its complaint, Malibu Media alleged that Griffith and others directly and contributorily infringed its copyrighted work when they downloaded and disseminated without authorization, all or a portion of a movie owned by Malibu Media titled “Slow Motion” using BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol.  The initial complaint was served upon eight defendants but was later severed.  Discussed in this opinion are the allegations, findings and judgments against Griffith only.

Malibu Media served Griffith with a summons and complaint on January 5, 2013.  He did not respond.  On April 1, 2013, default was entered as to Griffith by Southern District of Indiana Judge William T. Lawrence.  By virtue of this entry of default, it was established as a factual matter that Griffith had uploaded and downloaded all or a portion of the copyrighted work without authorization, and had also enabled countless unknown others to obtain the work in the process.

In the current default-judgment opinion, the court addressed requests by copyright attorneys for Malibu Media for two separate injunctions, for damages, for attorney’s fees and for costs.

The first injunction sought injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502 and 503.  The court noted that, under § 503(b), a court may order the destruction of all copies made or used in violation of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights.  Given the nature of the infringement that occurred in this case — participating in a “swarm” and downloading and uploading copyrighted work — the court found that this injunction was particularly appropriate.

The second injunction sought asked the court to prohibit Griffith “from directly, contributorily or indirectly infringing [Malibu Media’s] rights under federal or state law in the Work, including, without limitation, by using the internet, BitTorrent or any other online media distribution system to reproduce (e.g., download) or distribute the Works, or to make the Work available for distribution to the public, except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of [Malibu Media].”  The court held that such an injunction was simply a mandate that Griffith follow copyright laws and that the injunction was therefore unnecessary.

The court also denied Malibu Media’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, noting that the fees submitted seemed to reflect legal work done not only in the furtherance of the lawsuit against Griffith, but also seemed to pertain to other related lawsuits involving the previously joined defendants.  As a result of these ambiguities, the court denied Malibu Media’s request for costs and attorney’s fees but indicated that it would be willing to entertain such motions — for attorney’s fees incurred as to Griffith only — upon the entry of final judgments as to all defendants in related cases.

Finally, Malibu Media sought statutory damages in the amount of $20,000.  The court cited “Congress’s recognition of the ‘disturbing trend’ of internet piracy” and found that amount to be just under the circumstances.

Practice Tip:

Deciding to simply ignore a complaint, as Kenny Griffith apparently did, can be a costly error.  Failing to present the defendant’s version of the facts and arguments results in the court considering only the plaintiff’s side of the story.  Here, because the defendant chose to leave the complaint unanswered, the well-pled allegations of the plaintiff relating to liability were taken as true.

After the entry of default judgment, the court then conducted an inquiry to ascertain the amount of damages with “reasonable certainty.”  Again, in such circumstances, it serves a defendant well to plead his case — to present the court with reasons that the plaintiff should not get 100% of what he requests.

Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), a copyright owner may elect actual or statutory damages.  Statutory damages range from a sum of not less than $750 to not more than $30,000.  The determination of the exact amount is left to the discretion of the court.  In this case, Malibu Media asked the court for $20,000 and the court, having no arguments from the defendant to suggest that this was excessive, granted the entire amount.

Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this website, has represented several hundred persons and businesses regarding copyright infringement and similar matters.          

Continue reading

By

Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Department of Commerce recently released a green paper on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy (the “Green Paper“) to advance discussion on a set of policy issues critical to economic growth.  The Green Paper discusses the goals of maintaining an appropriate balance between rights and exceptions as the law continues to be updated; ensuring that copyright can be meaningfully enforced on the Internet; and furthering the development of an efficient online marketplace.

The Green Paper is the most thorough and comprehensive analysis of digital copyright policy issued by any administration since 1995.  The report is a product of the Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force (“IPTF”) with input from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”).  Through the IPTF, the USPTO and NTIA will solicit further public comments and convene roundtables and forums on a number of key policy issues.

