AT&T Sues Verizon Over 'There's A Map For That' Ad Campaign

from the doesn't-like-the-maps dept

Recently, Verizon came up with a rather clever ad campaign, mocking the iPhone ads that claim "there's an app for that" with ads that showcase Verizon's wider 3G footprint, claiming "there's a map for that," and showing the two services' 3G coverage maps side by side:

It does a nice job poking fun at one of AT&T's weaker points: its mobile network infrastructure. But apparently, AT&T is not happy with the ad campaign and has sued Verizon over those ads, claiming that it uses an unfair comparison. That's because the maps only show 3G coverage, and Verizon has significantly greater 3G coverage. However, AT&T feels that the map showing its coverage implies, falsely, that AT&T has no coverage outside of its 3G coverage areas. While you can see why AT&T would make this complaint, it does make you wonder if it's really worth the effort to sue. All it's really doing is attracting a lot more attention to the original ad, which does accurately state that it's talking about 3G coverage, not overall coverage, though you can see why some people might not realize that AT&T's network also includes non-3G areas.

50 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Chamber Of Commerce Sues Yes Men; Someone Just Gave Protestors A Lot More Attention

from the a-lot-of-happy-yes-men dept

While we weren't sure that the EFF was correct in suggesting the Yes Men's fake U.S. Chamber of Commerce website was a parody, we did think that it was rather short-sighted of the CoC to try to takedown the site, since it would only serve to give the Yes Men and their anti-CoC campaign more attention. Apparently, the folks at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce still haven't quite figured this out. They've now gone a step further and are suing the Yes Men for trademark infringement. Again, the trademark claim is probably stronger than the original copyright claim, but this is a really dumb move. All the Yes Men want is more attention in their campaign against the CoC's stance on climate change, and you know what gets them a lot of attention? Getting sued. Of course, given how backwards the Chamber's views on intellectual property are, perhaps it's no surprise that they wouldn't realize how such a plan would backfire.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

DOJ Doesn't Believe $80,000 Per Song Unconstitutional Or Oppressive

from the tell-that-to-Jammie dept

While this probably isn't a huge surprise, given the fact that the Justice Department is stocked with former lawyers for the entertainment industry (and because it's filed similar briefs before), but it's still worth noting that the Justice Department has filed a brief in the Jammie Thomas lawsuit, in support of the constitutionality of the $1.92 million fine (and, no, none of the former RIAA lawyers are signatories to the brief, though you have to imagine their "expertise" was consulted). The reasoning is quite troubling and appears to include some serious revisionist history.

First, what's stunning is that the brief claims the awards are perfectly constitutional because it is not "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense [or] obviously unreasonable." Really? It seems that an awful lot of people find the idea of being forced to hand over $80,000 per song without any evidence that it was ever actually shared by anyone is severe and oppressive to the point that it's disproportionate to the offense and quite obviously unreasonable. I mean, this is a woman who wanted to listen to her favorite bands, and she now has to pay nearly $2 million. How can anyone claim that's not "severe and oppressive" in relation to the actual "harm" done?

Second, the brief claims that the damages should be much more than the $1.29 price per song found on iTunes, because it "ignores the potential multiplying effect of peer-to-peer file-sharing." Except, if that were the case, shouldn't the plaintiffs been required to show that these songs were actually shared? And should Thomas also be liable for the actions of anyone else she shared the songs with? That seems to go quite beyond what the law states.

Third, and perhaps most troubling, is the Justice Department's sneaky little claim that the statutory rates are obviously fair for file sharing, because they were put in place in 1999, with the explicit statement from Congress that these numbers were there because of internet file sharing. That sounds good, but ignores the fact that this little change in the law was pushed almost entirely by entertainment industry lobbyists (the same folks who now run the Justice Department!) to protect their dying business model, rather than through any empirical evidence. The real original purpose of statutory rates had nothing to do with punishing personal, non-commercial use, but were very much about dealing with commercial harm.

It's a neat, but immensely troubling, trick by the entertainment industry. Sneak through bizarre and totally unsupported legislation through a Congress that's never met a stronger copyright law it didn't love, using your high paid lobbyists. Then, get those same lobbyists appointed to the Justice Department to defend it against Constitutional challenges. Regulatory capture at its finest.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Italian Recording Industry Sues Pirate Bay As Well

from the but-of-course dept

Another day, another lawsuit for the Pirate Bay team. This time, it's taking place in Italy, where the local recording industry associations FIMI (Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana) and FPM (Federation against Musical Piracy) have announced plans to sue three of the individuals believed to be responsible for The Pirate Bay. This isn't a huge surprise. A year ago, after complaints about The Pirate Bay, a court ordered ISPs to block access to the site, only to have a court overturn that ruling. And, of course, in the end all it really did was bring a lot more attention to The Pirate Bay in Italy. Considering that The Pirate Bay doesn't appear to have any operations in Italy either, it's not entirely clear that this lawsuit actually matters. And, also, there's the issue that the three guys being sued here claim to not have any ownership of The Pirate Bay at all.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

