Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Music Festival Producer Pre-Sues Bootleggers

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the nipped-in-the-bud dept.

Crime 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

thoughtcrime (2, Funny)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221048)

Fuck this, I'm moving to Belize.

Re:thoughtcrime (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221208)

Come away with me! [youtube.com]

Re:thoughtcrime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221748)

Yeah, well I'm headed for Denver with a digital recorder, a well disguised camera and a stereo pair of shotgun mics.
Feel free to head over to http://www.aeg.r.clueless.com/ [clueless.com] and put in a PRE-Order for your bootleg box set including comedy outtakes from
AEGs last board and stockholders meeting. The first 100 sets include a free T-Shirt with every band logo on it and locations to buy tickets once they are sold out.

You've got to be shitting me. (5, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (4, Funny)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221132)

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

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221186)

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...

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (1)

Garridan (597129) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221644)

Right. So he'll send a lawyer, who will pwn your ass for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Drop in the bucket for Gates, and you'll be filing bankruptcy.

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (1)

epp_b (944299) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221498)

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.

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (5, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221180)

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.

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (2, Interesting)

spazdor (902907) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221194)

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?

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (4, Funny)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 4 years ago | (#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!

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (5, Informative)

Rary (566291) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221836)

So if I trademark the human head, I could file a lawsuit against people displaying their heads in public and have their heads confiscated?

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (5, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221582)

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).

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (2, Insightful)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221200)

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.

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221510)

What you are arrested for and what you are charged with are two separate things

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (2, Insightful)

superdave80 (1226592) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221576)

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.

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (4, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (4, Funny)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221318)

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

Yet.

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (1)

Kepesk (1093871) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221376)

Couldn't "bootleg material" theoretically involve things like phones? This seems like a nasty slippery slope to me.

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (2, Funny)

ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221452)

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:You've got to be shitting me. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221540)

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.

That's not quite what this is. They're suing non-people (placeholders) hoping/expecting that someone will fill the placeholders. They're probably asking for summary judgment since the John Does didn't show in court.

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (2, Insightful)

ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221688)

They're probably asking for summary judgment since the John Does didn't show in court.

There are currently zero counts of infringement or unlawful behavior. What is that judgment supposed to be based on?

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (1)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221704)

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.

That's not quite what this is. They're suing non-people (placeholders) hoping/expecting that someone will fill the placeholders. They're probably asking for summary judgment since the John Does didn't show in court.

Isn't this exactly the same as police officers having "quotas" of tickets to write?

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (2, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221804)

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.

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221838)

It doesn't seem close to 'exactly the same' to me, but there are definitely parallels.
However, I don't understand the relevance?

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221636)

I think the point is that you have to file suit against a john or jane doe, not a specific person. Don't forget, a specific person can defend themselves.

Re:You've got to be shitting me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221730)

I think you have to sue a number of John Doe and Jane Doe, otherwise "Gates" can just go an say "I did not slander anyone"

Oh, well.... (5, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221088)

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.

Re:Oh, well.... (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221822)

But that really wouldn't change anything vs. your estate suing after your death (which is already possible), except for perhaps accelerating the legal proceedings, which seems to be the goal here.

Pre-emptive lawsuits (3, Interesting)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221100)

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

Re:Pre-emptive lawsuits (3, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221164)

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:Pre-emptive lawsuits (3, Insightful)

caffiend2049 (984834) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221410)

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.

Re:Pre-emptive lawsuits (5, Insightful)

JimWise (1804930) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Pre-emptive lawsuits (4, Insightful)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 4 years ago | (#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:Pre-emptive lawsuits (1)

ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221484)

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?

Re:Pre-emptive lawsuits (4, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#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?

Re:Pre-emptive lawsuits (1)

josteos (455905) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221182)

If you can't do the time then don't think the crime.

John Aberton
DC PD (Precrime)

Pre-cogs! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221192)

Steven Spielberg's Minority Report wowed audiences with its futuristic tech: flashy hand-gesture computers, flex-screen displays, holograms, and Lexus-designed auto-piloted vehicles. The sci-fi flick also showed the world a dystopian, draconian picture of a crime-free society: "precogs" predicting murders, eye-scanners dotting the streets and subways, a jet-pack-toting police force, and a public seemingly deprived of any right to privacy. Spielberg envisioned this for 2054, but advances in technology are bringing that future sooner and sooner. Here's a look at some of our own sci-fi crime fighting tools.

