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!

Shut-Down Movie Site Promises MPAA Court Fight

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the didn't-dot-all-their-ts-or-cross-their-is dept.

The Courts 96

idolcrash writes "It looks like the owner a movie site shut down in 2001 will be attempting to take the MPAA to court regarding the shutdown of his website at the request of the MPAA, claiming he'll take them all the way to the Supreme Court to challenge the Constitutionality of the DMCA, under which his website was taken down."

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

Too much power (2, Insightful)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 8 years ago | (#11181974)

"The MPAA issued a cease and desist order to InternetMovies.com's ISP to shut down the site."

That a private organization could/can autonomously demand that an ISP shutdown a site without due process is repugnant in the extreme.

Re:Too much power (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11182181)

It's worse than that. Someone who has no affiliation with the supposedly infringed copyright owner can make a claim to your host, colo service, registrar or ISP that isn't even founded in reality (because they hold a grudge) and get you shut down.

One of the popular domain registrars threatened to shut my domain down (redirect to NULL in DNS) if I did not comply with the complaint. The complaint was that I was selling pornography to children and distributing pirated music through my site.

Of course, my site has nothing to do with any such thing. My site was mostly used as a personal email server and as a meeting point for a guild I play with on an MMORPG. There *wasn't* any music, videos, children porn or anything else there. We barely even had anything multimedia related unless you count user's avatar pics for their user profiles for the forums.

The person complaining was just some git with a personal grudge against one of the people in our "guild" that they had run across in-game and had a tiff with.

But I still had to spend a lot of my personal time preventing a shut down because my upstream failed to apply due dilligence to the situation before overreacting.

These places should refuse to act on any such complains UNLESS THE COMLAINT IS NOTARIZED AND ISSUED BY A LAWYER.

Re:Too much power (1)

Spock the Baptist (455355) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183010)

Lawyer nothing, what's appropriate is to get a TRO from a JUDGE!

Re:Too much power (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 8 years ago | (#11182350)

That a private organization could/can autonomously demand that an ISP shutdown a site without due process is repugnant in the extreme.

What's repugnant is that the ISP listened to them.

Re:Too much power (2, Interesting)

dasunt (249686) | more than 8 years ago | (#11182527)

That a private organization could/can autonomously demand that an ISP shutdown a site without due process is repugnant in the extreme.

A private organization can *demand* anything. Case in point -- SCO demanding linux licenses.

The DMCA goes slightly overboard with its power in regards to server shutdowns, but it isn't that horribly unfair with regards to copywrited material on a server. [Its horribly unfair in other ways though...]

If the RIAA wants an ISP to shutdown a site, it has to make a good faith statement that the material is not legal, and that they are authorized to act for the copyright holder. Note the "good faith" provision -- this is where things have been going wrong, and it is not a problem with the DMCA. It strongly appears that certain agencies are automating searches for material and aren't manually checking the results before sending letters. This is one of the major problems.

Of course, once a site is taken down, the site owner can demand his day in court, and if the RIAA does not file a lawsuit within two weeks, the site should be put back up.

As I said, not horribly unfair. The only "fix" I can see is a grace period for the site's owner to reply to the possible copyright infringement before the site is taken down. (IANAL, but the good-faith provision should already be in effect: Asking for material to be removed without acting in good faith should open the asking party up to a few lawsuits under section 512, part f, but again, IANAL).

The other problem that I am hearing about is that ISPs are taking down sites without valid takedown notices. If I'm reading the law right, this should violate "safe harbor" provisions for ISPs, but I have yet to see an ISP prosecuted for this.

Re:Too much power (2, Insightful)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11182881)

The DMCA goes slightly overboard with its power in regards to server shutdowns, but it isn't that horribly unfair with regards to copywrited material on a server. [Its horribly unfair in other ways though...]

Where the DMCA is most horrible is section 512(h), which allows any clerk to issue a subpoena. The parts about server shutdowns are a good thing. They limit the ability of the MPAA to sue the ISPs if the ISPs follow certain rules. Without the DMCA the MPAA would still be sending cease and desist orders, and ISPs would still be taking down content based on those ceasae and desist orders. This provision of the DMCA (the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act) has gotten a bad rap but it's way better than nothing, and frankly I think it's an excellent solution since it allows the publisher to file a counter-notification which keeps his/her site up despite a cease and desist order (Rossi didn't file a counter-notification, that was his big mistake).

Note the "good faith" provision -- this is where things have been going wrong, and it is not a problem with the DMCA.

Yes, and I'm somewhat disturbed from the fact that the ninth circuit declared the MPAA to be acting in good faith here. But let's be realistic here, Rossi's website said "Join to download full length movies online now! new movies every month"; "Full Length Downloadable Movies"; and "NOW DOWNLOADABLE." He was asking for it, and had this not been the case I'm hopeful (maybe naiively) that the ninth circuit decision would have gone the other way.

It strongly appears that certain agencies are automating searches for material and aren't manually checking the results before sending letters.

It looks like in this case they checked things manually, but the supposed download files weren't available unless you signed up for an account. Personally I tend to side with Rossi that it was bad faith to not sign up for an account and actually download the files, but this doesn't seem to have been explored during the case. I can see reasons for the MPAA not to want to do this, after all.

The only "fix" I can see is a grace period for the site's owner to reply to the possible copyright infringement before the site is taken down.

The DMCA provides for a counter-notification. Rossi never exercised it. His lawyer said that's because no one ever told him he had the right, but ignorance is no excuse for the law.

The other problem that I am hearing about is that ISPs are taking down sites without valid takedown notices. If I'm reading the law right, this should violate "safe harbor" provisions for ISPs, but I have yet to see an ISP prosecuted for this.

Generally when you sign up with an ISP they reserve the right to take your site down for any reason. Choosing to take your site down even though a proper takedown notice wasn't served doesn't violate the law directly, but the ISP wouldn't have the safe harbor provision to fall back on if they were then sued for breach of contract (but again, if the contract says they can take down your site for any reason, then you're screwed).

Yes I did file a counter-notification (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183565)

I emailed my ISP and told them I did not have movies and they knew I did not have movies too and still close my site down say they would not back up a that only pays them $10 I file a counter-notification and it is in the case and was submited to the courts and the courts keep over looking it. Michael Rossi President InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Yes I did file a counter-notification (0, Troll)

Apiakun (589521) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184049)

Run-on sentences make baby jesus cry. No punctuation makes baby jesus cry. If you're the president of something, you should at the very least have a competent individual proofread your e-mail, memos, and slashdot posts.

Re:Yes I did file a counter-notification (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184059)

I am a handicap president if you must know so maybe you can look past it and try to get the meaning out of it ok.

Thanks

Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Yes I did file a counter-notification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11184126)

Handicap == Illiterate?

Re:Yes I did file a counter-notification (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184646)

If you like to call me Illiterate that is fine I am sure it must look that way to you. I will try better.

Thank You

Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Yes I did file a counter-notification (1)

SilverspurG (844751) | more than 9 years ago | (#11223871)

My father was never officially labelled handicap, that I'm aware of, yet his sentences read almost exactly like yours when he writes e-mail to me. Is there a particular name for your affliction?

Re:Yes I did file a counter-notification (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11224101)

Hello I am dyslexic and Bipolar disorder Mix. It sucks but makes me learn well auditory, seeing and doing, I am just not good with reading and writing. I use Readplease.com software to read what I write back to me it helps me a lot. If not my writing would look like it was from an other world. It is very painful to write but I must try to get the word out on my case and do not take the name calling to heart. Hope this info. helps your Dad.

