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."

Comments

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Wait...

[Elledan]

Yes, because it threatens their business model of threatening to sue people even if they have no intention to ever do so. All the USCG wants is for the people it sends a threatening letter to pay up $2,500. Negotiating a settlement or heavens forbid an actual court case would drive up their lawyer costs and make their business model unprofitable. Hence them trying to take out this 'threat'. Of course, they're trying to take on a real attorney, not some Joe Shmuck without a clue about legal proceedings.

*settles back with some popcorn*

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the law is outlawed, only the criminals will know the law.

Wait, what?

Re:Wait...

[causality]

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

That's right. This is a religious battle. Therefore, it's not a matter of conflicting interests or disagreement or dispute. Nope, it transcends all of that. Clearly anything that interferes with their sacred agenda is EVIL! It is their holy crusade, and probably the only purpose in their sad little lives.

Just a drop in a big, heavy, overflowing bucket of reasons why I refuse to purchase RIAA/MPAA entertainment. I'd consider it, if it didn't go to fund pathological bullshit like this. And if all current management were rendered jobless and penniless and all draconian copyright laws repealed, with the addition of penalties for the lobbies and politicians who pushed for them. Since that's not likely to happen due to this aversion towards justice that's currently all the rage, my purchasing decisions are rendered easier.

Re:Wait...

[Posting=!Working]

Stupid new mod system. I tried to mod insightful, but missed and hit redundant. Post to undo.

Re:Wait...

[onepoint]

You point out the truthfulness of the situation. Let's look at the business model.
A) we have a LAWYER that has some courage and wants to defend people at a reasonable rate with a self help package provided in a PDF which is down-loadable.
a1) it targets a very specific business model ( USCG bulk lawsuits )
a2) the amount of USCG lawsuits is X
a3) he should be able to convert 3% to 8% of the lawsuits after some reasonable testing.
a4) so the amount of work he put into it might have been 60 hours ( 60 * $125 ) = nill, he was having a beer every time and relaxing doing it.

the best thing that ever happened is that he got sued by these people, now everyone knows about him.

Re:Wait...

[GameMaster]

Nah, I don't think they're anywhere near that emotionally invested. Remember, we're talking about the lawyers here, not the RIAA/MPAA themselves. For the lawyers, all they're probably interested in is the money. They're not pissed off because it gets in the way of their "holy crusade" because, the truth is, they'll probably still win most of these cases in the end. What they're so pissed off about is that he threw a wrench in their get rich quick scheme. Instead of being able to bully people into paying $2500 a pop with very little bill-able lawyer time, now they'll have to file their claims in a huge number of different courts across the country and will, likely, have to actually fight some of the cases. With all that interference, they might not be able to make the huge profit they were drooling over initially.

Re:Wait...

[postbigbang]

The free advertising is great. That good old web.

Sadly, the litigation from USCG is going to cost him, so that $20/copy will hopefully cover his own costs, but I doubt it. USCG has every reason to press him as hard as they can, although I would hope that a decent judge would throw out the suit with prejudice. Sadly, that's unlikely to happen.

The free advertising exacerbates the problem as each of the other USCG litigants now has a $20 defense package available to them. Would USCG find an insane jury (possible, if it gets to trial) and some theory of law that multiplies the damages, then our courageous lawyer gets a multiplier to the damages for each $20 defense package sold.

The whole thing is fucking insane.

Re:Wait...

[Culture20]

Tortuous interference of fishing blackmail expeditions? That's vigilantism!

Re:Wait...

[causality]

Nah, I don't think they're anywhere near that emotionally invested. Remember, we're talking about the lawyers here, not the RIAA/MPAA themselves. For the lawyers, all they're probably interested in is the money. They're not pissed off because it gets in the way of their "holy crusade" because, the truth is, they'll probably still win most of these cases in the end. What they're so pissed off about is that he threw a wrench in their get rich quick scheme. Instead of being able to bully people into paying $2500 a pop with very little bill-able lawyer time, now they'll have to file their claims in a huge number of different courts across the country and will, likely, have to actually fight some of the cases. With all that interference, they might not be able to make the huge profit they were drooling over initially.

You're technically correct but splitting hairs. I'm taking a broad view, not of the surface actors but of the authors of their scripts. Those actors, in turn, are voluntary participants and therefore part of the production. Sure, they're in it for the money but look one step beyond that: there is a reason that this is where they see the dollar signs. That reason is the (un)holy agenda of draconian copyright.

