Slashdot Mirror
Music Festival Producer Pre-Sues Bootleggers
An anonymous reader writes "Apparently, if you even have been *thinking* about bootlegging the Mile High Music Festival this coming weekend in Denver you've already been sued. No joke. Event producer AEG has already filed trademark infringement claims against 100 John Does and 100 Jane Does in anticipation that they're going to bootleg the event. Since none of the sued parties have actually done anything yet, no one's showing up in court to protest the lawsuit either, so it moves forward... meaning that AEG can use it to get all sorts of law enforcement officials (US Marshals, local and state police and even off-duty officers) to go seize bootleg material."
Fuck this, I'm moving to Belize.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
You can sue people for things they haven't done yet? Well fuck. HEY GATES! I'm suing you for slandering me! You haven't done it yet, but YOU MIGHT.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
In that case, would pre-suing John and Jane Doe for a fatal accident/injury be cheaper than taking out life insurance? I'm fairly sure lawsuits pay out more.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Wait... they're suing anonymous people for things they haven't done yet? Who exactly is being served the suit?
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Will Tom Cruise show up to arrest me?
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I'm going to sue for my own wrongful death right now.
Bootlegging is the illegal *sale* of recordings.
Merely making recordings is not illegal, even if the promoter doesn't want it to happen. Many court cases have upheld that right. Many sites allow the legal sharing of those recordings (archive.org, etree.org).
It's an invalid lawsuit, any reasonable judge is going to toss this thing right out.
That this guy's lawyer is given exactly 5 second before a judge before either (a) being dismissed, or (b) being fined for abuse of process.
I hope.
Steven Spielberg's Minority Report wowed audiences with its futuristic tech: flashy hand-gesture computers, flex-screen displays, holograms, and Lexus-designed auto-piloted vehicles. The sci-fi flick also showed the world a dystopian, draconian picture of a crime-free society: "precogs" predicting murders, eye-scanners dotting the streets and subways, a jet-pack-toting police force, and a public seemingly deprived of any right to privacy. Spielberg envisioned this for 2054, but advances in technology are bringing that future sooner and sooner. Here's a look at some of our own sci-fi crime fighting tools.
1. Blue CRUSH
IBM's new Blue Crime Reduction Utilizing Statistical History (CRUSH) programs feels almost directly inspired by Minority Report. Similar to the "precogs," IBM's new system uses "predictive analytics," mining years and years of incident reports and law enforcement data to "forecast criminal 'hot spots.'" Police in Memphis have already had great success with the $11-billion "precrime" predicting tool: Since installing Blue CRUSH, the city has seen a 31% drop in serious crime.
2. Facebook
There's no escaping the system when we've all voluntarily tapped into it. With Facebook having some 500 million registered users, the social network is quickly becoming a powerful source of data for the police, who can scan profiles for suspect clues. Only this week, law enforcement used Facebook to nab a murder suspect through photos posted on his page. Witnesses were able to independently ID the alleged killer using these pictures alone, which the city police chief called "ironclad" evidence. And this isn't the first time. In 2009, an escaped criminal used Facebook to taunt police while on the lamb, posting pictures of himself flaunting his freedom--before he was soon caught.
3. Google Maps
Internet crime updates such as Gothamist's incident map now allow the public to track the police blotter next-to-real-time. But it's not just concerned citizens and nosy neighbors who are plugging into Google's mapping tech. Google Earth has given law enforcement access to satellite imagery, enabling them to track down criminals from the sky. In Sweden, for example, police were able to zoom down close enough to discover a two-acre marijuana plantation, leading to the arrest of 16 perps and the seizure of 1.2 tons of pot. Drug-sniffing dogs are now a thing of the past.
4. OnStar
In the film, all vehicles are auto-piloted along tracks and can be controlled by law enforcement. When scanners detect a wanted criminal entering a car, police can automatically pull the vehicle over. Looks like this directly inspired OnStar's Stolen Vehicle Slowdown technology. The system enables customers and police to locate a stolen car using GPS, depower the vehicle, and watch as it glides to safety along the side of the road, ending any chance for a high speed chase. Did I mention OnStar even force-locks the doors until police can arrive?
5. Scanners, Everywhere
The days of comical-disguises are numbered for Boris and Natasha, who will have to figure out another way to get past airport security. New facial recognition scanners such as the one installed last year in London enable airport security to measure "points on a person's face and compare them with [their] digital passport photograph." Of course, law enforcement isn't only tracking you by air. Automatic number plate recognition technology is becoming more ubiquitous, allowing police to monitor you real-time, even when they're not looking.
6. Drones
A bill circling the House of Representatives aims to legalize unmanned aerial vehicles to fly over domestic skies for enhanced border security and oil pipeline monitoring. British units are already using UAVs to keep watch of its citizens, which would perhaps raise more questions over privacy violations if London wasn't already chock-full of CCTV cams.
7. Mii? Easily the best Minority Report-like tool, however, comes courtesy of Nintendo. In Japan, police searching for a hit-and-run suspect put u
This gave me an idea that goes a long way toward solving the RIAA and MPAA lawsuit abuses, while still protecting the rights holders. Simply eliminate all John/Jane doe lawsuits, period.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
So it IS a thought crime now! Finally.
Holy shit, I wish I had some time on my hands. What in the hell are they going to do if someone shows up? Fine them for thinking about possibly doing something ... maybe?
does that mean since he's pre-filing on crimes yet to be committed when someone actually does bootleg and gets caught they get to go free because of double jeopardy?
