Lucas v Notcommunist366 2026 Civ 5

Lucas v Notcommunist366 [2026] Civ 5

Date of judgment	16th February 2026
Judge	Judge Ferris
Grounds	Copyright Infringement (Article 5 of the Revised Economy Foundation )
Verdict	Default in favor of Plaintiff
Result	900 tau to the Plaintiff
Applicable persuasive precedent	A pre meditated and malicious act warrants doubling the damages.

JUDGMENT by Judge Ferris

[1] The plaintiff created a document with legislative proposals which the defendant repurposed with minimal change and claimed it as their own work.

[2] The defendant failed to respond and so the case was found in favour of the plaintiff pursuant.

Damages

Summary of Arguments

[3] The plaintiff requested 1000 tau as damages and provided the following arguments as for why:

[3.1] The state owned organisation Blue-Gold Pages charges 500 tau for a page below 600 words and 1000 for one above. Based on this size it would be reasonable for the plaintiff to charge a 300 to 500 tau licensing fee.

[3.2] Based on general deterrence the plaintiff rationalises doubling these costs as punitive damages.

[3.3] Additionally, in exhibit 5 the defendant is shown saying "And ill be proposing these muahahaha"

[3.4] The Civil Code Compensation Guideline Act 2025 (CGA) provides additional factors, in this case that includes the loss in opportunity to propose legislation, decreased likelihood of being elected and lower prestige corresponding to §3(c) and §3(d).

[4] Similarly to the plaintiff in [3.1] the defense referenced another wiki writing organisation named AcoWiki which charges 150 to 250 tau per article.

[4.1] The defense also points towards the plaintiff’s reputation, experience and the activity in SimDemocracy and argues the impact to be minimal. The court shall ignore this argument since evidence has not been provided for the same. And while §5 Article 13 of the CPA allows the court to take judicial notice of all officials it does not allow it to take notice of all officials in the past.

[4.2] Taking into account the cited market rates the defendant suggests 400 tau in damages.

[5] The plaintiff rebuts the defense’s arguments arguing:

[5.1] While wiki prices and legislation are different, analogies are sometimes necessary.

[5.2] The plaintiff draws attention to the fact that Article 2 of the CGA does not take the current reputation into account. The court agrees but notes that the actual damages from the additional compensation may be affected since the statute states that it must be proportional to the additional damages incurred.

Considerations

[6] Considering the differing rates for writing, the court believes that a bill is worth about 300 tau.

[7] The court finds that doubling the amount based on general deterrence is excessive and will rather add 150 tau.

[8] The court also finds that the reputational harm from 1 bill is minimal but not 0.

[9] The largest factor by far is the pre-meditated and malicious nature of the act.

Verdict

[10] Taking all of these factors into consideration, I order the defendant pay the plaintiff 900 tau (300+150+50+400)