Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Music Piracy The Courts Idle

Music Festival Producer Pre-Sues Bootleggers 422

Posted by samzenpus
from the nipped-in-the-bud dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Music Festival Producer Pre-Sues Bootleggers

Comments Filter:
  • by SoupGuru (723634) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:04PM (#33221048)
    Fuck this, I'm moving to Belize.
  • by twidarkling (1537077) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:05PM (#33221054)

    You can sue people for things they haven't done yet? Well fuck. HEY GATES! I'm suing you for slandering me! You haven't done it yet, but YOU MIGHT.

    • by Anonymusing (1450747) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:08PM (#33221132)

      There are more likely situations... e.g. suing Facebook or Google for privacy violations... or Toyota for automotive failure... oil companies for spills...

      • Yeah, but since we're suing for things that haven't happened yet, and it's proceeding on the basis of the other person not showing up, well, Gates isn't likely to show up, and he's got deep pockets, you know...

      • by epp_b (944299)

        There are more likely situations... e.g. suing Facebook or Google for privacy violations... or Toyota for automotive failure... oil companies for spills...

        That doesn't make them any more legitimate.

    • by Red Flayer (890720) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:10PM (#33221180) Journal

      You can sue people for things they haven't done yet?

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @05:54PM (#33222608)

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Yvanhoe (564877)
        Okay, here is what needs to be done, spread the word : People who go to Mile High Music Festival with their cellphone have the risk of it being seized. you may be one of the happy 200 winners of an abuse of copyright enforcement. I hope the music and the price of the ticket were really worth it.
      • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @06:05PM (#33222740)

        For one, injunctions against John Does are rare to be granted. Second they aren't asking for an injunction, they are asking for an injunction, federal marshals for enforcement, monetary damages and attorneys fees.

        • by BitterOak (537666) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @08:03PM (#33223728)

          For one, injunctions against John Does are rare to be granted. Second they aren't asking for an injunction, they are asking for an injunction, federal marshals for enforcement, monetary damages and attorneys fees.

          If no one actually bootlegs the event, who pays the monetary damages and attorney fees?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by AmberBlackCat (829689)
            And who pays for the federal marshals?
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by jimicus (737525)

            If no one actually bootlegs the event, who pays the monetary damages and attorney fees?

            If no-one actually bootlegs the event, there will be no monetary damages and the billions of dollars the record industry will make from selling nothing but legitimate recordings will more than compensate them for attorney fees. In fact, they should have enough left over to buy Belgium and make "Baby One More Time" the new national anthem.

          • by FreeUser (11483) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @04:08AM (#33226008)

            If no one actually bootlegs the event, who pays the monetary damages and attorney fees?

            The innocent single mother whose daughter's IP address is "erroneously" identified as an offender (more accurately: framed for the offense), and is forced to settle for a few thousand or face permanent bankruptcy.

            Welcome to twenty-first century justice American Style(tm), where you've been found guilty, before you even get out of bed, of a dozen offenses you've never committed. Land of the Free, home of the Brave (as they cower before a legion of Hollywood attorneys and FBI agents jumping over the trussed up bodies of thousands of missing persons to get to hypothetical copyright violators before they get a chance to prove their innocence, but I digress).

      • Will not hold up (Score:5, Informative)

        by vivin (671928) <vivin.paliathNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @07:00PM (#33223298) Homepage Journal

        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:Will not hold up (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @10:15PM (#33224568)

          IANAL but my cousin is and this is what he had to say . . .

          I'm sure your cousin is a very fine lawyer. But, he obviously didn't bother looking through the case filings on PACER [pacer.gov]. I can't say I blame him, since it does cost $0.08 per page to view most filings (although opinions are often free and you don't pay anything if you don't incur at least $10 worth of views).

          If your cousin had gone through the filings, he would have found that similar complaints wwer filed last year (09-cv-01386 and 09-cv-01185, both in Colorado). In both cases, the judge issued an order to the John Doe/XYZ Co. defendants to show cause why an injunction shouldn't be issued. Sure, someone could have shown up to say "the court doesn't have jurisdiction yet because we have not done anything." But, it doesn't look like anyone did.

          Maybe someone will show up this time, perhaps to argue that goods they plan to sell do not infringe on the plaintiff's trademarks. All they have to do is talk with "the Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Chief United States District Court Judge, in
          Courtroom A1002 of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, located at 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado on Tuesday August 31, 2010, at 11:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard."

          It is unlikely that anyone will show up. The judge will probably issue the injunction, enabling the plaintiffs to coordinate seizures of counterfeit goods being sold near and even in the upcoming concert. The people who have their goods seized can fight back in court and even seek damages if the seizures prove wrongful. But, they will probably claim that they don't have identification, provide fake names, or just run away (at least that is what the plaintiff says has happened in the past).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by spazdor (902907)

      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?

