Slashdot Mirror
USCG Sues Copyright Defense Lawyer
ESRB writes "The US Copyright Group has sued Graham Syfert, an attorney who created a packet of self-representation paperwork for individuals sued for P2P sharing of certain movies and moved to have sanctions placed against the defense attorney. Syfert sells these packets for $20, and the USCG claims the 19 individuals who have used it have cost them over $5000."
So... they think defending yourself is against the law now, or something? Or informing other people on how to defend themselves?
The lawyers who brought this suit should be disbarred, and they should be fined to fully compensate the court and the defendant for their time, AND for his emotional distress. This is a fucking outrage.
The pack sold is not illegal in any way. it does not teach the owner how to break the law? it simply educates them about it.
I quite agree. Syfert himself puts it very well:
"If 19 cases costs them $5000 in attorney time, I wonder how many cases it'd take before their business model crumbles. That is unless they are going to actually work for a living."
It's funny cos it's true. The whole thing reminds me of record companies trying to hold THEIR outdated business model with ligitation, which is also funny; they are on borrowed time.
Except, this time it's not Joe Public. I hope this guys socks it to them. Huzzah
You can't sue for lost revenue if you're not the copyright holder. Further, you can't sue for lost revenue if you can't prove that, you know, you actually lost revenue.
Which, come to think of it, is a problem with their current suit - they can't prove they lost revenue because of a successful defense against their tactics, because a successful defense means they weren't entitled to the MOH-NEE!.
Then again, too many lawyers have this sense of personal entitlement. Just look at your politi-critters.
Easy prediction - within the next decade, someone will successfully sue for the right of non-lawyers to represent people in court, on the following basis:
As in this case, you don't need all 4 to be valid - any one succeeding will do.
-- Barbie
Agree totally. Since most people didn't know of the availability of this $20 package it's great that more know of it now. I think it should go a step further. I would love to see the guy (with the help of donations if need be) run a full page ad in USA Today so it spreads all over. They'll of course be follow ups on TV and other newspapers, etc.
Now, I am not a lawyer, but it seems that all of your points are flawed due to one fact: You are allowed to represent yourself.
Also, as a side note, don't try turning a courtroom into a political statement. If you annoy the judge, they can fine you or imprison you for contempt of court.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
if the forms and motions were not VALID, the court clerk would simply return them to sender along with a note that the motion is invalid. If the courts are accepting these "boilerplate" responses there must be something to them, or the court would sanction this guy directly.
You can hire anyone you want to testify or be your administrative assistant. They can't act in the courtroom as a lawyer or associate, but they can hand you notes on what to do/say if needed.
Your other points are valid but this one I don't think would work; telling you what you should say in court is generally considered giving legal advice.
Does that include people who think that unprovoked, offensive wars amount to mass murder? If not, then yes that is blatant favoritism.
No, it only includes people who think all wars are wrong, or whose religion prohibits them from fighting even in wars they think are just. For example, the vast majority of Quakers refused to fight in WWII and the Civil War, despite strongly believing the US was on the right side of both, so Quakers get to claim CO status. The system is rigged up that way, so people who only have a problem with unprovoked, offensive wars are SOL.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
It's federal, so he can provide advice nation wide with no restrictions so long as he has passed the bar.
They are trying to say the motions he advises people to file (he personally files nothing and does not defend these people in court) are a waste of the court's time and resources, since each motion must be responded to.
Thing is, they teach you in law school to file motions even if you think they will probably fail. The judges know this, they see it every day, it's standard operating procedure. There are any number of motions that are always presented and almost always fail. This is not new.
To say someone who represents himself cannot use the same tactic is absolutely ludicrous.
If there is a case here for wasting the court's time, it's much stronger against USCG for their bulk copyright infringement suits, which are so often baseless.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller