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."
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
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.
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?
At least in California, it is unlawful to arrest somebody for resisting arrest without any additional charges. That is why they always charge you with "disturbing the peace" whenever they order you to do something and you question their authority to order you to do it. Remember: when 4 police officers burst into your bedroom through a locked door in the middle of the night, push you back onto your bed, hold you down and burn your leg with a lit cigar, you are "disturbing the peace" when you cry out in pain.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Also, at least in California, you have a right to resist arrest if you have a reasonable fear that the arresting officer intends to do you bodily harm... but good luck proving your fear is "reasonable" in court! That would at least require documented evidence of a previous relationship with the officer substantiating previous threats made by the officer against you. Again, it is theoretically possible to argue that, but I doubt that anybody has ever successful justified resisting.
Pulling a gun on a group of police officers is generally referred to as "suicide by cop". I generally make it a point not to argue with people carrying loaded weapons, but in this case I said "I have committed no crimes; you have no right to be here", which the police decided was "combative", thus justifying their use of force. I'm still not clear on what justified their smoking a cigar in my house.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
If no one actually bootlegs the event, who pays the monetary damages and attorney fees?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Try this:
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 not. Go right ahead and arrest me. (I'll just sue you for false arrest later.)
Whats your point? Police don't get shot at all that often themselves. And most of their firearms training is .. at the range. Infrequently, no less. It will depend on the department, of course, but their qualification is probably going to be from stationary positions in bays on a range. At paper. And the rounds fired in qualification are less than a gun owner will fire in one trip to the range. I think you think police are gun owners. They're not, really. They're law enforcers that get issued guns. A lot of their job doesn't involve a firearm, and they consequently spent a lot more time learning non-firearms subjects.
Maybe there are a lot of departments out there with reactive targets, and practical shooting galleries. I doubt it, though. Takes a lot more money and space per shooter.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
I'm sure your cousin is a very fine lawyer. But, he obviously didn't bother looking through the case filings on PACER. I can't say I blame him, since it does cost $0.08 per page to view most filings (although opinions are often free and you don't pay anything if you don't incur at least $10 worth of views).
If your cousin had gone through the filings, he would have found that similar complaints wwer filed last year (09-cv-01386 and 09-cv-01185, both in Colorado). In both cases, the judge issued an order to the John Doe/XYZ Co. defendants to show cause why an injunction shouldn't be issued. Sure, someone could have shown up to say "the court doesn't have jurisdiction yet because we have not done anything." But, it doesn't look like anyone did.
Maybe someone will show up this time, perhaps to argue that goods they plan to sell do not infringe on the plaintiff's trademarks. All they have to do is talk with "the Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Chief United States District Court Judge, in
Courtroom A1002 of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, located at 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado on Tuesday August 31, 2010, at 11:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard."
It is unlikely that anyone will show up. The judge will probably issue the injunction, enabling the plaintiffs to coordinate seizures of counterfeit goods being sold near and even in the upcoming concert. The people who have their goods seized can fight back in court and even seek damages if the seizures prove wrongful. But, they will probably claim that they don't have identification, provide fake names, or just run away (at least that is what the plaintiff says has happened in the past).