Akilah Hughes v. Carl Benjamin (2017)

[DragoonSierra]

I watched some of Akilah's videos. The impression I got was that she was someone with zero skill or interest in video production that was somehow getting 'friends' or acquaintances to produce videos with quite high production values, all for a brief credit in the outro.

I don't think Akilah would be stupid enough to spend her own money on this case, I think someone that wanted to fuck with Sargon picked up the bill. I also think she's smart enough that she's covered for his costs as well.

Also this was pretty much the end of Akilahs YouTube career, she's made half a dozen videos in the last 2 years most of them attached to Twitter or Instagram posts where she's more active.

Wikipedia seems to indicate shes getting good work outside Youtube. Dont know if its $100,000k work or not.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I've attached the notice of the motion for fees and the memorandum in support, if any other specific docs are requested, just ask, I have access to most.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I've attached the notice of the motion for fees and the memorandum in support, if any other specific docs are requested, just ask, I have access to most.

And this boys and girls is why you shut the fuck up about any legal matters you are involved in. Akila's mouth and virtue signalling is gonna be pretty expensive. Even Beanie Boy was dunking on her.

 

[AnOminous]

Akila's mouth and virtue signalling is gonna be pretty expensive. Even Beanie Boy was dunking on her.

That ho should have been using her mouth to make money. Instead she's used it to lose a bunch.

 

[teriyakiburns]

So she got a few hundred in free booze, in a room with people who don't know her or care about her at all

Big deal, I got free booze, free food and a night in London just for being a developer on a project with a big asian client the other year. Difference is, I don't think that makes me special.

As an aside, rare single malts on expenses are the superior drink, I tell you what. Sometimes I miss that lifestyle.

 

[Cin Red]

And this boys and girls is why you shut the fuck up about any legal matters you are involved in. Akila's mouth and virtue signalling is gonna be pretty expensive. Even Beanie Boy was dunking on her.

Tim's wrong when he said that Sargon shut the fuck up while Akilah was running her mouth. He basically told her to GET FUCKED and reuploaded the video to his Minds account after she had it taken down on YouTube. If she had prevailed, her lawyer would've presented that as evidence of his complete disregard for her copyright.

He took the video down from Minds after he got sued.

Akilah Hughes (@AkilahObviously) has copyright striked my satire of h…

archived 26 Aug 2017 12:58:03 UTC

archive.ph

He also reuploaded it to his Twitter account.

 

[DragoonSierra]

So whens the hearing on the fees/sanctions?

 

[TowinKarz]

Nope, still radio silence from Akilah. Which looks worse and worse the longer she takes to respond given the fact that she couldn't shut her yap in the beginning.

SJWs like her never admit to being wrong or having lost, so I'm not expecting to hear anything, much less in a situation where it may have just been hammered into her head that the more she talks, the more "0"s may go on the bill she's getting..... especially since her tweets show she didn't care about copyright as much as a chance to bankrupt a person her side doesn't like..... and Sargon's $30K and change request is below the $40K and change she demanded as a settlement, meaning that it it was worth that much to the plaintiff, the defendant asking for less is certainly meeting the bar for "reasonable" recompense.

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

View attachment 1134254

Akilah Hughes on Twitter: "@SatanzOutlaw I'm literally in a room with…

archived 7 Feb 2020 09:45:41 UTC

archive.ph

View attachment 1134256

Akilah Hughes on Twitter: "@SamVentura9 In my bank account and I didn…

archived 7 Feb 2020 09:45:17 UTC

archive.ph

Imagine your happiness being determined by your proximity to celebrities.

Also, anyone who believes she's not seething mad is a moron.

 

[soy_king]

Did I miss it in the document, or is he not pushing for punitive damages? If so, why?


Yup, then again it's 30k [40 actually] on top of her own fees. Law cheap ain't cheap.

I believe the Copyright Act doesn't permit awarding punitive damages.

 

[Spectre_06]

I believe the Copyright Act doesn't permit awarding punitive damages.

I believe it can but only against very specific groups (copyright trolls and vexatious litigants who file in bad faith I believe.).

 

[soy_king]

I believe it can but only against very specific groups (copyright trolls and vexatious litigants who file in bad faith I believe.).