As Jammie Thomas Seeks New Trial, RIAA Claims (Incorrectly) That She Distributed 1,700 Songs To Millions

from the can't-stop-the-lying dept

This will come as a surprise to just about no one, but Jammie Thomas' lawyers have pointed out that the $1.92 million verdict against her is excessive, and is asking the judge to either throw out the award, lower it to the statutory minimum or grant a new trial. That was pretty much expected. What's odd, however, is the note at the very bottom of that article, concerning the filing that the RIAA made to the court. The RIAA keeps insisting that it just wants to settle the case, but if that's true, it seems weird to then attack Thomas in court again, but that's what the filing seems to do. It suggests that Thomas (despite this whole process) must still be sharing songs and that the court needs to issue an injunction barring her from doing so. While we've said that there appears to be ample evidence that Thomas used file sharing programs (and that she shouldn't have let this case go to trial), it would be quite surprising if anyone had any evidence that she was still doing this. As far as I know, the RIAA has not presented any such evidence at all. Demanding an injunction, then, seems quite strange.

On top of that, the RIAA appears to falsely claim (or the AP reporter misquoted the RIAA) that Thomas "distributed more than 1,700 songs to millions of others through the file-sharing system Kazaa." That may be true, but it certainly was not shown in court at all. The RIAA only named 24 songs she was charged with sharing, and then did not present any evidence that she actually shared any of them with anyone other than the RIAA's own investigators. The claim that she "distributed more than 1,700 songs to millions of others" was not proven at all, and in fact this entire new trial was because the judge originally made the mistake of assuming "making available" meant distribution. It does not. For the RIAA to misstate this point is really quite odd.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jammie Thomas Not Willing To Settle Yet... Acccording To The RIAA

from the bizarre dept

How badly do you think the RIAA wants Jammie Thomas to settle? Since the verdict came down, the organization has done everything it possibly can to distance itself from the $1.92 million verdict against her for file sharing. While willing to play up the ruling itself the organization seems to recognize that the insanity of the $1.92 million doesn't do it any favors. Even the musicians whose music was part of the case are embarrassed by the amount. In an ideal world, the RIAA would love to settle the lawsuit for some lower amount so it can run around touting the "risks" of file sharing without having people laugh outloud when hearing that someone had to pay $1.92 million for potentially sharing 24 songs that could be bought for $1 each.

So, you get a slightly bizarre situation, where it's the RIAA proactively reaching out to Thomas to try to settle the lawsuit -- but so far Thomas apparently isn't interested. I've been saying that I thought she would settle, but the longer this goes on, the more I wonder if she's actually planning to fight on. If so, this could certainly represent a case to examine the statutory rates associated with copyright violations. The verdict seems so out of proportion with the supposed "crime" that it's difficult to see it pass the laugh test. However, there's a halfway decent chance that a court punts on the issue, saying (as the Supreme Court did in the Eldred case) that such questions are up to Congress, rather than the courts. Of course, if the case is to move forward, it would help to have lawyers who have had more than a few weeks to study up on the issues, and who didn't make public pronouncements that were distractions rather than anything related to the actual case.

48 Comments | Leave a Comment..

And Of Course: RIAA Mouthpieces Defend $1.92 Million Judgment

from the time-to-pull-back-the-attack-dogs dept

It's been interesting to see the aftermath of the Jammie Thomas $1.92 million ruling, as it appears that even the RIAA is recognizing that such an insanely large award gives them something of a black-eye and has the possibility of creating a bit of a backlash. However, apparently they forgot to send out that message to all of their usual attack dogs. In an AP article discussing the ruling and the $1.92 million number with a variety of different people, the RIAA tried to distance itself from the number, specifically stating, "That was not our number, that was what 12 regular folks rendered." Uh, yeah, except that the RIAA has long used the statutory numbers in their arguments about the "risks" of file sharing.

Tom Sydnor, from the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF), a loud and proud supporter of stronger copyright at every turn (and who is well funded by the RIAA labels), apparently missed the memo on playing down the number. He told the reporter that it was a perfectly reasonable number.

