Slashdot Mirror
Shut-Down Movie Site Promises MPAA Court Fight
idolcrash writes "It looks like the owner a movie site shut down in 2001 will be attempting to take the MPAA to court regarding the shutdown of his website at the request of the MPAA, claiming he'll take them all the way to the Supreme Court to challenge the Constitutionality of the DMCA, under which his website was taken down."
"The MPAA issued a cease and desist order to InternetMovies.com's ISP to shut down the site."
That a private organization could/can autonomously demand that an ISP shutdown a site without due process is repugnant in the extreme.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
No, it's worse than that. They made a patently false allegation in order to get the site shut down.
He raises a good question. How could he make a movie available for download before it was even made?
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Intead of pouring that much money into the making of LOTR-III, producer of LOTR could have just downloaded it in 2001 itself from www.InternetMovies.com and released it.
It could have saved his money and everybodies time also. People just don't understand.
It's about damn time someone challenged it... 'nuff said.
Obviously you have never seen spaceballs. In a break through of modern technology Mr. Video allows Movies to be rented or purchased before they are finished filming (albeit only in VHS)
It seems to me that this challenge wouldn't strike the entire DMCA, but rather just the smallest portion of it - namely, the ability of copyright holders to make DMCA shutdown requests to ISPs, and then only in cases where no good-faith effort has been made to determine whether or not a violation actually exists.
Still, any successful attack, even a small one like this, against the DMCA is a good thing. (I also wouldn't mind having the Supremes put another feather in their cap for overturning one more 9th Circus opinion.)
I can see it now - "Cert denied". How the hell did this make it to the 9th circuit court of appeals in the first place? If the DMCA is unconstitutional, then what grounds does Rossi have for suing the RIAA for violating it? Maybe it's just PrimeZone Media that has no clue what it's talking about. I'm sure the Slashbots will jump on this though. I mean, the guys going up against the MPAA. He must be right!
Can I suggest a paypal fund to help pay legal fees. There would be a lot of people out there willing to help. And god knows you will need them taking on the RIAA!
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
Well, assuming he didn't actually distribute movies without the respective copyright owners' permission, he's got my full support. Why can a private organization just get a website (any website!) shut down without the facts being checked, without the owner of the site being asked to present his side of the story first, and without actually having to come up with proof that it does do something illegal? And, maybe even more important... why does the MPAA actually lower itself to using false allegations? I can understand that they represent a certain opinion and thus aren't neutral, but that doesn't mean they should use illegitimate or even illegal means to reach their goals, does it? How can they accuse others of doing illegal or illegimate things when they do it themselves? And, in the light of that - why isn't this story on the frontpage?
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Actually, the Supreme Court may well rule against this, and I hope they do. The Court has ruled, over and over again, that "prior restraint" (being prevented from saying something before even saying it) is generally not acceptable, except in the most extreme cases.
Excerpted from the decision cited above:
What does this say? Even though the speech above may be CRIMINAL in nature (extortionist, read the page to find more detail), and even though it overwhelmingly appears that the information he is publishing are trade secrets which Ford can successfully sue him for, he CANNOT be prohibited from publishing them by injunction.
Of course, this does not mean that he may not be sued and/or prosecuted if and when he DOES, if what he is publishing violates the law. But the Court's precedents are clear: Prior restraint is unconstitutional except in the most extreme cases, e.g. someone is about to publish a planned movement of troops in the paper or on a website. This case, as with the Lane case, only establishes that monetary/commercial losses may result. The Court has ruled very clearly that this is not even a valid reason for a court or Congress to issue prior restraint. Do we wish to give a corporation powers that we would not even grant to our judges and legislators?
The **AA's should have the same standard as anyone else. If you feel that some published speech "damages" you, you have two options. The first option, and probably the best, especially if you feel that they might've accidentally violated the law, is to send a cease-and-desist letter to the PERSON running the website. As to the "But the ISP's won't give us the identity of their customers to send letters to!" I say "GOOD!" That doesn't mean you can't contact them. Most websites have an email link to the site admin, and if not, I would think it acceptable to put a provision in the law that ISP's must forward legal correspondence regarding a website they host to that site's owner. This policy would have two positive effects: The copyright holders would be served by being immediately able to contact suspected infringers, and the consumer would benefit from greater anonymity and the taking of excessive power from the **AA's.