After going over my notes and the statute, the Copyright Act itself doesn't award punitive damages. What it does allow is a range of penalties depending on whether the infringement was willful or not. Some courts are trying to change that, but I don't know where that will go.

Punitive damages are a weird one, and often get overturned by judges because they can very clearly be excessive and skewed depending on how much the jury hates the party.

 

[Trig.Point]

Another Lawyer on Youtube talking about the case, this ones going a bit further than Leonard French and flat out saying he thinks the court are going to award Sargon costs. Sargon hired pretty decent lawyers and it seems this occurred to them when they made there initial submissions.

 

[AnOminous]

I believe the Copyright Act doesn't permit awarding punitive damages.

I believe it can but only against very specific groups (copyright trolls and vexatious litigants who file in bad faith I believe.).

Punitive damages are awarded to plaintiffs along with actual damages, so it would require a countersuit of some sort. What can be awarded, though, are attorney fees and punitive sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

In either event, prevailing defendants in a copyright action as bogus as this are likely to succeed in a motion for fees.

Another Lawyer on Youtube talking about the case, this ones going a bit further than Leonard French and flat out saying he thinks the court are going to award Sargon costs.

Costs are usually automatic. They are also a pittance. For fees (under Fogerty v. Fantasy), you generally have to show the lawsuit was "frivolous" or "objectively unreasonable," which shouldn't be as difficult as it usually is because in this case the defendant boasted on social media about the improper purposes, and in court, was unable to articulate any reasonable basis for the suit. That and the fact that the suit involved blindingly obvious fair use isn't good for the defendant.

Also lol @ this.

Playtime for Twitter tards is over.

 

[Spectre_06]

Costs are usually automatic. They are also a pittance. For fees (under Fogerty v. Fantasy), you generally have to show the lawsuit was "frivolous" or "objectively unreasonable," which shouldn't be as difficult as it usually is because in this case the defendant boasted on social media about the improper purposes, and in court, was unable to articulate any reasonable basis for the suit. That and the fact that the suit involved blindingly obvious fair use isn't good for the defendant.

But she was the plaintiff...

 

[AnOminous]

But she was the plaintiff...

You knew who I meant.

 

[soy_king]

Punitive damages are awarded to plaintiffs along with actual damages, so it would require a countersuit of some sort. What can be awarded, though, are attorney fees and punitive sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

In either event, prevailing defendants in a copyright action as bogus as this are likely to succeed in a motion for fees.

The act explicitly states that it can award actual and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees. Unless you're considering statutory damages as punitive damages, then there's nothing in Title 17 explicitly mentioning awarding punitive damages. The only argument you could make for punitive damages is that 17 USC 512(f)(2) permits liability for misrepresentations in the form of any damages, and even then the 2nd Circuit has explicitly stated that the Copyright Act doesn't permit punitive damages.

 

[AnOminous]

The act explicitly states that it can award actual and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees. Unless you're considering statutory damages as punitive damages, then there's nothing in Title 17 explicitly mentioning awarding punitive damages.

I didn't say anything about Title 17. Rule 11 provides for sanctions in any frivolous federal case. Sanctions in excess of attorney fees are inherently punitive.

 

[soy_king]

I didn't say anything about Title 17. Rule 11 provides for sanctions in any frivolous federal case. Sanctions in excess of attorney fees are inherently punitive.

Yes, but since you're dealing with a DMCA claim, Title 17 automatically applies. I don't know enough about the written records, but I doubt Akilah or her counsel were truly stupid enough to violate Rule 11.

 

[AnOminous]

Yes, but since you're dealing with a DMCA claim, Title 17 automatically applies. I don't know enough about the written records, but I doubt Akilah or her counsel were truly stupid enough to violate Rule 11.

It's a moot point since they're not asking for sanctions in excess of fees, but Rule 11 sanctions would be entirely appropriate and Soygon even told the plaintiff up front the lawsuit was frivolous and he would be pursuing fees. The court also told the plaintiff the lawsuit was clearly barred by fair use and gave another opportunity to back out of the frivolous litigation, which the plaintiff was too dumb to take. She was on notice the suit was frivolous and went ahead and pursued it anyway.

So yes, everyone involved did file a frivolous lawsuit and then pursued it in bad faith, in violation of Rule 11.