Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Your Rights Online News

Shut-Down Movie Site Promises MPAA Court Fight 96

Posted by timothy
from the didn't-dot-all-their-ts-or-cross-their-is dept.
idolcrash writes "It looks like the owner a movie site shut down in 2001 will be attempting to take the MPAA to court regarding the shutdown of his website at the request of the MPAA, claiming he'll take them all the way to the Supreme Court to challenge the Constitutionality of the DMCA, under which his website was taken down."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shut-Down Movie Site Promises MPAA Court Fight

Comments Filter:
  • Too much power (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TFGeditor (737839) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @05:27PM (#11181974) Homepage
    "The MPAA issued a cease and desist order to InternetMovies.com's ISP to shut down the site."

    That a private organization could/can autonomously demand that an ISP shutdown a site without due process is repugnant in the extreme.
    • Re:Too much power (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's worse than that. Someone who has no affiliation with the supposedly infringed copyright owner can make a claim to your host, colo service, registrar or ISP that isn't even founded in reality (because they hold a grudge) and get you shut down.

      One of the popular domain registrars threatened to shut my domain down (redirect to NULL in DNS) if I did not comply with the complaint. The complaint was that I was selling pornography to children and distributing pirated music through my site.

      Of course, my site
    • That a private organization could/can autonomously demand that an ISP shutdown a site without due process is repugnant in the extreme.

      What's repugnant is that the ISP listened to them.

    • Re:Too much power (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dasunt (249686)

      That a private organization could/can autonomously demand that an ISP shutdown a site without due process is repugnant in the extreme.

      A private organization can *demand* anything. Case in point -- SCO demanding linux licenses.

      The DMCA goes slightly overboard with its power in regards to server shutdowns, but it isn't that horribly unfair with regards to copywrited material on a server. [Its horribly unfair in other ways though...]

      If the RIAA wants an ISP to shutdown a site, it has to make a go

      • The DMCA goes slightly overboard with its power in regards to server shutdowns, but it isn't that horribly unfair with regards to copywrited material on a server. [Its horribly unfair in other ways though...]

        Where the DMCA is most horrible is section 512(h), which allows any clerk to issue a subpoena. The parts about server shutdowns are a good thing. They limit the ability of the MPAA to sue the ISPs if the ISPs follow certain rules. Without the DMCA the MPAA would still be sending cease and desist o

        • I emailed my ISP and told them I did not have movies and they knew I did not have movies too and still close my site down say they would not back up a that only pays them $10 I file a counter-notification and it is in the case and was submited to the courts and the courts keep over looking it. Michael Rossi President InternetMovies.com Inc.
        • Re:Too much power (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dasunt (249686)

          Generally when you sign up with an ISP they reserve the right to take your site down for any reason. Choosing to take your site down even though a proper takedown notice wasn't served doesn't violate the law directly, but the ISP wouldn't have the safe harbor provision to fall back on if they were then sued for breach of contract (but again, if the contract says they can take down your site for any reason, then you're screwed).

          From my limited understanding of contract law, I might have to disagree. Ag

          • Again, IANAL, but I seem to remember that contracts must be done in good faith: depending on the jurisdiction, arbitrary termination is not consider good faith.

            Maybe. I should have said you're probably screwed. It all depends on the jurisdiction and the details of the specific case. In New Jersey, for instance, I believe the contract has to be illegal (as in telling someone to do illegal things, e.g. a contract to kill someone) or "unconscionable" to be unenforcible. Terminating someone's contract (a

        • by netmovies (673178) on Sunday December 26, 2004 @01:48AM (#11183629) Homepage
          Thank you for taking time to post your feelings but some of your facts are not right.

          You can join and get movies online this is a true statement and was not even in the same area of the movie posters that the Hollywood studios send me each week to post on my website. They love the free PR enjoyed it for 2 years 1999-2001. Only when I posted news about movies being downloaded online they try to stop me for telling the world the news I was the 1st to get the news out on that. Note they said that I had Lord of The Rings: Return of The King, The in 2001 that did not come out till Dec. 2003.

