Outrageous Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
#1
I am asking for some help from the community. I am looking for examples of U.S. copyright infringement lawsuits instituted by large, wealthy, and powerful entities against small, independent, or individual entities where the disparity between the parties or the claims asserted make the entire suit look outrageous. I am trying to support the contention that the established industry players use copyright laws to suppress competition from small players.

Can anyone thinks of specific examples of this sort of behavior?
Reply
#2
Are you after strictly copyright or trademark as well?
-stoli-
Reply
#3
I am focusing on copyright, but I'm happy to read about a trademark case if you know of one.
Reply
#4
You've always got the mom in Minnesota that was sued for sharing 24 songs on Kazaa and lost $1.92 MILLION or $80,000 per song.... (Ironically, had she not appealed her first case it would have only been $222k total.)

Or the other way around - the small no-name guys going after deep pockets...

That's all I can come up with off the top of my head...

Addition: I almost forgot about the classic case of Playboy vs. Rusty and Edie's BBS! $500k (later reduced to $100k) and seizure of all computers for 492 GIF images. Damn I spent a lot of money on long distance calls to that place. Oh the days of USR HST modems!! Nod
-stoli-
Reply
#5
Thanks! I'm aware of the Kazaa mom case and that's the kind of thing I'm after. I'm also interested in cases where independent/indie film makers, musicians, or authors, are sued by MGM (for example), Metallica (for example), or Dan Brown (for example). Where the already-rich use Copyright lawsuits to squash the little guys and restrain competition, similar to the Microsoft vs. "LindowsOS" a few years back.
Reply
#6
Ha, I was a recipeint of a "Metallica Letter" back in the days of Napster.
Reply
#7
The (gag) Ellen Show just got hit with a suit for the songs she has been using since day 1 on the air... Not exactly David vs Goliath, but it is "Big Music" against one show.
-stoli-
Reply
#8
Do a search on Monster Cable.

If you have a TV show with Monster in the name they will attack. (all Monster in name shows).

Make cables, you're on the hit list. (IE Blue Jean Cables).

Vintage clothing? They're on to you. Monster Vintage Clothing (IIRC).

The sad thing is everything Monster makes is overpriced massively. I guess the need the $$$ for lawyers. Oo
Reply
#9
TugboatBill Wrote:Do a search on Monster Cable.

If you have a TV show with Monster in the name they will attack. (all Monster in name shows).

Make cables, you're on the hit list. (IE Blue Jean Cables).

Vintage clothing? They're on to you. Monster Vintage Clothing (IIRC).

The sad thing is everything Monster makes is overpriced massively. I guess the need the $$$ for lawyers. Oo

Slightly unrelated, the monster cases are dealing with them attempting to protect their trademark. And while they are being overzealous in some cases, it's my understanding that these types of cases are somewhat expected with trademark law.
Reply
#10
theophile Wrote:I am focusing on copyright, but I'm happy to read about a trademark case if you know of one.

...
Reply
#11
Ahh.. yeah.. you're right. That's what I get for not re-reading the OP. Just ignore the "slightly unrelated" part Smile

It is a good example to bring up, just wanted to make it clear it was trademark in that case.
Reply
#12
The bad thing is that Monster has trademarked the term "Monster" in nearly every field they can. The joke is that eventually Webster's Dictionary will receive a letter from Monster's lawyers.
Reply

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
Outrageous Copyright Infringement Lawsuits0