Music Festival Producer Pre-Sues Bootleggers 422
An anonymous reader writes "Apparently, if you even have been *thinking* about bootlegging the Mile High Music Festival this coming weekend in Denver you've already been sued. No joke. Event producer AEG has already filed trademark infringement claims against 100 John Does and 100 Jane Does in anticipation that they're going to bootleg the event. Since none of the sued parties have actually done anything yet, no one's showing up in court to protest the lawsuit either, so it moves forward... meaning that AEG can use it to get all sorts of law enforcement officials (US Marshals, local and state police and even off-duty officers) to go seize bootleg material."
Re:Pre-emptive lawsuits (Score:4, Informative)
John/Jane Doe cases happen all the time. It's presumed that the identity of the person can, at some point, be established. I assume between pre-trial and actual trial, since a person has a right to defend themselves, but I'm not sure it's wise to take that on trust any more. However, all you have to do is find a way to put the case on hold indefinitely and you've a court case you can unleash on anyone at any time.
The difference between recording and bootlegging (Score:5, Informative)
Bootlegging is the illegal *sale* of recordings.
Merely making recordings is not illegal, even if the promoter doesn't want it to happen. Many court cases have upheld that right. Many sites allow the legal sharing of those recordings (archive.org, etree.org).
Re:You've got to be shitting me. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it happens all the time in IP-related cases, in the form of an injunction.
The only difference here is that the Festival owners don't know who is going to try to infringe their IP, so they need to get the injunction against John & Jane Does.
It's pretty standard fare, really.
The suit is about the MERCHANDISE, not copywright (Score:5, Informative)
According to AEG's new complaint, "only the plaintiff has the right to sell merchandise bearing the Festival Trademarks at and near the Festival."
This situation is what you get when you submit some bloggers opinion of an article, rather than the actual article. The blog even uses the word 'trademark', but somehow this got transformed from 'bootlegging merchandise AT the event' to 'bootlegging recordings OF the event'.
Idiocracy.
And considering that the t-shirts and whatnot have already been printed the entire issue of 'thought crime' goes out the window as well. There's every reason to believe that people will be abusing the trademark and selling unauthorized merchandise at and around the event, and every reason for the court to grant injunctive relief against it.
Unless we're transitioning into a world where rights-holders cannot even object to physical trade of knock-off products, I think a lot of the commenters here need to apologize to somebody.
Re:The difference between recording and bootleggin (Score:5, Informative)
This is not about bootleg recordings. This is about bootleg merchandise (e.g., "Mile High Music Festival" t-shirts sold by someone other than the owner of the "Mile High Music Festival" trademark owner, with no royalties to the trademark owner.
Re:You've got to be shitting me. (Score:5, Informative)
Everything I thought I knew about civil law tells me that this is not a suit that you're allowed to file. Any lawyers around care to weigh in? Are you allowed to sue no one in particular?
If you read the article (the real one [hollywoodreporter.com], not the article about the article that's linked in the summary), this has been done before by UMG, and apparently they were successful. So now AEG is giving a try, too.
Read much? (Score:2, Informative)
Wow. Slashdot journalism at play again. Anyone bother to read the complaint that was filed? It had ZERO to do with recording the music. It had EVERYTHING to do with people selling apparel. The company has US trademarks/copyrights and have filed under class 25 for apparel. This suit is to STOP people from trying to sell unlicensed clothing.
RTFsuit :)
Re:You've got to be shitting me. (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't this exactly the same as police officers having "quotas" of tickets to write?
No, the quotas are like "Get out there and find actual infringement (parking/speeding), with evidence (witness or radar gun). Ostensibly, an officer can't write a ticket for "going 80 in a 65mph zone", file in traffic court, and then wait until it happens to tell the newly-found offender that their court date was yesterday.
case or controversy (Score:2, Informative)
obwiki [wikipedia.org]
Until there is an actual incident to sue over, they are not supposed to have standing to sue, due to lack of ripeness.
Re:You've got to be shitting me. (Score:4, Informative)
I've been to plenty of events where there are officers in uniform maintaining security, etc. And guess what? The event host pays for that.