Happy New Years

Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com

Re:Yes I did file a counter-notification (1)

SilverspurG (844751) | more than 9 years ago | (#11224161)

Happy New Year!

Best of luck with all of your ventures.

Re:Yes I did file a counter-notification (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184460)

Did you "consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which [you] reside"? Because the court documents say you didn't.

Re:Yes I did file a counter-notification (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11185973)

Yes we went to the District Court of Hawaii 1st then to the 9th. Now off to the Supreme Court. Happy it worked out this way too. Got to the Supreme Court fast right up the ladder. Some cases took 15 years just to get where they could ask the Supreme Court to hear their case and I made it in 2 years not bad I am told by lawyers that worked for Disney.

Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Too much power (2, Interesting)

dasunt (249686) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183605)

Generally when you sign up with an ISP they reserve the right to take your site down for any reason. Choosing to take your site down even though a proper takedown notice wasn't served doesn't violate the law directly, but the ISP wouldn't have the safe harbor provision to fall back on if they were then sued for breach of contract (but again, if the contract says they can take down your site for any reason, then you're screwed).

From my limited understanding of contract law, I might have to disagree. Again, IANAL, but I seem to remember that contracts must be done in good faith: depending on the jurisdiction, arbitrary termination is not consider good faith. So if you have a contract for 12 months of service, and they terminate you in 5 months, you might have grounds for a lawsuit.

I tried googling for this information, and other then finding every TOS for every ISP out there, the only mention that I can find is that Israeli law seems to agree with me. (In the US, there also seems to be regulations against doctors "abandoning" patients, but that seems like a specific case.)

I'd love for a contract lawyer to chime in and tell us what are justifiable causes for termination of a contract.

Re:Too much power (2, Interesting)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184478)

Again, IANAL, but I seem to remember that contracts must be done in good faith: depending on the jurisdiction, arbitrary termination is not consider good faith.

Maybe. I should have said you're probably screwed. It all depends on the jurisdiction and the details of the specific case. In New Jersey, for instance, I believe the contract has to be illegal (as in telling someone to do illegal things, e.g. a contract to kill someone) or "unconscionable" to be unenforcible. Terminating someone's contract (and presumably refunding them for any unused time) because you believe that you are going to be subject to a lawsuit if you don't doesn't seem unconscionable to me, regardless of whether or not it turns out you were technically right.

Some of your facts are not right (4, Informative)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183629)

Thank you for taking time to post your feelings but some of your facts are not right.

You can join and get movies online this is a true statement and was not even in the same area of the movie posters that the Hollywood studios send me each week to post on my website. They love the free PR enjoyed it for 2 years 1999-2001. Only when I posted news about movies being downloaded online they try to stop me for telling the world the news I was the 1st to get the news out on that. Note they said that I had Lord of The Rings: Return of The King, The in 2001 that did not come out till Dec. 2003.

Yes you can download full-length movies online and I link too many of them they are not Hollywood movies and Hollywood does not own the word full-length movies and I did not promise anyone movies on my site you are reading between the lines like the courts and the MPAA.

"Now Downloadable" I coined the phase and it is mine and does not just mean movies it means trailers too and I was the 1st to use it in commerce. It is like say Now Showing.

I emailed my ISP and told them I did not have movies and they knew I did not have movies too and still close my site down saying they would not back up a site that only pays them $10 a month. I did file a counter-notification and it is in the case and was submited to the courts and the courts keep over looking it.

MPAA was trying to put me out of business they just do not like anyone telling the truth about them and they do not own me our my network like the rest that are censoring me that is why you do not see my case in the main news. They can not push the little guys around and that is why I am winning the battle. I am only one man that is back by Members to fight for our rights and not sit around and let their rights be taken way remember that we were supported by the Internet Commerce Coalition (ICC), and NetCoalition.com with amicus briefs. ICC members include AT&T, BellSouth, eBay, MCI, Verizon and others. NetCoalition members include Yahoo!, Lycos, Inktomi and others.

I have a right to say what ever I please any time and any where I like. That is why I swore to protect the constitution USA form friends and foes and the MPAA and RIAA act like friends but are foes. I do not wish to live in a MPAA world that the lobbyist paid for unconstitutional laws to be passed and to submit to them less my constitutional rights. The very rights that my fellow soldiers our fighting and dieing today over to protect as the MPAA are widdling way the constitution and trying to wiggle their way out of this like a snake. I will fight them to the end I am not driven by greed. I am driven to do the right thing for my members that support this fight and fight for what little rights we have left.

Michael Jay Rossi
President
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Some of your facts are not right (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184500)

I did not promise anyone movies on my site you are reading between the lines like the courts and the MPAA.

You tricked people into thinking they could download movies from your site. According to the court documents you've even admitted this. In my opinion you did so intentionally in order to make a profit.

I emailed my ISP and told them I did not have movies and they knew I did not have movies too and still close my site down saying they would not back up a site that only pays them $10 a month.

Makes sense. If you want someone to put their legal ass on the line for you, you should probably be paying them more than $10/month.

I did file a counter-notification and it is in the case and was submited to the courts and the courts keep over looking it.

According to your own lawyer, in his brief to the court of appeals, "Mr. Rossi's letter to Mr. Wong fulfills the essence of the counter-notification requirements, with the exception of the express consent to local federal court jurisdiction." (emphasis is mine)

MPAA was trying to put me out of business

Of course they were, you were trying to profit off of their hard work by tricking people into thinking you had copies of their movies on your website.

I have a right to say what ever I please any time and any where I like.

But the MPAA are not? After all, you're suing them for saying something to your ISP.

Re:Some of your facts are not right (2, Interesting)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184614)

No one was tricked and that is your MPAA thinking and in the documents I did not admit to this. You are very wrong and you are the one that is trying the trick people into believing missed fact just like the MPAA does. If you do not work for the MPAA you should they will love you.

My ISP should give anyone they same rights just as the next guy even if the site was free or cost money. Your views on how the world should be our shared with the MPAA and RIAA and most of us on the plant do not share your same ideas of the perfect world.

No one was making a profit of their works and you forget they send me all the movies assets to post on my site. They love the free traffic and ask me to send it to them all the time I sell them millions of movie tickets. One of the MPAA lawyers even asked me for one of my protest T-Shirts to wear. You really have no clue but you're welcome to think any way you like. There is no gray area here just the good and the bad and you're on their side bad thinking. I am suing them for the crime they did and they will pay for it all us good people will see to that without your help.

Micheal Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Some of your facts are not right (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184944)

No one was tricked and that is your MPAA thinking and in the documents I did not admit to this.

Were the judges on the 9th circuit lying when they they said "In fact, Rossi even admitted that his own customers often believed that actual movies were available for downloading on his website."

Re:Some of your facts are not right (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11185066)

That is Member not Members one member not many.
Did you know that Movielink their site only rents movies in the USA but lets others outside the USA order on there site. Many email me telling me about this how they take there money and will not give them their movie they paid for.
So you see me as the bad guy take the time to really look at the MPAA. They say they are Nonprofit and Jack pulls in a 7 figure income.

Re:Some of your facts are not right (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11185109)

That is Member not Members one member not many.