      • by by (1706743) (1706744) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:23PM (#33221442)

        Everything I thought I knew about civil law...

        You "thought" you knew? So you're admitting to having acquired knowledge which could have been taught at law school, yet you did not pay any law-school tuition? Thought-crime alert -- somebody sue this guy!

      • by Rary (566291) * on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:27PM (#33221488)

        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.

      • by Red Flayer (890720) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:31PM (#33221582) Journal
        IANAL.

        They're not suing "no one in particular". They are suing individuals who are not yet identified for an action that has not yet occurred, to enable law enforcement to prevent that action from occurring.

        I personally think that's fine, as long as they pay the bill for that law enforcement.

        Or they could do what other private event festivals do -- pay for security staff that toss out anyone selling infringing goods, and accept the fact that people are going to sell stuff outside the venue (in which case, they often call the cops to enforce street sales licenses, area zoning, whatever can be used to get those people away from the venue).
        • They're not suing "no one in particular". They are suing individuals who are not yet identified for an action that has not yet occurred, to enable law enforcement to prevent that action from occurring.

          Is it just me, or does that sound like a universe destroying paradox? It's at least going to be the end of our solar system I fear.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NFN_NLN (633283)

      You can sue people for things they haven't done yet? Well fuck. HEY GATES! I'm suing you for slandering me! You haven't done it yet, but YOU MIGHT.

      They've been doing it for a while. When an officer charges someone for resisting arrest and nothing else. Figure out that paradox.

      • by jgtg32a (1173373)
        What you are arrested for and what you are charged with are two separate things
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by superdave80 (1226592)

        No paradox. Officer gets a report of a burglary. He see's that you fit the description. He attempts to arrest you. You resist. He hauls you to jail. Later they realize that you aren't the burglar. They still charge you with resisting arrest, and nothing else.

      • by Locke2005 (849178) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:31PM (#33221588)
        At least in California, it is unlawful to arrest somebody for resisting arrest without any additional charges. That is why they always charge you with "disturbing the peace" whenever they order you to do something and you question their authority to order you to do it. Remember: when 4 police officers burst into your bedroom through a locked door in the middle of the night, push you back onto your bed, hold you down and burn your leg with a lit cigar, you are "disturbing the peace" when you cry out in pain.
    • by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:17PM (#33221318) Homepage Journal

      The heck with slander. I'm gonna proactively sue him for raping my goat. And I don't even HAVE a goat.

      Yet.

    • I'm suing you for slandering me! You haven't done it yet, but YOU MIGHT.

      If I slander you in the future it will be for good reason. I am countersuing you for the libelous press release that you might issue if you lose.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by SimonInOz (579741)

      If your name actually IS Jane Doe, can you counter sue?

  • Oh, well.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jd (1658) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {kapimi}> on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:06PM (#33221088) Homepage Journal

    In that case, would pre-suing John and Jane Doe for a fatal accident/injury be cheaper than taking out life insurance? I'm fairly sure lawsuits pay out more.

  • Pre-emptive lawsuits (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymusing (1450747) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:06PM (#33221100)

    Wait... they're suing anonymous people for things they haven't done yet? Who exactly is being served the suit?

    • by jd (1658) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {kapimi}> on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:10PM (#33221164) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by caffiend2049 (984834)
        but how do you present evidence when there is none??
        This is completely laughable and should be thrown out....a complete waste of time and money.
      • by JimWise (1804930) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:25PM (#33221464)

        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.

        Well, as far as I was aware John/Jane Doe cases are filed for crimes already committed, but by people whose exact identity is not yet known. This goes a LARGE step farther since the crime has not yet been committed, and is not even guaranteed to be committed. This is a slick trick to get the taxpayers to provide the extra security and snooping for them. I understand John/Jane Doe cases where it is clear a crime has been committed, but to file a lawsuit before the supposed crime can even be committed let alone proven to have occurred seems to go well beyond the intent of any law and should not be permitted. Planning to commit a felony is against the law in itself, so those sorts of situations are already covered, as long as it can be proved that the plans were actually in place.

        • by broken_chaos (1188549) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:30PM (#33221558)

          My understanding is that whenever someone is named as John or Jane Doe their identity is not known, as you said. Not that they are everyone, but that they could be anyone.

          In other words, they're a specific, yet unknown, person from the time the court case is filed onward. A very simple defense against this lawsuit should be to note the filing date/time and that you had not yet visited their music festival at that time (provable by virtue of it simply not having happened yet) and therefore could not be one of the 200 specific, but unknown, people that the case is against.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by vux984 (928602)

          This is a slick trick to get the taxpayers to provide the extra security and snooping for them.

          They are trying to nab fly-by-night (literally) vendors of unauthorized / counterfeit goods.