I've written reports for bugs that did not yet exist at that point of time. Saw them coming.
Is it a two-party state, though?
This should be thrown out and not allowed to be filed in court again.
This is exactly like me calling the police and reporting my car stolen, so when they arrive to take a statement, I point to my car and tell them that it might be stolen later that night so they're going to have to sit around and wait for it to happen.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Here's the thing, I wasn't *thinking* about bootlegging anything until I read this article. Now I can't not think about it, it's been planted in my mind and I fear I'm now going to get sued! Arrgggghhhh!
The only people who need to be worried here are those bootleggers named John and Jane Doe, and those who refuse to show ID. Everyone else should be in the clear since they aren't John or Jane Doe.
I would like to see a John/Jane Doe counter-sue the promoter and request an injunction to prevent the event from happening. Using the **AA logic against them, canceling the event and refunding all the sold tickets and paying the resultant venue cancellation fees would be far less costly than dealing with the resultant piracy with very little hope of cost recovery from said lawsuit.
The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done shall not interrupt the one who is doing it.
I wonder how long it is before the RIAA and MPAA files a lawsuit against everyone using this idea.
Should this move actually be legal, I envision the arrests and ejection from the show of many people simply pulling out their phone at the wrong time.
So if I call and leave a voice message on CowboyNeal's phone with whatever music in the background, then would CowboyNeal be the guilty party for having the device that actually recorded said few seconds of BG noise, or would I be held liable for being the party that initiated the ability for CN's phone to record the message by dialing him in the first place?
And secondly, should they move to prosecute some of the John Doe's for something of this trivial nature, are they then out of luck in going after CowboyNeal if they've already chased down 100 other John Doe types who were less elusive?
The newly beefed-up FBI special forces are right on that.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Oh god that dumb law keeps getting dumber!
How can this even be moving forward. You can't bootleg something that has not happened yet.
Therefore the complaint is bogus.
Any citizen in the city should phone and complain to their representative about the waste of resources.
The producer AEG should be charged with filing a bogus complaint and made to pay for all the actions taken plus a penatly.
Conspiracy to commit a crime perhaps? ( if you plan on having help )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
To prefile murder charges against some unstable (but imaginative) people who read this and decide to hunt down the promoters.
That's initiative baby!
According to AEG's new complaint, "only the plaintiff has the right to sell merchandise bearing the Festival Trademarks at and near the Festival."
This situation is what you get when you submit some bloggers opinion of an article, rather than the actual article. The blog even uses the word 'trademark', but somehow this got transformed from 'bootlegging merchandise AT the event' to 'bootlegging recordings OF the event'.
Idiocracy.
And considering that the t-shirts and whatnot have already been printed the entire issue of 'thought crime' goes out the window as well. There's every reason to believe that people will be abusing the trademark and selling unauthorized merchandise at and around the event, and every reason for the court to grant injunctive relief against it.
Unless we're transitioning into a world where rights-holders cannot even object to physical trade of knock-off products, I think a lot of the commenters here need to apologize to somebody.
Way to RTFA, bucko.
This is not about bootleg recordings. This is about bootleg merchandise (e.g., "Mile High Music Festival" t-shirts sold by someone other than the owner of the "Mile High Music Festival" trademark owner, with no royalties to the trademark owner.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Sounds like *someone* has some precogs working for them! ;)
I think it's wonderful that women are now considered equals when it comes to violating copyrights. You go girl!
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
Rock promoters fear one thing: lawsuits. If this idiot wants to play lawsuit wars, he will not survive another season. Rock concerts like this have much bigger problems traditionally, and perhaps instead of "tapers" he'd prefer the good old days of broken glass whiskey bottles, date rape, stampedes, and under aged drinking and overdosing. This summer many died in Germany in a poorly managed crowd. The fact is that if this turkey thinks there is money to be made in lawsuits, than I say sue this idiot until he can no longer afford to obtain an insurance rider. The fact is that the current generation of parents were some of the woodstockers and Deadheads that perfected the art of concert going. But I remeber when I was promoting concerts in LA in 1980-3 that parents were not so cool, and that a cut on the foot due to broken glass at the venue was enough to swallow the profit margin of a sold out concert. Lets remind these idiots who the customer is, and what will happen to anyone who thinks that suing the customer is a good business plan. And while you're at it, this is a call to all tapers to circulate Denver and to guarantee a "Streisand Effect" on the sound boards. He'll have fun suing the entire planet while watching sales drop. We need another Bill Graham, not another Clear Channel-like corporate scum sucking maggot. Rock on, and let the music never stop.
One less concert I'll be going to from here on out.
Reply to That ||
Thank you for pointing out yet another game of "internet telephone." It would appear that the summary writer was just trolling for the usual anti-copyright rants and not interested in the contents of the actual article.
Thanks Ms. Burns, we all feel enlightened now...
I am not a lawyer, but I'd sure like to read what Lawrence Lessig and EFF might have to say about this.
And I didn't even realize that I fell for it myself. I apologize to the summary writer, it was the commenters distorted it into copyright violation. It appears that they were expecting a troll even though they didn't get one.
Wow. Slashdot journalism at play again. Anyone bother to read the complaint that was filed? It had ZERO to do with recording the music. It had EVERYTHING to do with people selling apparel. The company has US trademarks/copyrights and have filed under class 25 for apparel. This suit is to STOP people from trying to sell unlicensed clothing.
