26 ms·

* It's not like he's buying up copyrights to sue or anything.* Effectively, he is. Whether it's buying, licensing or taking an option (what he actually is doin

by netcan 7y ago

* It's not like he's buying up copyrights to sue or anything.* Effectively, he is. Whether it's buying, licensing or taking an option (what he actually is doing)... he's basically acquired the right to sue for money and keep the earnings. The troll business model is the same whether he's formally representing clients for a (presumably large) cut or buying up portfolios.

ikeboy 7y ago
So your belief is the lawyers in a case need to have significant non-legal business in order to not be trolling?
- netcan 7y ago
  I mean what I said above. A business model whereby (1) one sits under a bridge made of copyrights/patents, or options to that effect and (2) uses the legal system (usually letters, but also litigation/etc.) to bully settlements out of passers-by. In this case, (1) get the right to sue for profit on photos. (2) Find an infringer or grey area (3) sue (4) Try to get a settlement smaller than likely damages.. because "it's cheaper and less scary than court." Did you read the article? The precedent is only relevant because the defendant will incur $100k in legal fees to defend against likely damages of $1k, that he'd/she'd already agreed to settle. This is literal trolling, bridge, big teeth and all. He doesn't care about the damages/rulings, all he cares about is causing enough legal costs to bully the defendant into a settlement.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    1. For the third time, the business model is licensing images. 2. "The precedent is only relevant because the defendant will incur $100k in legal fees to defend against likely damages of $1k, that he'd/she'd already agreed to settle." If they believed damages were likely to only be 1k, they'd have taken the offer. Their calculation neglects statutory damages. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f0de0d0-e0a7-4c87-a7cb-c8c382cd1be6 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f0de0d0-e0a7... is another case from the same lawyer where statutory damages of $2500 were awarded. If you're entitled to $2500 (for argument's sake) and the other side makes a maximum offer of $1000, rejecting can be reasonable. And if you turn out to win less than $1000, sure, pay for the other side's fees.

by netcan 7y ago

ikeboy 7y ago

So your belief is the lawyers in a case need to have significant non-legal business in order to not be trolling?

netcan 7y ago
I mean what I said above. A business model whereby (1) one sits under a bridge made of copyrights/patents, or options to that effect and (2) uses the legal system (usually letters, but also litigation/etc.) to bully settlements out of passers-by. In this case, (1) get the right to sue for profit on photos. (2) Find an infringer or grey area (3) sue (4) Try to get a settlement smaller than likely damages.. because "it's cheaper and less scary than court." Did you read the article? The precedent is only relevant because the defendant will incur $100k in legal fees to defend against likely damages of $1k, that he'd/she'd already agreed to settle. This is literal trolling, bridge, big teeth and all. He doesn't care about the damages/rulings, all he cares about is causing enough legal costs to bully the defendant into a settlement.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  1. For the third time, the business model is licensing images. 2. "The precedent is only relevant because the defendant will incur $100k in legal fees to defend against likely damages of $1k, that he'd/she'd already agreed to settle." If they believed damages were likely to only be 1k, they'd have taken the offer. Their calculation neglects statutory damages. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f0de0d0-e0a7-4c87-a7cb-c8c382cd1be6 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f0de0d0-e0a7... is another case from the same lawyer where statutory damages of $2500 were awarded. If you're entitled to $2500 (for argument's sake) and the other side makes a maximum offer of $1000, rejecting can be reasonable. And if you turn out to win less than $1000, sure, pay for the other side's fees.