Many bitter wars had mercenaries who were only loyal to their money; that didn't make such wars any more or any less of a religious crusade in nature. What you're seeing here are two sides of the same coin. The RIAA/MPAA need to hire lawyers like this as part of pushing their agenda. Lawyers like this would largely have to find another line of work if not for large, organized, monied clients like the RIAA/MPAA.

The group of lawyers known as the USCG has thrown their lot in with the likes of the RIAA/MPAA. At any time they could decide that integrity is important, that they don't want to participate in this bullshit, that they don't want money tainted by bullying and intimidation. They haven't. They're not only part of the madness, they're an essential component of it. They could be called the executive arm of the larger agenda. When the backlash against this madness finally does occur, it will rightly include them, for they are Satan's little helpers.

Re:Wait...

[mjwalshe]

cant see any judge even the "hem hem" dodgy ones in east Texas objecting to a lawyer plying his trade

Re:Wait...

[theexaptation]

I think they are confusing speculation with reality. The USCG lawyers are sending letters to people who are not guilty of anything (not until they are found/proven guilty). They are only asserting that they are guilty. Now they are suing someone for making it possible for the defendants to contest their speculation and requiring them to actually prove guilt in a court of law. The people they are threatening owe them nothing unless found guilty and someone enabling them to contest their speculation even less. Gaming the legal system in this way shows that their intent is to extort money using threatening letters with dollar amounts calculated to be cheaper than mounting a defense (as a zero sum game) not prove guilt. Not too much different from "you have a nice place here, I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to it".

Re:Wait...

[Motard]

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.

Re:Wait...

[Eponymous Coward]

I'll just leave this here.

Re:Wait...

[DavidTC]

Yeah, I don't understand either.

The guy's a lawyer. He can sell legal services if he wants, for whatever amount he wants. Copyright law is Federal, so assuming he's able to appear in Federal court, he can give advice for things in those courts.

And the fact it's pre-packaged doesn't change things....pre-packages legal services with set fees happen all the time. It's how people do wills and stuff. You pay $50, you get a form to fill out, they provide two witnesses and keep a copy. Lawyers don't have to charge by the hour.

I'm a little baffled as to what he could be sued for.

His clients could sue him for all sorts of stuff if his advice was bad, and he could be arrested by the government if his advice was illegal (Which is not likely.), but I can't comprehend how some other legal consul can sue him for giving legal advice.

It seems a little bit idiotic our system is setup where people have to buy this, instead of the court handing it out for free, but $20 is pretty reasonable if they're actually useful.

Re:Wait...

[Khyber]

"Sadly, the litigation from USCG is going to cost him"

Not one damned dime. It should take a matter of mere MINUTES to prove USCG's vexatious litigation and put an end to their business model permanently.

USCG's lawyers better backpedal quick before they get precedent set that cripples their business model.

Re:Wait...

[jedidiah]

> They created it, what better reason do you need?

"Defending" it needs to be worth the collateral damage of course.

For the works in question here, the issue of worth in a the grand scheme of thing is highly dubious.

No non-commercial pirate should be ruined for life over the good stuff. Nevermind tripe like this.

Re:Wait...

[causality]

Now with that out of the way, let's not forget that most, if not all, of the people being sued are, in fact, breaking the law.

The original duration of copyright in the USA was twelve years, at which point the work became public domain. This was back when movable type was the most efficient way to distribute copies of something. Now that we can distribute works far more efficiently, to reach a much larger audience, at a much lower expense, has that original twelve-year duration been reduced to reflect the advancement of the state-of-the-art? No, it hasn't. Instead, it's been increased to a maximum of 120 years.

Copyright is not a free gift granted to authors and artists. It's an exchange. It provides a temporary government-granted monopoly over a work -- that's the copyright holder's benefit. After a length of time, that monopoly expires and the work enriches the public domain -- that's society's benefit. Those two benefits are supposed to have a reasonable balance.

There is no longer even an attempt to create the appearance of a balance. The major copyright holders today want perpetual copyright and they nearly have it. They have collectively said "thank you USA Public for sponsoring our government-backed monopoly, that was mighty nice of you, but we don't really want to honor our half of this bargain so we refuse to ever give anything back to you." They are the very "thieves" they accuse copyright infringers of being.

Can you see why large numbers of people have lost respect for copyright law? There is a reason why "it's what the law says" fails to convince so many people. It's no wonder the lobbies keep pushing for harsher and more draconian enforcement of copyright. It's quite difficult to get millions of people to obey a law that has lost all respectability and completely destroyed any noble or useful purpose it once had.