It's not uncommon in NYC, for events like launch parties, etc.
Re:You've got to be shitting me. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it happens all the time in IP-related cases, in the form of an injunction.
The only difference here is that the Festival owners don't know who is going to try to infringe their IP, so they need to get the injunction against John & Jane Does.
It's pretty standard fare, really.
Your comment is mostly correct, but a bit disingenous. This "John Doe injunction" has been available in a number of countries for years (like hundreds), its use for IP cases (and any cases at all*) is quite contemporary, and saying its pretty standard fare kinda makes it sound like this is just taken without controversy in the legal world for handling day to day civil issues. This is definitely not the case. The use has been on the rise and it has piqued the interest and derision of a number of legal professionals and scholars.
* For example, the first time it was used for anything in the UK after 1852 was in 2003 (about Harry Potter) (http://www.uea.ac.uk/law/resources/8-02.htm) its use then started to become more trendy.
Re:You've got to be shitting me. (Score:4, Informative)
Will not hold up (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL but my cousin is and this is what he had to say:
(02:49:23 PM) PP: yeah
(02:49:34 PM) PP: well
(02:51:06 PM) PP: the issue you run into here is that in order to be heard you need to have a case in controversy, the issue has to be ripe
(02:51:36 PM) PP: if some one is about to do something that may hurt your business or place an undue burden on you, can file for an injunction
(02:52:37 PM) PP: to stop them from doing it
(02:52:46 PM) PP: now what you have sent me does not seem like it will hold up
(02:52:53 PM) PP: because there is no case in controversy
(02:53:00 PM) PP: if something hasn't happened you can't sue them
(02:53:27 PM) PP: for example I can sue you for wrecking my car if it has not even happened yet
(02:53:33 PM) PP: I can't*
(02:54:08 PM) PP: I don't see why a judge would accept this lawsuit
(02:54:20 PM) PP: there are is only one party
(02:54:27 PM) PP: judge would for sure throw this out
(02:56:07 PM) PP: Now if the suit is for past action but you don't know exactly who they are, you can sue Jane and John Doe
(02:56:29 PM) PP: and then try to discover who they are throughout the process
(02:56:46 PM) PP: I would imagine this would be so your Statutes of Limitation on your claim would not run out
(02:57:12 PM) PP: So for example if you get in a car wreck and have no clue who the person is cause the y ran away, you basically have two years to file a claim
(02:57:48 PM) PP: by calling them John or Jane Doe you are including them and preserving your rights
(02:57:54 PM) PP: to sue
(03:08:23 PM) PP: All this suit pretty much is is a way to scare off furture bootleggers letting them know they will be sued if caught. By getting this publicity they will get their message across
(03:09:42 PM) PP: it hasn't been filed cause there is no case number, its just a template and they are threatening to use it if something comes up, that is we will insert your name here, so don't do it
(03:11:05 PM) PP: All you need to take away from this is that it is not a lawsuit yet since it has not been filed, rather its just a warning of what they will file if you get caught.
Re:You've got to be shitting me. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You've got to be shitting me. (Score:2, Informative)
People being wounded or killed by illegal police action is far from new.
Re:You've got to be shitting me. (Score:3, Informative)
"If the cops arrest an innocent person, then the arrest wasn't valid. Thus, resisting it was justified."
First, you have no idea what a 'valid arrest' is. Second, this ain't 'Minority Report'. The cops don't KNOW if you are innocent or guilty at the time of the arrest. They simply arrest a likely suspect if they have sufficient evidence on hand at the time. By your logic, everybody should fight arrest, every time. Because, hey, I'm 'innocent'.
And why do you think being arrested is some type of horrible event that must be fought? An arrest is nothing more than taking you in for proper booking, questioning, etc. Arrest and imprisonment are NOT the same thing.
Re:You've got to be shitting me. (Score:3, Informative)
IANAC(op), but I have a few friends who are around the country. AFAIK when police officers do this, its entirely voluntary (i.e. no officer is "assigned" to such a rent-a-cop task typically) and it can only be done as overtime (i.e. when an officer is not scheduled for regular duty). These rules are in place specifically to prevent private interests from taking away from the regular police force on hand at any time.