Copyright Lawyers Sue Lawyer Who Helped Copyright Defendants

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

wow and here i was thinking lawyers couldn't be bigger douchefucks. Now as someone (electrical enginner) who is completely oblivious to [copyright] laws i think this probably all a bunch of bullshit and if a sane person would be handling that case, he should laugh in their douchefuck attorney faces

If you throw enough money at it ... you can make anything a law

Oh goody. I can now protect myself if I ever go to court for copyright violations.

This is why there aren't any good lawyers left. As soon as one shows up, the other lawyers sue him/her out of existence.

TMAN10112:
okay, let me get this straight.

A lawyer who is selling self-help documents (which show people how to defend themselves in court, rather than hiring a expensive attorney), is being sued by a group of lawyers who are angry that the people who took advantage of his advice don't need to pay them thousands of dollars for something they can now do themselves.

....am I getting this right?

Almost. USCG is one of those "companies" that make money by "speculative invoicing". Which basically means sending messages saying "We can convince a judge that you pirated XYZ, Pay us $5000 or we'll have a court destroy your life." to random people, guilty or not. So then you either pay them or spend 10 times as much on court fees getting the charges dropped.

So they're blackmailing people at random(figures range from 20% to 3% amount of pirates total, let alone people who specifically downloaded the content named in the letter) and they're suing somebody who's educating people on how to prove their innocence with a $20 book instead of $200000 in lawyer fees.

I don't get this one overall, fundementally what this guy did was charge for legal advice/consultation. He just put the information down on paper and sold that, rather than arranging a face to face meeting. Lawyers charge for legal advice and consultation all the time, it's what they do. I fail to see how a case could be made out of this at all, and I'm usually pretty good at looking at things from all kinds of wierd angles and perspectives.

The best precedent I could come up with is that they are argueing that he's acting as a representitive without being on record/comissioned as one. There are tons of problems with an arguement like that however.

I think the real question here is why people were downloading Far Cry. Seriously, they need mental help, and possibly compensation.

But on topic this is just funny. 'You can't tell people how to defend themselves, that's immoral!' Nice to know that of all the things changing in this world, lawyers aren't one of them.

The man is being sued for teaching people how to defend themselves in court? Isn't that like, the American ideal or something? Each man supporting himself and making his own way and stuff?

Therumancer:
I don't get this one overall, fundementally what this guy did was charge for legal advice/consultation. He just put the information down on paper and sold that, rather than arranging a face to face meeting. Lawyers charge for legal advice and consultation all the time, it's what they do. I fail to see how a case could be made out of this at all, and I'm usually pretty good at looking at things from all kinds of wierd angles and perspectives.

The best precedent I could come up with is that they are argueing that he's acting as a representitive without being on record/comissioned as one. There are tons of problems with an arguement like that however.

They're suing him for loss of income because they can't sue random people for nothing and expect them to fork over money based on sheer intimidation anymore.

Sniper Team 4:
So...this man is getting sued because he's teaching people how to defend themselves in court? Do I have that right? What the hell? It's amazing we don't see more stories about lawyers getting gunned down in the street instead of Walmart employees.

I was going to bring up the picture of Phoenix wight and Edgeworth duking it out with suitcases and then say something witty under it, but when I went too look for it all I got was rule 34 and now I feel too sick to say anything.

OT: LOLOLOLOLOLOLAWYERS. Silly prosecutors, winning is for good lawyers.

Sniper Team 4:
So...this man is getting sued because he's teaching people how to defend themselves in court? Do I have that right? What the hell? It's amazing we don't see more stories about lawyers getting gunned down in the street instead of Walmart employees.

For those asking how it is legal to sue someone for this, it's simple. In America, you can sue anyone for anything, no matter how ridiculous. A judge has the option to throw it out, but you can still sue someone, possibly costing them thousands of dollars in legal fees, over something as silly as, say, singing Christmas Carols at Thanksgiving (not an actual legal example, just something off the top of my head). You just have to hope the judge who hears the case is sensible enough to tell them where to stick their lawsuit. Yes, our legal system does need an overhaul, but unfortunately it's the best we got.

So can anyone tell me what, exactly, he did that was illegal?

Sir John the Net Knight:
What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A damn good start.

