Illegal File-Sharer Ordered to Pay $1.5 Million

By Zak Islam
published

Kywan Fisher, who didn't show up in court, was caught through encryption code integrated into movies he originally purchased.

Illinois federal court Judge John Lee has ordered illegal file-sharer Kywan Fisher to pay $1.5 million to adult entertainment company Flava Works.

Flava Works sued Fisher due to his sharing of 10 movies he had paid for through BitTorrent. The damages amount was decided by fining Fisher $150,000 per movie. The ruling has made this case the largest damages award ever ordered in a BitTorrent case.

Through the integration of an encryption code inserted in the films he had bought, Flava Works caught Fisher sharing its movies by tracing the code.

"Defendant's conduct was willful to the extent that he copied or distributed Flava Works, Inc.' intellectual property at least 10 times and caused the videos to be infringed or downloaded at least 3,449 times," Flava Works said.

Fisher was ordered to pay such a large fee mainly due to the fact that he failed to show up in court, therefore not having any defense.

"Given the materials submitted by Plaintiff in support of its motion and in light of the absence of any objection by Defendant, Plaintiff's motion for entry of default against defendant 11 is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff Flava Works, Inc., and against the Defendant Kywan Fisher in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00)," Judge Lee said.

Sharing files illegally isn't as near as bad as running a scareware fraud, though; a woman was ordered to pay a total of $163 million for targeting more than a million computers.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Zak Islam
Topics
Piracy
45 Comments Comment from the forums
  • zulutech
    I'm going to share "Flava Works'" videos up here in Canada then send them an email just to rub it in their faces that it's legal up here. And no porn jokes. Those assholes.
    Reply
  • abbadon_34
    that f*cked up, sound like entrapment, he bought it through bit torrent which by default shares it with others. and how did they server him (summon to court) by email to his isp? he letter to bittorrent? i doubt it was the legal way of face to face "you're served"
    Reply
  • Arls
    Flava Works sued Fisher due to his sharing of 10 movies he had paid for through BitTorrent.

    He had purchased actual copies, ripped them and put them online through bit torrent.
    Reply
  • Camikazi
    Wait, they say it was shared 3,449 times and he was fined $1.5 million that comes out to $435 per share... that seems a bit excessive to me.
    Reply
  • weaselman
    This is how it should of read if correct.
    Flava Works sued Fisher due to his sharing of 10 movies he had paid for.Then sharing them through Bit Torrent.

    In its evidence, Flava revealed that it had embedded unique codes in the copies of its films that customers pay to view. Digital detective work connected the code in the pirated films back to Mr Fisher, who had earlier signed up as a customer of Flava and paid to view the movies.

    Come on Toms Hardware sort yourself out with the right information and facts.
    Reply
  • Christopher1
    1.5 million dollars. Much more than people get when their family members are murdered, if they get anything at all.

    Sheer insanity here and weaselman: someone in his home could have uploaded the digitally marked files without his permission. Enough said. If I had been on this jury, I wouldn't have given this company one red cent.
    Reply
  • devBunny
    abbadon_34he bought it through bit torrent which by default shares it with others.
    It was just poor grammar; something that we see too much of, unfortunately.

    Flava Works sued Fisher due to his sharing of 10 movies he had paid for through BitTorrent
    versus
    Flava Works sued Fisher due to his sharing of 10 movies, that he had paid for, through BitTorrent
    or
    Flava Works sued Fisher due to his sharing of 10 paid-for movies through BitTorrent
    Reply
  • myromance123
    Christopher11.5 million dollars. Much more than people get when their family members are murdered, if they get anything at all.Sheer insanity here and weaselman: someone in his home could have uploaded the digitally marked files without his permission. Enough said. If I had been on this jury, I wouldn't have given this company one red cent.Exactly this. It's as if the "Justice System" is really just a copyright system.
    It's like they're screaming:
    You got content and patents you want to overly protect at the cost of victimizing a citizen? We'll help you. Other than that, you're on your own.
    Reply
  • rantoc
    CamikaziWait, they say it was shared 3,449 times and he was fined $1.5 million that comes out to $435 per share... that seems a bit excessive to me.
    Everything related to copyright infringement is excessive since the people voted into the officer is lobbied to heaven and guess who they listen too? The bribers of the voters?
    Reply
  • What do we learn from this matter? - Never buy any movies! ^^
    Reply