1. Blue CRUSH
IBM's new Blue Crime Reduction Utilizing Statistical History (CRUSH) programs feels almost directly inspired by Minority Report. Similar to the "precogs," IBM's new system uses "predictive analytics," mining years and years of incident reports and law enforcement data to "forecast criminal 'hot spots.'" Police in Memphis have already had great success with the $11-billion "precrime" predicting tool: Since installing Blue CRUSH, the city has seen a 31% drop in serious crime.

2. Facebook
There's no escaping the system when we've all voluntarily tapped into it. With Facebook having some 500 million registered users, the social network is quickly becoming a powerful source of data for the police, who can scan profiles for suspect clues. Only this week, law enforcement used Facebook to nab a murder suspect through photos posted on his page. Witnesses were able to independently ID the alleged killer using these pictures alone, which the city police chief called "ironclad" evidence. And this isn't the first time. In 2009, an escaped criminal used Facebook to taunt police while on the lamb, posting pictures of himself flaunting his freedom--before he was soon caught.

3. Google Maps
Internet crime updates such as Gothamist's incident map now allow the public to track the police blotter next-to-real-time. But it's not just concerned citizens and nosy neighbors who are plugging into Google's mapping tech. Google Earth has given law enforcement access to satellite imagery, enabling them to track down criminals from the sky. In Sweden, for example, police were able to zoom down close enough to discover a two-acre marijuana plantation, leading to the arrest of 16 perps and the seizure of 1.2 tons of pot. Drug-sniffing dogs are now a thing of the past.

4. OnStar
In the film, all vehicles are auto-piloted along tracks and can be controlled by law enforcement. When scanners detect a wanted criminal entering a car, police can automatically pull the vehicle over. Looks like this directly inspired OnStar's Stolen Vehicle Slowdown technology. The system enables customers and police to locate a stolen car using GPS, depower the vehicle, and watch as it glides to safety along the side of the road, ending any chance for a high speed chase. Did I mention OnStar even force-locks the doors until police can arrive?

5. Scanners, Everywhere
The days of comical-disguises are numbered for Boris and Natasha, who will have to figure out another way to get past airport security. New facial recognition scanners such as the one installed last year in London enable airport security to measure "points on a person's face and compare them with [their] digital passport photograph." Of course, law enforcement isn't only tracking you by air. Automatic number plate recognition technology is becoming more ubiquitous, allowing police to monitor you real-time, even when they're not looking.

6. Drones
A bill circling the House of Representatives aims to legalize unmanned aerial vehicles to fly over domestic skies for enhanced border security and oil pipeline monitoring. British units are already using UAVs to keep watch of its citizens, which would perhaps raise more questions over privacy violations if London wasn't already chock-full of CCTV cams.

7. Mii? Easily the best Minority Report-like tool, however, comes courtesy of Nintendo. In Japan, police searching for a hit-and-run suspect put up wanted posters around town, but they didn't have the perp's photograph. Instead, they just used his Mii image. So if you happen to run into him at the Wii resort, be sure to alert the proper authorities. (On second thought, this could just be awesome viral marketing.)

Re:Pre-cogs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221786)

Great points, but at least credit Philip K. Dick with the story and much of the dystopian future imagery.

Re:Pre-emptive lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221236)

INsane. This is why America is drowning in bogus litigation. Your tax dollars hard at work..

pre-crime (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221150)

Will Tom Cruise show up to arrest me?

Re:pre-crime (3, Funny)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221532)

No he'll try to convert you to scientology, jump up and down on your couch, then try to kill you.

Re:pre-crime (4, Funny)

ebuck (585470) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221790)

No he'll try to convert you to scientology, jump up and down on your couch, then try to kill you.

I'd rather have Arnold travel back in time from when the crime was committed and kill me now for my future transgression, it's much less scary.

What a great idea! (3, Funny)

UnAbsolute (1085113) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221160)

I'm going to sue for my own wrongful death right now.

Re:What a great idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221226)

I want to fuck your cold, dead corpse.

The difference between recording and bootlegging (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#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).

Re:The difference between recording and bootleggin (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221242)

Is it a two-party state, though?

Re:The difference between recording and bootleggin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221306)

Oh god that dumb law keeps getting dumber!

Re:The difference between recording and bootleggin (4, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221438)

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.

Re:The difference between recording and bootleggin (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221766)

um no it's not. it's about concealing hip flasks of alcohol in the legs of boots.