“Copyright law strikes a number of important balances in delineating what is protectable and what is not, determining what uses are permitted without a license, and establishing appropriate enforcement mechanisms to combat piracy, so that all stakeholders benefit from the protection afforded by copyright,” said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker.  “Ensuring that our copyright policy provides incentives for creativity while promoting innovation on the Internet is a critical and challenging task. The Green Paper released today is an important step toward ensuring that the United States’ creative industries continue to have a substantial impact on strengthening our nation’s economy.”

Copyright has been a vital contributor to U.S. cultural and economic development for more than two hundred years, fostering the production and dissemination of the valuable expression that has put America at the forefront of the global creative marketplace.  Maintaining a balanced and effective copyright system should continue to drive the production of creative works while at the same time preserving the innovative power of the Internet and the free flow of information.  The Green Paper provides a comprehensive review of current policy related to copyright and the Internet, and identifies important issues that call for attention and development of solutions.  The solutions may entail a combination of legal remedies, technology, private sector cooperation, and public outreach and education, along with the continued development of options to legally access copyrighted works.

In the Green Paper, the IPTF proposes the following actions:

·         Establishing a multi-stakeholder dialogue on improving the operation of the notice and takedown system under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).

·         Soliciting public comment and convening roundtables on:

o   The legal framework for the creation of remixes;

o   The relevance and scope of the first-sale doctrine in the digital environment;

o   The application of statutory damages in the context of individual file-sharers and secondary liability for large-scale online infringement;

o   The appropriate role for the government, if any, to help improve the online licensing environment, including access to comprehensive public and private databases of rights information.

“Copyright protection is a foundation for creative services and products that drive a significant part of the U.S. economy,” said Acting Under Secretary for Intellectual Property and Acting USPTO Director Teresa Stanek Rea.  “The Internet must continue to support a legitimate market for copyrighted works as well as provide a platform for innovation and the introduction of new and dynamic services that drive digital commerce.”

“We see a digital future in which the relationship among digital technology, the Internet, and creative industries becomes increasingly symbiotic,” said Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling.  “In this digital future, the rights of creators and copyright owners are appropriately protected; creative industries continue to make their substantial contributions to the nation’s economic competitiveness; online service providers continue to expand the variety and quality of their offerings; technological innovation continues to thrive; and consumers have access to the broadest possible range of creative content.”

The Green Paper reiterates the Administration’s support for legislation creating a public performance right for the broadcasting of sound recordings and enabling prosecutors to seek felony penalties for unauthorized streaming to the public.  It supports congressional or regulatory attention to determine how best to rationalize rate-setting standards for different types of music services; reform music licensing, particularly the mechanical license for musical compositions; and ensure consumers can unlock their cell phones, subject to applicable service agreements.  It supports the U.S. Copyright Office’s work to address the problems of orphan works and mass digitization, consider possible small-claims procedures, update the statutory exception for libraries, and improve public registration and recordation systems.  The Green Paper also supports and encourages enhancing public education and outreach efforts. 

With respect to the difficulties in enforcement against websites dedicated to infringement, the Green Paper encourages ongoing voluntary initiatives, such as those facilitated by the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (“IPEC”), that benefit all parties and are consistent with the principles of privacy, free speech, competition, and due process, and states that the IPTF will follow these developments and assess their impact in order to determine whether additional action is needed.  The USPTO has also extended its request for comments regarding the processes, data metrics, and methodologies that could be used to assess the effectiveness of cooperative agreements and other voluntary initiatives to reduce intellectual property infringement.  This comment solicitation is part of the Administration’s 2013 Joint Strategic Plan for Intellectual Property Enforcement.

Then-Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke launched the IPTF in April 2010, bringing together the USPTO and NTIA, as well as the International Trade Administration (“ITA”), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), and the Economic and Statistic Administration (“ESA”) to conduct a comprehensive review of privacy policy, copyright, global free flow of information, cybersecurity, and their respective relationships to innovation in the Internet economy.  In preparing the Green Paper, USPTO and NTIA held more than a dozen listening sessions with interested stakeholders, convened a symposium, received hundreds of public comments, and reviewed comments submitted to other agencies on relevant topics. The IPTF will consider feedback it receives from public comments, roundtables and forums to determine how the current copyright framework can be improved to serve creators, right holders, service providers, consumers, innovation, and national economic goals.