The wording by the 9th circuit was "his own customers often". That would imply it was multiple customers, not a single one.

Did you know that Movielink their site only rents movies in the USA but lets others outside the USA order on there site. Many email me telling me about this how they take there money and will not give them their movie they paid for.

No, I didn't. Are you trying to explain how two wrongs make a right or something?

So you see me as the bad guy take the time to really look at the MPAA.

I see the actions of you, the MPAA, and especially the lawyers of the two of you, as bad.

They say they are Nonprofit and Jack pulls in a 7 figure income.

They are non-profit. Non-profits often pay a salary to their executives.

Re:Some of your facts are not right (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11185203)

Like I said before your posts of misleading the public, name calling, pro MPAA behavior and anti rights has boosted membership support to the site thank you again for your indirect support.

Michael Rossi
InernetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Anthony is a Troll, ignore him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11193518)

Michael;

Keep up the fight.

Also, I have a policy of not feeding the trolls. Anthony, or should I say "Jack Valenti Jr." is obviously a shill for the MPAA.

You can tell by the manner he acts. First, FUD. Second, Insults. Third, FUD.

Re:Anthony is a Troll, ignore him (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11194197)

Thanks I feel the same way to about his posts. There is no need for name calling and all I hope for is the court for make that DMCA fare for us all in the end. Good to see that there is no gray areas here.

Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Some of your facts are not right (1)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215358)

(I'm going to lose my positive mod point for one of your posts in this thread but what the hell)

Rossi, kudos for fighting the good fight. No offense but have you ever stopped to think that the major media outlets might be overlooking your story due to your inability to put together simple sentences? For pete's sake, man. Read the comment I'm replying to. Do you talk in a similar manner? Bush Junior can put together more comprehendable sentences better than you have in this thread. No offense, Rossi. I'm just offering an alternate theory as to why the media is ignoring your case. I hope for your sake and for the rest of the anti-DMCA folks out there that you verbal grasp of English is better than how you write.

Re:Some of your facts are not right (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215803)

Mac Daddy you are right. I just may be the worse speller in the world I admit this. I hope my writing still gets the point across to all. I do speak better then I write. I do pay someone to write the press releases for the company. I do not know why the big media does not do the story on the case just not sure. I will keep trying to do a better job at spelling. Thank you for your input.

Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Some of your facts are not right (1)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 9 years ago | (#11216465)

I'm was referring to spelling, grammar and punctuation actually. Don't worry about it too much. We all make mistakes (even I did in my reply to you); I frequently think faster than I type which causes me to leave out words and trailing characters. Nevertheless, good luck fighting the good fight.

Re:Some of your facts are not right (1)

SilverspurG (844751) | more than 9 years ago | (#11223897)

His writing style reads exactly like my father's. I'd like to know if there's a particular name for Mr. Rossi's ailment or if it's the product of a mere overclocked brain.

Re:Too much power (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11182900)

By the way, here's a Do-It-Yourself Counter Notification Letter [cmu.edu] . Be sure to use it to mitigate your damages if the **AA ever comes after you for something you didn't do.

Re:Too much power (1)

tunah (530328) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183789)

A private organization can *demand* anything. Case in point -- SCO demanding linux licenses

Well, they wouldn't want to have to sue themselves. Although, there's no such thing as bad publicity...

Time travel? (4, Interesting)

IO ERROR (128968) | more than 8 years ago | (#11181981)

The MPAA stated, under penalty of perjury, that in 2001 www.InternetMovies.com made available for illegal download the third installment of "The Lord of the Rings," which was not actually finished until 2003. The MPAA issued a cease and desist order to InternetMovies.com's ISP to shut down the site.

No, it's worse than that. They made a patently false allegation in order to get the site shut down.

According to Rossi, "MPAA communications with my ISP were unreasonable and outrageous and without just cause or excuse and beyond all bounds of decency -- violating the DMCA. The courts must have overlooked that I could not have made a movie downloadable 3 years in the future, which shows that the MPAA was not within the boundaries of decency and that the court should not have ruled in favor of the MPAA."

He raises a good question. How could he make a movie available for download before it was even made?

Re:Time travel? Think SpaceBalls (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11182117)

Obviously you have never seen spaceballs. In a break through of modern technology Mr. Video allows Movies to be rented or purchased before they are finished filming (albeit only in VHS)

Re:Time travel? (4, Insightful)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 8 years ago | (#11182413)

How could he make a movie available for download before it was even made?

Before it was finished. But LoTR was just one of many of the movies listed. The brief only mentions LoTR in one sentence, and the ruling doesn't mention it at all. It's not a very big part of the case.

I also can't have very much sympathy for this guy. He took money from people who signed up for his service which offered "Join to download full length movies online now! new movies every month"; "Full Length Downloadable Movies"; and "NOW DOWNLOADABLE." This asshole "even admitted that his own customers often believed that actual movies were available for downloading on his website." One lowlife battles a lowlife company to try to get rich quick, and only the ones who make anything are the lowlife lawyers.

I am not a asshole or a lowlife nor rich! (2, Interesting)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183750)

The other 18 movies they said I had just came out and were listed at the very bottom of the website and 99.9% of my visitors know I did not have movies on my website. There was one email from someone that asked if I had movies on my site and I told the truth in my deposition that is what you should do right tell the truth and that is all I do always on my site. Yes you can download movies online "ONLINE" this means the Internet not my site. As I stated in the post above I was the 1st to post the news about movies on the Internet and the MPAA did not like that but they love the millions of Internet visitors I send them each year. Note they send me all the posters for the movies and the trailers too. I am not rich by no means Anthony I put it all on the line for this fight and I always return money to anyone that is not happy. So you sound like you like the MPAA you sure do talk just like them reading between the lines and only point out what looks good for the MPAA. Anyone can take a word and say it means something other then you meant it to be. It is called "hyperbole." and the MPAA love to do it and the courts. The fact is the MPAA made a very big mistake and are trying to cover it up and I will not let them. Note see how they do not post news about them winning in the courts they just wish I would go away they love keeping everyone in the dark ages. My Members and I will make them face the light it is time for them to crash and burn.

Michael Jay Rossi
President
InternetMovies.com Inc.

I never said you were rich (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184519)

There was one email from someone that asked if I had movies on my site and I told the truth in my deposition that is what you should do right tell the truth and that is all I do always on my site.

Telling the truth isn't enough. You should tell the whole truth. Maybe not all the time, but certainly under oath and in a business transaction.

In any case, if you always told the truth, then why did you say that people could download LoTR III if the movie wasn't even made yet?

So you sound like you like the MPAA you sure do talk just like them reading between the lines and only point out what looks good for the MPAA.

I'm just pointing out what wasn't already pointed out by the slanted article that was linked to. I explicitly said I don't like the MPAA in my post above.

The fact is the MPAA made a very big mistake and are trying to cover it up and I will not let them.

If the MPAA admitted that they made a mistake would you have dropped your lawsuit? They obviously made a mistake. They're just saying it was an honest mistake.

Note see how they do not post news about them winning in the courts

It's not newsworthy. I'm sure they have crazy people sue them all the time.

