Shut-Down Movie Site Promises MPAA Court Fight 96
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."
Prior restraint, no oversight? (Score:3, Informative)
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:
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.
Some of your facts are not right (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Here is more facts form me Michael Rossi (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.internetmovies.com/mpaaletter/mpaale
I did send the ISP the counter-notification and it was submitted as evidence to the courts and they keep over looking the fact of the case like you.
NOTE: I did not claim to have movies on my website. I only claimed that you could download movies online and find the information in my website by being a member and I was doing that for over 2 years and they did not get upset tell I started reporting the news about movies on the Internet Hollywood does not own all the movies in the world ok and the are not the world nor gods.
All they needed to do is read the site and they knew that I did not have movies they said so in the case and admitted that. They made a mistake and are using the good faith thing to try to get off the hook.
9th circuit did not look at the evidence I am not sure if they even read all the paper work and you did not see the judge smiling at the MPAA when they walked out the court room like thinking do not worry we got your back MPAA.
I am not on the FrontPage because of their corporate censorship. Note a reporter called me form ABC and did an hour
Interview with me and asked me to email him the DMCA things I had and I did and called him back and he told me that he could not get the emails and can not run the story because ABC is owned by Disney and Disney is the MPAA and they put me on a Black list. So that is why. They like to keep you asleep when taking your rights away when you sleep. Snakes.
The MPAA did commit perjury they did act in bad faith. I do not have a time machine and that is a fact.
The MPAA did break the DMCA law the courts seem to over look the facts and the evidence.
Here is the C&D Letter for you to look at.
http://www.internetmovies.com/mpaaletter/mpaaem
Michael Jay Rossi
President
InternetMovies.com Inc.