The movies listed have all been out for less than two years. I think any reasonable person can agree that a copyright should last more than two. I think it's reasonable that the copyright holders go after pirates in this case.

If you actually want people to feel like they're doing something wrong when they download a movie, restore the balance and purpose that copyright law once represented. Otherwise, they're going to feel like they're retaliating against corporations that are screwing them over. Until that changes, the release date of the work is a distant secondary concern. As long as copyright is perpetually extended, it's also irrelevant.

While they may or may not agree with it, a wise person understands that. The lobbies and interests don't. They have a singleminded mentality that is very much like that of a religious zealot. I think their motto would be "laws we buy are like violence; if they don't work, use more". That's why they aren't trying to restore balance and respectability to copyright. Instead, they want more people to suffer more severely for breaking a law that is not respectable.

So yeah, a lot of people are breaking this law. You point that out but don't seem to appreciate why that might be. If anyone wants to fix it, what's happening now is the wrong approach. The way this is being handled risks eroding the respectability of not just copyright law, but law itself as an institution. How do you believe in concepts like the rule of law or the legitimacy of government when you can plainly see that a few powerful interests can bend both to their will?

Re:Wait...

[nabsltd]

Now with that out of the way, let's not forget that most, if not all, of the people being sued are, in fact, breaking the law.

First off, the "evidence" is pretty thin, and even the lawyers involved have admitted that they know that many of the people sent the settlement letters had not infringed copyright. So, no, you can't say "most" of those getting letters are infringing copyright.

Second, there are many possibilities where downloading a movie is not copyright infringement. As an example, I downloaded a copy of a movie because my just-purchased DVD was defective, and was the last one in the store. Sure, I could have dealt with trying to return an opened movie for store credit (which, I must note, is caused by the fact that the MPAA does not in any way stand behind the products they sell), but instead I just downloaded. Technically infringing, sure, but I'd love to see cases like it go to court. Heck, if you want to bankrupt the MPAA and RIAA, everyone should set up a torrent client and download every movie and music track they have already paid for.

Re:Wait...

[fishexe]

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.

Re:Wait...

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:Wait...

[sparkeyjames]

QFTFA
"The majority of state courts strike a balance between these extremes, holding that: providing forms, or performing notary or "scrivener" services (as directed by the "client") is lawful, even helpful; but a non-lawyer may not add instructions or advice --- even on how to choose, fill out or file the form. In these states, a do it yourself "kit" that contains something more than blank forms or templates would typically be found unlawful."

Also they may present general examples of filled out forms or motions. They just can't give detailed information on how you have to fill out the form for your court case. Quite legal in many states and at the Federal level.

Re:Wait...

[Artifakt]

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.

Re:Wait...

[The Hatchet]

But none of that really matters because firms of copyright lawyers buy up copyrights from the business after they stop making big bucks, and then sue the shit out of tons of people. Really, this is a case of business people profiteering off of the work of others, and making their living solely by destroying lives of people who were too poor to afford a movie and had to download it to watch it, and then threatening to take away what little they have and put them in debt forever, if not in prison. There is nothing even morally ok about that.

Re:Wait...

[AK Marc]

It's a shame estoppel doesn't apply. "They've stated (1) and (2) which, if we presume them to be acting consistently and in good faith, proves (3) and (4) wrong/invalid. Further, they've asserted (3) which if correct would make (1) and (2) invalid. As such, they've asserted one or more things which prove all their other claims, and/or their original claim, must be false. Since it is not the job of the court to determine which assertion is most effective and take that one and only one, the only reasonable course is to dismiss all such contradictory claims."

But then, that would be common sense, and that's illegal in a court of law.

Re:Wait...

[Pseudonym Authority]

Moderatrix, Your second chance when moderating slashdot.
I do recommend.

Re:Wait...

[Eivind]

Your numbers are sligthly off -- check em up, using wrong numbers risk offtracking the discussion, which would be a pity because your general point is very much valid.

There's 2 more reasons people have lost respect for copyright. One is that copying is today frequently a *private* act. It's one thing to ban copying of books and music, at a time when really, only people owning printing-presses are practically capable of copying a book anyway. The general public isn't giving up much, because giving up the right to do something you cannot practically do anyway, is a small sacrifice.