          Yes you can download full-length movies online and I link too many of them they are not Hollywood movies and Hollywood does not own the word full-length movies and I did not promise anyone movies on my site you are reading between the lines like the courts and the MPAA.

          "Now Downloadable" I coined the phase and it is mine and does not just mean movies it means trailers too and I was the 1st to use it in commerce. It is like say Now Showing.

          I emailed my ISP and told them I did not have movies and they knew I did not have movies too and still close my site down saying they would not back up a site that only pays them $10 a month. I did file a counter-notification and it is in the case and was submited to the courts and the courts keep over looking it.

          MPAA was trying to put me out of business they just do not like anyone telling the truth about them and they do not own me our my network like the rest that are censoring me that is why you do not see my case in the main news. They can not push the little guys around and that is why I am winning the battle. I am only one man that is back by Members to fight for our rights and not sit around and let their rights be taken way remember that we were supported by the Internet Commerce Coalition (ICC), and NetCoalition.com with amicus briefs. ICC members include AT&T, BellSouth, eBay, MCI, Verizon and others. NetCoalition members include Yahoo!, Lycos, Inktomi and others.

          I have a right to say what ever I please any time and any where I like. That is why I swore to protect the constitution USA form friends and foes and the MPAA and RIAA act like friends but are foes. I do not wish to live in a MPAA world that the lobbyist paid for unconstitutional laws to be passed and to submit to them less my constitutional rights. The very rights that my fellow soldiers our fighting and dieing today over to protect as the MPAA are widdling way the constitution and trying to wiggle their way out of this like a snake. I will fight them to the end I am not driven by greed. I am driven to do the right thing for my members that support this fight and fight for what little rights we have left.

          Michael Jay Rossi
          President
          InternetMovies.com Inc.
          • I did not promise anyone movies on my site you are reading between the lines like the courts and the MPAA.

            You tricked people into thinking they could download movies from your site. According to the court documents you've even admitted this. In my opinion you did so intentionally in order to make a profit.

            I emailed my ISP and told them I did not have movies and they knew I did not have movies too and still close my site down saying they would not back up a site that only pays them $10 a month.

            Makes

            • No one was tricked and that is your MPAA thinking and in the documents I did not admit to this. You are very wrong and you are the one that is trying the trick people into believing missed fact just like the MPAA does. If you do not work for the MPAA you should they will love you.

              My ISP should give anyone they same rights just as the next guy even if the site was free or cost money. Your views on how the world should be our shared with the MPAA and RIAA and most of us on the plant do not share your same id
              • No one was tricked and that is your MPAA thinking and in the documents I did not admit to this.

                Were the judges on the 9th circuit lying when they they said "In fact, Rossi even admitted that his own customers often believed that actual movies were available for downloading on his website."

                • That is Member not Members one member not many.
                  Did you know that Movielink their site only rents movies in the USA but lets others outside the USA order on there site. Many email me telling me about this how they take there money and will not give them their movie they paid for.
                  So you see me as the bad guy take the time to really look at the MPAA. They say they are Nonprofit and Jack pulls in a 7 figure income.
                  • That is Member not Members one member not many.

                    The wording by the 9th circuit was "his own customers often". That would imply it was multiple customers, not a single one.

                    Did you know that Movielink their site only rents movies in the USA but lets others outside the USA order on there site. Many email me telling me about this how they take there money and will not give them their movie they paid for.

                    No, I didn't. Are you trying to explain how two wrongs make a right or something?

                    So you see me as t

                    • Like I said before your posts of misleading the public, name calling, pro MPAA behavior and anti rights has boosted membership support to the site thank you again for your indirect support.

                      Michael Rossi
                      InernetMovies.com Inc.
                    • Thanks I feel the same way to about his posts. There is no need for name calling and all I hope for is the court for make that DMCA fare for us all in the end. Good to see that there is no gray areas here.