The Green Paper can be found online at: http://www.uspto.gov/news/publications/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf.

Practice Tip: Among the issues to be considered as part of this initiative, public comment will be solicited regarding the application of statutory damages in the context of individual file-sharers.  This subject has created a considerable range of response from the judiciary.  On one end of the spectrum are opinions, for example, one citing a “disturbing trend of internet piracy“ and another which assessed statutory damages of $150,000 in an illegal-downloading case in which the defendant did not appear to answer the allegations of infringement. 

On the other end of the spectrum are opinions such as Judge Otis Wright’s scathing indictment of copyright trolls.   In Judge Wright’s opinion, he details the abuse of the legal process committed under the authority of The Copyright Act.  In the now-famous “Star Trek”-themed order, Judge Wright began by opining, “Plaintiffs have outmaneuvered the legal system.  They’ve discovered the nexus of antiquated copyright laws, paralyzing social stigma, and unaffordable defense costs.  And they exploit this anomaly by accusing individuals of illegally downloading a single pornographic video.  Then they offer to settle–for a sum calculated to be just below the cost of a bare-bones defense.  For these individuals, resistance is futile; most reluctantly pay rather than have their names associated with illegally downloading porn.  So now, copyright laws originally designed to compensate starving artists allow, starving attorneys in this electronic-media era to plunder the citizenry.” 

Among other measures in this case, the Court awards attorney’s fees and costs in the sum of $40,659.86 to the defendant.  It then, as a punitive measure, doubled the award, yielding $81,319.72. 

Judge Wright later concluded with an explanation for the sanctions which he was imposing against the attorneys in the case, “though Plaintiffs boldly probe the outskirts of law, the only enterprise they resemble is RICO.  The federal agency eleven decks up is familiar with their prime directive and will gladly refit them for their next voyage.  The Court will refer this matter to the United States Attorney for the Central District of California.  The will also refer this matter to the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service and will notify all judges before whom these attorneys have pending cases.  For the sake of completeness, the Court requests [defense counsel] to assist by filing a report, within 14 days, containing contact information for: (1) every bar (state and federal) where these attorneys are admitted to practice; and (2) every judge before whom these attorneys have pending cases.”  

 

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana — The Southern District of Indiana has granted a motion for default judgment by CP Productions, Inc. (“CP”) of Arizona, which had sued Gerald L. Glover, III (“Glover”) of Indianapolis, Indiana alleging infringement of the copyrighted work “GH Hustlers — Maryjane’s Second Visit” which has been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office.

CP produces adult-entertainment content.  Copyright lawyers for CP filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Glover and his joint tortfeasors, without Plaintiff’s authorization or license, downloaded CP’s copyrighted work via the Internet.  Specifically, it was alleged that they had, knowingly and illegally, reproduced and distributed CP’s copyrighted creative work, and materially contributed to the infringing conduct of others by acting in concert via the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol.  CP also alleged that Glover was a serial infringer of copyrights in adult content stating that agents for CP had observed him infringing on multiple copyrighted works involving adult content.

In the complaint, CP’s attorneys listed counts of copyright infringement, civil conspiracy and contributory infringement.  CP sought statutory damages of $150,000 under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 504 for Glover’s alleged willful infringement of CP’s copyright.  CP also asked the court for attorneys’ fees and costs of $1,425 under 17 U.S.C. § 505, for a total judgment of $151,425.  Glover did not respond to the complaint. 

Because he had failed to plead or otherwise defend in this action, despite having been properly served with a summons and a complaint, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ordered an entry of default against Glover for $151,425, the full amount requested.