          These people don't have business address, name tags, and take cash. They are clearly in the wrong here. Shouldn't there be some sort of appropriate method of suing them for the trademarks violated, and the counterfeit goods they are hawking?

          I understand John/Jane Doe cases where it is clear a crime has been committed, but t

      • I get that John and Jane Doe could be sued with judgement pending positive identification; but how can they be sued pending the discovery of any evidence that a transgression has been committed? What are they actually going to have to talk about in court?
      • by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:27PM (#33221486)

        What about the issue of time though? You're suing people for doing something at an event that hasn't even taken place yet. How are they even allowed to file that suit? I understand not having a specific target for the suit, but how can you sue someone for doing something in the future?

  • Will Tom Cruise show up to arrest me?

  • by UnAbsolute (1085113) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:09PM (#33221160)
    I'm going to sue for my own wrongful death right now.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Surt (22457)

      And conveniently, just like the labels, you can collect immediately after the crime occurs.
      Now what was your address again?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:10PM (#33221166)

    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).

    • by BobMcD (601576)

      Is it a two-party state, though?

    • by Red Flayer (890720) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:23PM (#33221438) Journal
      Way to RTFA, bucko.

      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.
  • by nomadic (141991)
    It's an invalid lawsuit, any reasonable judge is going to toss this thing right out.
    • Re:hah (Score:5, Funny)

      by jd (1658) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {kapimi}> on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:13PM (#33221238) Homepage Journal

      Yeah, but the last reasonable judge retired some time in the 1400s.

    • Re:hah (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:16PM (#33221296) Homepage Journal

      Yes, but that is after your home is ransacked, your belongings destroyed/taken, your dogs killed, lose your job while you sit in jail, and your life pretty much ruined. Also you better hope they don't find anything else while they do their searches like that movie screener you got from a friend.

      Personally this is scary nuts that it wasn't tossed out the second this was filed. The attorneys should be dis-barred and the judge toss in jail. This NOT how the American legal system works and is total abuse of it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nomadic (141991)
        Personally this is scary nuts that it wasn't tossed out the second this was filed. The attorneys should be dis-barred and the judge toss in jail.

        Huh? The judges should be held accountable because someone filed a lawsuit with the court clerk's office, even though the judge hasn't even seen it yet?
  • Prediction (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:10PM (#33221184)

    That this guy's lawyer is given exactly 5 second before a judge before either (a) being dismissed, or (b) being fined for abuse of process.

    I hope.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by SudoGhost (1779150)
      Here's the part that confuses me the most:

      6. Defendants, and each of them, are individuals and business entities who, upon information and belief, are acting in concert and active participation with each other in committing the wrongful acts alleged herein.

      Now, by reading the legal document included in TFA, I learned that they aren't worried about people bootlegging the music (for once), but worried about selling t-shirts and stuff with the music festival name on it. Not as interesting. But unless every single person selling a "fake t-shirt" came in one big van and are working together, doesn't the bit above make it invalid?

  • This gave me an idea that goes a long way toward solving the RIAA and MPAA lawsuit abuses, while still protecting the rights holders. Simply eliminate all John/Jane doe lawsuits, period.
  • does that mean since he's pre-filing on crimes yet to be committed when someone actually does bootleg and gets caught they get to go free because of double jeopardy?

  • Thrown Out (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Renraku (518261) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:14PM (#33221256) Homepage

    This should be thrown out and not allowed to be filed in court again.

    This is exactly like me calling the police and reporting my car stolen, so when they arrive to take a statement, I point to my car and tell them that it might be stolen later that night so they're going to have to sit around and wait for it to happen.

  • Here's the thing, I wasn't *thinking* about bootlegging anything until I read this article. Now I can't not think about it, it's been planted in my mind and I fear I'm now going to get sued! Arrgggghhhh!
  • by apenzott (821513) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:14PM (#33221268)

    I would like to see a John/Jane Doe counter-sue the promoter and request an injunction to prevent the event from happening. Using the **AA logic against them, canceling the event and refunding all the sold tickets and paying the resultant venue cancellation fees would be far less costly than dealing with the resultant piracy with very little hope of cost recovery from said lawsuit.

  • by The Pirou (1551493) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:16PM (#33221298)
    Should this move actually be legal, I envision the arrests and ejection from the show of many people simply pulling out their phone at the wrong time.

    So if I call and leave a voice message on CowboyNeal's phone with whatever music in the background, then would CowboyNeal be the guilty party for having the device that actually recorded said few seconds of BG noise, or would I be held liable for being the party that initiated the ability for CN's phone to record the message by dialing him in the first place?

    And secondly, should they move to prosecute some of the John Doe's for something of this trivial nature, are they then out of luck in going after CowboyNeal if they've already chased down 100 other John Doe types who were less elusive?
  • Bogus complaint (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RichMan (8097) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:17PM (#33221310)

    How can this even be moving forward. You can't bootleg something that has not happened yet.

