Jayme Gordon Guilty On All 4 Counts Of Wire Fraud In Scheme To Sue Dreamworks For Copyright Infringement
from the wires-crossed dept
It was somewhat breathtaking back in 2011 to see the multiple accusations of copyright infringement brought against Dreamworks' movie Kung Fu Panda. While none of the suits appear to have stuck, the case brought by Jayme Gordon stood out, first because it certainly looked, based on his evidence, that he had a somewhat strong case, and then later it became clear that his evidence against Dreamworks was actually a bullshit con he'd trumped up after likely infringing on previous works by Disney. The quick version of the story is that Gordon altered some drawings he'd done previously to look more like artwork in a trailer he saw for Kung Fu Panda, where those original drawings were essentially recreations of art from a Disney coloring book. He also tried to hide all of this by deleting files off of his computer so that they wouldn't be found during discovery, an endeavor that worked about as well as a flotation device made entirely out of stone. Jesus, this world is a strange place in which to live.
Regardless, as Tim Cushing noted in his post above, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston filed wire fraud charges against Gordon because his attorneys emailed requests for discovery and settlement offers across state lines as part of his scheme. These charges, which come from the same office that prosecuted Aaron Swartz, looked for all the world like charges stacking. Except this particular U.S. Attorney's Office tends to follow through on the charges.
Which brings us to the present, in which Gordon has been found guilty on all four wire fraud charges and is in serious trouble.
Jayme Gordon, 51, was convicted today by a federal juryon four counts of wire fraud and three counts of perjury. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Patti B. Saris scheduled sentencing for March 30, 2017. The charge of wire fraud provides for a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, a fine of $250,000 and restitution. The charge of perjury provides for a sentence of no greater than five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000.
Let's be clear that the wire fraud charges, when compared to how other U.S. Attorney's Offices tend to handle these things, are purely punitive. The manner in which these offices tend to prosecute wire fraud is one fraught with variance. It tends to come down to whether or not that particular office really wants to hammer the defendant, rather than the law being equitably applied across the entire constituency. Put another way: isn't the five years in prison and quarter-of-a-million dollars fine ample punishment for what Gordon did?
However you want to answer that question, it seems likely that his sentence will be far greater than that. Even if he serves a fraction of the possible 25 years in prison, it's likely to be in the double digits. Gordon is by no means a likable character, but that seems out of whack.
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, evidence, fraud, jayme garcia, kung fu panda, wire fraud
Companies: disney
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Sentencing Guidelines
Its really hard to read these articles without laughing at the author. You are quoting maximum possible sentences without realizing that there are clear guidelines on what the ACTUAL sentences may be.Depending on his previous criminal history, he could be getting 21-27 months.
http://www.sentencing.us/
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Techdirt is always talking about horrible people making horrible false copyright infringement claims, and I fully agree that it's horrible and the people doing so need to be smacked down hard.
Now that someone doing so actually got smacked down hard for it, you're saying there's a problem with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You left out the most important factor in the justice system. Money. This guy obviously wasn't rich enough to get away with what he did. That's what happens when you play out of your league.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It just sees things with a green tint!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it's not alright.
You always have to consider the next guy that comes along with a bad toupe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"isn't the five years in prison and quarter-of-a-million dollars fine ample punishment for what Gordon did?"
Yes, I think most reasonable people would think that. Adding another decade of jailtime on to that is somewhat disproportional and does nothing more to deter those wishing to commit similar crimes than the 5 years would.
In addition, it does nothing to address the usual issues talked about here. This does nothing to help those filmmakers who have their royalties robbed from them by creative accounting. This does nothing to deter studios and their lackeys DDOSing service providers with false DMCA claims, nor does it protect those independents affected by their actions. Those people and corporations need to be smacked down hard, but this is unrelated to those instances.
The result is correct, but the punishment also needs to fit the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:
The actual crime here is "majestus", failure to pay due deference to the majesty of the state... i.e not caving when the DA says to, as happened to Aaron Schwarz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE:
NO. As Ken at Popehat keeps telling people, that's just bad reporting. (Sorry, Tim.)
Unless this guy has a long criminal history, he doesn't face anything remotely like the maximum sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE:
Remember Schwarz was told the DA would ask for up to 35 years if he failed to take the plea. Not "the maximum is..." but "At trial we will ask for...".
Should we believe the DA is any less "persuasive" in any other case? Especially when the victims are the people who pay to have the laws written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE:
Of course, the numbers are put in a bit more perspective by considering the significantly greater role the graveyard plays as a correctional facility in China.
But the bottom line remains that no other nation has as many people incarcerated as the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sentencing Guidelines
Depending on his previous criminal history, he could be getting 21-27 months.
http://www.sentencing.us/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sentencing Guidelines
If someone told you that they were in control of your bank account and could drain it completely, and someone pointed out that just because they could doesn't mean that they would('They might only take half, or even a quarter!'), would that strike you as a good argument?
Sure he probably won't get the maximum, but the fact remains that it's even possible for such a sentence for what he did is a little ridiculous. The potential for 20 years in prison and a quarter million fine simply because the person he was talking to was located in another state seems just a titch excessive, even given the fact that he was a slimeball for attempted extortion under cover of copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sentencing Guidelines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sentencing Guidelines
Can I ask how you calculated this? I don't see the specific USC numbers to search on, but with that site's defaults I'm getting 18-24 months based on the perjury alone with zero history. It seems strange that a further 4 counts of wire fraud would get a maximum of 3 months above that, unless I'm doing something seriously wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sentencing Guidelines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sentencing Guidelines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sentencing Guidelines
Depending on his previous criminal history, he could be getting 30-37 months.
http://www.sentencing.us/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sentencing Guidelines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel like the charges are the wrong ones, but something similar, but more targeted at what he (and others) did (let's have perjury charges with real teeth, maybe?) would be a really good idea. That sort of law could be applied evenly, instead of just because of where people happened to be sitting when they had a conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]