The worst part is, it's not the lawyers... they're just doing a job.

Who the hell would download Far Cry the movie? I mean jesus christ on ice skates

AC10:
So can anyone tell me what, exactly, he did that was illegal?

Preventing a bunch of bloodsucking lawyers from making money, apparently.

Commander Breetai:

AC10:
So can anyone tell me what, exactly, he did that was illegal?

Preventing a bunch of bloodsucking lawyers from making money, apparently.

I'm just wondering exactly how in the hell they think they're going to win this.

Persecution's Argument: "HE WROTE A BOOK AND I DIDN'T LIKE IT!!!"

Judge "... Case Dismissed".

EightGaugeHippo:
US law is either too confusing or just too 'tarded for me to understand.

I'm not a lawyer, but took Criminal Justice (with intent of going into forensics) a long time ago. Truthfully it's actually pretty simple at it's basic level. It's people who tend
to make it retarded as long chains of precedents are established.

The basic deal is that we have two seperate legal systems. Criminal cases which are a person against the goverment are handled differantly and have higher standards of proof and evidence than Civil Cases which involved differant courts and have much lower standards. The idea being that a person going up against the collective might of the US goverment needs more protection for things to be fair, than a person going up against another person or private group. In most cases this makes sense.

In Criminal Cases we have a standard of evidence where something must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", they key word being "reasonable" as there can be a doubt cast on anything. What this means is that the goverment has to prove a case to a virtual certainy, even someone who is "very likely" to have committed a crime is to be let free to avoid mistakes. Most countries do not have this level of protection, and this is one of the big reasons why you wind up seeing some rather high profile criminals being let free when it's obvious they committed the crime, all they have to do is introduce a reasonable doubt into the case. A prosecutor can have a perfect case, but if say the defendant pulls out an Alibi that the prosecutor can't disprove that case is meaningless. In the US it can't be say 90% likely
that someone did something we're aiming for that 99% so to speak.

In civil cases the standard goes to "A preponderance of evidence" which basically means whomever can make a better case. The guy who gets 51% wins the case. In some civil cases the standard is "clear and convincing testimony" which basically means evidence isn't nessicarly going to be present or relevent, and comes down to whose lawyer makes a more persuasive arguement, however that gets complicated.

The problem with the US legal system is how we handle precedent, basically when a judge or jury makes a ruling on something it becomes part of our living body of law.

To use a criminal example, the BASIC details of "Mapp Vs. Ohio" is a big one for this involved a case where a bunch of cops looking for a missing fugitive went to the house of Mrs. Mapp looking for the guy with a warrent. They went into the house and searched and couldn't find the guy, but they DID find pornography. Understand that pornography by it's very nature is illegal in the US, most of what is called "porn" is not pornography in a legal sense. There is a very specific standard for getting something declared "porn" and made illegal, it has to be obscene and without any redeeming merit. This being a key element in things like the current Supreme Court case involving video games (which I won't get into, or how it applies). At any rate they used this porn (probably kiddy porn or something they knew was banned) to try and cajole her into spilling the beans on this escapee. She didn't comply and was arrested. In court she complained that they shouldn't have been able to search her house the way they did, since there was no reason for them to toss her place and find her porn stash looking for a fugitive. In this case the Judge agreed with her.

That's a simplistic version, and it's been a while, so I could have the details wrong in places, the bottom line though is that as a result of that ruling the standards for search and seizure in the US changed, and the scope of warrents was carefully limited. For example a policeman with a warrent to find a fugitive can't open a breadbox, and if he does and finds drugs or an illegal weapon it's not admissible (and incidently can't be used to pressure the people in the residence). Later interpetations of Mapp Vs. Ohio lead to further rulings which themselves spawned more precedent, ad infinium. The end result being that our right to "Protection From Unreasonable Search and Seizure", one of our base laws, works far differantly than the intent of the founding fathers and the examples they left behind.

In both civil and criminal cases, arguements oftentimes come down to people argueing precdent vs. precedent to make a case for who is right in a legal sense.