"Legally acquiring a license to give copies of a song to potentially millions of Kazaa users might well have cost $80,000 per song,"

Except... that's not even close to accurate. The record labels presented no proof that she gave the song to millions of users, and seem to totally ignore the fact that these songs were available from tons of other sources (either legally or illegally) for prices between nothing and $1. To claim that the record labels would literally consider an option to license a single user putting a song into a shared folder at $80,000 is simply ridiculous.

But, of course, it shows the mentality of those paid for by the RIAA. These are the same people who accuse Larry Lessig of being a communist by taking a few statements totally out of context, and then accuse universities of supporting terrorism by not violating students' privacy and handing over their details to the RIAA.

So, if the RIAA is really serious about playing down the size of the jury award, it might want to rein in Sydnor before he says much more. If you're looking for someone to get out a message by appearing as a caricature of the evil record labels, I don't think you could find any organization better than PFF. But, that's probably not what the RIAA needs right now, unless it really wants to give the folks on the fence even more reason to leap over to the side who recognizes just how much the labels have twisted, stretched and abused copyright law over the years, totally at odds with its constitutional prescription of promoting the progress of science. Defending a $1.92 million award to the record labels for 24 songs in a shared folder, with no evidence that a single one was actually shared, is not promoting the progress. It's promoting massive greed and regulatory capture at the expense of society.

136 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Constitutional Problems With The Award In The Jammie Thomas Case

from the seems-a-wee-bit-excessive,-no? dept

Like many others, when I first heard about the $1.9 million the jury awarded the record labels from Jammie Thomas in her trial, my initial question was how that could possibly be constitutional and not excessive. However, given the immediate talk of settlements, I figured that question is unlikely to be asked in a courtroom. The EFF, however, has taken a look at the specific constitutional issues and how any appeal might be organized. There are two specific potential problems. First, the award is clearly designed to be punitive, rather than remunerative:

First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that "grossly excessive" punitive damage awards (e.g., $2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as "new") violate the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution. In evaluating whether an award "grossly excessive," courts evaluate three criteria: 1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions, 2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award, and 3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations. Does a $1.92 million award for sharing 24 songs cross the line into "grossly excessive"? And do these Due Process limitations apply differently to statutory damages than to punitive damages? These are questions that the court will have to decide if the issue is raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset's attorneys.

The second issue questions whether the court has the right to try to use Jammie Thomas as an examples to warn off others (something the RIAA has been pushing for throughout this entire show-trial of a case):

Second, recent Supreme Court rulings suggest that a jury may not award statutory damages for the express or implicit purpose of deterring other infringers who are not parties in the case before the court. In other words, the award should be aimed at deterring this defendant, not giving the plaintiff a windfall in order to send a message to others who might be tempted to infringe. It's hard to know without having been in the courtroom, but if the record industry lawyers urged the jury to "send a message" to the millions of other American file-sharers out there, they may have crossed the constitutional line.

Interesting stuff, should Thomas decide to push forward. The downside, however, is that for whatever reason, to date the Supreme Court seems to throw normal precedent out the window when it comes to copyright law. I was just reading a long study (more on that later) of how a series of recent Supreme Court rulings on copyright seem to simply ignore precedent and simply accept the myth of copyright's importance over all else.

66 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jammie Thomas Ordered To Pay $1.92 Million

from the bad-bad-idea dept

Last month, we noted that it was a really bad idea for Jammie Thomas not to settle her lawsuit with the recording industry. There was simply way too much evidence for a jury not to convict her. The trial itself was, again as expected, something of a circus, rather than anything interesting or compelling. So, it should come as no surprise that, yet again, Thomas has been found guilty. But what is surprising is that the the jury chose to fine her $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song. That's $1.7 million more than the original trial. $80,000 per song! Still, it was a really bad idea for Thomas to go through with this suit as there was way too much evidence linking her to the music (and too many problems with her own testimony). Now the RIAA is handed a gift. A verdict that it can gloat about and misrepresent to its own advantages. What might be interesting is whether (for all the RIAA gloating) this ruling has a similar impact as The Pirate Bay victory had in Sweden -- galvanizing people to support the Pirate Party. Somehow, the story isn't quite as compelling though.

104 Comments | Leave a Comment..

EFF, Public Knowledge Drop ACTA Lawsuit, Realizing 'National Secrets' Claim Will Block Them

from the really-unfortunate dept

With the Obama administration bizarrely claiming that documents pertaining to negotiations over ACTA, the industry-written treaty that will push countries to change their copyright laws, are somehow a state secret, EFF and Public Knowledge have reluctantly decided to drop their lawsuit to try to open up the proceedings and get access to the documents (freely shared with industry lobbyists, but kept secret from consumers or consumer watchdogs). Basically, they realized that by claiming it's a national secret, there was no way the lawsuit would get anywhere. The whole situation is really unfortunate. What a shame that the administration would be covering up for an entertainment industry's attempt to increase protectionism for its own broken business model, by claiming it was a "national secret."