                      Michael Rossi
                      InternetMovies.com Inc.
          • (I'm going to lose my positive mod point for one of your posts in this thread but what the hell)

            Rossi, kudos for fighting the good fight. No offense but have you ever stopped to think that the major media outlets might be overlooking your story due to your inability to put together simple sentences? For pete's sake, man. Read the comment I'm replying to. Do you talk in a similar manner? Bush Junior can put together more comprehendable sentences better than you have in this thread. No offense, Rossi

            • Mac Daddy you are right. I just may be the worse speller in the world I admit this. I hope my writing still gets the point across to all. I do speak better then I write. I do pay someone to write the press releases for the company. I do not know why the big media does not do the story on the case just not sure. I will keep trying to do a better job at spelling. Thank you for your input.

              Michael Rossi
              InternetMovies.com Inc.
              • I'm was referring to spelling, grammar and punctuation actually. Don't worry about it too much. We all make mistakes (even I did in my reply to you); I frequently think faster than I type which causes me to leave out words and trailing characters. Nevertheless, good luck fighting the good fight.
      • By the way, here's a Do-It-Yourself Counter Notification Letter [cmu.edu]. Be sure to use it to mitigate your damages if the **AA ever comes after you for something you didn't do.
      • A private organization can *demand* anything. Case in point -- SCO demanding linux licenses

        Well, they wouldn't want to have to sue themselves. Although, there's no such thing as bad publicity...

  • Time travel? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IO ERROR (128968) * <error@iCHICAGOoerror.us minus city> on Saturday December 25, 2004 @05:30PM (#11181981) Homepage Journal
    The MPAA stated, under penalty of perjury, that in 2001 www.InternetMovies.com made available for illegal download the third installment of "The Lord of the Rings," which was not actually finished until 2003. The MPAA issued a cease and desist order to InternetMovies.com's ISP to shut down the site.

    No, it's worse than that. They made a patently false allegation in order to get the site shut down.

    According to Rossi, "MPAA communications with my ISP were unreasonable and outrageous and without just cause or excuse and beyond all bounds of decency -- violating the DMCA. The courts must have overlooked that I could not have made a movie downloadable 3 years in the future, which shows that the MPAA was not within the boundaries of decency and that the court should not have ruled in favor of the MPAA."

    He raises a good question. How could he make a movie available for download before it was even made?

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Obviously you have never seen spaceballs. In a break through of modern technology Mr. Video allows Movies to be rented or purchased before they are finished filming (albeit only in VHS)
    • Re:Time travel? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by anthony_dipierro (543308) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @07:27PM (#11182413) Journal

      How could he make a movie available for download before it was even made?

      Before it was finished. But LoTR was just one of many of the movies listed. The brief only mentions LoTR in one sentence, and the ruling doesn't mention it at all. It's not a very big part of the case.

      I also can't have very much sympathy for this guy. He took money from people who signed up for his service which offered "Join to download full length movies online now! new movies every month"; "Full Length Downloadable Movies"; and "NOW DOWNLOADABLE." This asshole "even admitted that his own customers often believed that actual movies were available for downloading on his website." One lowlife battles a lowlife company to try to get rich quick, and only the ones who make anything are the lowlife lawyers.

      • The other 18 movies they said I had just came out and were listed at the very bottom of the website and 99.9% of my visitors know I did not have movies on my website. There was one email from someone that asked if I had movies on my site and I told the truth in my deposition that is what you should do right tell the truth and that is all I do always on my site. Yes you can download movies online "ONLINE" this means the Internet not my site. As I stated in the post above I was the 1st to post the news about
        • There was one email from someone that asked if I had movies on my site and I told the truth in my deposition that is what you should do right tell the truth and that is all I do always on my site.

          Telling the truth isn't enough. You should tell the whole truth. Maybe not all the time, but certainly under oath and in a business transaction.

          In any case, if you always told the truth, then why did you say that people could download LoTR III if the movie wasn't even made yet?

