GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   $4M Default Judgment for Private in Copyright Suit (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1057882)

Redrob 02-16-2012 06:13 AM
$4M Default Judgment for Private in Copyright Suit
 
According to this morning's AVN:

Quote:
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!:thumbsup

No Fear, Just Knowledge.:pimp

Klen 02-16-2012 06:16 AM
Kind a doubt how they will get that.

Paul Markham 02-16-2012 06:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KlenTelaris (Post 18762749)
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.

Failed 02-16-2012 06:34 AM
Damages are great, if they get paid. A real shot across the bow would of been a 10-20 in the state pen.

Barry-xlovecam 02-16-2012 06:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 18762777)
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 :1orglaugh
Quote:
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. ...

Fletch XXX 02-16-2012 06:49 AM
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

Quote:
"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,...

Barry-xlovecam 02-16-2012 06:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Failed (Post 18762787)
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.

pornguy 02-16-2012 07:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch XXX (Post 18762821)
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.

Nautilus 02-16-2012 08:00 AM
Excellent news!

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

Just Alex 02-16-2012 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 18762812)
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 :1orglaugh
Paul is never WRONG. Please fix your original post immediately.

Quentin 02-16-2012 09:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch XXX (Post 18762821)
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. :2 cents:

porno jew 02-16-2012 10:03 AM
fletch is an idiot.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123