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

File Sharing, Damages And The Constitution...

from the getting-into-the-legal-weeds dept

Doug Lichtman is a well known intellectual property law professor who is a fairly big supporter of the copyright system. He's reached out to us, because of a podcast he recently recorded discussing the Joel Tenenbaum lawsuit. To be honest, I'd pretty much stopped covering anything to do with that lawsuit, because over the last couple of months, it's turned into something of a circus side-show, with both sides running around and making decisions as if they've never actually been in a court of law before. Even the judge has been making mistakes.

However, Lichtman specifically was hoping for the perspective of folks around here on the podcast, because (as he noted in his email), most of his listeners tend to be strongly pro-copyright, and he was hoping to at least find out what those of us less sure of the benefits of copyright think. To be honest, after listening to the podcast twice, it may be a bit too down in the legal weeds for many readers here -- though, if you really are interested in the legal specifics, have a listen. The first part involves Lichtman talking to Charles Nesson himself about the case, followed by three "legal experts" and then a guy from the RIAA who seems to honestly believe that the RIAA's lawsuit strategy was a success because it taught more people that file sharing was illegal. This is wrong on many different levels, since it clearly didn't impact user behavior, and has created other problems, such as the false belief in some that all file sharing is illegal (even of authorized content) and has framed the RIAA as being anti-consumer, making it that much harder for the major record labels to eventually make the shift in business models that are necessary to succeed these days.

The overall "conclusion" that Lichtman comes to is that Nesson and Tenenbaum are likely to lose the case, as precedent suggests that courts will likely find the statutory damages in the copyright act to be within the range of being constitutional. I actually agree that this is the likely outcome, though I find it, and the reasoning behind it, quite troubling. I also hope that, when (if) the case really goes to trial, Nesson has worked up a better argument than he gave on the podcast. While he does raise some good points, a lot of it feels like he only has a superficial understanding of both what's happening and the law itself. When really pressed on legal issues by Lichtman, he resorted to an emotional argument ("it's just a kid clicking on links!") which hardly is legally compelling.

However, in listening to the "experts," it sounds like it would be possible to make a more compelling case against the statutory rates by pointing out some rather simple facts: file sharing, in and of itself, creates no damage for artists -- and thus, the statutory rates have nothing to do with being a "remedy," but have everything to do with being punitive, which would make it a criminal issue, rather than a civil one.

Now, I can hear the copyright supporters (including Lichtman) shouting that it's ridiculous to claim that file sharing creates no damages for the artists -- but that's not what I said. I said, file sharing in and of itself creates no damage. And that's easily proven: just point to the increasingly large number of artists who have embraced file sharing on purpose and who have found that it's helped them earn more money. Then, what you realize is that file sharing combined with a bad business model may create damages, but those damages may be alleviated by putting in place a better business model (again, pointing to evidence of artists who have done exactly that). At that point, the "damages" have gone away. The fault is almost entirely on the part of the artist who picked a bad business model, and then did nothing to alleviate the problem when it became clear that the market was going in a different direction.

In that case, there's no actual evidence of damages, and it's difficult to see the constitutionality of charging someone $750, let alone $150,000, when there's no actual evidence of damages -- and the only actual "damage" may have been caused by the artist themselves by picking a bad business model.

Part of my problem with all of these discussions is that copyright supporters seem to automatically assume that file sharing must be bad -- but there's plenty of evidence to counter that, with artists' wide embrace of it (successfully in many cases) being exhibit A. If file sharing was really so damaging, there would be no such examples. But we see more and more every day. So it's not file sharing that's the problem. The real problem is a bad business model combined with file sharing. And it's rather ridiculous to fine Joel Tenenbaum (or anyone) because some record labels and musicians chose a bad business model.

38 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIAA Found To Have Sued Yet Another Woman Without A Computer

from the sterling-investigative-techniques dept

While the RIAA insists that it's stopped its lawsuit campaign, it's still moving forward with existing lawsuits -- including one against yet another woman who claims not to have even owned a computer on the date she was accused of file sharing. Now it's possible that the woman is lying -- but if that's the case, she's going to be in a lot more trouble than for sharing some music files. This is not the first time the RIAA was found to have sued people without a computer either -- which again just serves to raise significant questions about the RIAA's "investigative" techniques.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIAA Apparently Unable To Stop Lawsuits In Motion

from the legal-inertia? dept

Following last week's announcement that the RIAA was going to back off using mass lawsuits, some were pretty confused by the RIAA's subsequent claim that it had actually stopped filing such lawsuits back in August. In fact, it turned out to be an outright lie, as plenty of lawsuits had been filed pretty much right up until the announcement. However, the RIAA is now trying to explain its "no new lawsuits" message by claiming that it actually meant no new lawsuits in the pipeline. The ones filed since August were apparently already "in motion" and apparently in RIAA-land once you kick off the process of filing a bogus lawsuit based on flimsy evidence, the inertia is simply too powerful to pull it back and stop it from running its course. Or did I misunderstand the RIAA's statement on the matter?

