Whilst in Hollywood all sorts of twists and turns of the plot are possible, in the real world of law that is not the case as the MPAA has found to its cost.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/judge-denies-mpaa-attempt-to-seize-profits-from-copyright-infringement/A high court in the United Kingdom has ruled that a copyright owner does not have the right to claim profits from copyright infringement.
"A copyright owner does not have a proprietary claim to the fruits of an infringement of copyright. I shall not, therefore, grant proprietary injunctions," wrote judge Guy Newey of the England and Wales High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, in a ruling published on Tuesday.
Suppose, say, that a market trader sells infringing DVDs, among other goods, from a stall he has set up on someone else's land without consent,” Guy Newey added. “The owner of the land could not, as I see it, make any proprietary claim to the proceeds of the trading or even the profit from it. There is no evident reason why the owner of the copyright in the DVDs should be in a better position in this respect.”
Simple logic of law rules out that anyone should profit from a crime, if individual rights holding companies who believe they have a claim for specific copyrighted materials have not made such a claim
and followed that up with the prosecution of a large number of infringers it seems there is no actual proof of infringement of anyones copyright to base any damages claim on. For a simple lobby group to make claims of any loss from copyright infringement is bordering on deliberate fraud and misrepresentation to the courts, no wonder the judge told em to take a hike. If there is no shown loss there cannot be any claim for damages.