Re:The difference between recording and bootleggin (2, Interesting)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221710)

For some artists, the free distribution of audience-generated recordings is an extremely valuable asset -- most of their marketing in fact -- and they specifically allow it. A few actually put audience recording into their contract riders. I see two or three of these in the Mile High lineup. (And I also realize that the suit is about counterfeit merchandise, not audience recording.)

The slashdot post made me aware of the festival... if I lived in Denver I might be tempted to go.

Re:The difference between recording and bootleggin (2, Interesting)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221778)

For some artists, the free distribution of audience-generated recordings is an extremely valuable asset...

The Pink Floyd Pluse DVDs (I think it's that one) has a feature called "bootlegging the bootleggers", where they include bootlegged recordings people made at a couple of their performances. Which, of course, is pretty hilarious.

hah (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221168)

It's an invalid lawsuit, any reasonable judge is going to toss this thing right out.

Re:hah (5, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221238)

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

Re:hah (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221462)

And that 610 year retirement package is becoming quite the burden on the taxpayer. ;)

Re:hah (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221296)

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.

Prediction (2, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#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:Prediction (2, Insightful)

SudoGhost (1779150) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221524)

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?

Re:Prediction (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221750)

It sounds like they are more than just "worried", but they are addressing specific people who have in the past sold counterfeit merchandise with their trademarks, and they are preparing for a repeat of the problem.

The funny part of it to me, is that people actually buy meta-merch in the first place.

OMG (1)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221198)

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.

The Future Is Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221202)

So it IS a thought crime now! Finally.

Douchebaggery (1)

david@ecsd.com (45841) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221204)

Holy shit, I wish I had some time on my hands. What in the hell are they going to do if someone shows up? Fine them for thinking about possibly doing something ... maybe?

thinking about doing something (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221356)

Conspiracy to commit a crime perhaps? ( if you plan on having help )

Re:thinking about doing something (1)

gebbeth (720597) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221546)

It seems that if he knows about the crime before it happens then he is an accessory to the crime and perhaps co-conspirator.

hmmm (1)

hypergreatthing (254983) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221230)

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?

Bug-Reports (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221234)

I've written reports for bugs that did not yet exist at that point of time. Saw them coming.

Thrown Out (5, Insightful)

Renraku (518261) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221256)

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.

Elephant (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221260)

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!

How many Jane and John Doe's are there? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221264)

The only people who need to be worried here are those bootleggers named John and Jane Doe, and those who refuse to show ID. Everyone else should be in the clear since they aren't John or Jane Doe.

Counter-suit stratagy (4, Interesting)

apenzott (821513) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

The Lawyers are bored (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221288)

I wonder how long it is before the RIAA and MPAA files a lawsuit against everyone using this idea.

Trivial Lawsuit Practices (3, Interesting)

The Pirou (1551493) | more than 4 years ago | (#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?

Re:Trivial Lawsuit Practices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221512)

It's you for transmitting it, possibly him for receiving it if it's something so horrid that you're not even allowed to receive it without knowing what it is.

Just in time (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221300)

The newly beefed-up FBI special forces are right on that.

Bogus complaint (2, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Minority Report (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221314)

Now that multi-touch gestures are prevalent, it was only a matter of time before we had a pre-crime unit

They forgot (1)

jewishbaconzombies (1861376) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221360)

To prefile murder charges against some unstable (but imaginative) people who read this and decide to hunt down the promoters.

That's initiative baby!

The suit is about the MERCHANDISE, not copywright (5, Informative)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:The suit is about the MERCHANDISE, not copywrig (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221556)

Thank you for pointing out yet another game of "internet telephone." It would appear that the summary writer was just trolling for the usual anti-copyright rants and not interested in the contents of the actual article.

Re:The suit is about the MERCHANDISE, not copywrig (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221596)

And I didn't even realize that I fell for it myself. I apologize to the summary writer, it was the commenters distorted it into copyright violation. It appears that they were expecting a troll even though they didn't get one.

Re:The suit is about the MERCHANDISE, not copywrig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221564)

Thanks Ms. Burns, we all feel enlightened now...

Re:The suit is about the MERCHANDISE, not copywrig (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221706)

Idiocracy.

It's spelt "idiocy". Seriously.

Re:The suit is about the MERCHANDISE, not copywrig (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221744)

Idiocracy: Government by idiots.