          So you sound like you like the

          • I do tell the truth call it what you like. To me the truth is the truth and you should be honest all the time in my book. I did not say that anyone could download Lord of the Rings Return of the King the MPAA said that not I. The movie poster for Lord of the Rings Return of the King was there for over a year the Ranger software scanned my site and spit that out to them and they did not review the info on that C&D Letter the Ranger software made. They just signed off on it. It is not what you state about
            • I did not say that anyone could download Lord of the Rings Return of the King the MPAA said that not I.

              And where did they get that idea? They just made it up to try to sue you? Is there a copy of the C&D available somewhere?

              The movie poster for Lord of the Rings Return of the King was there for over a year the Ranger software scanned my site and spit that out to them and they did not review the info on that C&D Letter the Ranger software made.

              Do you have any evidence to back up that accusat

        • I'd expect that the President of a company, any company, would at least be able to handle English to a better degree. (At least , a company based in an English speaking portion of the U.S.)

          Does anything this guy just said make sense?
          • Any one can make a company and call them self president and I need to post that now I made the company Inc. I am not an English teacher and I am not the best speller by no means but I am trying. If something does not make sense to you I will try to help you understand by rewording it. Just let me know what you do not understand.

            Michael Rossi
            InternetMovies.com

            P.S I hold all the titles in the company it is only me here running it all.
        • Now that I've come back to this thread, thank you very much for the invite, moderators who got around to moderating some of my posts...

          "hyperbole" is "a figure of speech which uses exaggeration for emphasis or effect" .. hyperbole is not "take a word and say it means something other then you meant it to be", whatever the hell that means, because it doesn't make much sense the way you said it.
  • by mahesh_gharat (633793) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @05:33PM (#11181990)
    Intead of pouring that much money into the making of LOTR-III, producer of LOTR could have just downloaded it in 2001 itself from www.InternetMovies.com and released it.

    It could have saved his money and everybodies time also. People just don't understand.
  • It's about damn time someone challenged it... 'nuff said.
    • I agree. Its good to see people standing up against corporate bullies. I get sick of the attitude that the MPAA and RIAA display. The attitude of we have millions and we have to make sure we can still make millions so we should sue and create lawsuits to protect it.
      • by XO (250276)
        Sure, but unfortunatly, this guy had posted on the front page of his website "NOW DOWNLOADABLE - FULL LENGTH MOVIES" and then tied it to whatever movies were brand new at the theaters at the time.. now claims that they were two seperate things and that he only provided links to ways to download non-MPAA movies, and news about movies that were new at the theaters.

        This guy, up against the MPAA, is just being a complete and total moron.

        He's cheating people, and expecting them to pay for it now.
        • I been claiming the same thing all the time. Members to the site stay for a very long time if they were upset like you say I would of not made it this far. Name calling is a sign of weakness.

          Michael Rossi
          InternetMovies.com Inc.
  • by Dachannien (617929) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @06:13PM (#11182121)
    It seems to me that this challenge wouldn't strike the entire DMCA, but rather just the smallest portion of it - namely, the ability of copyright holders to make DMCA shutdown requests to ISPs, and then only in cases where no good-faith effort has been made to determine whether or not a violation actually exists.

    Still, any successful attack, even a small one like this, against the DMCA is a good thing. (I also wouldn't mind having the Supremes put another feather in their cap for overturning one more 9th Circus opinion.)

    • the ability of copyright holders to make DMCA shutdown requests to ISPs, and then only in cases where no good-faith effort has been made

      According to the 9th Circuit ruling [findlaw.com], the MPAA did make a good faith effort. Specifically, they said that "the district court properly found that no issue of material fact existed as to MPAA's 'good faith belief' that Rossi's website was infringing upon its copyrighted materials."

