Porn copyright troll wants court to be more sensitive
A pornographic film company has asked the Indiana federal court to ban the use of several disparaging terms in its upcoming copyright case.
Malibu Media, a Los Angeles company who produces ‘X-Art’ adult films, is suing BitTorrent pirate Michael Harrison for copyright infringement. Malibu Media would like to prevent Harrison’s defense team from using negative language, including “pornographer,” “porn purveyor,” and “copyright troll.”
A copyright troll is a person or company who extracts money by aggressively enforcing its copyrights. The practice is considered to be unethical and possibly even illegal by many “copyleft” advocates. A simple Google search brings up a number of anti-copyright websites, including anticopyright.com, fightcopyrighttrolls.com, and dietrolldie.com. Critics argue that copyright trolls are not truly interested in creating artistic or entertainment content, but exist merely to extract money by suing pirates for damages.
What’s next, banning the terms “patent troll” or “guilty”?
Malibu Media says that terms like “copyright troll” and “pornographer” have negative connotations that may unfairly influence the jury. According to their legal team, “the jury would likely be led to abandon its impartiality if those or similar titles are permitted in the courtroom.” Malibu Media believe that if the Plaintiff calls their films porn, or refers to them as a “copyright troll,” it will confuse the jury into thinking that the “Plaintiff’s works are not entitled to copyright protection or that the Plaintiff should be treated different under the law simply because of the industry that it is in.”
Harrison, on the other hand, believe these terms are accurate. After all, Malibu Media definitely produces pornography, and their case record does indicate that enforcing copyright laws is a major activity – and source of income – for the company. Malibu Media has filed 3,539 copyright lawsuits, including 1,104 cases this year alone. Most of these cases are settled out of court, with porn pirates coughing up heavy fees rather than face the embarrassment of taking their porn habit to the public court.
Harrison, however, has decided not to back down. He has asked the court to dismiss the motion to ban the offending terms. The Indiana court has not reached a decision, but whatever they decide could have a major impact on copyright cases in the future.
