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."

14 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 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.
    4. 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
  2. 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 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. Re:USCG branches out by durrr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because of pirates, now you need not wonder anymore.

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

    ... pirated copies of these documents?

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  8. 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.