Today, however, giving your sister/friend/boyfriend/grandmother a copy of a song you like, is a trivial, routine, straigthforward act. Thus today the same rule directly interferes with peoples private lives. Some jurisdictions (Norway where I live for example) has recognized this as bollocks, and have made specific exceptions. Limited copying for private use is not a copyright-violation here. ("limited" is somewhat fuzzy offcourse, but a low number for close friends/relatives would certainly qualify)

That's one.

The second is that I am regularily being lied to. I dislike being lied to. I do not tend to respect people who regularily lie to me.

I respect it even less when the reason they're lying, is because they HOPE that I will believe it, essentially they're trying to trick me into believing I've got less rights than I do.

When a new DVD says "Any use outside the private home is illegal", that's a lie. When software claims I need a /license/ to run it, that's a lie. (in my jurisdiction it is!) When a game claims that lending or resale is illegal, that's a blatant lie - I break no law whatsoever by letting a friend borrow a game.

If someone wants my respect. Lying to me, is not a good first move.

Mind blowing

[Kupfernigk]

A US corporation sues a US lawyer for not charging enough!

Under English law, a lawyer merely provides advice which the client is free to make use of or to ignore, and there are plenty of legal self-help books. There is an excellent one for company secretaries which, back in the 90s, saved me thousands in legal bills. Is this not so in the US?

Re:Mind blowing

[Bigjeff5]

Under English law, a lawyer merely provides advice which the client is free to make use of or to ignore, and there are plenty of legal self-help books.

The same is true in the US, however states have legal statutes to prevent a person from giving legal advice who is not a lawyer. Depending on how strict the statutes are, this can pose real problems for self-help legal products.

However, that isn't what this appears to be about. Copyright is a federal matter, and the lawyer is licensed to practice law in the US, so that's not where the complaint seems to be coming from.

Apparently several of the motions always fail, but USCG still must respond to them or they lose automatically. This costs USCG and, to a lesser extent, the courts, more money than is necessary. However, I don't see how a lawyer can be sued for advising clients to file a motion that is ultimately unsuccessful, even if he advises thousands of such clients to do so. He never filed any motions, he simply told the people how and suggested they do so. I can't see how he could possibly construed as responsible for the motions.

I would suggest the USCG's bulk litigation practices are the ones that are actually wasting the court's time and money, since the majority of them are completely frivolous and must be responded to by each individual involved.

Re:Mind blowing

[IICV]

Apparently several of the motions always fail, but USCG still must respond to them or they lose automatically. This costs USCG and, to a lesser extent, the courts, more money than is necessary.

But I was under the impression that real lawyers do shit like that all the time? I mean, one of the fundamental ideas of game theory is that you should attempt to maximize your opponent's ability to lose, while maximizing your ability to win - and if we're not supposed to game the system like that, why is it even possible?

This really seems to boil down to the USCG saying "No fair! He's teaching the other guys the rules!"

Re:Mind blowing

[dreampod]

Absolutely correct. This is standard operating procedure for lawyers to file for dismisal and a protective order even when they don't expect it to succeed, simply because it preserves routes for appeal and there is the possibility the opposing lawyer will screw up and it will get through. That said, one of the three claims his forms make which is that the district overseeing the legal action does not have personal jurisdiction is valid for most potential purchasers and should have the suit dismissed and forced to be refilled in the appropriate venue (which typically isn't as friendly to this sort of business as the venues chosen by the litigants).

Erm...what?

[Mouldy]

So, according to these USCG clowns, providing a working defence to the opposition is illegal?

Re:Erm...what?

[tomhudson]

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

Re:Erm...what?

[UnknowingFool]

No, that would be ludicrous. The USCG is suing Syfert for costing them money which is not criminal but a civil matter. Unfortunately, you can sue for anything. The USCG has shown that they are a litigious group. Really this doesn't surprise me at all.

Re:Erm...what?

[hedwards]

Yes, but suing for something that's known to be frivolous can get you slapped for vexatious litigation in some jurisdictions. And ultimately when they lose the suit, which they will, they'll almost certainly have to pay his fees and probably a bit more.

Re:Erm...what?

[gnasher719]

No, that would be ludicrous. The USCG is suing Syfert for costing them money which is not criminal but a civil matter. Unfortunately, you can sue for anything. The USCG has shown that they are a litigious group. Really this doesn't surprise me at all.

Their problem is that by costing them money, Syfert hasn't actually done anything wrong. It is perfectly legal for Syfert to sell these self-help booklets; even if it is not legal, they have no standing to sue. Only a buyer who let's say paid $20 and got rubbish advice would have standing to sue for that. The cost to them is not caused by Syfert, it is caused by the defendants defending themselves, and that is just what you have to expect when you sue someone; they will try to defend themselves. Perfectly legal and expected.