I can't figure out the logic behind this paticular suit, but there are requirements that attorneys have to be on record in most places. You can't in general have a secret attorney nobody knows about for a number of reasons. As amusing as the idea of masked prosecutors, and secret superhero attorneys are in various wierd kinds of fiction, that kind of thing isn't allowed in the US. It's pushing any definition I know of because legal advice is differant from representation, but I suppose some wierd precedent could be used to argue that the paperwork counts as representation when that lawyer isn't on record as representing the clients.

Lawyers suing lawyers.

Only in America.

RobCoxxy:
So (in ridiculous terms), lawyers are lawyering a lawyer for his effective lawyering?

I like your logic!

I guess that law firm is in desperate need of coke money.

I thought the copyright lawyers had the whole hissy fit down, now they have refined it to an art form.

Copyright Lawyers Sue Lawyer Who Helped Copyright Defendants

...

that sounds like a fucking Zen riddle

Therumancer:

EightGaugeHippo:
US law is either too confusing or just too 'tarded for me to understand.

I'm not a lawyer, but took Criminal Justice (with intent of going into forensics) a long time ago. Truthfully it's actually pretty simple at it's basic level. It's people who tend
to make it retarded as long chains of precedents are established.

The basic deal is that we have two seperate legal systems. Criminal cases which are a person against the goverment are handled differantly and have higher standards of proof and evidence than Civil Cases which involved differant courts and have much lower standards. The idea being that a person going up against the collective might of the US goverment needs more protection for things to be fair, than a person going up against another person or private group. In most cases this makes sense.

In Criminal Cases we have a standard of evidence where something must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", they key word being "reasonable" as there can be a doubt cast on anything. What this means is that the goverment has to prove a case to a virtual certainy, even someone who is "very likely" to have committed a crime is to be let free to avoid mistakes. Most countries do not have this level of protection, and this is one of the big reasons why you wind up seeing some rather high profile criminals being let free when it's obvious they committed the crime, all they have to do is introduce a reasonable doubt into the case. A prosecutor can have a perfect case, but if say the defendant pulls out an Alibi that the prosecutor can't disprove that case is meaningless. In the US it can't be say 90% likely
that someone did something we're aiming for that 99% so to speak.

In civil cases the standard goes to "A preponderance of evidence" which basically means whomever can make a better case. The guy who gets 51% wins the case. In some civil cases the standard is "clear and convincing testimony" which basically means evidence isn't nessicarly going to be present or relevent, and comes down to whose lawyer makes a more persuasive arguement, however that gets complicated.

The problem with the US legal system is how we handle precedent, basically when a judge or jury makes a ruling on something it becomes part of our living body of law.

To use a criminal example, the BASIC details of "Mapp Vs. Ohio" is a big one for this involved a case where a bunch of cops looking for a missing fugitive went to the house of Mrs. Mapp looking for the guy with a warrent. They went into the house and searched and couldn't find the guy, but they DID find pornography. Understand that pornography by it's very nature is illegal in the US, most of what is called "porn" is not pornography in a legal sense. There is a very specific standard for getting something declared "porn" and made illegal, it has to be obscene and without any redeeming merit. This being a key element in things like the current Supreme Court case involving video games (which I won't get into, or how it applies). At any rate they used this porn (probably kiddy porn or something they knew was banned) to try and cajole her into spilling the beans on this escapee. She didn't comply and was arrested. In court she complained that they shouldn't have been able to search her house the way they did, since there was no reason for them to toss her place and find her porn stash looking for a fugitive. In this case the Judge agreed with her.

That's a simplistic version, and it's been a while, so I could have the details wrong in places, the bottom line though is that as a result of that ruling the standards for search and seizure in the US changed, and the scope of warrents was carefully limited. For example a policeman with a warrent to find a fugitive can't open a breadbox, and if he does and finds drugs or an illegal weapon it's not admissible (and incidently can't be used to pressure the people in the residence). Later interpetations of Mapp Vs. Ohio lead to further rulings which themselves spawned more precedent, ad infinium. The end result being that our right to "Protection From Unreasonable Search and Seizure", one of our base laws, works far differantly than the intent of the founding fathers and the examples they left behind.

In both civil and criminal cases, arguements oftentimes come down to people argueing precdent vs. precedent to make a case for who is right in a legal sense.