Re:I never said you were rich (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184755)

I do tell the truth call it what you like. To me the truth is the truth and you should be honest all the time in my book. I did not say that anyone could download Lord of the Rings Return of the King the MPAA said that not I. The movie poster for Lord of the Rings Return of the King was there for over a year the Ranger software scanned my site and spit that out to them and they did not review the info on that C&D Letter the Ranger software made. They just signed off on it. It is not what you state about you supporting the MPAA it is your actions and all your misinformation that makes you a MPAA supporter. The MPAA is negligent and needs to pay for that and learn not to try to put honest companies out of business and my members and I are teaching them a lesson in Internet manners and we have made big changes in the MPAA in the way they are doing business today and they admit that. See when you get big like them you get very lazy and you need loyal members and I to set them right. This story is very newsworthy that is why in 2002 it was written up in the Washington Post and the Associated Press it is just not on CNN the is Time Warner the is the MPAA and all the other news outlets they own. That is all on the site and you should know that try knowing all your facts before posting and try not to use name calling. Yes I am crazy but I still have rights and I am right. The Nazi hated crazy people too and love to put them to death. There is no crime in being crazy is there? I am the only one to sue them the MPAA admitted to that to.

Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:I never said you were rich (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184985)

I did not say that anyone could download Lord of the Rings Return of the King the MPAA said that not I.

And where did they get that idea? They just made it up to try to sue you? Is there a copy of the C&D available somewhere?

The movie poster for Lord of the Rings Return of the King was there for over a year the Ranger software scanned my site and spit that out to them and they did not review the info on that C&D Letter the Ranger software made.

Do you have any evidence to back up that accusation? By your own admission the investigation into your site began when it was noticed by someone at FOX.

The MPAA is negligent and needs to pay for that and learn not to try to put honest companies out of business

Now they put you out of business? Your $10/month site was down for a max of 3 days and that put you out of business? You don't think maybe your business model of selling links is what put you out of business? Or maybe the fact that you poured your money into a hopeless lawsuit?

Yes I am crazy but I still have rights and I am right. The Nazi hated crazy people too and love to put them to death. There is no crime in being crazy is there?

Nope, there's no crime in being crazy, and I don't hate you, I just don't like your business tactics.

I am the only one to sue them the MPAA admitted to that to.

That's ludicrous. The MPAA has been sued before. Maybe not for this particular issue, but the MPAA has certainly been sued before.

Re:I am not a asshole or a lowlife nor rich! (1)

XO (250276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184573)

I'd expect that the President of a company, any company, would at least be able to handle English to a better degree. (At least , a company based in an English speaking portion of the U.S.)

Does anything this guy just said make sense?

Re:I am not a asshole or a lowlife nor rich! (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184638)

Any one can make a company and call them self president and I need to post that now I made the company Inc. I am not an English teacher and I am not the best speller by no means but I am trying. If something does not make sense to you I will try to help you understand by rewording it. Just let me know what you do not understand.

Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com

P.S I hold all the titles in the company it is only me here running it all.

Re:I am not a asshole or a lowlife nor rich! (1)

XO (250276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11229359)

Now that I've come back to this thread, thank you very much for the invite, moderators who got around to moderating some of my posts...

"hyperbole" is "a figure of speech which uses exaggeration for emphasis or effect" .. hyperbole is not "take a word and say it means something other then you meant it to be", whatever the hell that means, because it doesn't make much sense the way you said it.

They could have saved the money (5, Funny)

mahesh_gharat (633793) | more than 8 years ago | (#11181990)

Intead of pouring that much money into the making of LOTR-III, producer of LOTR could have just downloaded it in 2001 itself from www.InternetMovies.com and released it.

It could have saved his money and everybodies time also. People just don't understand.

Finally (1)

perigee369 (837140) | more than 8 years ago | (#11182045)

It's about damn time someone challenged it... 'nuff said.

Re:Finally (1)

drakethegreat (832715) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183309)

I agree. Its good to see people standing up against corporate bullies. I get sick of the attitude that the MPAA and RIAA display. The attitude of we have millions and we have to make sure we can still make millions so we should sue and create lawsuits to protect it.

Re:Finally (1)

XO (250276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184608)

Sure, but unfortunatly, this guy had posted on the front page of his website "NOW DOWNLOADABLE - FULL LENGTH MOVIES" and then tied it to whatever movies were brand new at the theaters at the time.. now claims that they were two seperate things and that he only provided links to ways to download non-MPAA movies, and news about movies that were new at the theaters.

This guy, up against the MPAA, is just being a complete and total moron.

He's cheating people, and expecting them to pay for it now.

Re:Finally (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184789)

I been claiming the same thing all the time. Members to the site stay for a very long time if they were upset like you say I would of not made it this far. Name calling is a sign of weakness.

Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Obviously, IANAL, but (2, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 8 years ago | (#11182121)

It seems to me that this challenge wouldn't strike the entire DMCA, but rather just the smallest portion of it - namely, the ability of copyright holders to make DMCA shutdown requests to ISPs, and then only in cases where no good-faith effort has been made to determine whether or not a violation actually exists.

Still, any successful attack, even a small one like this, against the DMCA is a good thing. (I also wouldn't mind having the Supremes put another feather in their cap for overturning one more 9th Circus opinion.)

Re:Obviously, IANAL, but (2, Insightful)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 8 years ago | (#11182313)

the ability of copyright holders to make DMCA shutdown requests to ISPs, and then only in cases where no good-faith effort has been made

According to the 9th Circuit ruling [findlaw.com] , the MPAA did make a good faith effort. Specifically, they said that "the district court properly found that no issue of material fact existed as to MPAA's 'good faith belief' that Rossi's website was infringing upon its copyrighted materials."

After my brief reading of the facts, I disagree with the 9th circuit here, but I highly doubt the Supreme Court is going to get involved in such relative minutiae. I'm not even convinced there's a Contitutional issue involved here. After all, the MPAA is not the government. They did something which was probably wrong - tortious interference of a contractual relationship, but they didn't directly violate any First Amendment rights, they merely threatened the guy's ISP causing them to refuse to help him publish his website.

Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183807)

Your real name would not be Jack or would it? The MPAA did not have a good faith of any kind not subjective not objective they did not do their job right they did not even read the C&D the Ranger spit out at them they just sign off on it. Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights it is called abridging the freedom of speech and by making me find a new ISP is abridging my freedom of speech. They forced me to find a new way to go around them to keep my speech alive. I am sure they hate me being able to post here too. Here is a breakdown for you to know how this all started.

Marc Brandon from FOX sends an email to the MPAA "If you have not already initiated an Investigation, please review www.internetmovies.com." Hemanshu Nigam the MPAA Director, Worldwide Internet Enforcement. I would like to know who gave him that title. He pushes email off his lap to Gary Rogness, MPAA that said "I've looked at the site which offers subscriptions to join and able to download movies. I have given the printouts to the site to Nalya with a request to cause C&D letters to be sent. GARY" Well all this guy did is look at the site and print out the from page off of Ranger this site http://209.61.160.242:8080/en-us/client/v2/index.a sp this guy did not do the "Investigation" Marc Brandon from FOX asked him to do, gets better. 12 days later here comes Debra Shapiro from Paramount sending an email saying "Hemu, Further to my voicemail, internetmovies.com is offering downloads of trailers and features of member company product. You have to register to download the full length features. We hear that the quality is high, but did not actually view a download of our product (What Women Want) since we would have to register. They are not licensed by us. (Does anyone license them?) http://www.internetmovies.com Please take action ASAP. Thanks, Debra" Ok now wait one second at that time i have never hosted, shared a trailer or a movie of any kind and she is telling the MPAA "We hear that the quality is high," who told her that? So she is too cheap to order and see if this is true. Is there a shortage of cash in Hollywood. That movie What Women Want I remember I walked out of it in the first 3 mins of it. So again NO "Investigation" like FOX asked for. Funny thing is FOX asked me to push their trailers and I said no cost too much. Hemanshu Nigam the MPAA Director, Worldwide Internet Enforcement. sends a emails saying "Has this taken place up, since the site is still up." then the last email form MPAA, Nelya Tsyurth "Hello All: Please see the following sent on behalf of Hemanshu Nigam. C&D Letter was sent on Friday, March 23, 2001, Reference #96163 Nelya" I will let you all be the judge on this matter. I feel that the MPAA is lazy and negligent and did not do their job right and the sad part is the studios pay them for this. I will fight them until the end. I am sure they never seen so many Internet users stand up and support a web site to fight back. They need to rethink their Business model and show respect to end users and small businesses even if they dislike what the small business is talking about and reporting. I hope in the end the courts change the DMCA where it reads fairly.

