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."

33 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 Elledan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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*

      --
      Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
    2. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      Wait, what?

    3. Re:Wait... by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 And if all current management were rendered jobless and penniless and all draconian copyright laws repealed, with the addition of penalties for the lobbies and politicians who pushed for them.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.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    4. Re:Wait... by onepoint · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    5. Re:Wait... by GameMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    6. Re:Wait... by theexaptation · · Score: 4, Informative

      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".

    7. Re:Wait... by Motard · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Wait... by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'll just leave this here.

    9. Re:Wait... by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    10. 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
    11. Re:Wait... by Eivind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. Mind blowing by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Funny
    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?

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Mind blowing by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  3. Erm...what? by Mouldy · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. 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

    2. Re:Erm...what? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Erm...what? by Capt.+Skinny · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Erm...what? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Erm...what? by Achra · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
  4. About those downloads... by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:About those downloads... by goldaryn · · Score: 4, Funny

      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

  5. 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.

  6. USCG branches out by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    ~Idarubicin
    1. Re:USCG branches out by durrr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because of pirates, now you need not wonder anymore.

  7. Reverse the Sanctions by Nailer235 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Good . . . by Mitchell314 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  9. Re:They're advertising that guy's service, right? by causality · · Score: 4, Funny

    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".

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  10. Ok, someone who understands this stuff... by orphiuchus · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  11. Let me see the logic here by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Where can I download ... by Skapare · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... pirated copies of these documents?

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  13. USCG by WED+Fan · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  14. that was overturned a few months later by Khopesh · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.