USCG Sues Copyright Defense Lawyer 360
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."
Erm...what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
*settles back with some popcorn*
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
When the law is outlawed, only the criminals will know the law.
Wait, what?
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
So... they think defending yourself is against the law now, or something? Or informing other people on how to defend themselves?
That's right. This is a religious battle. Therefore, it's not a matter of conflicting interests or disagreement or dispute. Nope, it transcends all of that. Clearly anything that interferes with their sacred agenda is EVIL! It is their holy crusade, and probably the only purpose in their sad little lives.
Just a drop in a big, heavy, overflowing bucket of reasons why I refuse to purchase RIAA/MPAA entertainment. I'd consider it, if it didn't go to fund pathological bullshit like this. And if all current management were rendered jobless and penniless and all draconian copyright laws repealed, with the addition of penalties for the lobbies and politicians who pushed for them. Since that's not likely to happen due to this aversion towards justice that's currently all the rage, my purchasing decisions are rendered easier.
USCG branches out (Score:5, Insightful)
USCG Sues Copyright Defense Lawyer
Am I the only one who read that headline and wondered why the United States Coast Guard was getting involved in copyright lawsuits?
Reverse the Sanctions (Score:5, Insightful)
Good . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Ok, someone who understands this stuff... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ok im waiting. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Stupid new mod system. I tried to mod insightful, but missed and hit redundant. Post to undo.
Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? I d (Score:3, Insightful)
Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? I don't think you can shut down a attorney like this. Prisons have tried to limit inmate access to court / filing lawsuits and the courts have said they can't do that.
Re:Erm...what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me see the logic here (Score:5, Insightful)
Their legal team and/or cases sucked so much that they got their asses handed to them by untrained defendants using boilerplate this guy wrote.
So now they want to sue him directly, after he already owned them by proxy, with a case that seems even more hilariously unjustified. What are they going to pin on him? Selling standard legal advice?
Yeah, good luck.
Re:Erm...what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Erm...what? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that would be ludicrous. The USCG is suing Syfert for costing them money which is not criminal but a civil matter. Unfortunately, you can sue for anything. The USCG has shown that they are a litigious group. Really this doesn't surprise me at all.
Their problem is that by costing them money, Syfert hasn't actually done anything wrong. It is perfectly legal for Syfert to sell these self-help booklets; even if it is not legal, they have no standing to sue. Only a buyer who let's say paid $20 and got rubbish advice would have standing to sue for that. The cost to them is not caused by Syfert, it is caused by the defendants defending themselves, and that is just what you have to expect when you sue someone; they will try to defend themselves. Perfectly legal and expected.
Re:Wait... (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.
Re:Good . . . (Score:1, Insightful)
Perhaps we can speed the Streisand effect along a bit: http://store.payloadz.com/details/842325-Other-Files-Documents-and-Forms-Pro-Se-Basic-Motion-to-Quash-Package-On-Sale-Discount-.html [payloadz.com]
I'd pretty much consider the $20 a donation to a worthy legal cause [jacksonvil...efense.org] and the legal documents as just icing on the cake.
Re:Erm... bad reporting (Score:1, Insightful)
So, according to these USCG clowns, providing a working defence to the opposition is illegal?
I wouldn't know. The article doesn't specify if any actual legal proceeding has actually been initiated or if this is just a bluff in an email exchange. Nor does it say what specific body this would be filed with, or what the legal basis for the filing would be. Is it really to much to ask for an article with some actual information in it?
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, I don't think they're anywhere near that emotionally invested. Remember, we're talking about the lawyers here, not the RIAA/MPAA themselves. For the lawyers, all they're probably interested in is the money. They're not pissed off because it gets in the way of their "holy crusade" because, the truth is, they'll probably still win most of these cases in the end. What they're so pissed off about is that he threw a wrench in their get rich quick scheme. Instead of being able to bully people into paying $2500 a pop with very little bill-able lawyer time, now they'll have to file their claims in a huge number of different courts across the country and will, likely, have to actually fight some of the cases. With all that interference, they might not be able to make the huge profit they were drooling over initially.