      After my brief reading of the facts, I disagree with the 9th circuit here, but I highly dou

      • Your real name would not be Jack or would it? The MPAA did not have a good faith of any kind not subjective not objective they did not do their job right they did not even read the C&D the Ranger spit out at them they just sign off on it. Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights it is called abridging the freedom of speech and by making me find a new ISP is abridging my freedom of speech. They forced me to find a new way to go around them to keep my speech alive. I am sure they hate me being able
        • The MPAA did not have a good faith of any kind not subjective not objective they did not do their job right they did not even read the C&D the Ranger spit out at them they just sign off on it.

          As I've said, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.

          Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights it is called abridging the freedom of speech and by making me find a new ISP is abridging my freedom of speech.

          Do you care to point to some case law which backs that up?

          Marc Brandon from FOX sends an ema

          • 9th Circuit Court is not liked by many. Many know that the 9th Circuit Court is the MPAA court and is their state. I am sure the MPAA can shake the hands of the 9th Circuit they are in the same state. Remember that the 9th Circuit did not look at the evidence. I did not admit to anything there you go again missing the facts I only showed you what the MPAA submitted as evidence to the case. Debra Shapiro was acting on hear say. I did send the counter-notification. Debating with you is like a broken record on
            • 9th Circuit Court is not liked by many.

              More specifically, there are a number of people who dislike a number of their rulings. I put myself in that category. Doesn't mean they've committed reversible error in this case.

              Debra Shapiro was acting on hear say.

              There's nothing illegal about acting on hearsay.

              I did send the counter-notification.

              Your counter-notification was missing a key part.

              I see your getting flames for your ideas.

              From anonymous trolls... Probably you.

              I hate to entrust our rig

              • Take the time to call him then you can work it all out with him. Tell him way you think is wrong and argue your case to him and why you feel the MPAA should win. There does the MPAA let you chat to their lawyer. I am sure you will not call them you just like to hide here and miss all the facts and do name calling all day. For your info they are very nice people and have been very honest with me.

                FOSBINDER & FOSBINDER A LAW CORPORATION
                Jim H. Fosbinder
                415 Dairy Road, Ste. E #336
                Kahului, HI 96732
                By Teleph
                • If they were honest with you then I guess their not going to take any of your money when they enter into a frivolous appeal to the Supreme Court. I have no interest in calling them. They already know they have no chance of winning.
                  • It is not about money Anthony it is about that one chance that small chance the just maybe we can all win one for us all. I will take that chance even if it costs the shirt on my back. I do not care about the money and that is just the kind of guy you need to fight the MPAA. Someone that does not run and hide when they tell you they will take your house and family away from you and all you own. When I die in this life I know I did the right thing. I did not stand on the side lines crying as my rights are be
                    • You've gotta choose your battles. After all, you've only got one everything to give. I think you chose the wrong battle. So far all you've done is strengthened the DMCA. Now if someone who truly is completely innocent comes along, they can't use the same argument as you (at least not in the 9th circuit). You took a chance on winning it for all of us, and you wound up making things worse. Congratulations.

                    • Hello my site did not say it was offering movies. It said you can get movies online. Not Hollywood movies and not on my site. It is ok for the other news sites to report about movies online just not me.

                      Michael Rossi
                      InternetMovies.com Inc.
                    • Well, sounds pretty fair to me. If I "claim" I have heroin for sale, I am likely to get busted even if it is just baking soda. I may not go to jail for selling fake heroin, but I am going to spend a lot of time and money with cops and lawyers. Seems to me that you got your reward for selling fake heroin .... er, movies.

                      Actually, in some jurisdictions, selling a fake version of a controlled substance is still illegal - there are specific laws prohibiting this, and they don't fall under the umbrella of frau
                    • However, the DMCA does permit complainants to effectively censor people via filing complaints (with legal ramifications if the complaints are not addressed by the ISP) whether or not those people are actually infringing on the complainants' copyrights.

                      That's not exactly true. If the ISP ignored the DMCA complaint, they would not have broken any laws. By taking the site down they were protecting themselves from a copyright infringement lawsuit if there was a copyright infringement in the first place, bu

                    • The fight is not over.