Re:Erm...what?

[ScrewMaster]

No, that would be ludicrous. The USCG is suing Syfert for costing them money which is not criminal but a civil matter. Unfortunately, you can sue for anything. The USCG has shown that they are a litigious group. Really this doesn't surprise me at all.

Their problem is that by costing them money, Syfert hasn't actually done anything wrong. It is perfectly legal for Syfert to sell these self-help booklets; even if it is not legal, they have no standing to sue. Only a buyer who let's say paid $20 and got rubbish advice would have standing to sue for that. The cost to them is not caused by Syfert, it is caused by the defendants defending themselves, and that is just what you have to expect when you sue someone; they will try to defend themselves. Perfectly legal and expected.

Maybe they're hoping he'll just fold, not want to spend the time and money to defend himself (you know, like all the other victims.) Can it be that they believe they are that scary? To an attorney?

Re:Erm...what?

[Zibri]

And then they can sue him again for the money they lost in this litigation. Profit loop!

Re:Erm...what?

[snowgirl]

I recall reading at one point that Arizona allows non-lawyers to represent other people in their state.

It's more of a "you get what you pay for", or "buyer beware" state than anywhere else...

Re:Erm...what?

[Patch86]

Maybe they're hoping he'll just fold, not want to spend the time and money to defend himself (you know, like all the other victims.) Can it be that they believe they are that scary? To an attorney?

Not just an attorney. An attorney who's own modus operandi is to persuade people to defend themselves against frivolous litigation by selling them affordable self-help packs.

I really struggle to believe that any collection of even moderately intelligent people could be that stupid.

Re:Erm...what?

[Bender0x7D1]

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.

Re:Erm...what?

[Capt. Skinny]

The USCG doesn't care whether Syfert folds, they just want to discourage other attorneys from offering the same type of legal assistance. Despite the outcome of this suit, the next guy who thinks about offering $20 self-representation instruction packets will have one more cost to consider when assessing the profitability of that product -- the cost and hassle of being sued (successfully or not) by the USCG.

Re:Erm...what?

[UnknowingFool]

Again, it's not a matter of "legal" or "illegal". You can use your neighbor if their dog peed on the street in front of your house. Like this lawsuit, the chance of you winning is slim, but that doesn't mean you can't file suit. The court will most likely dismiss the suit and politely ask you to resolve any disputes without court intervention. However if you repeatedly sue your neighbor for minor things, the court will not like it. Syfert being a lawyer will probably get this dismissed quickly. He also can counter-sue claiming tortious interference.

Re:Erm...what?

[harlows_monkeys]

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.

No, the defense that worked is lack of personal jurisdiction, not lack of standing. Courts in a state only have power over people who reside in the state, or have a certain level of contact with the state, or who consent to jurisdiction. Basically what the successful defendants are doing is telling the court, "Hey, you are a court of state X. I live in state Y and have no contacts with state X, so you aren't the right court for this", the the court is agreeing.

Note that this doesn't end things. The plaintiff simply has to refile in the defendant's home state (or find some other state that the defendant has sufficient contacts with).

You have to be careful when raising the lack of personal jurisdiction defense, because generally responding to a lawsuit in a given court is taken as conceding personal jurisdiction of that court. However, you can make what is called a "limited appearance", where you respond solely to raise the issue of personal jurisdiction.

Further, you can't sue for lost revenue if you can't prove that, you know, you actually lost revenue.

You can sue for statutory damages.

Re:Erm...what?

[tomhudson]

That's irrelevant. The point is that this is an illegitimate restriction on the constitutional right of a person to a full and complete defense, if their only possibility of such a defense rests with a non-lawyer.

The availability of public defenders also doesn't enter into it. They have a history of not providing a full and complete defense.

Further, what if you're the plaintiff in a civil case. You should be able to appoint someone else - even a non-lawyer - to act for you.

Lawyers should have to compete the same as anyone else. Most of them are hacks.

Also, the ability of the judge to not only be the one pressing the charge of contempt of court, but also the judge, is an example of something that needs to be challenged, since the judge is obviously both an interested party (being the plaintiff) and the judge. A very clear conflict of interest in what is a criminal complaint.

-- Barbie

Re:Erm...what?