RTFsuit :)
Digging deep enough, they're saying, "only the plaintiff has the right to sell merchandise bearing the Festival Trademarks at and near the Festival." They're not going after people making recordings of the festival. They're going after people illegally selling bootlegged merchandise at the festival. This is likely to happen. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to file court proceedings and get police support when there is a high likelihood of specific, known crimes being committed.
It's like seeing a bunch of suspicious looking people standing outside a jewelry store with crowbars at midnight. Sure, a crime has not been committed yet, but you're a jackass if you don't report it to police.
I'm a psychologist (amongst other things).
It's spelt "idiocy". Seriously.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
For some artists, the free distribution of audience-generated recordings is an extremely valuable asset -- most of their marketing in fact -- and they specifically allow it. A few actually put audience recording into their contract riders. I see two or three of these in the Mile High lineup. (And I also realize that the suit is about counterfeit merchandise, not audience recording.)
The slashdot post made me aware of the festival... if I lived in Denver I might be tempted to go.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Uh, is it just me, or does this festival sound like its supposed to be appealing to stoners and hippies and the like? lineup surely looks like it, the NAME surely looks like it...
/boycott
and yet they're as orwellian or fascist as possible. Who the hell runs this stuff?
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
I think Frank Zappa put it well ...:
"This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER...it is my responsibility to enforce all the laws that haven't been passed yet. It is also my responsibility to alert each and every one of you to the potential consequences of various ordinary everyday activities you might be performing which could eventually lead to *The Death Penalty* (or affect your parents' credit rating). Our criminal institutions are full of little creeps like you who do wrong things...and many of them were driven to these crimes by a horrible force called MUSIC!
"Our studies have shown that this horrible force is so dangerous to society at large that laws are being drawn up at this very moment to stop it forever! Cruel and inhuman punishments are being carefully described in tiny paragraphs so they won't conflict with the Constitution (which, itself, is being modified in order to accommodate THE FUTURE).
"I bring you now a special presentation to show what can happen to you if you choose a career in MUSIC...The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only...if you have to load or unload, go to the WHITE ZONE... you'll love it...it's a way of life...Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...Hi, it's me, I'm back. This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER...The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only...If yah gotta load, or if yah gotta unload, go to the WHITE ZONE. You'll love it...it's a way of life. That's right, you'll love it, it's a way of life, that's right, you'll love it, it's a way of life, you'll love it. This, is, the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER!"
-- Source
-kgj
Idiocracy: Government by idiots.
um no it's not. it's about concealing hip flasks of alcohol in the legs of boots.
For some artists, the free distribution of audience-generated recordings is an extremely valuable asset...
The Pink Floyd Pluse DVDs (I think it's that one) has a feature called "bootlegging the bootleggers", where they include bootlegged recordings people made at a couple of their performances. Which, of course, is pretty hilarious.
Of 10% in fines
If AEG worried so much about this happening, why shouldn't they be forced to hire extra security to look out for the copied merchandise? This burden should not fall on the taxpayers.
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
obwiki
Until there is an actual incident to sue over, they are not supposed to have standing to sue, due to lack of ripeness.
We should get all the John and Jane Does in the country to counter sue. Ought to be a buck or two in there somewhere.
:q! Oh crap, not again...
*HEADLINES!!!
From the 'Reality is Stranger than Fiction Dept.*
"Holy Minority Report, Batman!"
Why was this not LOL'd by the judge, then summarily tossed out of the court into orbit?
Dammit, man...
What's next...coin-operated 'Law Suit Vending Machines'®???
This unhealthy obsession and dependency on 'Imaginary Property' in the USA is going to boomerang on us badly.
It's no wonder the gov't. felt they had to keep ACTA secret for 'National Security'[tm]. IP is increasingly all we have to offer the world economy any more.
We can't afford to turn isolationist in the global economy, and that is slowly happening.
Look at the global resistance to ACTA, the resentment to our 'security theater, in the airports and at borders aimed at copyright infringement and 'kiddie pr0n.
Business travelers from foreign countries have become reluctant to travel here to conduct business. Some of them refuse to come here now.
I just don't think our growing dependence on IP as our major export is a good thing in the long run; this is not an argument against IP per se.
It seems that 'Diversify! Diversify! Diversify!' is the tune you here from Wall Street and Big Business.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Someone needs to contact the California Bar Association and direct them to start disbarment proceedings against Cara R. Burns of Hicks, Mims, Kaplan & Burns on the basis that in the future she will become unfit to practice law by willfully disregarding the interests of a client, or engaging in fraud which impedes the administration of justice.
She's going to cause trouble so it would be best to nip it in the bud before she can do serious harm.
Yes, I know the reference. Still, the word he's searching for is "idiocy". The fact that there's no reference to the government should be a give-away.
Not that I'd condone the use of that inane reference even if there was.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Only 3 states are.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Holy wow...its just like Minority Report! I totally embrace this establishment of the pre-crime division of the US government if I can get some sweet 3-LED-glove-interface things for my 150" wrap around clear display (as long as its not made by Apple). Power to the not-people!
That surprising, my local theater now has some threatening-looking posters (or was it a preview spot?) about grabbing movies with a video camera. They certainly gave the impression you could get in trouble for it (without waiting to see if you sell the recordings). Is that different?