Michael Rossi
President
InternetMovies.com

Re:Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184559)

The MPAA did not have a good faith of any kind not subjective not objective they did not do their job right they did not even read the C&D the Ranger spit out at them they just sign off on it.

As I've said, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.

Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights it is called abridging the freedom of speech and by making me find a new ISP is abridging my freedom of speech.

Do you care to point to some case law which backs that up?

Marc Brandon from FOX sends an email to the MPAA "If you have not already initiated an Investigation, please review www.internetmovies.com."

Amazing. So you admit that the investigation began by a personal investigation, and yet you still accuse the MPAA of "not even read[ing] the C&D the Ranger [an automated tool to find copyright infringements] spit out at them".

I will let you all be the judge on this matter.

Based on the statement by Debra Shapiro, I think the MPAA acted in good faith. Shapiro might not have been correct when she said "internetmovies.com is offering downloads of trailers and features of member company product [....] They are not licensed by us.", but that alone should have been enough for a cease and desist.

If you had only sent in a proper counter-notification this all could have been avoided. Next time fill out something like this [cmu.edu] .

I hope in the end the courts change the DMCA where it reads fairly.

It'd be nice if they raised the standard from "good faith" to "reasonable investigation", but that's the job of the lesislators, not the courts.

Re:Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184903)

9th Circuit Court is not liked by many. Many know that the 9th Circuit Court is the MPAA court and is their state. I am sure the MPAA can shake the hands of the 9th Circuit they are in the same state. Remember that the 9th Circuit did not look at the evidence. I did not admit to anything there you go again missing the facts I only showed you what the MPAA submitted as evidence to the case. Debra Shapiro was acting on hear say. I did send the counter-notification. Debating with you is like a broken record one needs to keep repeating ones self to you. You can keep talking all the trash you like no biggie all can see past you. I see your getting flames for your ideas. I hate to entrust our rights with you we would have none.

Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11185010)

9th Circuit Court is not liked by many.

More specifically, there are a number of people who dislike a number of their rulings. I put myself in that category. Doesn't mean they've committed reversible error in this case.

Debra Shapiro was acting on hear say.

There's nothing illegal about acting on hearsay.

I did send the counter-notification.

Your counter-notification was missing a key part.

I see your getting flames for your ideas.

From anonymous trolls... Probably you.

I hate to entrust our rights with you we would have none.

Yeah, I hate rights. That's me. Maybe I should now sue you for libel for saying that about me. Perhaps I can get a lowlife lawyer like the one you have.

Re:Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11185150)

Take the time to call him then you can work it all out with him. Tell him way you think is wrong and argue your case to him and why you feel the MPAA should win. There does the MPAA let you chat to their lawyer. I am sure you will not call them you just like to hide here and miss all the facts and do name calling all day. For your info they are very nice people and have been very honest with me.

FOSBINDER & FOSBINDER A LAW CORPORATION
Jim H. Fosbinder
415 Dairy Road, Ste. E #336
Kahului, HI 96732
By Telephone:(808)244-1524 tel.
toll free: (877)244-1527

Take care
Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11185218)

If they were honest with you then I guess their not going to take any of your money when they enter into a frivolous appeal to the Supreme Court. I have no interest in calling them. They already know they have no chance of winning.

Re:Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11185928)

It is not about money Anthony it is about that one chance that small chance the just maybe we can all win one for us all. I will take that chance even if it costs the shirt on my back. I do not care about the money and that is just the kind of guy you need to fight the MPAA. Someone that does not run and hide when they tell you they will take your house and family away from you and all you own. When I die in this life I know I did the right thing. I did not stand on the side lines crying as my rights are being taken away. I jumped up and took the fight to them. My members now have the same chance to win for only $6 a month. They can not sue them alone but by joining this site they can and that is just what they are doing. I was homeless when I made this business and put my fear to rest of being homeless again and if they like to kill me that's fine to I overcame those fears. I know this, I did the right thing I fought back and that makes me a winner no matter what the out come.

The people's pawn.
Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.

You can support the fight by using this link. I LOVE & SUPPORT INTERNETMOVIES.COM [internetmovies.com]

Wah! Wah! Wah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11186087)

OK, so the primary complaint I here is that you didn't get their registration money so they could check out your real products. They saw what you claimed you had (and did not have) and assumed that you ought to be stopped because of that.

Well, sounds pretty fair to me. If I "claim" I have heroin for sale, I am likely to get busted even if it is just baking soda. I may not go to jail for selling fake heroin, but I am going to spend a lot of time and money with cops and lawyers. Seems to me that you got your reward for selling fake heroin .... er, movies.

You need a better spokesperson. Even if this is just a geek forum you are coming across like you are 17 and dropped out of seventh grade. Too much whining about the Constitution and not enough understanding about what happened to you and why. You may be handicapped, but that doesn't mean you can't use capital letters, spell, and proofread. If this was the form you used in communicating with your lawyers and your ISP, no wonder they think you are a loser.

Seriously, you need to communicate better to get your message across. Could you have a point? Maybe. Will people go out of their way to figure out what you are trying to say? No.

Re:Wah! Wah! Wah! (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11186378)

Hello my site did not say it was offering movies. It said you can get movies online. Not Hollywood movies and not on my site. It is ok for the other news sites to report about movies online just not me.

Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Wah! Wah! Wah! (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 9 years ago | (#11186715)

Well, sounds pretty fair to me. If I "claim" I have heroin for sale, I am likely to get busted even if it is just baking soda. I may not go to jail for selling fake heroin, but I am going to spend a lot of time and money with cops and lawyers. Seems to me that you got your reward for selling fake heroin .... er, movies.

Actually, in some jurisdictions, selling a fake version of a controlled substance is still illegal - there are specific laws prohibiting this, and they don't fall under the umbrella of fraud, but rather under the auspices of anti-drug statutes.

On the other hand, the DMCA doesn't make it illegal to sell (access to) fake versions of movies/trailers (assuming that's what Rossi was doing, which, not having visited his site before the MPAA complaint to his ISP, I can't confirm or deny). However, the DMCA does permit complainants to effectively censor people via filing complaints (with legal ramifications if the complaints are not addressed by the ISP) whether or not those people are actually infringing on the complainants' copyrights. One argument, then, might be that the standard of "good faith" is insufficient to protect the free speech rights of website operators.

