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."
Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
So... they think defending yourself is against the law now, or something? Or informing other people on how to defend themselves?
The Lawyers Who Brought This Suit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Interesting)
The pack sold is not illegal in any way. it does not teach the owner how to break the law? it simply educates them about it.
I quite agree. Syfert himself puts it very well:
"If 19 cases costs them $5000 in attorney time, I wonder how many cases it'd take before their business model crumbles. That is unless they are going to actually work for a living."
It's funny cos it's true. The whole thing reminds me of record companies trying to hold THEIR outdated business model with ligitation, which is also funny; they are on borrowed time.
Except, this time it's not Joe Public. I hope this guys socks it to them. Huzzah
Re:Erm...what? (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't sue for lost revenue if you're not the copyright holder. Further, you can't sue for lost revenue if you can't prove that, you know, you actually lost revenue.
Which, come to think of it, is a problem with their current suit - they can't prove they lost revenue because of a successful defense against their tactics, because a successful defense means they weren't entitled to the MOH-NEE!.
Then again, too many lawyers have this sense of personal entitlement. Just look at your politi-critters.
Easy prediction - within the next decade, someone will successfully sue for the right of non-lawyers to represent people in court, on the following basis:
As in this case, you don't need all 4 to be valid - any one succeeding will do.
-- Barbie
Re:Good . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Agree totally. Since most people didn't know of the availability of this $20 package it's great that more know of it now. I think it should go a step further. I would love to see the guy (with the help of donations if need be) run a full page ad in USA Today so it spreads all over. They'll of course be follow ups on TV and other newspapers, etc.
Re:Wait... (Score:1, Interesting)
Sounds like two sharks fighting over every little minnow.
Re:Erm...what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, I am not a lawyer, but it seems that all of your points are flawed due to one fact: You are allowed to represent yourself.
Also, as a side note, don't try turning a courtroom into a political statement. If you annoy the judge, they can fine you or imprison you for contempt of court.
Re:Wait... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Interesting)
if the forms and motions were not VALID, the court clerk would simply return them to sender along with a note that the motion is invalid. If the courts are accepting these "boilerplate" responses there must be something to them, or the court would sanction this guy directly.
Re:Erm...what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Your other points are valid but this one I don't think would work; telling you what you should say in court is generally considered giving legal advice.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
I scanned their complaint and one point they make is arguably valid. According to the article itself, three of the motions fail. But they keep having to respond to them because they're always automatically filed by the purchaser of the forms. This presumably is a waste of the court's time.
But I bet this happens all the time with real lawyers running the show.
You are correct. I am taking Civil Procedure currently and our professor has advised us to always file certain motions (motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, motion for summary judgment, motion for judgment as a matter of law, and if we lose, motion for a new trial) even if we know they will be denied.
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
They created it, what better reason do you need? I enjoy benefiting from my creations, as I'm sure most do.
And I would like a pony, but that doesn't mean anyone should be obligated to give me one. Whether or not any given work deserves a copyright is ultimately up to the public, via a government that legitimately derives its power from their consent. So the questions we must consider are how does giving them a copyright benefit the rest of us, and what specific sort of copyright, in terms of what's eligible, how much protection there is, how long it lasts, etc., is best. Remember: a copyright is an infringement on the free speech right of everyone other than the copyright holder. They should not be granted lightly.
Re:the people v. the bar (Score:3, Interesting)
Does that include people who think that unprovoked, offensive wars amount to mass murder? If not, then yes that is blatant favoritism.
No, it only includes people who think all wars are wrong, or whose religion prohibits them from fighting even in wars they think are just. For example, the vast majority of Quakers refused to fight in WWII and the Civil War, despite strongly believing the US was on the right side of both, so Quakers get to claim CO status. The system is rigged up that way, so people who only have a problem with unprovoked, offensive wars are SOL.
Re:Wait... (Score:2, Interesting)
QFTFA
"The majority of state courts strike a balance between these extremes, holding that: providing forms, or performing notary or "scrivener" services (as directed by the "client") is lawful, even helpful; but a non-lawyer may not add instructions or advice --- even on how to choose, fill out or file the form. In these states, a do it yourself "kit" that contains something more than blank forms or templates would typically be found unlawful."
Also they may present general examples of filled out forms or motions. They just can't give detailed information on how you have to fill out the form for your court case. Quite legal in many states and at the Federal level.
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't clalm that an absolute majority of Slashdotters that oppose the current broken copyright system liked the older 28 year rules, but there have been enough posters that it's fair to say at least a very healthy minority do. Add me to that. I'd be perfectly happy to see these films protected by an automatic 14 year copyright with the owners allowed to renew for another 14 at their option. I'd be fine with them being able to seek some punitive damages even where the violation isn't for profit, although I see $150,000 per incident as both absurd and immoral.
Its fair to point out, for these recent film cases, the chance a violation has done real harm and cost real money is very high, and this is fundamentally different from the case of, say a 20 year old TV show or novel, where the odds are more of a mixed bag. Really cleaning up the copyright mess means taking the most likely consequences into account, and for cases like this one, the likelyest consequences include real harm to the copyright holder.
Re:Wait... (Score:3, Interesting)
But then, that would be common sense, and that's illegal in a court of law.
Re:Ok, someone who understands this stuff... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's federal, so he can provide advice nation wide with no restrictions so long as he has passed the bar.
They are trying to say the motions he advises people to file (he personally files nothing and does not defend these people in court) are a waste of the court's time and resources, since each motion must be responded to.
Thing is, they teach you in law school to file motions even if you think they will probably fail. The judges know this, they see it every day, it's standard operating procedure. There are any number of motions that are always presented and almost always fail. This is not new.
To say someone who represents himself cannot use the same tactic is absolutely ludicrous.
If there is a case here for wasting the court's time, it's much stronger against USCG for their bulk copyright infringement suits, which are so often baseless.
Re:Wait... (Score:3, Interesting)
I do recommend.