Somewhere in this world, there has to be someone really named John Doe. We need to get this person to sue the crap out of all the lawyers of the world for defaming him/her/them. Think about all the unwarranted arrests, pre-lawsuits, yadda-yadda that have destroyed the good name of this poor law-abiding citizen.
This individual needs compensation for emotional distress... LOTS and LOTS of compensation. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please strike down a mandate for all to remember by assigning punative damages in the hundreds of millions. Thank you.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I'm not going and if no one else (much) went it might show them the error of their ways. I'll be damned if I ever go to any event anywhere where people are pre-suing attendees. I can't believe anyone would attend such an event.....well.....yes I guess I do believe it. The whole thing makes me sick.
I'm the he, and I'm talking about how we're being told what to think by those seeking to get a certain type of reaction out of us.
all someone has to do is respond as a defendant, and by the nature of not having committed any crime yet (or better yet, not intending to even commit the alleged crime) wait until after the event then file a counter suit for slander and accuse them of fraudulently accusing you, and since you would stand to gain more than they would from you, use that money to pay any other parties legal fees. ultimately making the producers of the music festival pay for their obscene use of the legal system!
Making a recording is making a copy, which is an exclusive right held by the owner of the copyright. I'd be very interested in hearing what court cases have ruled that making concert recordings without permission is legal. I guess it could be argued that using a tape recorder at a concert is much like using a VCR on a broadcast, but I'd like to read the rulings. Whether it's legal or not for you to make the recording, it's still legal for the venue to kick you out for not following their rules.
etree.org and archive.org are irrelevant. They host only recordings from bands which have explicitly given permission for recordings to be made.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Mike Masnick is a horrible, horrible source of information. He's quite the font of misinformation, however. Whoever approves these articles on slashdot needs to get their head on straight and understand that Slashdot, as a source of information, declines in credibility every time they cite Mike Masnick. Slashdot looks more and more like some "out-of-touch-with-reality but confirming everyone's biases and making them angry" news source everyday.
Come to think of it, there has been no "new sound" in 25 years (rap and hip-hop are not new, it began in the 1980s). And number of big entertainment companies is down to four (from about 30 from what I heard in 1981).
With everything centralized like in Soviet Russia maybe that's why there is no "new sound" (but lots of new ways of presenting i.e. youtube). But maybe that's how The Business works, it's all plagerism beginning with Shakesphere (and even he stole material from others).
mfwright@batnet.com
This bellyfeel is plusgood for now. But when those crimethinkeing unpersons become crimethinkers then it will be doubleplusungood.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Could a private legal fund file suit in court to prevent a specific but unknown oil company from drilling offshore wells in an oil field that has yet to be discovered, but which will inevitably produce a uncontrolled spill due to criminal negligence that will surely cause massive environmental destruction and loss of livelihood for hundreds of thousands of people?
Edith Keeler Must Die
theyre not defending bootlegging - they're defending trademark infringement. I was at Heavy MTL and they were selling Heavy MTL tshirts for 40$. Every concert I've ever been to had cheap knockoff tshirts outside for 20 bucks....5 once you haggled, and they werent even worth that, but the festival is defending its own trademark against tshirt sellers and the like. probably the same folks scalping tickets beforehand too. no reason to really even be on slashdot, or in the YRO section. Its not really online at all, is it?
Does anyone think it's a bit too socialist to rely on the government to serve your corporate needs? I mean, why not just hire a team of black ops mercs to patrol the venue? At least then it's not using the people's money to pick out likely suspects. I know I'd be intimidated if the A-Team strolled in while I was videotaping a concert. BA Baracus is fierce and Howling Mad is downright scary!
It's been a trying day. Allow me my diatribes.
This probably sounds like an old codger's rant ... but as the US economy produces less and less of *intrinsic* value, and relies more on producing "imaginary* property, we are going to see the laws protecting such imaginary property become more harsh. Otherwise the whole system collapses and is exposed. And as we steadily ship our current and future wealth to the middle east to feed the oil beast, and China to feed our obsession with collecting cheap garbage we don't need, we are even more screwed.
Ironically, IAAL ...
America and everything about or within it is stupid
While you got the definition of bootlegging correct, you definitely didn't get copyright law correct. Merely making a copy is illegal unless it falls under an exception. Of course, the exceptions used to be considered much broader than they are now considered, at least for practical purposes.
Nobody said it was legal, the point is that it isn't bootlegging unless the material is sold. People who only recorded cannot be brought up in this court case without selling what they've recorded.
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
Idiocracy: a movie
Idiocy: what you meant to say
How do you propose to conduct a lawsuit or other legal proceeding without involving the government?
That's nice. Meanwhile you illustrate one of the problems with reacting that strongly to a word merely because you wouldn't use it yourself. Specifically, it caused you to forget that a lawsuit quite obviously does involve the government so a reference to the government is implicit.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
This is the perfect job for Petey the Don't Sue People Panda
The case should be thrown out, and their lawyers disbarred.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Sounds like a reasonable person would stay far away from the festival to avoid the risk of being falsely named as one of the "Does". I would not want to be forced to pay for a defense or settle by being there to be falsely accused.
For one, injunctions against John Does are rare to be granted. Second they aren't asking for an injunction, they are asking for an injunction, federal marshals for enforcement, monetary damages and attorneys fees.
I need to get my hands on the minority report, as I don't believe the fact that precogs don't make mistakes.
