MicrostockGroup

STUDY ON REMEDIES FOR COPYRIGHT SMALL CLAIMS

Nancy Wolff and Cathy Aron have been working closely with an ad hoc committee of visual arts organizations, including American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP), Graphic Artists Guild (GAG), Professional Photographers of America (PPA), and North American Nature Photography Association (NANPA), and American Photographic Artists (APA) in response to the call for comments from the Copyright Office on the subject of a small claims court for copyright infringements.  Although each organization is filing its own comments, we all generally support each other’s efforts and the same overall goal: A system that allows fair, speedy and economically affordable access to legal enforcement of copyrights for all copyright holders, irrespective of the economic impact of any particular infringement. More specifically, we seem to desire a number of specific steps toward achieving that goal.

    The ability to bring a claim without the need of legal representation, in a forum that is cost effective and that does not require expensive travel or other out-of-pocket costs or expert fees.

    The ability to have a claim adjudicated timely by a tribunal that is knowledgeable about copyright.

    In the event that the process is not binding on a defendant once elected by a plaintiff, provision for incentives to discourage a defendant from rejecting the alternative forum and forcing a claim to be brought in a federal court of general jurisdiction; and

    A resolution of a claim that offers finality and ease of enforcement of any judgment.

PACA’s Initial Claim
http://www.pacaoffice.org/pdfs/NOI_response_120118A.pdf

(hey don't look, there's an article about Sopa right above this one...)

http://www.pacaoffice.org/whatsnewnow.shtml

from the Copyright Alliance

Both pieces of legislation have been under attack and have been misrepresented with mischaracterizations and rhetoric that have distorted the facts.   This legislation is about promoting and and protecting American jobs and American consumers and about ensuring the Internet as a safe and lawful tool for all.  The bills are narrowly targeted at offshore websites that are primarily designed or created to offer complete copies of infringing works for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.  These sites are trafficking unlicensed, unregulated and unsafe products to U.S. consumers.  Taking action against criminal activity is not stifling free speech, and it will not “break the internet”.  People should take a look at what the bill actually does.

If I'm not mistaken, even if you prove your case in small claims court and win, the court does not handle the collecting of any monies you are due. That is the individual's responsibility. So unless they change that, having a court case and winning is virtually useless.

I can't speak about the systems in the US because no doubt its different there, but here you would be right in most cases - theres a difference between getting a judgement and getting them to actually pay up. Sometimes that's when the real trouble begins. In many cases though when someone gets a judgement against them, they pay up.  Often its part of the analysis before you start things rolling - working out if the other party has the means or assets to pay any judgement, and working out how much its going to cost to get it off them. There's special rules in some types of cases such as family law.

It's not hard to go after someone who hasn't paid a small claims judgement.  I had to garnish wages against an uninsured driver, and all it took was a call to the DMV and a trip to the courthouse.

The real problem with small claims court is cases can only be filed in the defendant's jurisdiction.  That often makes pursuing a case cost prohibitive.

Many years ago, in my younger days, I had a client stiff me.  I won by default in small claims court because he didn't even bother to show up at the hearing.  As I was leaving, the judge said, "Good luck, son."  I wondered why he would say that, because I had just won my law suit.  That's when I found out that what I had, essentially, was a piece of paper that said, "Yep.  This individual owes you money."  It was up to me to collect it.  That meant finding out what he owned and file an attachment.  He was self-employed, so there was no salary to garnish.  I would have had to hire an investigator, which meant even more money out of pocket.  I cut my losses and let it go.  I filed it in the public records and never heard from the guy again.

Looking back on it, I'm sure he did it because he had done it many times before to unwitting victims, and there is a plentiful supply of soft targets.  Prior to my small claims court suit, he told me on the phone that he wasn't gonna pay me.  When I asked him why, he said, "I don't want to."  Case closed.

Adieu pleurer les enfants

Sorry if my post came across that way - I think a small claims procedure is a very good way of making it easier and more efficient to enforce our rights, and definitely a worthwhile change if the lawyers don't trample all over it first.

That's probably true in some small claims courts, but not necessarily always the case, it really depends on how any legislation ends up being drafted, how open they are to using technology and how much co-operation there is between different states. Its not unheard of to be able to hold some hearings by videoconference between two different courts when location is a problem.

And if the award is substantial, then all they do is declare bankruptcy, then you never collect. So sometimes it's fruitless.