$4M Default Judgment for Private in Copyright Suit

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • Redrob
    Confirmed User
    • Oct 2004
    • 4791
    #1

    $4M Default Judgment for Private in Copyright Suit

    According to this morning's AVN:

    Calling it a "shot across the bow against further piracy," Iowa District Court Judge Mark W. Bennett on Monday awarded Private Media subsidiary Fraserside IP a default judgment in the total amount of $3,998,814 in a copyright infringement case in which the defendants never bothered to respond.
    Link to Article.

    Score one for the good guys!

    No Fear, Just Knowledge.
    Tags: None
    • Klen
      • Aug 2006
      • 32235
      #2
      Kind a doubt how they will get that.

        Comment

        • Paul Markham
          Too old to care
          • Jun 2001
          • 52942
          #3
          Originally posted by KlenTelaris
          Kind a doubt how they will get that.
          Which is why we need a law that makes more than unreachable scum liable for the fine. Processors, advertisers should be in the dock as well.



          Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
          PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

            Comment

            • Failed
              Confirmed User
              • Mar 2011
              • 2301
              #4
              Damages are great, if they get paid. A real shot across the bow would of been a 10-20 in the state pen.
              (ICQ - 664784872)

                Comment

                • Barry-xlovecam
                  It's 42
                  • Jun 2010
                  • 18083
                  #5
                  Originally posted by Paul Markham
                  Which is why we need a law that makes more than unreachable scum liable for the fine. Processors, advertisers should be in the dock as well.
                  1. MARK FARAGALLA and MINA FARAGALLA d/b/a www.PornVisit.com are California residents and their assets, if any, are attachable by a writ of execution of this judgment. So Paul. you are dead wrong they are not "unreachable scum" as you term them.

                  2. It is relatively easy to have a default judgment set aside by appearing before the court. A slam dunk in this case

                  Case 3:11-cv-03032-MWB;

                  [T]he modern day pirates at issue in this litigation do not wear tricornes and extract their ill gotten booty at cutlass point, but with a mouse and the internet. Nonetheless, their theft of property is every bit as lucrative as their brethren in the golden age of piracy. Plaintiff asserts a variety of copyright and trademark infringement claims against defendants concerning its adult motion pictures shown on defendants? internet website. Having obtained an entry of default against defendants, plaintiff now requests that I enter a sizable default judgment against defendants as a shot across the bow against further piracy. ...

                    Comment

                    • Fletch XXX
                      GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!!
                      • Jan 2002
                      • 60840
                      #6
                      you can tell that judge hates people who make money, despite the theft, each quote is about money and he clearly envious or something below the skin... this shit read of jealousy

                      "In a preface to his order, Judge Bennett wrote, "The modern day pirates at issue in this litigation do not wear tricornes and extract their ill gotten booty at cutlass point, but with a mouse and the internet. Nonetheless, their theft of property is every bit as lucrative as their brethren in the golden age of piracy. Plaintiff asserts a variety of copyright and trademark infringement claims against defendants concerning its adult motion pictures shown on defendants’ internet website. Having obtained an entry of default against defendants, plaintiff now requests that I enter a sizable default judgment against defendants as a shot across the bow against further piracy.""

                      "Referring to pornvisit.com as a "cash cow," the judge threw the book at the Faragallas, awarding permanent injunctive relief in addition to monetary awards that the judge freely admitted may err on the side of the plaintiff. However, he said, "I am allowed to engage in some degree of speculation in computing the amount of damages here because my inability to compute them is attributable to the Faragallas’ wrongdoing.""
                      aint saying they were right, but this judge definitely seems to hold a bias and it seems that the fact the site made money he is exxaggerating costs, he clearly states this. My guess is he wanted to make headlines,...
                      Last edited by Fletch XXX; 02-16-2012, 04:51 AM.

                      Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site?

                      Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

                        Comment

                        • Barry-xlovecam
                          It's 42
                          • Jun 2010
                          • 18083
                          #7
                          Originally posted by Failed
                          Damages are great, if they get paid. A real shot across the bow would of been a 10-20 in the state pen.
                          Criminal copyright infringement was not alleged. Meeting the burden of proof of criminal copyright infringement is not easy to achieve.

                            Comment

                            • pornguy
                              Too lazy to set a custom title
                              • Mar 2003
                              • 62912
                              #8
                              Originally posted by Fletch XXX
                              you can tell that judge hates people who make money, despite the theft, each quote is about money and he clearly envious or something below the skin... this shit read of jealousy



                              aint saying they were right, but this judge definitely seems to hold a bias and it seems that the fact the site made money he is exxaggerating costs, he clearly states this. My guess is he wanted to make headlines,...
                              Way tooo much of that goes on in the court rooms now days. Used to be it was the law and not the judges opinion. Now days they have no problem saying their opinion which clearly removes the blindfold from justice.
                              PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic

                              AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online!
                              TChicks.com | Angeles Cid | Mariana Cordoba | MAILERS WELCOME!

                                Comment

                                • Nautilus
                                  Confirmed User
                                  • Sep 2002
                                  • 1631
                                  #9
                                  Excellent news!

                                  Now that's something to think about for the rest of the illegal tubes.
                                  .
                                  .

                                  FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote | 100K+ FHGs | Check recently added galleries

                                  New sites | Pantyhose | Nylon | Shemale | Strapon | Lesbian | Mature/MILF | Anal | Old&Young | Gay | Feet

                                  Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2)

                                  Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password.

                                  ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

                                    Comment

                                    • Just Alex
                                      Liv Benson to You, Bitch
                                      • Aug 2007
                                      • 6060
                                      #10
                                      Originally posted by Barry-xlovecam
                                      1. MARK FARAGALLA and MINA FARAGALLA d/b/a www.PornVisit.com are California residents and their assets, if any, are attachable by a writ of execution of this judgment. So Paul. you are dead wrong they are not "unreachable scum" as you term them.

                                      2. It is relatively easy to have a default judgment set aside by appearing before the court. A slam dunk in this case
                                      Paul is never WRONG. Please fix your original post immediately.

                                        Comment

                                        • Quentin
                                          Confirmed User
                                          • Dec 2002
                                          • 1280
                                          #11
                                          Originally posted by Fletch XXX
                                          you can tell that judge hates people who make money, despite the theft, each quote is about money and he clearly envious or something below the skin... this shit read of jealousy



                                          aint saying they were right, but this judge definitely seems to hold a bias and it seems that the fact the site made money he is exxaggerating costs, he clearly states this. My guess is he wanted to make headlines,...
                                          You are basing your claim of judicial bias on reading a couple of paragraphs of the decision outside of their original context; perhaps you exhibiting a little bias yourself? ;-)

                                          It's not as though Private hasn't made many times as much money over the years as the defendants in this case made by infringing on Private's works -- if the judge has a bias against people who make money, why would he rule in favor of the party that has made (and is worth) so much more money?

                                          Further, why would he grant significant damages when he could have granted far, far less? Doesn't the decision to impose significant damages just mean that much more money winding up in the pockets of "people who make money," against whom he is allegedly biased?

                                          I think there are arguably some issues with the way the judge calculated the damages (other than the statutory damages) and the damages based on his projection of how much the site earned from advertising, but if the defendants wanted to ensure a rational, fair and just calculation of damages, they might have been wise to actually show up and defend themselves in court.
                                          Q. Boyer

                                            Comment

                                            • porno jew
                                              Too lazy to set a custom title
                                              • Nov 2006
                                              • 10166
                                              #12
                                              fletch is an idiot.

                                                Comment

                                                Previous template Next
                                                Working...