Re:Wah! Wah! Wah! (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11186918)

However, the DMCA does permit complainants to effectively censor people via filing complaints (with legal ramifications if the complaints are not addressed by the ISP) whether or not those people are actually infringing on the complainants' copyrights.

That's not exactly true. If the ISP ignored the DMCA complaint, they would not have broken any laws. By taking the site down they were protecting themselves from a copyright infringement lawsuit if there was a copyright infringement in the first place, but just because the **AA sends in a takedown notice doesn't mean it's illegal for you to ignore it.

Re:Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11186968)

You've gotta choose your battles. After all, you've only got one everything to give. I think you chose the wrong battle. So far all you've done is strengthened the DMCA. Now if someone who truly is completely innocent comes along, they can't use the same argument as you (at least not in the 9th circuit). You took a chance on winning it for all of us, and you wound up making things worse. Congratulations.

Re:Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11194222)

The fight is not over.

Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com

Re:Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11194300)

It will be when the Supreme Court rejects the case, won't it?

Re:Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11194630)

If that happens, Anthony then that will be the end of it. Let us all hope the Supreme Court will here it. I am sure you like to see what they got to say about it all and put it all to rest. Remember a joint amicus brief was filed in my favor for controlling the abuse of "good faith belief" from Internet Commerce Coalition (ICC), and NetCoalition.com (http://www.internetmovies.com/legal.html). ICC members include AT&T, BellSouth, eBay, MCI, Verizon and more. NetCoalition members include Yahoo!, Lycos, Inktomi and others (http://www.netcoalition.com/who/). Jim Halpert, of the ICC helped draft the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). So I got most of the biggest corporations on my side in this fight and the RIAA jumped on the MPAA side. They are all using this case to put an end to this debate for once and for all. If no one stands up to fight them then they will take all our rights away. My Members and I our the only check and balance to try to undo the bad law they paid for to passed to kill our rights as we were all sleeping. Know that the MPAA and the RIAA have a dinner party each year to rejoice the passing of the DMCA and the death of our rights. Our rights are the only thing standing in the MPAA and RIAA's way from them having total control over us all.

Thanks for your support
Michael Rossi
President
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights (1)

SilverspurG (844751) | more than 9 years ago | (#11223948)

I can't help but laugh. You are a first rate _TROLL_.

Cert denied (0, Troll)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 8 years ago | (#11182178)

I can see it now - "Cert denied". How the hell did this make it to the 9th circuit court of appeals in the first place? If the DMCA is unconstitutional, then what grounds does Rossi have for suing the RIAA for violating it? Maybe it's just PrimeZone Media that has no clue what it's talking about. I'm sure the Slashbots will jump on this though. I mean, the guys going up against the MPAA. He must be right!

Re:Cert denied (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11182192)

How the hell did this make it to the 9th circuit court of appeals in the first place? If the DMCA is unconstitutional, then what grounds does Rossi have for suing the RIAA for violating it?

This is the stupidest logic I've ever heard. There are many clauses in the DMCA. You can sue against violation of one in the process of defendant pursuing another.

You clearly are not a lawyer. Even common sense - you fail it.

Re:Cert denied (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 8 years ago | (#11182257)

I almost responded to this. Then I realized it was posted by an anonymous troll.

Re:Cert denied (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11183986)

Actually you did respond to it. Yer pretty bright there. Oh, and it's anonymous coward, not troll.

Re:Cert denied (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11185014)

It is a good think to be able to be anonymous. One of the rights they are trying to take away.
I am sure anthony_dipierro is not his real name with all the name calling he does.

My real name
Micheal Jay Rossi
InternetMovies.com

Anthony get your facts right (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183834)

Oh, Anthony you need to get your facts right and I will help you. This case got to the 9th circuit court because my members and I paid for it to be there to kick the MPAA's butts and are still trying we just need to show the courts what liars the MPAA are. I am suing the MPAA not the RIAA ok. PrimeZone is a news wire that I use to try to get the news out there and it costs $400 to do this each time and that is why I ask for membership support. See no big news picks up the story because they are all owned by the MPAA that is called corporate censorship. PrimeZone did not write my press release I did. Yes I am fighting the MPAA and yes I am right and we all need to try to make the courts see this and hope that they do the right thing for us all to restore our rights.

Michael Jay Rossi
President
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Anthony get your facts right (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184579)

This case got to the 9th circuit court because my members and I paid for it to be there to kick the MPAA's butts and are still trying we just need to show the courts what liars the MPAA are.

I didn't realize the 9th circuit had to take all cases presented to them. Fortunately the Supreme Court doesn't.

I am suing the MPAA not the RIAA ok.

Yes, I made a typo. Should I point out every one of your grammatical mistakes?

PrimeZone is a news wire that I use to try to get the news out there and it costs $400 to do this each time and that is why I ask for membership support.

Amazing. So the only link the submitter saw fit to give is propaganda from you? Are you the one who submitted this to slashdot too? I for one don't appreciate the spam.

See no big news picks up the story because they are all owned by the MPAA that is called corporate censorship.

All I can say is...LOL...good luck getting the Supreme Court to buy that one. Cut your losses now. Your lawyer is just taking money from you now. You have no chance (I suppose it was worth it for the publicity, but even that is probably starting to run out, I doubt slashdot will feature a story when your cert gets denied, but hey, they do still have Timoth working for them).

PrimeZone did not write my press release I did.

That explains why it was so heavily slanted and filled with nonsense.

Yes I am fighting the MPAA and yes I am right and we all need to try to make the courts see this and hope that they do the right thing for us all to restore our rights.

Our rights to sue the MPAA for talking to our ISP. That'll be a big a big win for free speech! LOL.

Re:Anthony get your facts right (2, Insightful)

XO (250276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184603)

I'm sorry, Michael, but every message you write, I want to choke the shit out of you for being such a moron. "big news" is not owned by the MPAA. You are wrong, all you have done is tried to cheat people and now you're trying to get them to pay for your dumb ass.

Re:Anthony get your facts right (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184983)

It shows you are both MPAA and RIAA supporters. I am sure they are hiring. It is guys like you and them that are cheating the people out of their rights. You two should write to slashdot and ask them to remove my posts. Your MPAA friend gave you the power to do that now.

Take care
Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.

P.S Thanks to your posts you have boosted membership support to the site thank you for your indirect support.

Re:Anthony get your facts right (1)

XO (250276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11228711)

I fucking hate the MPAA, and RIAA. And now, I fucking hate you too. All the same, all attempting to cheat people, IMO.

Note, I didn't respond to your other childish rants, I didn't even bother to read them.. but since my post got moderated to "INSIGHTFUL" .. (+3) I had to come back and see which one it was.

Tell me, is English your first language?

Re:Cert denied (1)

Apiakun (589521) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184063)

Hah. It looks like you accidentally typed "circuit" when you meant 9th circus court of appeals. Those guys are lunatics and will turn over any and every ruling that gets put in front of them just because they are that lame.

Paypal fund (1)

kaptink (699820) | more than 8 years ago | (#11182402)

Can I suggest a paypal fund to help pay legal fees. There would be a lot of people out there willing to help. And god knows you will need them taking on the RIAA!

Re:Paypal fund (1)

kaptink (699820) | more than 8 years ago | (#11182411)

MPAA, RIAA whatever lol there all the same :)

Re:Paypal fund (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 8 years ago | (#11182462)

Let him spend the money he scammed the people registering for his website out of.

