Pink Visual Sues PornBanana, Shufuni for Copyright Infringement

ATLANTA, Georgia—One unusual aspect of the copyright infringement lawsuit filed August 17 by Pink Visual against two tube sites, pornbanana.com and shufuni.com, is the location of the filing—Atlanta. You just don't see too many of them filed there. But it makes sense if the tubes are located overseas—in this case, Cyprus— and you need to make a strong jurisdiction argument, but their hosting provider—in this case, NationalNet—is located States-side. "This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants," the complaint definitively states. "Defendants transact business in this District and contract to supply goods and services in the state in connection with the matters giving rise to this suit. In particular, Defendant UGC Internet Ventures is a party to a long-term, ongoing business arrangement with Georgia corporation NationalNet, Inc. ('NationalNet') that provides Defendants with critical Internet hosting services for the Accused Sites." The gist of the case as argued is pretty straightforward. "Defendants profit from the infringement of Ventura’s copyrighted works, and receive financial benefits directly attributable to their infringing activities," reads the complaint. "Defendants have built an infringement-driven business by exploiting the popularity of copyrighted works to draw millions of users to their website." It continues, "Defendants derive advertising revenue directly attributable to the infringing works because (i) advertisers pay Defendants to display banner advertising to users whenever they access the Accused Sites and search for (or view) infringing videos and (ii) Defendants seek to sell related goods and services to users who are drawn to their website by the allure of free content. There is a direct causal connection between the presence of infringing videos and Defendants’ income. Thus, the draw of infringing works — encompassing the infringement of Ventura’s works — contributes substantially and directly to the values of the Accused Sites." The plaintiff further contends that it is entitled to the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement, and a attached exhibit identifies 122 instances of alleged infringement. The math works out to $16.8 million. The complaint can be accessed here. Exhibit A can be accessed here.