Those who stream content illegally online are regularly portrayed as generating huge profits at the expense of legitimate content owners. In broad terms it’s an accurate summary; pirates invest nothing in the creative process and therefore risk none of their own time or money.
What pirates do risk, in some cases for surprisingly little profit, is legal action in both civil and criminal courts. It’s a roll of the dice a surprising number are still prepared to take, a French farmworker from Vienne, for example. Between 2019 and 2020, the man illegally streamed content owned by Canal+ which attracted 1.495 million visits, the broadcaster claimed.
Criminal Conviction, Civil Action
In May 2023, these streaming activities (mainly live football matches) earned the man a three-month suspended prison sentence in a criminal case. Suspension meant the defendant didn’t lose his freedom but with a civil case to answer, still faced losing money, probably on a massive scale.
Canal+ didn’t disappoint predictions. Maintaining a long tradition of filing a telephone number-sized claim, the broadcaster took the estimated 1.495 million visits to the platform, multiplied by a monthly legitimate subscription cost of €109, then weighted by 15%, the estimated audience penetration rate of Canal+.
Arriving at an amount just over €7,177,000, the broadcaster tacked moral damages on top and demanded all advertising revenue generated by the man during the 2019-2020 period; roughly €29,900, give or take.
French Court Hands Down its Decision
This week the Poitiers Judicial Court (Tribunal judiciaire de Poitiers) handed down its decision.
According to La Nouvelle Republique, the court awarded Canal+ just €56,500, comprised of €50,000 compensation for loss, the requested moral damages amount divided by ten, plus just €5,000 of the €29,937 generated from advertising.
A note in the judgment indicates that formulating an accurate potential losses claim was unachievable.
“It appears that carrying out a mathematical calculation of SA Canal Plus’s loss of opportunity proves impossible,” the judgment notes.
More Risk: To Appeal or Not
The only remaining question is whether either party will appeal. On balance, an appeal by the defendant would make little sense. For Canal+ there’s a deterrent component to consider, hence the huge initial claim.
In practical terms, if a €60,000 award doesn’t deter would-be pirates, double the amount probably won’t either. Nobody ever goes into these things expecting to get caught.
However, if an appeal went on to uphold the €60,000 award, some might consider that helpful. After being scrutinized twice, the amount could be seen as a more predictable guideline, rather than the unpredictable outlier one-off it currently is.
From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.
Die smarten Fire TVs mit Alexa von Amazon erfreuen sich großer Beliebtheit. Modelle der Reihe Fire TV 4 sind um bis zu 250 Euro reduziert. (
Amber ist ein russisches E-Auto-Konzept, das aufgrund seiner Designsprache Hohn und Spott erntet. Ein Rant von Michael Linden (
Pat Gelsinger sieht sich als Retter, übt sich aber in Realitätsverlust und behauptet, Nvidia habe einfach nur Glück gehabt. Für den Konzern bedeutet das nichts Gutes. Ein IMHO von Sebastian Grüner (
Vor Ablauf der Einreichfrist gingen beim Grünheider Bürgermeister weitere Einwände gegen Teslas Gigafactory ein. Streitpunkt ist unter anderem ein Wald. (
Die US-Vizepräsidentin hat bekannt gegeben, dass bis Ende des Jahrzehnts ein internationaler Partner auf dem Mond landen soll. Ob ein Europäer oder Japaner, muss sich noch zeigen. (
Seit mehreren Jahren arbeitet James Wan bereits an der Adaption eines von H.P. Lovecrafts bekanntesten Werken. (
Der Neumann-Antrieb wurde erfolgreich im Weltall getestet. Als Treibstoff verwendet er eine Substanz, die auch im menschlichen Körper vorkommt. (
You must be logged in to post a comment.