[Achra]

Mod parent up, this is an important point and the crux of what is going on in this article. The points of note are:

1) All courts of law foremost hate to have to make a ruling. If they have a valid excuse to not rule on a case, then they will seize it. In fact, the first hurdle to get over when you are plaintiff in a case is proving the court you have selected has jurisdiction. In this circumstance, since the court the copyright holders have chosen does not have jurisdiction in this matter, all it really takes is the defendant to come forward and say "Your honor, I live in a completely different state" for the judge to throw this out of his courtroom.

2) Now, an attorney has decided to author a self-help pamphlet and sell it (constituting paid legal advice). This document is effectively a howto on how to make a limited appearance in whatever specific court these suits are being filed in, and file a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction.

3) The legal team for the plaintiffs has decided that the legal advice of this attorney is adversely effecting their case, and they would like to figure out how to make him stop. In the legal world, the way you make someone stop doing something is you take them to court.

I think that this is actually a rather interesting case, because depending on the state, there may or may not be specific laws governing the sale of self-help pamphlets.. The worst that could happen for this attorney is that the judge could rule that he is representing all of these defendants.. and make him enter all of these cases that he has offered advice in... lol. I doubt that would happen, but really, it depends on the state.

Re:Erm...what?

[nomadic]

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.

Re:Erm...what?

[mysidia]

Reading the description of the forms offered for sale here

He does some CYA, it states, No warranty is made as to the content of these documents. Graham W. Syfert is not acting as your attorney. ; Pursuant to rules of ethics, no assistance can be given in filling out these forms, unless a separate contract with the signature of an attorney and the client exists.

WARNING - LEGAL FORMS ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE EXPERIENCE AND ADVICE OF COUNSEL

Purchase of these forms is not intended to create an attorney client relationship, and by using these forms, no attorney-client relationship will be formed. Instead, you are representing yourself in any legal matter you undertake through these forms.

Re:Erm...what?

[DavidTC]

As a post down the way pointed out, we can read the disposition, which I didn't see earlier. (Stupid Noscript.)

Reading it, it appears they have some points, but a lot of their arguments are bogus.

In random order, in 1 they're complaining that the forms are defective because they're filed with the court, not served to the opposing consul. Which would be a fair complaint if those people actually had legal consul, but the courts tend to be fairly lax, procedure-wise, with people who have been sued and defend themselves. In fact, the law says what consul should do, not what defendants without consul should do.

Their complaint is, frankly, absurd, and they're attempting to make 'consulted with a lawyer for legal advice' into 'has a lawyer'. Just because lawyers don't like to give legal advice to non-clients doesn't mean they can't.

3 is equally dumb. They correctly point out that the motions to squash the subpoena is incorrect, but then admit all but one of those motions gave them the information they were looking for...which advances their case and saves them time and money. They can hardly complain about that.

4 is idiotic in it's own way, in that they apparently cite cases deciding a court has jurisdiction for Doe subpoenas...but what that actually demonstrates is that it's a debatable legal point. Um, duh. The motion may fail, but that doesn't make it frivolous.

Their only legit complaint is 2, where apparently the wrong part of the law is cited. Which, again, happens all the time and is a mistake...but isn't 'frivolous'.

I guess they're trying to make the point that he 'keeps' making such a claim, but they'd have to demonstrate that he knew such a claim was bogus and didn't fix it in things he sold. Giving people the same piece of legal advice over the years, and then discovering it's wrong, is not magically 'frivolous' if those people acted on the advice and were shot down.

About those downloads...

[Alwin Henseler]

From the article:

(..) users who had downloaded films like The Hurt Locker, Far Cry and Call of the Wild

I liked the game Far Cry, so how about that movie? Is it any good? Is it worth the download?

Re:About those downloads...

[goldaryn]

From the article:

(..) users who had downloaded films like The Hurt Locker, Far Cry and Call of the Wild

I liked the game Far Cry, so how about that movie? Is it any good? Is it worth the download?

Well worth the $20 I paid for it

The Lawyers Who Brought This Suit

[tmosley]

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.

Re:The Lawyers Who Brought This Suit

[Anonymous Coward]

USCG is actually Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver. They seem to operate out of DC and Virgina. If you want them disbarred, start there.

http://www.dglegal.com/
http://www.vsb.org/
http://www.dcbar.org/

USCG branches out

[Idarubicin]

USCG Sues Copyright Defense Lawyer

Am I the only one who read that headline and wondered why the United States Coast Guard was getting involved in copyright lawsuits?