Nobody said it was legal
Did you read the post to which I was replying? I'll save you the trouble and quote it:
Merely making recordings is not illegal, even if the promoter doesn't want it to happen. Many court cases have upheld that right.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Shouldn't they be kicking down various things while screaming about freedom right now? Seriously. Has no one told them?
... where music distributors will pre-sue all their clients.
And pre-fine them $60k for each song they purchase, just in case.
IANAL, but it could have something to do with the difference between a recorded performance and a live performance. Maybe you're allowed to record live plays, but not movies?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
find a police jurisdiction with a bad record for beating up people or one where a large demonstration is about to happen. Could make a nice chunk of change.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Well it may be disappointing to some concert-goers when the bootleg merch sellers are ousted, despite their having more T-shirt print designs to choose from and better quality goods for the price compared to the official vendors.
AEG is a front for billionaire Philip Anschutz. Remember the RIAA lawsuits against all those college students? Turns out the mastermind behind that scheme was Edgar Bronfman, the one who ran his family's liquor business into the ground and who then bought a record company.
C'mon, evil or not, you have to admire the brilliance of the hack. It's like the government in the wiretapping cases, saying the plaintiffs don't have standing, when the plaintiffs were suing to find out if they were spied on (i.e. would have standing): you can't win unless you've already won.
There's a point in "Space Seed" where Scotty admits some admiration of Khan, to Spock's horror. It's time like this that I "get" Scotty.
Hence depriving them of the royalties collected from selling those stupid little plastic bottles of beer.
This is an old Bruce Springsteen trick, for the early eighties. He would get extremely broad injunction prior to the concert, and prior to any case or controversy. Why not, no one would object, as there were no real defendants. He would enjoin all sorts of things, including the sale of merchandise containing the generic wording the "Boss".
So you mean all someone needs to do is be John (or Jane) Doe #101 and they're home free!?!
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
"'What sort of things do YOU remember best?' Alice ventured to ask.
'Oh, things that happened the week after next,' the Queen replied in a careless tone. 'For instance, now,' she went on, sticking a large piece of plaster [band-aid] on her finger as she spoke, 'there's the King's Messenger. He's in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn't even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all.'
'Suppose he never commits the crime?' said Alice.
'That would be all the better, wouldn't it?' the Queen said, as she bound the plaster round her finger with a bit of ribbon."
Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"
Getting details wrong is bad, of course. But they're asshats deserving both scorn and outright punishment not because of the (erroneous) perception of going after IP, but because they're abusing the legal system by pre-suing with nothing but a list of John Does.
In fact, this is worse than the tactics the RIAA use. At least in their case they were using the filing because they knew who they wanted to sue by IP and needed the court's authority to turn that into a name. These guys don't know anything about anybody; they're just supposing that it's going to happen and they want to expedite the process if it does. They're abusing the legal system, period. Their case should be dismissed with prejudice and their lawyers fined for that alone.
IANAL but my cousin is and this is what he had to say:
(02:49:23 PM) PP: yeah
(02:49:34 PM) PP: well
(02:51:06 PM) PP: the issue you run into here is that in order to be heard you need to have a case in controversy, the issue has to be ripe
(02:51:36 PM) PP: if some one is about to do something that may hurt your business or place an undue burden on you, can file for an injunction
(02:52:37 PM) PP: to stop them from doing it
(02:52:46 PM) PP: now what you have sent me does not seem like it will hold up
(02:52:53 PM) PP: because there is no case in controversy
(02:53:00 PM) PP: if something hasn't happened you can't sue them
(02:53:27 PM) PP: for example I can sue you for wrecking my car if it has not even happened yet
(02:53:33 PM) PP: I can't*
(02:54:08 PM) PP: I don't see why a judge would accept this lawsuit
(02:54:20 PM) PP: there are is only one party
(02:54:27 PM) PP: judge would for sure throw this out
(02:56:07 PM) PP: Now if the suit is for past action but you don't know exactly who they are, you can sue Jane and John Doe
(02:56:29 PM) PP: and then try to discover who they are throughout the process
(02:56:46 PM) PP: I would imagine this would be so your Statutes of Limitation on your claim would not run out
(02:57:12 PM) PP: So for example if you get in a car wreck and have no clue who the person is cause the y ran away, you basically have two years to file a claim
(02:57:48 PM) PP: by calling them John or Jane Doe you are including them and preserving your rights
(02:57:54 PM) PP: to sue
(03:08:23 PM) PP: All this suit pretty much is is a way to scare off furture bootleggers letting them know they will be sued if caught. By getting this publicity they will get their message across
(03:09:42 PM) PP: it hasn't been filed cause there is no case number, its just a template and they are threatening to use it if something comes up, that is we will insert your name here, so don't do it
(03:11:05 PM) PP: All you need to take away from this is that it is not a lawsuit yet since it has not been filed, rather its just a warning of what they will file if you get caught.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
which is an exclusive temporary privilege granted by the government to the owner of the copyright.
Fixed. People keep making the mistake of thinking of copyright as a right - which is absurd.
Circumcision is child abuse.
ummm.... j doe you live 4.5 miles from the event. I smell lawyer. I call it LIBEL. Tickets start at $99.50 as of today 8/11/10 at 8:08pm EST. for tickets http://www.milehighmusicfestival.com/buy-tickets/ticket-info for the LIBEL http://reporter.blogs.com/files/cod-03902958132.pdf sorry can't effort the purchase. anyone else?