                      Michael Rossi
                      InternetMovies.com
                    • It will be when the Supreme Court rejects the case, won't it?
                    • If that happens, Anthony then that will be the end of it. Let us all hope the Supreme Court will here it. I am sure you like to see what they got to say about it all and put it all to rest. Remember a joint amicus brief was filed in my favor for controlling the abuse of "good faith belief" from Internet Commerce Coalition (ICC), and NetCoalition.com (http://www.internetmovies.com/legal.html). ICC members include AT&T, BellSouth, eBay, MCI, Verizon and more. NetCoalition members include Yahoo!, Lycos,
                    • I can't help but laugh. You are a first rate _TROLL_.
  • I can see it now - "Cert denied". How the hell did this make it to the 9th circuit court of appeals in the first place? If the DMCA is unconstitutional, then what grounds does Rossi have for suing the RIAA for violating it? Maybe it's just PrimeZone Media that has no clue what it's talking about. I'm sure the Slashbots will jump on this though. I mean, the guys going up against the MPAA. He must be right!
    • Oh, Anthony you need to get your facts right and I will help you. This case got to the 9th circuit court because my members and I paid for it to be there to kick the MPAA's butts and are still trying we just need to show the courts what liars the MPAA are. I am suing the MPAA not the RIAA ok. PrimeZone is a news wire that I use to try to get the news out there and it costs $400 to do this each time and that is why I ask for membership support. See no big news picks up the story because they are all owned by
      • This case got to the 9th circuit court because my members and I paid for it to be there to kick the MPAA's butts and are still trying we just need to show the courts what liars the MPAA are.

        I didn't realize the 9th circuit had to take all cases presented to them. Fortunately the Supreme Court doesn't.

        I am suing the MPAA not the RIAA ok.

        Yes, I made a typo. Should I point out every one of your grammatical mistakes?

        PrimeZone is a news wire that I use to try to get the news out there and it costs $40

      • I'm sorry, Michael, but every message you write, I want to choke the shit out of you for being such a moron. "big news" is not owned by the MPAA. You are wrong, all you have done is tried to cheat people and now you're trying to get them to pay for your dumb ass.
        • It shows you are both MPAA and RIAA supporters. I am sure they are hiring. It is guys like you and them that are cheating the people out of their rights. You two should write to slashdot and ask them to remove my posts. Your MPAA friend gave you the power to do that now.

          Take care
          Michael Rossi
          InternetMovies.com Inc.

          P.S Thanks to your posts you have boosted membership support to the site thank you for your indirect support.

          • I fucking hate the MPAA, and RIAA. And now, I fucking hate you too. All the same, all attempting to cheat people, IMO.

            Note, I didn't respond to your other childish rants, I didn't even bother to read them.. but since my post got moderated to "INSIGHTFUL" .. (+3) I had to come back and see which one it was.

            Tell me, is English your first language?
    • Hah. It looks like you accidentally typed "circuit" when you meant 9th circus court of appeals. Those guys are lunatics and will turn over any and every ruling that gets put in front of them just because they are that lame.
  • Can I suggest a paypal fund to help pay legal fees. There would be a lot of people out there willing to help. And god knows you will need them taking on the RIAA!
    • MPAA, RIAA whatever lol there all the same :)
    • Let him spend the money he scammed the people registering for his website out of.
    • Thank for your support Kaptink, Yes I let Internet users become members using paypal and it help out a lot and without my Members we would not of have this change of a life time to beat the MPAA. The RIAA is helping the MPAA in trying to beat this case so I am fight them both.

