YouTube Rippers Appeal $83 Million Piracy Verdict (torrentfreak.com) 29
An anonymous reader writes: The operator of YouTube rippers FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com has announced that he will appeal the piracy verdict, where the RIAA won $83 million in damages. According to his attorneys, the legal process has gone off the rails, as the music companies didn't have to prove a single instance of copyright infringement. More context on the verdict, from TorrentFreak: Last October, the RIAA secured a major victory in its piracy lawsuit against YouTube-rippers FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com and their Russian operator Tofig Kurbanov. A Virginia federal court issued a default judgment in favor of several prominent music companies after the defendant walked away from the lawsuit. According to the order, there is a clear need to deter the behavior of Kurbanov who failed to hand over evidence including server logs. "A less drastic sanction is unlikely to salvage this case," the judge wrote.
Following this win, the RIAA asked for an injunction to stop the sites' worldwide stream-ripping activities. In addition, the music group demanded nearly $83 million in damages. Both of these requests were taken up in a report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Buchanan last December. "Defendant's Websites caused the Plaintiffs to lose profits and streaming revenue because of the enormous internet traffic to and use of the Websites' stream-ripping functions," Judge Buchanan wrote. Mr. Kurbanov's legal team opposed this recommendation, arguing that the music companies failed to provide evidence that any infringing activity actually took place in the United States. Also, if the court believes that damages are appropriate, they should be substantially lower. The RIAA predictably disagreed and asked the court to stay the course and take over the recommendation. After weighing the positions from both sides, that's exactly what happened.
Following this win, the RIAA asked for an injunction to stop the sites' worldwide stream-ripping activities. In addition, the music group demanded nearly $83 million in damages. Both of these requests were taken up in a report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Buchanan last December. "Defendant's Websites caused the Plaintiffs to lose profits and streaming revenue because of the enormous internet traffic to and use of the Websites' stream-ripping functions," Judge Buchanan wrote. Mr. Kurbanov's legal team opposed this recommendation, arguing that the music companies failed to provide evidence that any infringing activity actually took place in the United States. Also, if the court believes that damages are appropriate, they should be substantially lower. The RIAA predictably disagreed and asked the court to stay the course and take over the recommendation. After weighing the positions from both sides, that's exactly what happened.
Don't start defending then walk out. (Score:2)
Oops. Once you've started defending the case you've admitted the court has authority over it. So if you walk out without completing your defense and/or otherwise complying with the court's orders, you're hosed.
As I understand it (IANAL): This is also why you don't respond to a subpoena or other process from a court that does not have jurisdiction over you by sending them a notice that you think they don't have jurisdiction: Doing so can be construed to recognize that they DO have jurisdiction - at least
Not useless because of that (Score:2)
The parent comment isn't useless because the author isn't an attorney.
It's useless because it's wrong. And because it's harmful.
It also happens to be contrary to simple logic, of course. No, saying "you do not have jurisdiction" does NOT mean "yes you have jurisdiction". That's just a silly thing to say.
By not responding, you guarantee one thing - that'll you'll lose. The other party will get a default judgement, nearly every time.
On the other hand, responding by contesting jurisdiction or venue gives the
Re: (Score:2)
It's useless because it's wrong.
...because he's not an attorney.
I object, your honor. Attorneys are perfectly capable of being wrong as well.
Re: (Score:2)
> I object, your honor. Attorneys are perfectly capable of being wrong as well.
Indeed. When a third-party has decided whether or not a particular attorney was right, they are right just about half the time.
For most every time a judge has ruled one attorney was right, there's been another attorney on the other side who was wrong. :)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, once you've been legally served, a trial can commence regardless of whether or not you agree to the proceedings. I spent a lot of time in court fighting off my old credit card debt, and the majority of victories on the side of the credit card companies were default judgements where the defendant was absent from the first hearing.
In case you're wondering, the second most common victories were defendants with sob stories. Many defendants seemed completely oblivious to the fact that a judge is only
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, once you've been legally served, a trial can commence regardless of whether or not you agree to the proceedings. I spent a lot of time in court fighting off my old credit card debt, and the majority of victories on the side of the credit card companies were default judgements where the defendant was absent from the first hearing.
In case you're wondering, the second most common victories were defendants with sob stories. Many defendants seemed completely oblivious to the fact that a judge is only concerned with whether or not the plaintiff’s claim is valid. It doesn’t matter how sick you were, or how you lost your job, or any other hardship you may have endured - if it’s your debt and you admit to it being so, your case is over.
I suspect the GP is a Freeman On The Land/Sovereign Citizen nutter who thinks that they can say the law doesn't apply to them by muttering some magic words.
Back here in the real world, it is exactly as you've stated. If you don't turn up in court to defend yourself you'll just end up with a default judgement against you.
Re: (Score:2)
...Doing so can be construed to recognize that they DO have jurisdiction - at least enough to decide whether they do, so if they decide the do (which they will)...
Questioning if someone has jurisdiction, is grounds to pull jurisdiction clean out of someone's ass, because "they will"?
Uh, you ever consider the fact that if jurisdiction is left up to feelings and whim as you've implied here, we wouldn't even have a reason for the word jurisdiction to exist, much less enforce a definition around it?
(The answer to that would be no, you are not a lawyer.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Don't start defending then walk out. (Score:2)
Agreed the odds of successfully setting aside the default judgment are quite slim, unless he was unexpectedly forced into military service or something in his home country.
it sounds from the story they are going for a restricted appeal. For the masses, that means instead of going against the process in the first case, appealing the judgment itself by claiming the default judgment was not supported by the law or facts.
Even with a default judgment there is still a requirement to show the facts and evidenc
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, no. If someone files a copyright lawsuit against you in Federal court, there's a mechanism for contesting personal jurisdiction - it's called a Rule 12(b)(2) motion [cornell.edu]. If y
And actual lawyers say this is bullshit. (Score:2)
As I understand it (IANAL): This is also why you don't respond to a subpoena or other process from a court that does not have jurisdiction over you by sending them a notice that you think they don't have jurisdiction:
And several posters, some actual lawyers, respond to say the implied alternative of ignoring the service is bullshit and invites an ENFORCEABLE and UNAPPEALABLE default judgement for everything the plaintiff asked for. So I stand corrected.
(This is why you always check with actual lawyers. B-
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a YouTube Ripper (Score:2)
Nope. No more than a bookstore or radio station (Score:3)
YouTube has licensed the content. Much like a radio station would do. YouTube has done nothing wrong.
If you record songs from the radio and start selling them on CD, the artists or publishers are coming after YOU. They aren't coming after the radio station.
Same as if you got a book at a bookstore or library and starting making and selling copies unlawfully. It's the person making and selling copies unlawfully who is breaking the law. Not the person providing legitimate copies.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you're taking payment in rubles, dollars, francs, ads, or coconuts, you're still selling it, in the context of the law.
Fuck the RIAA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok but you're the reason that they exist so it's a win-win for them. Music companies either make money from the sale or make money off these lawsuits. Something tells me that you were pirating music before the RIAA started going after people hard. If that's the case, then your comment would be nothing more than a criminal whining about not being able to commit a crime as easily without risk.
It's only the very few edge cases where Fair Use was involved that normal people care about. Those people eventually w
Videos tapes (Score:1)
Isnât this a repeat from the 80â(TM)s?
I seem to recall similar court cases against taping shows, moviesâ¦
LOL, you can get a judgement (Score:2)
LOL, you can get a judgement, but good luck collecting $83 million from some guy in Russia.