    Therefore the complaint is bogus.

    Any citizen in the city should phone and complain to their representative about the waste of resources.

    The producer AEG should be charged with filing a bogus complaint and made to pay for all the actions taken plus a penatly.

  • by BobMcD (601576) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:21PM (#33221382)

    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.

  • I think it's wonderful that women are now considered equals when it comes to violating copyrights. You go girl!
  • by Bob_Who (926234) <Bob&who,net> on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:26PM (#33221480) Homepage Journal

    Rock promoters fear one thing: lawsuits. If this idiot wants to play lawsuit wars, he will not survive another season. Rock concerts like this have much bigger problems traditionally, and perhaps instead of "tapers" he'd prefer the good old days of broken glass whiskey bottles, date rape, stampedes, and under aged drinking and overdosing. This summer many died in Germany in a poorly managed crowd. The fact is that if this turkey thinks there is money to be made in lawsuits, than I say sue this idiot until he can no longer afford to obtain an insurance rider. The fact is that the current generation of parents were some of the woodstockers and Deadheads that perfected the art of concert going. But I remeber when I was promoting concerts in LA in 1980-3 that parents were not so cool, and that a cut on the foot due to broken glass at the venue was enough to swallow the profit margin of a sold out concert. Lets remind these idiots who the customer is, and what will happen to anyone who thinks that suing the customer is a good business plan. And while you're at it, this is a call to all tapers to circulate Denver and to guarantee a "Streisand Effect" on the sound boards. He'll have fun suing the entire planet while watching sales drop. We need another Bill Graham, not another Clear Channel-like corporate scum sucking maggot. Rock on, and let the music never stop.

  • One less concert I'll be going to from here on out.
  • by handy_vandal (606174) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @04:41PM (#33221720) Homepage Journal

    I think Frank Zappa put it well ...:

    "This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER...it is my responsibility to enforce all the laws that haven't been passed yet. It is also my responsibility to alert each and every one of you to the potential consequences of various ordinary everyday activities you might be performing which could eventually lead to *The Death Penalty* (or affect your parents' credit rating). Our criminal institutions are full of little creeps like you who do wrong things...and many of them were driven to these crimes by a horrible force called MUSIC!

    "Our studies have shown that this horrible force is so dangerous to society at large that laws are being drawn up at this very moment to stop it forever! Cruel and inhuman punishments are being carefully described in tiny paragraphs so they won't conflict with the Constitution (which, itself, is being modified in order to accommodate THE FUTURE).

    "I bring you now a special presentation to show what can happen to you if you choose a career in MUSIC...The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only...if you have to load or unload, go to the WHITE ZONE... you'll love it...it's a way of life...Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...Hi, it's me, I'm back. This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER...The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only...If yah gotta load, or if yah gotta unload, go to the WHITE ZONE. You'll love it...it's a way of life. That's right, you'll love it, it's a way of life, that's right, you'll love it, it's a way of life, you'll love it. This, is, the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER!"

    -- Source [science.uva.nl]

  • Mike Masnick? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by brit74 (831798) on Wednesday August 11, 2010 @05:14PM (#33222152)
    Christ, almighty, slashdot. RTFA:

    Plaintiff is engaged in promoting a music festival known as the “MILE HIGH MUSIC FESTIVAL” (the "Festival") and also is in the business of manufacturing, distributing and selling of various types of merchandise sold and distributed at the Festival including but not limited to tour and program books, T-shirts, jerseys, sweatshirts, hats, buttons and posters which embody the trademarks of the Festival (collectively “Festival Merchandise”)."
    ...
    Plaintiff possesses the exclusive right to utilize all trademarks, service- marks, logos and other indicia of the Festival on and in connection with Festival Merchandise sold and offered for sale in the vicinity of the Festival (collectively the “Festival Trademarks”). Plaintiff uses its Festival Trademarks on officially authorized goods and services.
    ...
    On August 14 and 15, 2010 at the Dick’s Sporting Goods Park, in Commerce City, Colorado, the Festival will occur. Only Plaintiff has the right to sell merchandise bearing the Festival Trademarks at and near the Festival.

    On information and belief, Defendants will sell and distribute unauthorized T-shirts, jerseys, and other merchandise bearing any or all of the Festival Trademarks (the "Unauthorized Merchandise") in the vicinity of the Festival before, during and after their performances.

    Mike Masnick is a horrible, horrible source of information. He's quite the font of misinformation, however. Whoever approves these articles on slashdot needs to get their head on straight and understand that Slashdot, as a source of information, declines in credibility every time they cite Mike Masnick. Slashdot looks more and more like some "out-of-touch-with-reality but confirming everyone's biases and making them angry" news source everyday.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie

Working...