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."

Comments

You've got to be shitting me.

[twidarkling]

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.

Re:You've got to be shitting me.

[Red Flayer]

IANAL.

They're not suing "no one in particular". They are suing individuals who are not yet identified for an action that has not yet occurred, to enable law enforcement to prevent that action from occurring.

I personally think that's fine, as long as they pay the bill for that law enforcement.

Or they could do what other private event festivals do -- pay for security staff that toss out anyone selling infringing goods, and accept the fact that people are going to sell stuff outside the venue (in which case, they often call the cops to enforce street sales licenses, area zoning, whatever can be used to get those people away from the venue).

Re:You've got to be shitting me.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like the Minority Report...

I always thought Minority Report was a possibility. It's easy to predict human behaviour when backed up against a wall...

Police: You're going to resist arrest, so we're arresting you for that.
Person: I'm not going to resist arrest, you can't arrest me for that.
Police: You are resisting arrest right now.
Person: No, I'm - oh wait...so either way I'm going to be arrested?
Police: Yes
Person: No way copper...*runs*
Police: He's resisting arrest! Let's go!

Congress: See, the system is perfect. The reports never lie...

Re:You've got to be shitting me.

[Adriax]

So sue 10 John Doe Millionaires, and when you get your summary judgment you now have 10 "gimme your money" vouchers to apply to any millionaires you feels like.
Exactly what they're doing here.

Re:You've got to be shitting me.

[Toonol]

But the arrest wasn't illegal. If the arrest was done properly, even if you didn't do the crime, it is legal, and other crimes you commit in the process don't get magically ignored. If it really WAS a wrongful arrest, you might have a point; but people are misusing the term 'wrongful arrest' in this thread.

It's the same as the cops getting a perfectly valid warrant to search your house for drugs, and finding your kidnapping victim. It doesn't get tossed out, even if they don't find drugs.

Re:You've got to be shitting me.

[fredklein]

And if only 50 men and 50 women bootleg it, can the festival owners be arrested for submitting the other 100 false claims?

Re:You've got to be shitting me.

[AK Marc]

First, you have no idea what a 'valid arrest' is.

I do. You have no idea what I do and don't know.

The cops don't KNOW if you are innocent or guilty at the time of the arrest. They simply arrest a likely suspect if they have sufficient evidence on hand at the time.

I understand and I disagree with both your premise and their logic.

By your logic, everybody should fight arrest, every time. Because, hey, I'm 'innocent'.

Someone who committed the crime in question is not innocent. They are guilty. Now, given your track record of purposefully picking the definition the person isn't using and asserting that they used the word wrong, I'll just mention that being innocent or guilty is a fact. They either did it or they didn't. Being found guilty or being acquitted is a finding of law. Though the judicial finding is attempting to mimic the former, they two are actually unrelated in that innocent people have been found guilty and guilty people have been acquitted. So yes, I understand the words. But that doesn't mean that I have to use them the way you prefer them to be used, nor is my "valid" use of a word invalid because you assert so.

And why do you think being arrested is some type of horrible event that must be fought?

Why do you think that provably innocent people should submit to the incorrect will of the State? Because the enforcers are armed? Or because obedience is more important than accuracy?

An arrest is nothing more than taking you in for proper booking, questioning, etc. Arrest and imprisonment are NOT the same thing.

One is holding you against your will, while the other is holding you against your will. Yes, I see the distinction you are trying to make in showing me that the two are unrelated.

Thrown Out

[Renraku]

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.

Re:hah

[nurb432]

Yes, but that is after your home is ransacked, your belongings destroyed/taken, your dogs killed, lose your job while you sit in jail, and your life pretty much ruined. Also you better hope they don't find anything else while they do their searches like that movie screener you got from a friend.

Personally this is scary nuts that it wasn't tossed out the second this was filed. The attorneys should be dis-barred and the judge toss in jail. This NOT how the American legal system works and is total abuse of it.

Re:Pre-emptive lawsuits

[caffiend2049]

but how do you present evidence when there is none??
This is completely laughable and should be thrown out....a complete waste of time and money.

Re:Pre-emptive lawsuits

[JimWise]

John/Jane Doe cases happen all the time. It's presumed that the identity of the person can, at some point, be established. I assume between pre-trial and actual trial, since a person has a right to defend themselves, but I'm not sure it's wise to take that on trust any more. However, all you have to do is find a way to put the case on hold indefinitely and you've a court case you can unleash on anyone at any time.

Well, as far as I was aware John/Jane Doe cases are filed for crimes already committed, but by people whose exact identity is not yet known. This goes a LARGE step farther since the crime has not yet been committed, and is not even guaranteed to be committed. This is a slick trick to get the taxpayers to provide the extra security and snooping for them. I understand John/Jane Doe cases where it is clear a crime has been committed, but to file a lawsuit before the supposed crime can even be committed let alone proven to have occurred seems to go well beyond the intent of any law and should not be permitted. Planning to commit a felony is against the law in itself, so those sorts of situations are already covered, as long as it can be proved that the plans were actually in place.

Re:Pre-emptive lawsuits

[amicusNYCL]

What about the issue of time though? You're suing people for doing something at an event that hasn't even taken place yet. How are they even allowed to file that suit? I understand not having a specific target for the suit, but how can you sue someone for doing something in the future?

Re:Pre-emptive lawsuits

[broken_chaos]

My understanding is that whenever someone is named as John or Jane Doe their identity is not known, as you said. Not that they are everyone, but that they could be anyone.

In other words, they're a specific, yet unknown, person from the time the court case is filed onward. A very simple defense against this lawsuit should be to note the filing date/time and that you had not yet visited their music festival at that time (provable by virtue of it simply not having happened yet) and therefore could not be one of the 200 specific, but unknown, people that the case is against.

Central Scrutinizer

[handy_vandal]

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

Mike Masnick?

[brit74]

Christ, almighty, slashdot. RTFA:

Plaintiff is engaged in promoting a music festival known as the “MILE HIGH MUSIC FESTIVAL” (the "Festival") and also is in the business of manufacturing, distributing and selling of various types of merchandise sold and distributed at the Festival including but not limited to tour and program books, T-shirts, jerseys, sweatshirts, hats, buttons and posters which embody the trademarks of the Festival (collectively “Festival Merchandise”)."
...
Plaintiff possesses the exclusive right to utilize all trademarks, service- marks, logos and other indicia of the Festival on and in connection with Festival Merchandise sold and offered for sale in the vicinity of the Festival (collectively the “Festival Trademarks”). Plaintiff uses its Festival Trademarks on officially authorized goods and services.
...
On August 14 and 15, 2010 at the Dick’s Sporting Goods Park, in Commerce City, Colorado, the Festival will occur. Only Plaintiff has the right to sell merchandise bearing the Festival Trademarks at and near the Festival.

On information and belief, Defendants will sell and distribute unauthorized T-shirts, jerseys, and other merchandise bearing any or all of the Festival Trademarks (the "Unauthorized Merchandise") in the vicinity of the Festival before, during and after their performances.

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.

Not really standard fare

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:thoughtcrime

[easyTree]

I do believe/hope AEG might have just demonstrated a way of creating a negative Streisand effect.

Some poor smuck they can pin it on

[FreeUser]

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).