Commercial Court Division Counsel for the Third Party conceded early on in the proceedings of this case, that his client has always wished to settle which infers that the Third Party conceded to unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s works. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the Plaintiff did not permit the Defendant nor the Third Party to use its copyrights. Therefore it is this Court’s finding that the artistic works of the Plaintiff protected by copyright were infringed by the Defendant. In infringing the intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff, the Defendant benefited financially and there was value addition to their product. The issue of value being added to their product was properly brought out by DW1 when she was asked what the effect of using the music was. She stated that since value had been added to the calls, customers were happy, sales had gone up and the Defendant had made some money. The end result is that the Defendant made money by use of the Plaintiff’s intellectual property without its permission. This amounted to unjust enrichment. The third issue is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any remedies. Discussing damages in cases of infringement, Copinger & Shame James on Copyright 13th Edition Pg 343 states: “ the measure of damages is the depreciation caused by infringement to the value of the copyright as a chose in action. Thus if the Defendant has dealt with the Plaintiff’s copyright as if he had a licence the Defendant ought to pay HCT - 00 - CC - CS - 373- 2010 /5