Paypal support is welcome (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183844)

Thank for your support Kaptink, Yes I let Internet users become members using paypal and it help out a lot and without my Members we would not of have this change of a life time to beat the MPAA. The RIAA is helping the MPAA in trying to beat this case so I am fight them both.

Anthony you call me names most of your fact are not right that you post and we all see your a MPAA support and love the DMCA you do not need to help with this fight we will all do it for you ok. I am not a scam and do not scam anyone if you see reporting the news as a scam then there is a lot of scaming news sites out there.

Re:Paypal support is welcome (1)

kmmatthews (779425) | more than 9 years ago | (#11190809)

I don't think Anthony is an MPAA supporter. I think he, like me, doesn't like you for other reasons. For example,
"Join to download full length movies online now! new movies every month"; "Full Length Downloadable Movies"; and "NOW DOWNLOADABLE."
This from your website before it was shut down.

Re:Paypal support is welcome (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11192865)

That was a true statement and that was not near the posters that Hollywood sent me for over 2 years. Even if it was by the Hollywood movie posters it still does not give them the right to close down my site and say I have movies from the future. It was very clear and noted that they were links to apple.com trailers giving Hollywood free PR for over two years and they loved it then and love it even more now. They did not have a problem with that tell I reported the news about their movies being downloaded online and when I sued them. Not all movies made are owned by Hollywood and I have a right to promote any movie from anyone in the world not just Hollywood movies. So what you are really saying it is ok for anyone else but me. It is like saying it is ok for the New York Times to promote Indies movies online and advertise Hollywood movies and say what ever they like to say but I do not have the same rights as them because I am not rich and powerful like them. So much for equal rights for me but it is ok for you and them.

Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com

Questions (4, Insightful)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 8 years ago | (#11182483)

Well, assuming he didn't actually distribute movies without the respective copyright owners' permission, he's got my full support. Why can a private organization just get a website (any website!) shut down without the facts being checked, without the owner of the site being asked to present his side of the story first, and without actually having to come up with proof that it does do something illegal? And, maybe even more important... why does the MPAA actually lower itself to using false allegations? I can understand that they represent a certain opinion and thus aren't neutral, but that doesn't mean they should use illegitimate or even illegal means to reach their goals, does it? How can they accuse others of doing illegal or illegimate things when they do it themselves? And, in the light of that - why isn't this story on the frontpage?

Re:Questions (3, Insightful)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11182752)

Why can a private organization just get a website (any website!) shut down without the facts being checked, without the owner of the site being asked to present his side of the story first, and without actually having to come up with proof that it does do something illegal?

That's something you should be asking the ISP. It's the ISP which chose to ignore him and shut down his site, after all. Of course, had Rossi sent in a proper counter-notification, the site never would have been taken down in the first place.

why does the MPAA actually lower itself to using false allegations?

The guy claimed to have the movies available on his website. In order for the MPAA to check whether or not he was lying (as it turns out he was), they'd have to have paid the guy money to sign up for hihs "service". That's probably why they didn't bother.

How can they accuse others of doing illegal or illegimate things when they do it themselves?

Well, according to the 9th circuit, they haven't done anything illegal or illegitimate.

And, in the light of that - why isn't this story on the frontpage?

Someone sued the MPAA and lost. They took the case to the 9th circuit court of appeals and lost. They plan to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will most likely reject the case. Why does it belong on the front page, because the lawyer is throwing around the phrase "first amendment"?

Re:Questions (1)

ibbey (27873) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183071)

The guy claimed to have the movies available on his website. In order for the MPAA to check whether or not he was lying (as it turns out he was), they'd have to have paid the guy money to sign up for hihs "service". That's probably why they didn't bother.

I agree with much of what you have to say, but here I disagree. You should have some proof of wrongdoing before you sue. Just because the guy claimed to be offering the movie for download isn't enough. The fact that at least one of the movies wasn't even completed yet casts serious doubts as to the veracity of his claims. Based on the alone, they should have investigated further. I think $3 is not an unreasonable amount to verify the claims. If he was in fact offering the movies for download, they could easily ask for an extra $3 in damages. The fact that they couldn't be bothered to verify his (easily verifiable) claims makes this a reasonable lawsuit.

Why does it belong on the front page, because the lawyer is throwing around the phrase "first amendment"?

Here you're wrong as well. Assuming that he was not violating the law, this is a significant first ammendment issue. The MPAA can't stifle his right to free speech on the off chance that he might be violating the law. If he is, then they have every right to go after him. But they must first have evidence to back up their claims. Had they paid the $3, the case could have been a slam dunk.

One thing that we do know is that the MPAA committed perjury: "The MPAA stated, under penalty of perjury, that in 2001 www.InternetMovies.com made available for illegal download the third installment of "The Lord of the Rings", which was not actually finished until 2003." So, it seems to me that the one side that can conclusively be proven to have broken the law is the MPAA. Let's hope the courts are awake enough to realize that.

Re:Questions (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183116)

The guy claimed to have the movies available on his website. In order for the MPAA to check whether or not he was lying (as it turns out he was), they'd have to have paid the guy money to sign up for hihs "service". That's probably why they didn't bother.

I agree with much of what you have to say, but here I disagree. You should have some proof of wrongdoing before you sue.

Well, 1) I didn't say what they did was right, I just said that's probably why they did it; and 2) they didn't sue, they just threatened to sue.

The fact that they couldn't be bothered to verify his (easily verifiable) claims makes this a reasonable lawsuit.

It was a reasonable lawsuit. I'm not even sure the 9th Circuit made the right decision. But going to the Supreme Court with it is just over the top. There isn't a Constitutional issue here. The Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to sue someone for lying to your ISP. The First Amendment doesn't go that far.

One thing that we do know is that the MPAA committed perjury

Perjury requires bad faith. The 9th Circuit ruled that the MPAA was acting in good faith. Frankly, without reading the actual takedown notice (which I couldn't find), I can't say for sure.

So, it seems to me that the one side that can conclusively be proven to have broken the law is the MPAA.

I certainly don't think it was "conclusively proven". According to the 9th Circuit, in fact, it was conclusively proven that they didn't break the law. I wouldn't go that far, but then again I haven't seen all the facts, just the brief by the plaintiff and the ruling.

Re:Questions (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183166)

Here you're wrong as well. Assuming that he was not violating the law, this is a significant first ammendment issue. The MPAA can't stifle his right to free speech on the off chance that he might be violating the law.

Well. 1) The MPAA didn't stifle his speech. They convinced the ISP to stop facilitating his speech. 2) Even if the MPAA did stifle his speech, it still wouldn't be a First Amendment issue, because the First Amendment applies to government abridgement of speech. If I cover your mouth while you're trying to talk, I've committed assault, not violated the Constitution. Likewise, if I convince your ISP to take down your website, I (might have) committed tortious interference, but I certainly haven't violated the Constitution. If a court ordered the ISP to take down the website then it'd be a Constitutional issue. Even if the DMCA required the ISP to take down the website it might be a Constitutional issue. But the DMCA doesn't require this, it just provides the ISP with immunity from prosecution if they do.

Flaw in your logic. (1)

hummassa (157160) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184152)

If the MPAA could use the (US Congress) DMCA to stifle his free speach via his ISP, then the DMCA is unconstitutional. Simple.