Re:USCG branches out

[durrr]

Because of pirates, now you need not wonder anymore.

Re:USCG branches out

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you win the "most appropriate username ever" award.

Reverse the Sanctions

[Nailer235]

Filing a suit against an attorney who is informing citizens of their Constitutional rights? Absolutely ridiculous. The attorney who filed this suit should be disbarred.

Good . . .

[Mitchell314]

he should be sued. Instead of this thorn-in-my-side bloke being known to a handful of people, he now has the publicity to level up to a bloody damn nuisance. 14000 more xp and he'll level up to a rebel.

But seriously, you'd think that as much as the Streisand effect has come up recently (like once a month), certain organizations would take heed and just roll with the punches. But that would involve, you know, using common sense.

Re:Good . . .

[m509272]

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.

Re:They're advertising that guy's service, right?

[causality]

They're either thick as a plank or they actually want more defendants to self-represent.

Considering that they're a pro-copyright group and therefore think we don't yet have enough copyright laws on the books, I'd go with "thick as a plank".

Re:Let me get this straight...

[goldaryn]

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

Ok, someone who understands this stuff...

[orphiuchus]

...please explain. There is absolutely no way that this is actually what it looks like on the surface, its just way to ridiculous.

Re:Ok, someone who understands this stuff...

[esme]

I doubt very much they are trying to argue that he's doing too good a job of defending people. My guess is that they are going after him for providing legal advice to people where he's lot licensed, providing legal advice to people he's never talked to, or some similar rule that's setup to prevent lawyers from ripping off clients. The amount of money they are asking for is probably justified as recouping their expenses that came from his "malpractice".

I don't know the details of the case, or have any idea if he's technically in violation of some rule or not. I do know that retail-packaged legal advice (like make-your-own-will computer software) sometimes runs into problems in some jurisdictions, so it's not that big of a stretch to think this might stick.

Re:Ok, someone who understands this stuff...

[causality]

...please explain. There is absolutely no way that this is actually what it looks like on the surface, its just way to ridiculous.

It sounds like you have a handle on the situation.

In more civilized times, an angry mob would tar-and-feather asshats like this.

Re:Ok, someone who understands this stuff...

[Trekologer]

It sees that the USCG is now complaining that the motions that the defendants filed in response (using Syfert's document pack) should not be accepted. The rule (that USCG quotes) says that the defendant's council must discuss with plaintiff's council before filing such motion and then serve defendant council with copies of the motion. However, the defendants are not being represented by any council (and certainly not Syfert, as indicated by his reply to USCG's request for sanctions) so those rules would not apply. USCG's assertion that the defendants need to first confer with them would be completely contrary to the purpose of the filings--to prevent the court from releasing the identity to the USCG.

The defendants using the forms sold by Syfert is no different than someone using Legal Zoom or buying a package of legal forms from Staples. The problem (for USCG) is that the filings now require USCG to spend real money defending their assertion that the Doe defendants are liable, whether to simply answer the motions or possibly take the case to the court with correct jurisdiction over the defendants. What the USCG is attempting to do is discourage other Doe defendants from trying to defend themselves against the allegations.

Re:Ok, someone who understands this stuff...

[Bigjeff5]

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.

Just kidding...honest

[JohnRoss1968]

Anyone know where one could download the self-representation paperwork packs?
Im kidding.....

Re:Ok im waiting.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm pretty sure it involves a form of serfdom...

Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? I d

[Joe The Dragon]

Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? I don't think you can shut down a attorney like this. Prisons have tried to limit inmate access to court / filing lawsuits and the courts have said they can't do that.

Let me see the logic here

[Arancaytar]

Their legal team and/or cases sucked so much that they got their asses handed to them by untrained defendants using boilerplate this guy wrote.

So now they want to sue him directly, after he already owned them by proxy, with a case that seems even more hilariously unjustified. What are they going to pin on him? Selling standard legal advice?

Yeah, good luck.

Re:Let me see the logic here

[Bigjeff5]

They have no legal standing to sue, that's the motion that wins.

They are basically suing because this guy tells them to file three other motions in addition to the motion that USCG has no legal standing, and those three motions always fail.

So, basically, USCG has no right to sue these people in the first place, but they are suing this guy for advising people to file the three more motions than necessary to defeat the lawsuits. Filing multiple motions in the hopes that one will "stick" is common practice, and as far as I am aware there is no limit to the number of motions you can file.

In other words, USCG is suing this guy for telling people how to exercise their legal rights.

