By: suethecollectors

suethecollectors — Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:59:00 +0000

haha its funny isn’t it?
but it happened even we believe or not lol

By: Maurice Ross

Maurice Ross — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 20:11:00 +0000

I don’t understand how the Court can say that an award of attorneys fees is inconsistent with the purposes of the Copyright Act. Here we have an admitted infringer, entering into a consent judgment. Congress made the determination that to deter infringement, it would award prevailing parties statutory damages and attorneys fees. The Supreme Court recently confirmed that the main factor in determining whether attorneys fees should be awarded (in the totality of the circumstances) is whether the infringer had an objectively reasonable defense. Here, the infringer had no defense—he admitted liability. It is bizarre for the Court to deny attorneys fees in this circumstances—the Court is effectively over-ruling Congress. In this regard, a fee aware of $4700 is entirely reasonable given the amount of work that must be done to investigate a case, draft a complaint, and negotiate a consent judgment. Further, with respect to this Judge, the Court has no legitimate reason to use a case like this to voice its policy concerns about copyright trolling. Bit Torrent technology costs the entertainment industry literally billions of dollars because of illegal downloading. Individuals who use this technology to illegally download copyrighted materials are violating the law, and in so doing, causing tremendous economic harm—harm that affects not only companies that produce movies, music, and theater, but the individuals (writers, actors, songwriters, musicians, artists) who are paid to create these works. While Adam Sandler’s movie may not be a masterpiece, Bit Torrent infringement reduces the opportunities for others to create brilliant works of art. These are not, as suggested by this Court, trivial cases involving trivial amounts. Collectively, Bit Torrent infringement is a massive problem, and it is only getting worse. This District Court took one side in the “anti-troll” debate without even acknowledging that plaintiffs (and their lawyers) who pursue infringement cases may also be serving an important public interest–an interest Congress obviously recognized when it provided for statutory damages and attorneys fees. Talk about judicial activism? This Judge should have awarded reasonable attorneys fees in this case—otherwise, he is effectively overruling Congress.

Comments on: Copyright Owner Denied Attorneys’ Fees In Suit Against Popcorn Time User–Cobbler v. Doe

By: suethecollectors

By: Maurice Ross