Re:Flaw in your logic. (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184587)

If the MPAA could use the (US Congress) DMCA to stifle his free speach via his ISP, then the DMCA is unconstitutional.

True. But they didn't and couldn't. They just told an untruth (Rossi would call it a lie) to his ISP claiming that they could.

If I tell slashdot that I'll sue them for murderr unless they remove your post, does that mean that the laws against murder are unconstitutional?

Re:Questions (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 9 years ago | (#11186126)

The issue with verification and paying to register is handled with the takedown notice. If you are doing something wrong, it comes down. If you aren't you file the proper paperwork contesting it and two things happen: everyone is paying attention and the site doesn't get taken down. Period. Then comes the investigation and arguing about what constitutes violation of licenses and copyrights.

What this doofus did was mis-file the paperwork so his site got taken down. And then he wants to complain about the takedown - I guess the MPAA found out what content there was there really and dropped the whole matter.

In the DMCA world it is pretty simple - you file the C&D and the takedown notice with the ISP and (maybe) the site owner. The site owner cross-files (properly) and then everyone waits for the real lawsuit. I don't see any "real lawsuit" here. I don't think it is coming because when they found out what the real content was it got dropped.

Now maybe doofus lost his site content because it wasn't copied anywhere else and the ISP refused to back it up. So, this "put him out of business". Sounds like it was some kind of scam or bait and switch anyway.

Here is more facts form me Michael Rossi (2, Informative)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183961)

Anthony your facts are not right again. The MPAA forced my ISP to close my site down here is the letter that they sent to the ISP they did not just email them a C&D letter they called the ISP and order them to close my site down. Then they mailed a signed letter ordering the ISP to close the site down. "Without addressing the merits of your arguments, please be advised again that pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, you are required to disable access to this site in an expeditious matter once the appropriate notice has been sent to you."

http://www.internetmovies.com/mpaaletter/mpaalet te r0.jpg

I did send the ISP the counter-notification and it was submitted as evidence to the courts and they keep over looking the fact of the case like you.

NOTE: I did not claim to have movies on my website. I only claimed that you could download movies online and find the information in my website by being a member and I was doing that for over 2 years and they did not get upset tell I started reporting the news about movies on the Internet Hollywood does not own all the movies in the world ok and the are not the world nor gods.

All they needed to do is read the site and they knew that I did not have movies they said so in the case and admitted that. They made a mistake and are using the good faith thing to try to get off the hook.

9th circuit did not look at the evidence I am not sure if they even read all the paper work and you did not see the judge smiling at the MPAA when they walked out the court room like thinking do not worry we got your back MPAA.

I am not on the FrontPage because of their corporate censorship. Note a reporter called me form ABC and did an hour
Interview with me and asked me to email him the DMCA things I had and I did and called him back and he told me that he could not get the emails and can not run the story because ABC is owned by Disney and Disney is the MPAA and they put me on a Black list. So that is why. They like to keep you asleep when taking your rights away when you sleep. Snakes.

The MPAA did commit perjury they did act in bad faith. I do not have a time machine and that is a fact.

The MPAA did break the DMCA law the courts seem to over look the facts and the evidence.

Here is the C&D Letter for you to look at.

http://www.internetmovies.com/mpaaletter/mpaaema il .txt

Michael Jay Rossi
President
InternetMovies.com Inc.

Re:Here is more facts form me Michael Rossi (1)

XO (250276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11184584)

Just sign your letters,
"Michael Jay Rossi. Moron at Large."

You're making no sense. Please, go away.

Prior restraint, no oversight? (2, Informative)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 9 years ago | (#11183560)

Actually, the Supreme Court may well rule against this, and I hope they do. The Court has ruled, over and over again, that "prior restraint" (being prevented from saying something before even saying it) is generally not acceptable, [eff.org] except in the most extreme cases.

Excerpted from the decision cited above:

"Although the Sixth Circuit in Procter & Gamble has held that a defendant's improper conduct in obtaining confidential information does not justify a prior restraint, the legal system may yet provide redress through criminal prosecution, if such is found to be warranted by the underlying facts."

What does this say? Even though the speech above may be CRIMINAL in nature (extortionist, read the page to find more detail), and even though it overwhelmingly appears that the information he is publishing are trade secrets which Ford can successfully sue him for, he CANNOT be prohibited from publishing them by injunction.

Of course, this does not mean that he may not be sued and/or prosecuted if and when he DOES, if what he is publishing violates the law. But the Court's precedents are clear: Prior restraint is unconstitutional except in the most extreme cases, e.g. someone is about to publish a planned movement of troops in the paper or on a website. This case, as with the Lane case, only establishes that monetary/commercial losses may result. The Court has ruled very clearly that this is not even a valid reason for a court or Congress to issue prior restraint. Do we wish to give a corporation powers that we would not even grant to our judges and legislators?

The **AA's should have the same standard as anyone else. If you feel that some published speech "damages" you, you have two options. The first option, and probably the best, especially if you feel that they might've accidentally violated the law, is to send a cease-and-desist letter to the PERSON running the website. As to the "But the ISP's won't give us the identity of their customers to send letters to!" I say "GOOD!" That doesn't mean you can't contact them. Most websites have an email link to the site admin, and if not, I would think it acceptable to put a provision in the law that ISP's must forward legal correspondence regarding a website they host to that site's owner. This policy would have two positive effects: The copyright holders would be served by being immediately able to contact suspected infringers, and the consumer would benefit from greater anonymity and the taking of excessive power from the **AA's.

Of course, the second option is to take the webmaster directly to court. If the court finds the site to be infringing, they will issue an injunction ordering the webmaster to take down all infringing material, as well as possibly awarding damages. However, this should not happen until AFTER a trial has been held, or a settlement reached.

Re:Prior restraint, no oversight? (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 9 years ago | (#11186181)

Prior restraint is somewhat of a reach here, but OK. The problem is that in the "Digital Millenium" your idea of:

Of course, the second option is to take the webmaster directly to court. If the court finds the site to be infringing, they will issue an injunction ordering the webmaster to take down all infringing material, as well as possibly awarding damages. However, this should not happen until AFTER a trial has been held, or a settlement reached.

doesn't work. It takes too long. The damage has been done already with the material being distributed in digital form. This is the reason for the existance of the DMCA and why it is set up the way it is.

OK, let's say this is wrong and your idea is how things should work. What happens when the "website owner" cannot be contacted? As in the site is owned anonymously, paid for in cash and there is no valid contact information in the domain registration. Nobody can be sued and nobody can be contacted. Does infringing content just stay up then?

I think the problem here is that (a) the guy is a doofus who can't write effectively and everyone thinks he is 12, and (b) the process got short-circuited because of some missteps. Normally, you'd have your content backed up somewhere, right? Normally, if you don't have infringing content you contact the people that think you do and show them you don't. Normally, you don't get made-up stories about interlocking companies trying to censor "the little guy".

Re:Prior restraint, no oversight? (1)

netmovies (673178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11186320)

The MPAA are the doofus here saying I had movies from the future. I am a bad writer and it will be hard to write a book about it all. I am 38 years old and live on Maui. Yes the site was backed up but that is not the point. I did show them I did not have infringing content I call them they did not answer and I emailed the ISP too. It is not a made-up story it is a fact they are censoring the story and the case. Yes I am the little guy.

Michael Rossi
InternetMovies.com Inc.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?