Copyright Trolling For Dummies: Wiley Gets Default Judgment
from the books-not-to-buy dept
A little over a year ago, we noted that large publishing house John Wiley (also the plaintiff in the Kirtsaeng case that seeks to wipe out First Sale rights on many goods) was jumping into the copyright trolling game by suing a bunch of people for supposedly sharing digital copies of the company's "For Dummies" books online (though unlike other trolls, at least Wiley tried to target people who were actually in the same jurisdiction: New York). In typical copyright trolling fashion, the company was seeking that people pay up, but a few apparently ignored the whole thing, leading Wiley to score a default judgment against them. Default judgments are generally meaningless in terms of having a wider impact. It's what happens when the defendant ignores the lawsuit, and most courts just give the plaintiff everything they want (though they don't have to) and leave it to the plaintiff to figure out a way to collect.In this case, the court has issued default judgments against Tammy Roberts and Fred Burgos. It looks like the case went more or along the lines of how copyright trolls would like: the judge allowed the subpoenas, and a few months later, Wiley amended the complaint to name names based on what it learned from the subpoenas issued to ISPs. And... just before anything else was scheduled to happen Wiley magically dismissed most of the defendants (meaning they paid up). The two exceptions were Burgos and Rogers. Wiley insists it properly served both of them, and they both ignored it -- and now the court says they need to pay $7,000 -- split up as $5,000 for copyright infringement and $2,000 for trademark infringement. This is exactly what Wiley asked for. The judge just took what they asked for and accepted it, which is unfortunately common in default judgment cases.
The trademark claim here seems especially bizarre and it's unfortunate that the judge just granted the default judgment. For it to be a trademark infringement, there needs to be a "use in commerce," and it's unclear how posting something online could be seen as a use in commerce if there was no commercial aspect to it. In the grand scheme of things, these rulings mean very little, since they're default judgments, but they'll likely be used by copyright trolls to try to justify their own actions going forward.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, default judgment, for dummies, trademark
Companies: john wiley
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In other words: While it's not saying that Wiley is 'Right', it is saying that they are 'Not Wrong'. Which is just as bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not unclear if you post it on a site which receives ad revenue, accepts donations or offers subscriptions. That is all commerce. And as that particular work is part of the sites general offerings it meets the definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That would only apply to the site offering the download. Not to the uploader. So, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does the court require proof? And in what form?
One would think this requires being served, where the process server has to seek proof of identity and then provide proper notification to said individual in writing.
I read some time ago that a court (do not recall where) allowed a person to be served via facebook - this is a bad idea. I did not see a follow up on that particular story.
So, if a troll fools the court into believing they properly served an individual then they stand a good chance of hitting default ruling pay dirt while the mark is totally in the dark until a collection agency starts ragging their ass. Brilliant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://torrentfreak.com/7000-fine-for-sharing-wordpress-for-dummies-on-bittorrent-120702/
That case started out as Wiley v. Does 1-27 filed in Southern New York. One of the Does tried to get the ISP subpoena quashed and the defendants severed, but the judge rejected their arguments. Wiley used this as ammo in their argument against Verizon's refusal to hand over subscriber identities in three of their other mass lawsuits. Any idea what ever happened with that?
The case was then pared down to four named defendants and moved to Western New York. One didn't respond and got a default judgment against them for $7000, split up the same way as in this case. The docket shows that two of the other defendants were dismissed and that one of those two settled. The remaining one started to fight it, but it's not clear what happened; all I see on the docket is that Wiley's lawyer canceled a post-discovery conference. I'd like to know what happened, if anyone cares to comment further...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 petitions I recommend
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/shorten-excessive-copyright-terms/XMc72zjc
h ttp://wh.gov/UIW2
I think the people should let the government know what we think of stupid copyright laws.
If a lot of people petitioned the government or if everyone wrote an email to their Congressman or woman trying to change the copyright than maybe the law would change and we won't ever hear of copyright trolls suing again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]