Precogs? (1)

macjn (785842) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221440)

Sounds like *someone* has some precogs working for them! ;)

And she didn't have to burn her bra (2, Insightful)

magusxxx (751600) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221458)

I think it's wonderful that women are now considered equals when it comes to violating copyrights. You go girl!

Stones in glass houses...idiot "promoter" (2, Insightful)

Bob_Who (926234) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221480)

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.

Mile High Music Festival (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221538)

One less concert I'll be going to from here on out.

Amicus anybody? (1)

kaaona (252061) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221570)

I am not a lawyer, but I'd sure like to read what Lawrence Lessig and EFF might have to say about this.

Read much? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221604)

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:Read much? (2, Insightful)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221806)

If they already know or suspect that the shirts are being made (e.g., the same thing happened at the last festival), there's not really a good reason they shouldn't be able to start the civil process and then start taking names. I'm actually with the promoters on the whole "use of their trademark" thing.

Read ALL The Articles (2, Insightful)

Azuaron (1480137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221614)

Digging deep enough, they're saying, "only the plaintiff has the right to sell merchandise bearing the Festival Trademarks at and near the Festival." They're not going after people making recordings of the festival. They're going after people illegally selling bootlegged merchandise at the festival. This is likely to happen. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to file court proceedings and get police support when there is a high likelihood of specific, known crimes being committed.

It's like seeing a bunch of suspicious looking people standing outside a jewelry store with crowbars at midnight. Sure, a crime has not been committed yet, but you're a jackass if you don't report it to police.

Mile High Music Festival (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221716)

Uh, is it just me, or does this festival sound like its supposed to be appealing to stoners and hippies and the like? lineup surely looks like it, the NAME surely looks like it...

and yet they're as orwellian or fascist as possible. Who the hell runs this stuff?

/boycott

Central Scrutinizer (3, Insightful)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221720)

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]

Buy now and get a discount (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221792)

Of 10% in fines

Should be AEG's responsibility (2, Insightful)

edawstwin (242027) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221816)

If AEG worried so much about this happening, why shouldn't they be forced to hire extra security to look out for the copied merchandise? This burden should not fall on the taxpayers.

case or controversy (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221824)

obwiki [wikipedia.org]

The Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to hear cases that do not pose an actual controversy — that is, an actual dispute between adverse parties which is capable of being resolved by the court. The Court and legal scholars commonly refer to the issue of whether a "case or controversy" exists as the concept of standing....

This clause, in addition to setting out the scope of the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, prohibits courts from issuing advisory opinions, or from hearing cases that are either unripe, meaning that the controversy has not arisen yet, or moot, meaning that the controversy has already been resolved.

Until there is an actual incident to sue over, they are not supposed to have standing to sue, due to lack of ripeness.

Class action (1)

PagosaSam (884523) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221828)

We should get all the John and Jane Does in the country to counter sue. Ought to be a buck or two in there somewhere.

WTF?!!? Legal system has jumped the shark... (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221850)

*HEADLINES!!!
From the 'Reality is Stranger than Fiction Dept.*
"Holy Minority Report, Batman!"

Why was this not LOL'd by the judge, then summarily tossed out of the court into orbit?

Dammit, man...

What's next...coin-operated 'Law Suit Vending Machines'®???

This unhealthy obsession and dependency on 'Imaginary Property' in the USA is going to boomerang on us badly.

It's no wonder the gov't. felt they had to keep ACTA secret for 'National Security'[tm]. IP is increasingly all we have to offer the world economy any more.
We can't afford to turn isolationist in the global economy, and that is slowly happening.
Look at the global resistance to ACTA, the resentment to our 'security theater, in the airports and at borders aimed at copyright infringement and 'kiddie pr0n.
Business travelers from foreign countries have become reluctant to travel here to conduct business. Some of them refuse to come here now.

I just don't think our growing dependence on IP as our major export is a good thing in the long run; this is not an argument against IP per se.
It seems that 'Diversify! Diversify! Diversify!' is the tune you here from Wall Street and Big Business.

Pre-disbarment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33221854)

Someone needs to contact the California Bar Association and direct them to start disbarment proceedings against Cara R. Burns of Hicks, Mims, Kaplan & Burns on the basis that in the future she will become unfit to practice law by willfully disregarding the interests of a client, or engaging in fraud which impedes the administration of justice.

She's going to cause trouble so it would be best to nip it in the bud before she can do serious harm.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?