Practice Tip: When a defendant fails to appear to address assertions of wrongdoing made by a plaintiff, the court takes as true all of the plaintiff’s well-pled allegations.  On Friday, we blogged about a default-judgment case wherein the defendant was ordered by the court to pay $20,000 for illegally downloading copyrighted material.  As the Glover case shows, however, damages for illegally downloading copyrighted material can be much higher.

 

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana —The Southern District of Indiana has granted a default judgment to Malibu Media, LLC of Los Angeles, California in its lawsuit against Robert Johnson of Indianapolis, Indiana for copyright infringement of the work “Pretty Back Door Baby.”

In its complaint, Malibu Media alleged that Johnson and others directly and contributorily infringed its copyrighted work when they downloaded and disseminated without authorization, all or a portion of a movie owned by Malibu Media entitled “Pretty Back Door Baby” using BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol.  The initial complaint was served upon eleven defendants but was later severed.  Discussed in this opinion are the allegations, findings and judgments against Johnson only.

Malibu Media served Johnson with a summons and complaint on March 8, 2013.  Johnson did not respond.  On April 12, 2013, default was entered as to Johnson by Southern District of Indiana Judge William T. Lawrence.  By virtue of this entry of default, it was established as a factual matter that Johnson had uploaded and downloaded all or a portion of the copyrighted work without authorization, and had also enabled countless unknown others to obtain the work in the process.

In the current default-judgment opinion, the court addressed requests by Malibu Media for an injunction, for damages, for attorney’s fees and for costs.

The injunction sought asked the court to prohibit Johnson “from directly, contributorily or indirectly infringing [Malibu Media’s] rights under federal or state law in the Work, including, without limitation, by using the internet, BitTorrent or any other online media distribution system to reproduce (e.g., download) or distribute the Works, or to make the Work available for distribution to the public, except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of [Malibu Media].”  The court held that such an injunction was simply a mandate that Johnson follow copyright laws and that the injunction was therefore unnecessary.

The court also denied Malibu Media’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, noting that the fees submitted seemed to reflect legal work done not only in the furtherance of the lawsuit against Johnson, but also seemed to pertain to other related lawsuits involving the previously joined defendants.  As a result of these ambiguities, the court denied Malibu Media’s request for costs and attorney’s fees but indicated that it would be willing to entertain such motions upon the entry of final judgment as to all defendants in related cases.

Finally, Malibu Media sought statutory damages in the amount of $20,000.  The court cited “Congress’s recognition of the ‘disturbing trend’ of internet piracy” and found that amount to be just under the circumstances.

Practice Tip:

Deciding to simply ignore a complaint, as Robert Johnson apparently did, can be a costly error.  Failing to present the defendant’s version of the facts and arguments results in the court considering only the plaintiff’s side of the story.  Here, because the defendant chose to leave the complaint unanswered, the well-pled allegations of the plaintiff relating to liability were taken as true.

After the entry of default judgment, the court then conducted an inquiry to ascertain the amount of damages with “reasonable certainty.”  Again, in such circumstances, it serves a defendant well to plead his case — to present the court with reasons that the plaintiff should not get 100% of what he requests.

Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), a copyright owner may elect actual or statutory damages.  Statutory damages range from a sum not less than $750 to not more than $30,000.  The determination of the exact amount is left to the discretion of the court.  In this case, Malibu Media asked the court for $20,000 and the court, having no arguments from the defendant to suggest that this was excessive, granted the entire amount.

Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this website, has represented several hundred persons and businesses regarding copyright infringement and similar matters.

Continue reading

Contact Information
Indiana Intellectual Property: IP Litigation, Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights
  • Seventh Circuit
  • Northern District of Indiana
  • Southern District of Indiana
Paul B. Overhauser
Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Greenfield
18 E Main St #202
Greenfield, IN 46140
Phone: 317.467.9100
Fax: 866.283.8549
Indianapolis
101 W Ohio St #2000
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317.891.1500
Fax: 866.283.8549

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design