It's utter bullshit.

Wow!

[MarkvW]

The lawyer trolls are going to lose. That's for sure. The only question is whether Mr. Syfert will get sanctions against them, and if so, how much those sanctions will be. Assuming that there is nothing defamatory in Mr. Syfert's materials, all Syfert did is sell information to third parties. There's no law against that (and the First Amendment supports it).

The whole thing is now a free targeted promotional event on Mr. Syfert's behalf.

Just a little bit of careful thought would have dissuaded the lawyer trolls from filing an action against Mr. Syfert. It will be fun to watch this circus as it unfolds its tents.

Re:Wow!

[mabhatter654]

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.

Re:Frivolous

[Myopic]

do you even know what the claims of the suit are? I read the article but it didn't say, and I can't imagine what legally plausible claims could be made in this kind of situation. But, I can certainly imagine that there are plausible claims that I can't imagine.

Re:Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this?

[Nailer235]

An individual can usually file a suit for just about anything. Attorneys, on the other hand, are usually held to a higher standard. Look up "malicious prosecution"

Re:Advertising

[amentajo]

Graham Syfert, the "Copyright Defense Lawyer", is an EFF-listed lawyer.

Do you think that the EFF accidentally mistook the manager of a "phoney storefront" for a lawyer credible enough to refer people to?

Where can I download ...

[Skapare]

... pirated copies of these documents?

Re:the people v. the bar

[causality]

As one example: there are specific sects permitted "conscientious objector" status.

Does that include people who think that unprovoked, offensive wars amount to mass murder? If not, then yes that is blatant favoritism.

I for one refuse to have my hands stained with the blood of people whose only "crime" is defending themselves against an aggressor. Since when did that require membership in an organized religion?

Re:Erm...what? TAX Is in place

[tengu1sd]

Coincidentally they (Arizona) have no income tax.

Arizona has personal income tax. I used to to live there and filed every year. States with no income tax are:
Alaska
Florida
Nevada
South Dakota
Texas
Washington
Wyoming
New Hampshire and Tennessee tax only dividend and interest income

Here's the answer

[Khyber]

Give me the names, and the address of the United States Copyright Group.

I've still got a bunch of cash to burn and I'll happily burn it destroying them.

Electronic Arts didn't fare too well against me (they settled to prevent precedent that would've killed the entire PC gaming industry) and I see EXACTLY how I'm going to destroy the US Copyright Group.

USCG

[WED Fan]

I think the U.S. Coast Guard should sue the U.S. Copyright Group.

Re:USCG

[SeaFox]

I think the U.S. Coast Guard should sue the U.S. Copyright Group.

Clearly they aren't happy with being expected to find pirates outside of U.S. waters.

Oblig. Liar Liar quote

[grolschie]

Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!

You know what this makes me want to do?

[mysidia]

Buy Mr. Syfert's $20 packet, just to support him.

The USCG have now moved on from copyright abuse to attempting to squash people's legitimate 1st amendment free speech rights, and their 5th amendment due process rights.

The USCG's lawyers need to get disbarred for this.

Re:Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this?

[fishexe]

I would think that an attorney suing another attorney is fairly common. Remember one party can sue anyone for any reason, especially in a civil matter.

Actually, if you file a suit which is clearly frivolous you can face sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You *can* sue anyone for anyone reason, but if the suit had no chance of winning then the attorney who filed it can face sanctions.

Sounds like fair game to me

[fishexe]

Sounds like what this attorney was doing is fair game. If they can go after everyone with boilerplate, why can't people defend themselves with boilerplate? This fine, upstanding attorney is just making it happen, and taking one small step toward evening the odds. Of course the corporate behemoth doesn't like that; it thrives on being the beneficiary of a huge power imbalance.

Re:the people v. the bar

[fishexe]

As one example: there are specific sects permitted "conscientious objector" status.

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.

that was overturned a few months later

[Khopesh]

US Court Of Appeals Lifts Texas Ban On Sales Of Quicken Family Lawyer (one of the first hits in a search for "quicken family lawyer texas" sans quotes) states:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has vacated a judgment restraining Parsons Technology Inc. from selling and distributing Quicken Family Lawyer Version 8.0 and Quicken Family Lawyer '99 legal software within the State of Texas.

Re:Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this?

[Bigjeff5]

"Malicious prosecution" like "vexatious litigation" normally require more than one act.

Like, say, bringing thousands copyright infringement lawsuits when you have no legal standing (that's the motion that always wins in the USCG cases)?