I live in Denver, and with the exceptions of the Steve Miller Band, Cypress Hill (not my speed), and a couple of decent local bands, there's not much worthwhile... Might as well call it "Stuff Hipster Boulderites Probably Listen To (on their iPhones, and also whilst driving in their Subarus)".
p.s. Anyone knowledgeable of Boulders' reality distortion field will understand the joke, but I suspect that will be lost on most shashdotters.
I am going to sue AEG for stealing my script. That I have not even started to write. But I know that they are going to steal it when I finish writing and I am done publishing it on the internet.
It pays to sue you for something that you are going to do, even if your self don't know that you are going to do that.
People keep making the mistake of thinking of copyright as a right - which is absurd.
How is it absurd? Even though it's temporary, it's a right granted by the government. It's right there in the word - copyright.
... and then they built the supercollider.
That joke of a thing you call a legal system has done it again.
Well done America. Keep that dream alive..
Holy crap, is your legal system is fsck'ed up, or what? Wow.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
... and sue Megan Fox for joint custody of our children.
Not yet convieved. But I'm certain its just a matter of time.
Have gnu, will travel.
Is it a two-party state, though?
Those laws do not apply because the intent is to record music, not conversation. They have tried to shut down the music recordists using those laws, and the courts threw it out. Maybe someone with nexus access can find the case.
>Event producer AEG has already filed trademark infringement claims against 100 John Does and 100 Jane Does in anticipation that they're going to bootleg
Is there a legally generic name for a transgender Doe? Maybe Chris Doe? Or Pat?
Would you pre-sue fewer of them, perhaps only 10 Pat Does for every 100 Johns, based on statistical rarity?
That word is very misleading; it should be called copy privilege, copy exclusivity, or copy monopoly. It is a privilege, granted by the government in detriment of everyone's else right to copy, on the assumption that it would serve as an incentive to creators, to promote the progress of science and useful arts. The ultimate goal of copyright was as a richer public domain. It was for the benefit of ALL THE PEOPLE, not the artists', and certainly not the MAFIAA's.
If copyright has failed to give us a richer public domain, it has failed to fulfill its sole intended goal. Therefore, it must be abolished.
Circumcision is child abuse.
That surprising, my local theater now has some threatening-looking posters (or was it a preview spot?) about grabbing movies with a video camera.
A lot depends on intent, and it all depends on the state you are in. The federal law cedes to the state laws, and they vary. You must check your state law.
There has been some case law in regard to providing blank CDR's to get a copy, and whether that was "personal gain". The courts have said trading blanks does Not constitute personal gain. IANAL.
To be clear, I support prosecution of bootleggers - those who are trying to make a buck on someone else's work.
In Washington State:
RCW 19.25.030
Use of recording of live performance without consent of owner unlawful -- Fine and penalty.
(1) A person commits an offense if the person:
(a) For commercial advantage or private financial gain advertises, offers for sale, sells, rents, transports, causes the sale, resale, rental, or transportation of or possesses for one or more of these purposes a recording of a live performance with the knowledge that the live performance has been recorded or fixed without the consent of the owner; or
True, but you could probably get nailed for conspiracy. IANAL, and as such am not sure if conspiracy applies to this, but if you've plans to make the recordings available illegally and then record them, that wold be enough for conspiracy charges to apply. I'm not sure if felony copyright infringement would allow for conspiracy charges though, even less so if it's only civil in that instance.
THIS is exactly why I don't like to go to shows like this. I live in Denver, and believe me, there is absolutely no shortage of great music venues here, a good handful of them are either a few blocks from my apartment, or are a $5 cab ride away.
If you're in Denver for this joke festival (lol, wait until you see the location, HAHAHAHA) and prefer a better scene (though AEG still has their dirty hands on some of them) just check out Jambase and look for other shows. The Gothic Theater and The Bluebird are two of my favorites. The Ogden often has good bands, but if you want to try and get outside during setbreak, good luck, those yellow jackets will shove several hundred people in a tiny section barricaded off just outside the door. Hope you're not claustrophobic. The Fillmore is a good place also, but only because it's the biggest in the neighborhood and has the best bar in Denver across the street (omg, a Sancho's reference on /.) There's also plenty of great local music at the bars around town, and Pete's Monkey Bar (next door to Sancho's) is often the afterparty bar of choice for local bands. Don't plan on staying if you're a douche, you will be kicked out quickly. There's also Cervantes, Owsley's, and a few others that typically have great music. I'm looking forward to the Earth Wind and Fire Halloween show (performed by The Motet) myself. Motet's Talking Heads Halloween show a couple years ago was absolutely fantastic.
And despite its nature, Boulder has a decent music scene also, just gotta watch out for the Alex Jones cultists.
For the rest of you, have fun in Commerce Shitty!!!
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
of the presumption of innocence, if true.
That word is very misleading; it should be called copy privilege, copy exclusivity, or copy monopoly.
Why?
It is a privilege, granted by the government in detriment of everyone's else right to copy
No, it is a right granted by the government. "Privilege" would imply that it's some kind of special reward, but (legally) it's not. It's a legal right.
The ultimate goal of copyright was as a richer public domain. It was for the benefit of ALL THE PEOPLE, not the artists', and certainly not the MAFIAA's.
And the mechanism for achieving that is the granting of rights.
If copyright has failed to give us a richer public domain, it has failed to fulfill its sole intended goal. Therefore, it must be abolished.