Re:Ok, someone who understands this stuff... (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt very much they are trying to argue that he's doing too good a job of defending people. My guess is that they are going after him for providing legal advice to people where he's lot licensed, providing legal advice to people he's never talked to, or some similar rule that's setup to prevent lawyers from ripping off clients. The amount of money they are asking for is probably justified as recouping their expenses that came from his "malpractice".
I don't know the details of the case, or have any idea if he's technically in violation of some rule or not. I do know that retail-packaged legal advice (like make-your-own-will computer software) sometimes runs into problems in some jurisdictions, so it's not that big of a stretch to think this might stick.
Re:Erm...what? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that would be ludicrous. The USCG is suing Syfert for costing them money which is not criminal but a civil matter. Unfortunately, you can sue for anything. The USCG has shown that they are a litigious group. Really this doesn't surprise me at all.
Their problem is that by costing them money, Syfert hasn't actually done anything wrong. It is perfectly legal for Syfert to sell these self-help booklets; even if it is not legal, they have no standing to sue. Only a buyer who let's say paid $20 and got rubbish advice would have standing to sue for that. The cost to them is not caused by Syfert, it is caused by the defendants defending themselves, and that is just what you have to expect when you sue someone; they will try to defend themselves. Perfectly legal and expected.
Maybe they're hoping he'll just fold, not want to spend the time and money to defend himself (you know, like all the other victims.) Can it be that they believe they are that scary? To an attorney?
Re:Ok, someone who understands this stuff... (Score:3, Insightful)
...please explain. There is absolutely no way that this is actually what it looks like on the surface, its just way to ridiculous.
It sounds like you have a handle on the situation.
In more civilized times, an angry mob would tar-and-feather asshats like this.
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
The free advertising is great. That good old web.
Sadly, the litigation from USCG is going to cost him, so that $20/copy will hopefully cover his own costs, but I doubt it. USCG has every reason to press him as hard as they can, although I would hope that a decent judge would throw out the suit with prejudice. Sadly, that's unlikely to happen.
The free advertising exacerbates the problem as each of the other USCG litigants now has a $20 defense package available to them. Would USCG find an insane jury (possible, if it gets to trial) and some theory of law that multiplies the damages, then our courageous lawyer gets a multiplier to the damages for each $20 defense package sold.
The whole thing is fucking insane.
Wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
The lawyer trolls are going to lose. That's for sure. The only question is whether Mr. Syfert will get sanctions against them, and if so, how much those sanctions will be. Assuming that there is nothing defamatory in Mr. Syfert's materials, all Syfert did is sell information to third parties. There's no law against that (and the First Amendment supports it).
The whole thing is now a free targeted promotional event on Mr. Syfert's behalf.
Just a little bit of careful thought would have dissuaded the lawyer trolls from filing an action against Mr. Syfert. It will be fun to watch this circus as it unfolds its tents.
Re:Erm...what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they're hoping he'll just fold, not want to spend the time and money to defend himself (you know, like all the other victims.) Can it be that they believe they are that scary? To an attorney?
Not just an attorney. An attorney who's own modus operandi is to persuade people to defend themselves against frivolous litigation by selling them affordable self-help packs.
I really struggle to believe that any collection of even moderately intelligent people could be that stupid.
Re:Ok, someone who understands this stuff... (Score:3, Insightful)
It sees that the USCG is now complaining that the motions that the defendants filed in response (using Syfert's document pack) should not be accepted. The rule (that USCG quotes) says that the defendant's council must discuss with plaintiff's council before filing such motion and then serve defendant council with copies of the motion. However, the defendants are not being represented by any council (and certainly not Syfert, as indicated by his reply to USCG's request for sanctions) so those rules would not apply. USCG's assertion that the defendants need to first confer with them would be completely contrary to the purpose of the filings--to prevent the court from releasing the identity to the USCG.
The defendants using the forms sold by Syfert is no different than someone using Legal Zoom or buying a package of legal forms from Staples. The problem (for USCG) is that the filings now require USCG to spend real money defending their assertion that the Doe defendants are liable, whether to simply answer the motions or possibly take the case to the court with correct jurisdiction over the defendants. What the USCG is attempting to do is discourage other Doe defendants from trying to defend themselves against the allegations.