      Anthony you call me names most of your fact are not right that you post and we all see your a MPAA support and love the DMCA you do not need to help with this fight we will all do it for you ok. I am not a scam and do not scam anyone
      • I don't think Anthony is an MPAA supporter. I think he, like me, doesn't like you for other reasons. For example,
        "Join to download full length movies online now! new movies every month"; "Full Length Downloadable Movies"; and "NOW DOWNLOADABLE."
        This from your website before it was shut down.
        • That was a true statement and that was not near the posters that Hollywood sent me for over 2 years. Even if it was by the Hollywood movie posters it still does not give them the right to close down my site and say I have movies from the future. It was very clear and noted that they were links to apple.com trailers giving Hollywood free PR for over two years and they loved it then and love it even more now. They did not have a problem with that tell I reported the news about their movies being downloaded on
  • Questions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slavemowgli (585321) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @07:42PM (#11182483) Homepage
    Well, assuming he didn't actually distribute movies without the respective copyright owners' permission, he's got my full support. Why can a private organization just get a website (any website!) shut down without the facts being checked, without the owner of the site being asked to present his side of the story first, and without actually having to come up with proof that it does do something illegal? And, maybe even more important... why does the MPAA actually lower itself to using false allegations? I can understand that they represent a certain opinion and thus aren't neutral, but that doesn't mean they should use illegitimate or even illegal means to reach their goals, does it? How can they accuse others of doing illegal or illegimate things when they do it themselves? And, in the light of that - why isn't this story on the frontpage?
    • Re:Questions (Score:4, Insightful)

      by anthony_dipierro (543308) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @08:59PM (#11182752) Journal

      Why can a private organization just get a website (any website!) shut down without the facts being checked, without the owner of the site being asked to present his side of the story first, and without actually having to come up with proof that it does do something illegal?

      That's something you should be asking the ISP. It's the ISP which chose to ignore him and shut down his site, after all. Of course, had Rossi sent in a proper counter-notification, the site never would have been taken down in the first place.

      why does the MPAA actually lower itself to using false allegations?

      The guy claimed to have the movies available on his website. In order for the MPAA to check whether or not he was lying (as it turns out he was), they'd have to have paid the guy money to sign up for hihs "service". That's probably why they didn't bother.

      How can they accuse others of doing illegal or illegimate things when they do it themselves?

      Well, according to the 9th circuit, they haven't done anything illegal or illegitimate.

      And, in the light of that - why isn't this story on the frontpage?

      Someone sued the MPAA and lost. They took the case to the 9th circuit court of appeals and lost. They plan to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will most likely reject the case. Why does it belong on the front page, because the lawyer is throwing around the phrase "first amendment"?

      • The guy claimed to have the movies available on his website. In order for the MPAA to check whether or not he was lying (as it turns out he was), they'd have to have paid the guy money to sign up for hihs "service". That's probably why they didn't bother.

        I agree with much of what you have to say, but here I disagree. You should have some proof of wrongdoing before you sue. Just because the guy claimed to be offering the movie for download isn't enough. The fact that at least one of the movies wasn't even
        • The guy claimed to have the movies available on his website. In order for the MPAA to check whether or not he was lying (as it turns out he was), they'd have to have paid the guy money to sign up for hihs "service". That's probably why they didn't bother.

          I agree with much of what you have to say, but here I disagree. You should have some proof of wrongdoing before you sue.

          Well, 1) I didn't say what they did was right, I just said that's probably why they did it; and 2) they didn't sue, they just threate

        • Here you're wrong as well. Assuming that he was not violating the law, this is a significant first ammendment issue. The MPAA can't stifle his right to free speech on the off chance that he might be violating the law.

          Well. 1) The MPAA didn't stifle his speech. They convinced the ISP to stop facilitating his speech. 2) Even if the MPAA did stifle his speech, it still wouldn't be a First Amendment issue, because the First Amendment applies to government abridgement of speech. If I cover your mouth whi

          • If the MPAA could use the (US Congress) DMCA to stifle his free speach via his ISP, then the DMCA is unconstitutional. Simple.
            • If the MPAA could use the (US Congress) DMCA to stifle his free speach via his ISP, then the DMCA is unconstitutional.

              True. But they didn't and couldn't. They just told an untruth (Rossi would call it a lie) to his ISP claiming that they could.

              If I tell slashdot that I'll sue them for murderr unless they remove your post, does that mean that the laws against murder are unconstitutional?