Of course, the second option is to take the webmaster directly to court. If the court finds the site to be infringing, they will issue an injunction ordering the webmaster to take down all infringing material, as well as possibly awarding damages. However, this should not happen until AFTER a trial has been held, or a settlement reached.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
I emailed my ISP and told them I did not have movies and they knew I did not have movies too and still close my site down say they would not back up a that only pays them $10 I file a counter-notification and it is in the case and was submited to the courts and the courts keep over looking it. Michael Rossi President InternetMovies.com Inc.
Thank you for taking time to post your feelings but some of your facts are not right.
You can join and get movies online this is a true statement and was not even in the same area of the movie posters that the Hollywood studios send me each week to post on my website. They love the free PR enjoyed it for 2 years 1999-2001. Only when I posted news about movies being downloaded online they try to stop me for telling the world the news I was the 1st to get the news out on that. Note they said that I had Lord of The Rings: Return of The King, The in 2001 that did not come out till Dec. 2003.
Yes you can download full-length movies online and I link too many of them they are not Hollywood movies and Hollywood does not own the word full-length movies and I did not promise anyone movies on my site you are reading between the lines like the courts and the MPAA.
"Now Downloadable" I coined the phase and it is mine and does not just mean movies it means trailers too and I was the 1st to use it in commerce. It is like say Now Showing.
I emailed my ISP and told them I did not have movies and they knew I did not have movies too and still close my site down saying they would not back up a site that only pays them $10 a month. I did file a counter-notification and it is in the case and was submited to the courts and the courts keep over looking it.
MPAA was trying to put me out of business they just do not like anyone telling the truth about them and they do not own me our my network like the rest that are censoring me that is why you do not see my case in the main news. They can not push the little guys around and that is why I am winning the battle. I am only one man that is back by Members to fight for our rights and not sit around and let their rights be taken way remember that we were supported by the Internet Commerce Coalition (ICC), and NetCoalition.com with amicus briefs. ICC members include AT&T, BellSouth, eBay, MCI, Verizon and others. NetCoalition members include Yahoo!, Lycos, Inktomi and others.
I have a right to say what ever I please any time and any where I like. That is why I swore to protect the constitution USA form friends and foes and the MPAA and RIAA act like friends but are foes. I do not wish to live in a MPAA world that the lobbyist paid for unconstitutional laws to be passed and to submit to them less my constitutional rights. The very rights that my fellow soldiers our fighting and dieing today over to protect as the MPAA are widdling way the constitution and trying to wiggle their way out of this like a snake. I will fight them to the end I am not driven by greed. I am driven to do the right thing for my members that support this fight and fight for what little rights we have left.
Michael Jay Rossi
President
InternetMovies.com Inc.
The other 18 movies they said I had just came out and were listed at the very bottom of the website and 99.9% of my visitors know I did not have movies on my website. There was one email from someone that asked if I had movies on my site and I told the truth in my deposition that is what you should do right tell the truth and that is all I do always on my site. Yes you can download movies online "ONLINE" this means the Internet not my site. As I stated in the post above I was the 1st to post the news about movies on the Internet and the MPAA did not like that but they love the millions of Internet visitors I send them each year. Note they send me all the posters for the movies and the trailers too. I am not rich by no means Anthony I put it all on the line for this fight and I always return money to anyone that is not happy. So you sound like you like the MPAA you sure do talk just like them reading between the lines and only point out what looks good for the MPAA. Anyone can take a word and say it means something other then you meant it to be. It is called "hyperbole." and the MPAA love to do it and the courts. The fact is the MPAA made a very big mistake and are trying to cover it up and I will not let them. Note see how they do not post news about them winning in the courts they just wish I would go away they love keeping everyone in the dark ages. My Members and I will make them face the light it is time for them to crash and burn.
