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.

[Anonymusing]

There are more likely situations... e.g. suing Facebook or Google for privacy violations... or Toyota for automotive failure... oil companies for spills...

Re:You've got to be shitting me.

[Red Flayer]

You can sue people for things they haven't done yet?

Yes, it happens all the time in IP-related cases, in the form of an injunction.

The only difference here is that the Festival owners don't know who is going to try to infringe their IP, so they need to get the injunction against John & Jane Does.

It's pretty standard fare, really.

Re:You've got to be shitting me.

[Jafafa Hots]

The heck with slander. I'm gonna proactively sue him for raping my goat. And I don't even HAVE a goat.

Yet.

Re:You've got to be shitting me.

[by (1706743)]

Everything I thought I knew about civil law...

You "thought" you knew? So you're admitting to having acquired knowledge which could have been taught at law school, yet you did not pay any law-school tuition? Thought-crime alert -- somebody sue this guy!

Re:You've got to be shitting me.

[Rary]

Everything I thought I knew about civil law tells me that this is not a suit that you're allowed to file. Any lawyers around care to weigh in? Are you allowed to sue no one in particular?

If you read the article (the real one, not the article about the article that's linked in the summary), this has been done before by UMG, and apparently they were successful. So now AEG is giving a try, too.

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.

[Locke2005]

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.

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it happens all the time in IP-related cases, in the form of an injunction.

The only difference here is that the Festival owners don't know who is going to try to infringe their IP, so they need to get the injunction against John & Jane Does.

It's pretty standard fare, really.

Your comment is mostly correct, but a bit disingenous. This "John Doe injunction" has been available in a number of countries for years (like hundreds), its use for IP cases (and any cases at all*) is quite contemporary, and saying its pretty standard fare kinda makes it sound like this is just taken without controversy in the legal world for handling day to day civil issues. This is definitely not the case. The use has been on the rise and it has piqued the interest and derision of a number of legal professionals and scholars.

* For example, the first time it was used for anything in the UK after 1852 was in 2003 (about Harry Potter) (http://www.uea.ac.uk/law/resources/8-02.htm) its use then started to become more trendy.

Re:You've got to be shitting me.

[Locke2005]

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.

Re:You've got to be shitting me.

[ergrthjuyt]

+1. You can often only get a permit to do certain things if you have adequate security, which generally involves hiring an on-duty police officer from a local government. Shooting a movie on a crowded street with replica guns comes to mind. As for GP's "its not like they have anything better to do" - I find it surprising the number of people who deride the very institution that lets our society function.

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?

Oh, well....

[jd]

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.

The difference between recording and bootlegging

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:hah

[jd]

Yeah, but the last reasonable judge retired some time in the 1400s.

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.

Counter-suit stratagy

[apenzott]

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.

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.

The suit is about the MERCHANDISE, not copywright

[BobMcD]

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.

Re:The difference between recording and bootleggin

[Red Flayer]

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.

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.

Re:pre-crime

[ebuck]

No he'll try to convert you to scientology, jump up and down on your couch, then try to kill you.

I'd rather have Arnold travel back in time from when the crime was committed and kill me now for my future transgression, it's much less scary.

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:Not really standard fare

[BitterOak]

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?

Will not hold up

[vivin]

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.

Re:Will not hold up

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL but my cousin is and this is what he had to say . . .

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).