Re:Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Erm...what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, I don't think they're anywhere near that emotionally invested. Remember, we're talking about the lawyers here, not the RIAA/MPAA themselves. For the lawyers, all they're probably interested in is the money. They're not pissed off because it gets in the way of their "holy crusade" because, the truth is, they'll probably still win most of these cases in the end. What they're so pissed off about is that he threw a wrench in their get rich quick scheme. Instead of being able to bully people into paying $2500 a pop with very little bill-able lawyer time, now they'll have to file their claims in a huge number of different courts across the country and will, likely, have to actually fight some of the cases. With all that interference, they might not be able to make the huge profit they were drooling over initially.
You're technically correct but splitting hairs. I'm taking a broad view, not of the surface actors but of the authors of their scripts. Those actors, in turn, are voluntary participants and therefore part of the production. Sure, they're in it for the money but look one step beyond that: there is a reason that this is where they see the dollar signs. That reason is the (un)holy agenda of draconian copyright.
Many bitter wars had mercenaries who were only loyal to their money; that didn't make such wars any more or any less of a religious crusade in nature. What you're seeing here are two sides of the same coin. The RIAA/MPAA need to hire lawyers like this as part of pushing their agenda. Lawyers like this would largely have to find another line of work if not for large, organized, monied clients like the RIAA/MPAA.
The group of lawyers known as the USCG has thrown their lot in with the likes of the RIAA/MPAA. At any time they could decide that integrity is important, that they don't want to participate in this bullshit, that they don't want money tainted by bullying and intimidation. They haven't. They're not only part of the madness, they're an essential component of it. They could be called the executive arm of the larger agenda. When the backlash against this madness finally does occur, it will rightly include them, for they are Satan's little helpers.
Re:the people v. the bar (Score:3, Insightful)
Does that include people who think that unprovoked, offensive wars amount to mass murder? If not, then yes that is blatant favoritism.
I for one refuse to have my hands stained with the blood of people whose only "crime" is defending themselves against an aggressor. Since when did that require membership in an organized religion?
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I don't understand either.
The guy's a lawyer. He can sell legal services if he wants, for whatever amount he wants. Copyright law is Federal, so assuming he's able to appear in Federal court, he can give advice for things in those courts.
And the fact it's pre-packaged doesn't change things....pre-packages legal services with set fees happen all the time. It's how people do wills and stuff. You pay $50, you get a form to fill out, they provide two witnesses and keep a copy. Lawyers don't have to charge by the hour.
I'm a little baffled as to what he could be sued for.
His clients could sue him for all sorts of stuff if his advice was bad, and he could be arrested by the government if his advice was illegal (Which is not likely.), but I can't comprehend how some other legal consul can sue him for giving legal advice.
It seems a little bit idiotic our system is setup where people have to buy this, instead of the court handing it out for free, but $20 is pretty reasonable if they're actually useful.
Re:Erm...what? (Score:3, Insightful)
The availability of public defenders also doesn't enter into it. They have a history of not providing a full and complete defense.
Further, what if you're the plaintiff in a civil case. You should be able to appoint someone else - even a non-lawyer - to act for you.
Lawyers should have to compete the same as anyone else. Most of them are hacks.
Also, the ability of the judge to not only be the one pressing the charge of contempt of court, but also the judge, is an example of something that needs to be challenged, since the judge is obviously both an interested party (being the plaintiff) and the judge. A very clear conflict of interest in what is a criminal complaint.
-- Barbie
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Sadly, the litigation from USCG is going to cost him"
Not one damned dime. It should take a matter of mere MINUTES to prove USCG's vexatious litigation and put an end to their business model permanently.
USCG's lawyers better backpedal quick before they get precedent set that cripples their business model.
Re:Wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
> They created it, what better reason do you need?
"Defending" it needs to be worth the collateral damage of course.
For the works in question here, the issue of worth in a the grand scheme of thing is highly dubious.