Michael Jay Rossi
President
InternetMovies.com Inc.
Your real name would not be Jack or would it? The MPAA did not have a good faith of any kind not subjective not objective they did not do their job right they did not even read the C&D the Ranger spit out at them they just sign off on it. Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights it is called abridging the freedom of speech and by making me find a new ISP is abridging my freedom of speech. They forced me to find a new way to go around them to keep my speech alive. I am sure they hate me being able to post here too. Here is a breakdown for you to know how this all started.
a sp this guy did not do the "Investigation" Marc Brandon from FOX asked him to do, gets better. 12 days later here comes Debra Shapiro from Paramount sending an email saying "Hemu, Further to my voicemail, internetmovies.com is offering downloads of trailers and features of member company product. You have to register to download the full length features. We hear that the quality is high, but did not actually view a download of our product (What Women Want) since we would have to register. They are not licensed by us. (Does anyone license them?) http://www.internetmovies.com Please take action ASAP. Thanks, Debra" Ok now wait one second at that time i have never hosted, shared a trailer or a movie of any kind and she is telling the MPAA "We hear that the quality is high," who told her that? So she is too cheap to order and see if this is true. Is there a shortage of cash in Hollywood. That movie What Women Want I remember I walked out of it in the first 3 mins of it. So again NO "Investigation" like FOX asked for. Funny thing is FOX asked me to push their trailers and I said no cost too much. Hemanshu Nigam the MPAA Director, Worldwide Internet Enforcement. sends a emails saying "Has this taken place up, since the site is still up." then the last email form MPAA, Nelya Tsyurth "Hello All: Please see the following sent on behalf of Hemanshu Nigam. C&D Letter was sent on Friday, March 23, 2001, Reference #96163 Nelya" I will let you all be the judge on this matter. I feel that the MPAA is lazy and negligent and did not do their job right and the sad part is the studios pay them for this. I will fight them until the end. I am sure they never seen so many Internet users stand up and support a web site to fight back. They need to rethink their Business model and show respect to end users and small businesses even if they dislike what the small business is talking about and reporting. I hope in the end the courts change the DMCA where it reads fairly.
Marc Brandon from FOX sends an email to the MPAA "If you have not already initiated an Investigation, please review www.internetmovies.com." Hemanshu Nigam the MPAA Director, Worldwide Internet Enforcement. I would like to know who gave him that title. He pushes email off his lap to Gary Rogness, MPAA that said "I've looked at the site which offers subscriptions to join and able to download movies. I have given the printouts to the site to Nalya with a request to cause C&D letters to be sent. GARY" Well all this guy did is look at the site and print out the from page off of Ranger this site http://209.61.160.242:8080/en-us/client/v2/index.
Michael Rossi
President
InternetMovies.com
Oh, Anthony you need to get your facts right and I will help you. This case got to the 9th circuit court because my members and I paid for it to be there to kick the MPAA's butts and are still trying we just need to show the courts what liars the MPAA are. I am suing the MPAA not the RIAA ok. PrimeZone is a news wire that I use to try to get the news out there and it costs $400 to do this each time and that is why I ask for membership support. See no big news picks up the story because they are all owned by the MPAA that is called corporate censorship. PrimeZone did not write my press release I did. Yes I am fighting the MPAA and yes I am right and we all need to try to make the courts see this and hope that they do the right thing for us all to restore our rights.
Michael Jay Rossi
President
InternetMovies.com Inc.
Thank for your support Kaptink, Yes I let Internet users become members using paypal and it help out a lot and without my Members we would not of have this change of a life time to beat the MPAA. The RIAA is helping the MPAA in trying to beat this case so I am fight them both.
Anthony you call me names most of your fact are not right that you post and we all see your a MPAA support and love the DMCA you do not need to help with this fight we will all do it for you ok. I am not a scam and do not scam anyone if you see reporting the news as a scam then there is a lot of scaming news sites out there.