        • The issue with verification and paying to register is handled with the takedown notice. If you are doing something wrong, it comes down. If you aren't you file the proper paperwork contesting it and two things happen: everyone is paying attention and the site doesn't get taken down. Period. Then comes the investigation and arguing about what constitutes violation of licenses and copyrights.

          What this doofus did was mis-file the paperwork so his site got taken down. And then he wants to complain about th

    • Anthony your facts are not right again. The MPAA forced my ISP to close my site down here is the letter that they sent to the ISP they did not just email them a C&D letter they called the ISP and order them to close my site down. Then they mailed a signed letter ordering the ISP to close the site down. "Without addressing the merits of your arguments, please be advised again that pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, you are required to disable access to this site in an expeditious matter on
  • by laughingcoyote (762272) <{moc.eticxe} {ta} {lwohtsehgrab}> on Sunday December 26, 2004 @01:15AM (#11183560) Journal

    Actually, the Supreme Court may well rule against this, and I hope they do. The Court has ruled, over and over again, that "prior restraint" (being prevented from saying something before even saying it) is generally not acceptable, [eff.org] except in the most extreme cases.

    Excerpted from the decision cited above:

    "Although the Sixth Circuit in Procter & Gamble has held that a defendant's improper conduct in obtaining confidential information does not justify a prior restraint, the legal system may yet provide redress through criminal prosecution, if such is found to be warranted by the underlying facts."

    What does this say? Even though the speech above may be CRIMINAL in nature (extortionist, read the page to find more detail), and even though it overwhelmingly appears that the information he is publishing are trade secrets which Ford can successfully sue him for, he CANNOT be prohibited from publishing them by injunction.

    Of course, this does not mean that he may not be sued and/or prosecuted if and when he DOES, if what he is publishing violates the law. But the Court's precedents are clear: Prior restraint is unconstitutional except in the most extreme cases, e.g. someone is about to publish a planned movement of troops in the paper or on a website. This case, as with the Lane case, only establishes that monetary/commercial losses may result. The Court has ruled very clearly that this is not even a valid reason for a court or Congress to issue prior restraint. Do we wish to give a corporation powers that we would not even grant to our judges and legislators?

    The **AA's should have the same standard as anyone else. If you feel that some published speech "damages" you, you have two options. The first option, and probably the best, especially if you feel that they might've accidentally violated the law, is to send a cease-and-desist letter to the PERSON running the website. As to the "But the ISP's won't give us the identity of their customers to send letters to!" I say "GOOD!" That doesn't mean you can't contact them. Most websites have an email link to the site admin, and if not, I would think it acceptable to put a provision in the law that ISP's must forward legal correspondence regarding a website they host to that site's owner. This policy would have two positive effects: The copyright holders would be served by being immediately able to contact suspected infringers, and the consumer would benefit from greater anonymity and the taking of excessive power from the **AA's.

    Of course, the second option is to take the webmaster directly to court. If the court finds the site to be infringing, they will issue an injunction ordering the webmaster to take down all infringing material, as well as possibly awarding damages. However, this should not happen until AFTER a trial has been held, or a settlement reached.

    • Prior restraint is somewhat of a reach here, but OK. The problem is that in the "Digital Millenium" your idea of:

      Of course, the second option is to take the webmaster directly to court. If the court finds the site to be infringing, they will issue an injunction ordering the webmaster to take down all infringing material, as well as possibly awarding damages. However, this should not happen until AFTER a trial has been held, or a settlement reached.

      doesn't work. It takes too long. The damage has been do

      • The MPAA are the doofus here saying I had movies from the future. I am a bad writer and it will be hard to write a book about it all. I am 38 years old and live on Maui. Yes the site was backed up but that is not the point. I did show them I did not have infringing content I call them they did not answer and I emailed the ISP too. It is not a made-up story it is a fact they are censoring the story and the case. Yes I am the little guy.

        Michael Rossi
        InternetMovies.com Inc.

COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra

Working...