No non-commercial pirate should be ruined for life over the good stuff. Nevermind tripe like this.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [cornell.edu] 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.
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?
You know what this makes me want to do? (Score:2, Insightful)
Buy Mr. Syfert's $20 packet, just to support him.
The USCG have now moved on from copyright abuse to attempting to squash people's legitimate 1st amendment free speech rights, and their 5th amendment due process rights.
The USCG's lawyers need to get disbarred for this.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait... (Score:4, 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.
First off, the "evidence" is pretty thin, and even the lawyers involved have admitted that they know that many of the people sent the settlement letters had not infringed copyright. So, no, you can't say "most" of those getting letters are infringing copyright.
Second, there are many possibilities where downloading a movie is not copyright infringement. As an example, I downloaded a copy of a movie because my just-purchased DVD was defective, and was the last one in the store. Sure, I could have dealt with trying to return an opened movie for store credit (which, I must note, is caused by the fact that the MPAA does not in any way stand behind the products they sell), but instead I just downloaded. Technically infringing, sure, but I'd love to see cases like it go to court. Heck, if you want to bankrupt the MPAA and RIAA, everyone should set up a torrent client and download every movie and music track they have already paid for.
Sounds like fair game to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
But none of that really matters because firms of copyright lawyers buy up copyrights from the business after they stop making big bucks, and then sue the shit out of tons of people. Really, this is a case of business people profiteering off of the work of others, and making their living solely by destroying lives of people who were too poor to afford a movie and had to download it to watch it, and then threatening to take away what little they have and put them in debt forever, if not in prison. There is nothing even morally ok about that.
Re:Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Malicious prosecution" like "vexatious litigation" normally require more than one act.
Like, say, bringing thousands copyright infringement lawsuits when you have no legal standing (that's the motion that always wins in the USCG cases)?
Re:Mind blowing (Score:3, Insightful)
But I was under the impression that real lawyers do shit like that all the time? I mean, one of the fundamental ideas of game theory is that you should attempt to maximize your opponent's ability to lose, while maximizing your ability to win - and if we're not supposed to game the system like that, why is it even possible?
This really seems to boil down to the USCG saying "No fair! He's teaching the other guys the rules!"
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your numbers are sligthly off -- check em up, using wrong numbers risk offtracking the discussion, which would be a pity because your general point is very much valid.
There's 2 more reasons people have lost respect for copyright. One is that copying is today frequently a *private* act. It's one thing to ban copying of books and music, at a time when really, only people owning printing-presses are practically capable of copying a book anyway. The general public isn't giving up much, because giving up the right to do something you cannot practically do anyway, is a small sacrifice.
Today, however, giving your sister/friend/boyfriend/grandmother a copy of a song you like, is a trivial, routine, straigthforward act. Thus today the same rule directly interferes with peoples private lives. Some jurisdictions (Norway where I live for example) has recognized this as bollocks, and have made specific exceptions. Limited copying for private use is not a copyright-violation here. ("limited" is somewhat fuzzy offcourse, but a low number for close friends/relatives would certainly qualify)
That's one.
The second is that I am regularily being lied to. I dislike being lied to. I do not tend to respect people who regularily lie to me.
I respect it even less when the reason they're lying, is because they HOPE that I will believe it, essentially they're trying to trick me into believing I've got less rights than I do.
When a new DVD says "Any use outside the private home is illegal", that's a lie. When software claims I need a /license/ to run it, that's a lie. (in my jurisdiction it is!) When a game claims that lending or resale is illegal, that's a blatant lie - I break no law whatsoever by letting a friend borrow a game.
If someone wants my respect. Lying to me, is not a good first move.
Re:Mind blowing (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely correct. This is standard operating procedure for lawyers to file for dismisal and a protective order even when they don't expect it to succeed, simply because it preserves routes for appeal and there is the possibility the opposing lawyer will screw up and it will get through. That said, one of the three claims his forms make which is that the district overseeing the legal action does not have personal jurisdiction is valid for most potential purchasers and should have the suit dismissed and forced to be refilled in the appropriate venue (which typically isn't as friendly to this sort of business as the venues chosen by the litigants).