Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USCG Sues Copyright Defense Lawyer

Posted by samzenpus on from the nip-it-in-the-bud dept.

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."

10 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So... they think defending yourself is against the law now, or something? Or informing other people on how to defend themselves?

    1. Re:Wait... by fishexe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I scanned their complaint and one point they make is arguably valid. According to the article itself, three of the motions fail. But they keep having to respond to them because they're always automatically filed by the purchaser of the forms. This presumably is a waste of the court's time.

      But I bet this happens all the time with real lawyers running the show.

      You are correct. I am taking Civil Procedure currently and our professor has advised us to always file certain motions (motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, motion for summary judgment, motion for judgment as a matter of law, and if we lose, motion for a new trial) even if we know they will be denied.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    2. Re:Wait... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They created it, what better reason do you need? I enjoy benefiting from my creations, as I'm sure most do.

      And I would like a pony, but that doesn't mean anyone should be obligated to give me one. Whether or not any given work deserves a copyright is ultimately up to the public, via a government that legitimately derives its power from their consent. So the questions we must consider are how does giving them a copyright benefit the rest of us, and what specific sort of copyright, in terms of what's eligible, how much protection there is, how long it lasts, etc., is best. Remember: a copyright is an infringement on the free speech right of everyone other than the copyright holder. They should not be granted lightly.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    3. Re:Wait... by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wouldn't clalm that an absolute majority of Slashdotters that oppose the current broken copyright system liked the older 28 year rules, but there have been enough posters that it's fair to say at least a very healthy minority do. Add me to that. I'd be perfectly happy to see these films protected by an automatic 14 year copyright with the owners allowed to renew for another 14 at their option. I'd be fine with them being able to seek some punitive damages even where the violation isn't for profit, although I see $150,000 per incident as both absurd and immoral.
        Its fair to point out, for these recent film cases, the chance a violation has done real harm and cost real money is very high, and this is fundamentally different from the case of, say a 20 year old TV show or novel, where the odds are more of a mixed bag. Really cleaning up the copyright mess means taking the most likely consequences into account, and for cases like this one, the likelyest consequences include real harm to the copyright holder.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  2. The Lawyers Who Brought This Suit by tmosley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Erm...what? by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Interesting
    That's the problem - one of the defenses did work. The "lack of personal standing."

    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:

    1. Religious freedom guarantees. Several religious sects take the "no doctor of the law shall enter into the kingdom" literally, and as an injunction against being represented by lawyers. To allow ONLY them a religious exemption is unconstitutional, as it discriminates against non-believers (reverse discrimination);
    2. Full and complete defense: Money, money, money. An interested, motivated party who is not a lawyer may be better able, in some cases, to provide a full and complete defense, than ANY paid lawyer, no matter what the price; but on top of that, most people simply can't AFFORD the cost of "professional" services;
    3. Freedom of association: Some countries have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. The requirement to "associate" your legal case with a lawyer to represent you is contrary to such guarantees;
    4. Freedom of political expression: Insisting on a non-lawyer is certainly an act of political speech; more so than currently-protected political expressions such as flag-burning;

    As in this case, you don't need all 4 to be valid - any one succeeding will do.

    -- Barbie

  4. Re:Good . . . by m509272 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:Erm...what? by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    • No religious exemption needed. If you don't want a lawyer, do it yourself.
    • 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.
    • No association required if you represent yourself.
    • Assuming you aren't a lawyer, you have a non-lawyer representing you.

    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.
  6. Re:Wow! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Erm...what? by nomadic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.