Wow, go off the deep-end much? What does that have to do with the legal definition of copyright? Do you usually just inject irrelevant statements into discussions?
... and then they built the supercollider.
How is a reference to a lawsuit, by definition handled by the government, not at least an indirect reference to the government? How is the the government employee (you can call him Your Honor) allowing a lawsuit against nobody for an action not yet taken not related to the government? I'm unclear of this distinction you are making. And when I use idiocracy, it isn't a reference, inane or otherwise. I have spoken that word aloud long before the movie was made. And the use of it by someone else for a work of fiction has no relation to how I mean it when I say it.
Learn to love Alaska
Way to RTFA, bucko.
I did read the article; at least the portion that wasn't some stupid flash crap.
And it's Mr. Bucko to you.
I think there's a "Soviet Russia" joke here somewhere, but this is so ridiculous and ass-backwards that I won't even try to figure it out. Any judge that allows something like this to proceed is truly a joke himself.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Why is the promoter or whomever even bothering to do this, all ridiculous legal implications aside? A lot of festivals explicitly allow open taping, even today. And when people trade live "bootlegs," they usually do just that, trade, or give copies away. Festival tapers generally do not cash in on their recordings, nor could they if they wanted to since there is basically no market for these recordings. Sure, if the promoters sell high-quality recordings done from the sound board, they might make a few bucks after the bands and their labels take their cut, but not much, and evil bootleggers are of no competitive concern.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Well... unless it's rap, of course. Though calling rap "music" is probably going way, way too far anyway.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No, it is a right granted by the government. "Privilege" would imply that it's some kind of special reward, but (legally) it's not.
Too often, what is legal is not moral. Tell me if this sounds right: in a free society, everyone has the right to do anything, except when it interferes with someone else's freedom or well-being. Good thus far? Now, copyright is a monopoly on the replication of a work of human creation. It limits everyone's right to copy, everyone's access to information -- everyone's freedom. It is a hindrance to all the people, for the benefit of one, or a few. Therefore, a privilege.
What does that have to do with the legal definition of copyright?
Copyright exists for a purpose, as defined by the copyright clause. . It does not say: to make sure people make a profit. It says: to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
But is said progress an end in itself? No, it benefits all of the people.
It is sensible to say, then: copyright must exist for the benefit of all people. Thus we must ask: does copyright accomplish this goal? Was it a good deal for the people, to trade a freedom for this potential of progress?
Ask other questions as well:
Is it good for all the people that copyright exists? Perhaps, but--
Is it good for all the people that copyright terms last longer than a human lifetime?
Is it good for all the people that copyright terms keep getting extended, and pretty much nothing falls into public domain anymore?
Is it good for all the people that copyright holders invent methods to keep content from being copied -- some of those methods causing all sorts of compatibility issues, some causing people to lose content they have paid for, some nothing short of malware?
Is it good for all the people that copyright holders have bought legislation that criminalizes the distribution of tools that break the aforementioned anti-copy methods?
Is it good for all the people that copyright holders can use the legal system to extort money from the people, threatening you with financial ruin for copying a bunch of songs or movies, whether you did it or not -- claiming to be defending the artists, while they use every trick in the book to cheat artists out of their pay?
Copyright is not respected because it is not respectable in the first place. People are waking up to the fact that, at least the way things are set now, it's a disastrous deal.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Too often, what is legal is not moral.
Yes, but what has that got to do with the legal definition of copyright? The law does not mean what you, personally, want to mean. It means what is written into law.
Now, copyright is a monopoly on the replication of a work of human creation. It limits everyone's right to copy, everyone's access to information -- everyone's freedom.
But the law never granted everybody a right to copy anything they might want to copy. So, you're arguing from a false premise. The law grants the exclusive right to copy to copyright holders (unless a particular work is in the Public Domain or otherwise not subject to copyright).
It is sensible to say, then: copyright must exist for the benefit of all people. Thus we must ask: does copyright accomplish this goal? Was it a good deal for the people, to trade a freedom for this potential of progress?
Well, that's a good question, but it doesn't alter the fact that copyright grants legal rights, not "privileges." In fact, the concept of "privilege" doesn't really exist in modern law.
People are waking up to the fact that, at least the way things are set now, it's a disastrous deal.
I think you must have a pretty loose definition of "disastrous" if you apply that term to copyright law. Are people losing their lives over it? I'm not a huge fan of copyright law as it stands, but your arguments are pretty overblown.
... and then they built the supercollider.
It hardly matters, the alleged bootlegging can not possibly have taken place yet since the event has not yet happened. They're still suing for something that they cannot prove will happen. Someone may have already printed the shirts, or perhaps not. The event might not even take place, perhaps there will be a bomb scare or inclement weather. Perhaps the bootleg merchandise will be destroyed in a fire before the event.
If they would care to photograph and ID actual infringers in the act of infringement and then sue them for something they have actually done, that's a different story.
The entire reasonability of an injunction is that it puts a particular person on notice that the court forbids a particular action. I don't see any possibility of that if you can't even name the person.
Joe Sixpack does the bootlegging not, John Doe and Jane doe, is he allowed?
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
But the law never granted everybody a right to copy anything they might want to copy.
It seems people these days have forgotten what natural law means... thinking of rights as gifts to be granted, rather than inherent properties of the nature of man. Look, before copyright was invented, not too long ago, everybody had that right. It didn't have to be granted by any law, it simply was. The true nature of copyright law, therefore, is that it took away a right from all the people.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Wasn't that Toyota problem just misreported problems with driving skills of the vehicles driver?