I can't figure out the logic behind this paticular suit, but there are requirements that attorneys have to be on record in most places. You can't in general have a secret attorney nobody knows about for a number of reasons. As amusing as the idea of masked prosecutors, and secret superhero attorneys are in various wierd kinds of fiction, that kind of thing isn't allowed in the US. It's pushing any definition I know of because legal advice is differant from representation, but I suppose some wierd precedent could be used to argue that the paperwork counts as representation when that lawyer isn't on record as representing the clients.

Thanks for that explanation, I was pretty much lost and confused until I saw your post.

RobCoxxy:
So (in ridiculous terms), lawyers are lawyering a lawyer for his effective lawyering?

It seems its a "crime" to inform people of their rights in one affordable and accesible package, because it means the other lawyers cant take advantage of their ignorance hence making them lose lots of potential money. After all, justice naturally favors whoevers has the most money, right?

That lawyer made one great move to help people with his kit.
THe legal system is one heck of a complicated thing and self-defense is pretty much impossible (you need to make a HELL LOT of research to stand a chance), even in Canada.

Maybe if more lawyers were doing this the system would actually do its job and provide justice for all.

TMAN10112:
okay, let me get this straight.

A lawyer who is selling self-help documents (which show people how to defend themselves in court, rather than hiring a expensive attorney), is being sued by a group of lawyers who are angry that the people who took advantage of his advice don't need to pay them thousands of dollars for something they can now do themselves.

....am I getting this right?

Not quite. It looks like the copyright lawyers forgot about personal jurisidction when they filed, and are now getting their teeth kicked in and are, understandilby unhappy about that.

Sneaklemming:

Therumancer:

EightGaugeHippo:
US law is either too confusing or just too 'tarded for me to understand.

Snip.

Thanks for that explanation, I was pretty much lost and confused until I saw your post.

Yeah me too, thanks. I can follow the thread a bit better now.

You can try to sue over basically anything, but that really doesn't mean you can win.

You have the right to take things that you consider important to court, but you still have a ruling.

In this case they will lose the case, but they probably just want to scare the guy and waste some of his time.

American law system = Fail

This is proven pretty much every day.

Dear lord, this is like "who's on first"!

From what I actually understood, the uscg are being HUGE pricks. Hope they lose horribly.

I do hope all the best for Graham Syfert. Someone should sue the U.S. Copyright Group for inhumane actions. Too bad you can't sue the group for being litigious monsters.

Twad:

Maybe if more lawyers were doing this the system would actually do its job and provide justice for all.

Unfortunately, justice is less important than personal gain, profit.

This guy is doing the right thing, and people are trying to punish him for it.

This story made me pirate The Hurt Locker out of spite, with no intention of actually watching it. Also, "unless they are going to actually work for a living" made me love this Syfert fellow, who clearly realizes that profiting from financial terrorism makes you a lazy prick.

Daystar Clarion:
The UK law student laughs at the American legal system! It's super effective!

Seriously, the lawsuit culture in America is ridiculous...

Says the man whose country is cherry-picked for libel cases.

MaxPowers666:
I think this is probably one of the best things I have ever heard. I mean I know the US is rumored to be sue happy but god dam this is just hilarious. Dont you guys have any way to just bash somebody over the head for trying to make ridiculous lawsuits like this. Its actually problems like this that make your legal system completely useless.

They know full well that their lawsuit is going to fail but they are going to try and drag it out to either bully the guy into stop selling his packages or try and bankrupt him. Its actually a very common practice that large lawfirms and companies use to get what they want.

While that is usually the norm, the defendee in this case is already also a lawyer isn't he? I'd think the only thing he needs to spend is his time, and in return should get a lot of good exposure to help him in the long run.

I don't know exactly how it all works but I think what's kind of the problem with lawsuits like this is when lawyers become corporate employees. There isn't anything wrong with that in itself, but rather than the lawyer waiting for work to come to him, I'd imagine these corporate lawyers are on payroll so are basically free to pursue whatever the hell they want to justify their paycheque?

Andy Chalk:
Syfert's package of forms, which includes a motion to quash, motion to dismiss, an affidavit in support of the motions and a motion for protective order, now sells for $19.95, which is still a great deal. Believe me, you can't get most lawyers to pick up their phone for twenty bucks.

Thats a lot of money...isn't their a torrent online with the documents in a .pdf that everyone could just use?

[see what I did there]

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here