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."

4 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. 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