Depends which jurisdiction you're talking about. It is definitely illegal to make recordings if the performers or the exclusive holder of a recording deal do not wish that to happen in the UK.
The suit is about the MERCHANDISE, not copywright
It's copyright. That's why the free software people don't call their class of licenses copysaintexupery nor copyread, but copyleft.
If no one actually bootlegs the event, who pays the monetary damages and attorney fees?
The innocent single mother whose daughter's IP address is "erroneously" identified as an offender (more accurately: framed for the offense), and is forced to settle for a few thousand or face permanent bankruptcy.
Welcome to twenty-first century justice American Style(tm), where you've been found guilty, before you even get out of bed, of a dozen offenses you've never committed. Land of the Free, home of the Brave (as they cower before a legion of Hollywood attorneys and FBI agents jumping over the trussed up bodies of thousands of missing persons to get to hypothetical copyright violators before they get a chance to prove their innocence, but I digress).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
>And the mechanism for achieving that is the granting of rights.
Well, no, not really. It's more about taking away rights.
C//
It seems people these days have forgotten what natural law [jim.com] means... thinking of rights as gifts to be granted, rather than inherent properties of the nature of man.
No, people have not forgotten that. I think what you are trying to refer to is "human rights," but I don't see how copyright/intellectual property falls under that category.
Look, before copyright was invented, not too long ago, everybody had that right. It didn't have to be granted by any law, it simply was
Uh, no it wasn't. Copying information was never formulated as a right before copyright was invented. Do you have any legal citations for this supposed right?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Well, no, not really. It's more about taking away rights.
How so?
... and then they built the supercollider.
I though all of us happy copyright-ignorers believed that you should pay to see live music, in which case bootleg copies of concerts are taking money away from the poor musos.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You sue all the attendees for failing to show any intiative.
OK, the movie was preachy, but it wasn't that preachy...
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
That's pretty weak. Pretty damn weak. I suppose that the reason why this is allowed is because idiots are reproducing faster than non-idiots, which caused us to elect idiots, who put idiots on the bench, who make idiotic decisions?
That's pretty nice yourself. You are expressing a causal relationship between two things, A and B. There are exactly two possibilities: A causes B, and B causes A. You've managed to choose the fundamentally stupid one.
(And thank you for noticing that I was part of the problem. I'll get onto that fornication as soon as possible.)
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
In a lot of ways, I find the issue of bootleg merchandise even more annoying. I personally have purchased several festival t-shirts that were not created by the trademark owner. If you are not interested in the official (read as expensive) merchandise, why not buy something that you like for a much more reasonable price? In the case of t-shirts and other clothing, the trademark owner is still getting free advertisement from you wearing gear with their brand name on it.
Using the logic of this case, I want to know if I can sue Jessica Alba for divorce. I mean she MIGHT marry me one day and then we MIGHT get divorced. The way I see it is that she can challenge the divorce, and thus, we would have to remain married as a result. And as a result, I intend to claim my husbandly privileges that go with what is necessary for the consumation of that marriage. If not, I think I have grounds for divorce, and then she owes me some money.
Sarbonn's blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/blog
So, does anyone want to join my preemptive class action lawsuit against every record company in the United States?
After all, certainly they're all going to release shitty albums in the future with only one good track on them, then conspire to fix prices and sell them at outrageous prices. That's completely certain to occur. After all, similar events have occurred in the past, and the record companies settled out of court for tens of millions of dollars.
We need an injunction to stop this in the future.
And triple damages under RICO, as well as attorney's fees. Fair's fair after all.
You can't pre-$verb anything. This is best example to illustrate why you shouldn't add pre to verbs. You can either sue, or not sue.
I will sue them.
I am sueing them.
I sued them.
There's no room for pre- in there.
There could be a Pre-suit time frame. "Pre-suit we will collect evidence against them." This describes the time before the suit is file or begins.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
You're missing the fucking point. It doesn't have to be granted or codified to be a right. EVERY POSSIBLE HUMAN ACTION is your right, unless it's forbidden or causes harm to others. What you call rights, common parlance calls privileges.
Circumcision is child abuse.
You're missing the fucking point. It doesn't have to be granted or codified to be a right.
Actually, it kind of does. "Right" is a legal term, it is meaningless without a construct of laws.
EVERY POSSIBLE HUMAN ACTION is your right, unless it's forbidden or causes harm to others.
But you've just codified it by adding the clause "unless it's forbidden or causes harm to others."
Also, this just doesn't wash with reality. For example, my having $100,000,000 isn't forbidden and doesn't cause harm to others. But I don't have a right to $100,000,000. If I did, I would be able to sue for that money.
What you call rights, common parlance calls privileges.
No, it's more like you don't understand the words that you are writing, or the concepts underlying them.
... and then they built the supercollider.
... except if you happen to responsible for XYZ consultancy or XYZ restaurant.
We all are born with the ability to walk to a copy machine and make copies. Without the law, we are born to this right. In the interest of "promoting progress in the arts," congress takes that right away from us and leaves it, to the exclusion of everyone but the author, to the author (or his assignee) alone. Copyright isn't so much about the granting of a right, as the taking it away from everyone else. This is why the word "exclusive" is used in the law. It excludes.
C//