Confused Law Professor Cites Fraudulent Prenda Win As 'Proof' That There's No Problem With Statutory Damages
from the uh-what dept
The good folks over at EFF have a good review of the House Judiciary Committee's recent hearing on the scope of fair use, which we discussed earlier. It's a good read, but there's one note towards the end which is really incredible. One of the panelists, June Besek, of Columbia University, has been defending ridiculous statutory damages by arguing not only are they reasonable, but also that courts can handle circumstances where the damages awards should be lower based on circumstances.However, as EFF points out, Besek's argument here is suspect, given that she just a few weeks ago sent a letter on this issue in response to the Commerce Department's green paper on copyright, in which she defends current statutory damages practices... by pointing to a ruling in a Prenda case making a defendant pay $6,000. Specifically, her letter notes the following:
There is no satisfactory rationale at this time for singling out individual file-sharers with regard to statutory damages. The majority of reported cases against individual file-sharers have been resolved on summary judgment or on default, with the statutory damage awards under $10,000.And after the $10,000 is a footnote, where she points to three cases where courts granted awards of ~$6,000, including AF Holdings v. Bossard. You might recognize the name AF Holdings, better known as the shell company set up by Prenda Law which has been accused by multiple courts of being engaged in forgery and fraud in shaking down people into paying up. This seems like an odd choice for Besek to choose to support her position that statutory damages are not a problem, given that Prenda/AF Holdings has been using the threat of statutory damages on its bogus copyright claims to shake down millions of dollars from people without ever going to court.
In fact, the AF Holdings/Prenda fiasco is a perfect example of why statutory damages are so dangerous. They allow a new category of copyright trolls to go around sending out threat letters threatening the possibility of $150,000 awards, which lead many, many people to just pay up rather than go to court. For Professor Besek to use Prenda/AF Holdings as an example of how the system is working, at the very same time that the folks behind it are facing sanctions from multiple courts, have been referred to law enforcement and multiple local bars for discipline for their fraudulent actions, which were almost entirely predicated on using the threat of crazy statutory damages to make people cough up thousands of dollars is laughable.
And, it's not like Professor Besek used this example back when there was still some uncertainty about Prenda. She used in just a couple weeks ago, months after multiple courts had outlined the fraud AF Holdings was involved in. The fact that she would use that as an example of statutory damages working as intended suggests she is either ridiculously uninformed or dangerously confused about how statutory damages are used in practice.
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, fair use, june besek, statutory damages
Companies: af holdings, columbia university, prenda
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Those who can...
Of course, I'm a teacher. But I also practice my trade as well. It's the only way to stay sharp.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I guess reading the coverage of all of these cases was much to difficult a task to manage, but had the effort been made she would not look like an out of touch idiot.
Unless you goal is to show how fing broken the copyright system is, Pretenda is NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE.
This was her best shot at finding good poster children, talk about phoning it in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Those who can...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
with 1 tweet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'll go with ridiculously uninformed!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'll go with ridiculously uninformed!
"and make sure it doesn't make me look foolish."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Those who can...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Holy crap, Mike! You lurched into an actual GOOD RELEVANT PIECE involving Prenda!
For the record, I've always wanted the Prenda lawyers hanged, but wasn't specific to their actions, just on the near certainty that all lawyers should be hanged for past crimes (which are usually unknown because their gang hides and okays the crimes). However, for Prenda's specific known crimes, they're not getting punished near enough for besmirching the good of copyright with their fraud.
In honor of Mike actually making this Prenda item good and relevant -- which I though impossible, let alone for him -- I forego my Prenda tagline, but admit it's also to raise doubt as to wherther I'm THE out_of_the_blue...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Holy crap, Mike! You lurched into an actual GOOD RELEVANT PIECE involving Prenda!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Holy crap, Mike! You lurched into an actual GOOD RELEVANT PIECE involving Prenda!
If not for the opportunities allowed by copyright law, the fraud would have never happened.
Copyright as it stands allows someone to register something, not have to market it at all, have it get shared, and they stand to collect $150K. (or settlements well in excess of that number with no one the wiser).
It is turning movies so bad Netflix pays you to watch them into financial blockbusters.
Copyright has a place in the world, but not in its current form. It requires updating and adjustment to reality, rather than being the thing of dreams of being rich.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Those who can...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Holy crap, Mike! You lurched into an actual GOOD RELEVANT PIECE involving Prenda!
1. Go to Techdirt website.
2. Click refresh until a new article appears.
3. Post nonsensical rant.
4. Go to #2.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Those who can...
You aren't a Phys. Ed. Teacher per chance, are you? :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This needs to be thoroghly mocked...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This needs to be thoroghly mocked...
Poe's Law: they won't be able to tell it's satire.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Great article
[ link to this | view in thread ]