Reader To Pay Extra Damages For Contemptuous Infringement

Subscription-only service Lawtel brings tidings of Phonographic Performance Ltd v Reader [2005] EWHC 416 (Ch), a Chancery Division determination of Mr Justice Pumfrey. After Reader admitted copyright infringement, rights direction fellowship Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) applied for an monastic tell for additional damages nether the Copyright, Designs in addition to Patents Act 1988 s.97(2). PPL had previously granted Reader a licence to play its copyright-protected recordings inwards a monastic tell inwards Brighton. After he failed to renew the licence in addition to the premises were unlicensed for 2 years, PPL obtained a courtroom monastic tell to halt him from playing copyright recordings inwards world without a licence, but Reader did then inwards breach of the order, a clear contempt of court.

On the application to commit Reader for contempt of court, Reader said he intended both to pay the unpaid licence fees in addition to to conduct maintain a licence for the future. PPL claimed it had incurred substantial expense, both inwards seeking to receive Reader to conduct maintain a licence in addition to inwards policing his activities: those additional costs, PPL argued, could last recovered equally additional damages nether s.97. After all, it was Reader's deliberate refusal to obtain a licence that caused PPL to incur the expenditure, all of which was a foreseeable upshot of Reader's playing copyright recordings inwards world without a licence.

PPL: the claimant in addition to its manifesto

Pumfrey J granted the application. He held equally follows:

* The courtroom had mightiness accolade damages where a breach of an project to the courtroom or an injunction was likewise a breach of contract;

* An infringement of copyright committed inwards breach of an injunction to forbid it could back upwardly an accolade of additional damages (citing Sony Computer Entertainment v Owen [2002] EWHC 45 (Ch) -- for a authorities notation click here and scroll down;

* Where the underlying infringement was established to the touchstone required to back upwardly an application to commit for breach of an injunction, at that topographic point was no arguable defense to a claim for copyright infringement. Reader's infringements were committed inwards breach of a courtroom order, which made it appropriate to monastic tell either (i) an enquiry equally to additional damages or (ii) a summary accolade of additional damages to the copyright owner;

* The expenditure inwards investigating Reader's unlawful activities was of a variety which could last recovered equally damages for infringement;

* An accolade of statutory additional damages could include a punitive element, provided that the occupation of the accolade was non exclusively to punish the accused (citing Nottinghamshire Healthcare National Health Service Trust v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWHC 409 (Ch));

* This was a illustration of deliberate in addition to flagrant infringement. If it were appropriate to base of operations an accolade of additional damages on the contribution of the infringements to the profitability of the club, at that topographic point would last fiddling choice to an enquiry to flora that contribution. The courtroom would hence accolade additional damages, inwards add-on to the costs of the enquiry agents, an amount equal to the licence fees unpaid downward to the hearing of the application to commit.

is most impressed. There was a fourth dimension when it was close impossible to squelch additional copyright damages out of the courts, in addition to it's likewise non then long agone that the IPKat was commenting on how lightly they treated applications for committal for contempt. But when the court's respect is impugned, the injured claimant's illustration for extra damages grows stronger. Merpel says, 2 years is a long fourth dimension for an unlicensed monastic tell to acquit on without beingness stopped. Wonder what went wrong?