Anthony your facts are not right again. The MPAA forced my ISP to close my site down here is the letter that they sent to the ISP they did not just email them a C&D letter they called the ISP and order them to close my site down. Then they mailed a signed letter ordering the ISP to close the site down. "Without addressing the merits of your arguments, please be advised again that pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, you are required to disable access to this site in an expeditious matter once the appropriate notice has been sent to you."
t te r0.jpg
a il .txt
http://www.internetmovies.com/mpaaletter/mpaale
I did send the ISP the counter-notification and it was submitted as evidence to the courts and they keep over looking the fact of the case like you.
NOTE: I did not claim to have movies on my website. I only claimed that you could download movies online and find the information in my website by being a member and I was doing that for over 2 years and they did not get upset tell I started reporting the news about movies on the Internet Hollywood does not own all the movies in the world ok and the are not the world nor gods.
All they needed to do is read the site and they knew that I did not have movies they said so in the case and admitted that. They made a mistake and are using the good faith thing to try to get off the hook.
9th circuit did not look at the evidence I am not sure if they even read all the paper work and you did not see the judge smiling at the MPAA when they walked out the court room like thinking do not worry we got your back MPAA.
I am not on the FrontPage because of their corporate censorship. Note a reporter called me form ABC and did an hour
Interview with me and asked me to email him the DMCA things I had and I did and called him back and he told me that he could not get the emails and can not run the story because ABC is owned by Disney and Disney is the MPAA and they put me on a Black list. So that is why. They like to keep you asleep when taking your rights away when you sleep. Snakes.
The MPAA did commit perjury they did act in bad faith. I do not have a time machine and that is a fact.
The MPAA did break the DMCA law the courts seem to over look the facts and the evidence.
Here is the C&D Letter for you to look at.
http://www.internetmovies.com/mpaaletter/mpaaem
Michael Jay Rossi
President
InternetMovies.com Inc.
If the MPAA could use the (US Congress) DMCA to stifle his free speach via his ISP, then the DMCA is unconstitutional. Simple.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
There was one email from someone that asked if I had movies on my site and I told the truth in my deposition that is what you should do right tell the truth and that is all I do always on my site.
Telling the truth isn't enough. You should tell the whole truth. Maybe not all the time, but certainly under oath and in a business transaction.
In any case, if you always told the truth, then why did you say that people could download LoTR III if the movie wasn't even made yet?
So you sound like you like the MPAA you sure do talk just like them reading between the lines and only point out what looks good for the MPAA.
I'm just pointing out what wasn't already pointed out by the slanted article that was linked to. I explicitly said I don't like the MPAA in my post above.
The fact is the MPAA made a very big mistake and are trying to cover it up and I will not let them.
If the MPAA admitted that they made a mistake would you have dropped your lawsuit? They obviously made a mistake. They're just saying it was an honest mistake.
Note see how they do not post news about them winning in the courts
It's not newsworthy. I'm sure they have crazy people sue them all the time.
Well, sounds pretty fair to me. If I "claim" I have heroin for sale, I am likely to get busted even if it is just baking soda. I may not go to jail for selling fake heroin, but I am going to spend a lot of time and money with cops and lawyers. Seems to me that you got your reward for selling fake heroin .... er, movies.
You need a better spokesperson. Even if this is just a geek forum you are coming across like you are 17 and dropped out of seventh grade. Too much whining about the Constitution and not enough understanding about what happened to you and why. You may be handicapped, but that doesn't mean you can't use capital letters, spell, and proofread. If this was the form you used in communicating with your lawyers and your ISP, no wonder they think you are a loser.
Seriously, you need to communicate better to get your message across. Could you have a point? Maybe. Will people go out of their way to figure out what you are trying to say? No.
Michael;
Keep up the fight.
Also, I have a policy of not feeding the trolls. Anthony, or should I say "Jack Valenti Jr." is obviously a shill for the MPAA.
You can tell by the manner he acts. First, FUD. Second, Insults. Third, FUD.
Thanks I feel the same way to about his posts. There is no need for name calling and all I hope for is the court for make that DMCA fare for us all in the end. Good to see that there is no gray areas here.
Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.