The folks at the RIAA and at various major record labels have complained to us that we don't give them a fair shake, but every time we think about giving them the benefit of the doubt, they pull out some totally bogus claim like "no new lawsuits" and, when called it on, follow it up with a whopper about these legal wheels in motion, as if they had no way of stopping the lawsuits from actually moving forward. Do they really think that everyone is stupid?

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Couldn't Cisco And FSF Come To An Agreement?

from the this-makes-no-sense dept

There's lots of talk in tech circles about the fact that the Free Software Foundation is now suing Cisco for copyright infringement, over Cisco's misuse of GPL'd code in its Linksys routers. What seems odd is that this got as far as it did. The issue with Linksys and its use of GPL'd code has been talked about for years, and it seems like there should have been a simple solution from the very beginning: Cisco/Linksys should have made the code available, as per the terms of the license. So why didn't they? Well, the details from the case suggest that, while Cisco did drag its feet in releasing the code, FSF then came back with additional demands, specifically:

• Cisco needed to appoint a "free software compliance officer."
• Cisco needed to try to inform all past customers of its failed compliance
• Cisco needed to pay FSF a chunk of money

It appears that it's these issues over which the two parties disagree and the lawsuit was filed. While I'm sympathetic to the FSF's position, this might be going a bit too far. Nothing in the GPL requires someone to set up a "compliance officer." Yes, due to Cisco's foot-dragging, you can see why FSF would ask for such a thing, but it's difficult to see how it should be required, or eventually involve a lawsuit. Also, it's unclear why Cisco should need to inform people. The folks who actually care are likely to hear about this anyway. Yes, Cisco violated the GPL, and yes, it was slow to get itself in compliance, but FSF seems to be demanding an awful lot in response.

44 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Journalist Police Wiretapped

from the protection-of-sources dept

An interesting and important ruling came out of the UK last week, as a journalist had a lawsuit against her thrown out by a judge, because it appears that much of the evidence came from police wiretapping her phone conversations with a source in the police department. The judge ruled that journalists have a right to protect their sources, and the police wiretaps were illegal. I'm not familiar enough with UK wiretapping laws to know if they needed a court's approval for the wiretap in the first place -- but on the whole this seems like a reasonable decision, as the case itself was quite troublesome. Basically, it sounded like the police wanted to plug leaks from within the department, and then bugged the journalist to find out who the leaker was, and with that info charged both the source and the journalist. That certainly seems like an abuse of police power to try to prevent future leaks, so it's good to see the court dismiss the whole thing.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Singers Sue Label For Failing To Sue Others For Infringement

from the sue-or-be-sued dept

Techdirt has covered many copyright lawsuits in the past, but this one is a bit different. Singers Daryl Hall and John Oates have filed a suit against their publisher, Warner/Chappell Music, who they claim have failed to enforce their rights and sue an unnamed singer-songwriter for infringement. They claim this is in breach of their contract, and are seeking the termination of said contract as well as unspecified damages.

Two things strike me about this lawsuit (although I'm not a lawyer and haven't seen the contract, so take it for what it's worth). First, though the alleged infringer isn't named, there seem to be two possibilities given they date it as 2006 - Nelly Furtado's Maneater was apparently influenced by it, and it was sampled by the Ying Yang Twins in their song Dangerous. I would have hoped both of these would be covered by fair use -- Oates in fact said of the former, "it's flattering and it makes you feel good because you think you've influenced a new generation of musicians." The second is that litigation should be a tool of last resort, and a lawsuit over someone not suing isn't exactly in line with that sentiment.

In fairness to Hall and Oates, their reasoning for the filing is that Warner/Chappell have failed to act over a "conflict of interest", which implies the publishers were benefiting from the alleged infringement and failing to pass that benefit on. Still, the idea that a label could be liable for failing to sue for copyright infringement is hardly likely to improve the litigation-happy nature of the industry at present.

Douglas Gresham is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Douglas Gresham and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Most Bizarre Lawsuit You Might Ever See

from the someone-please-explain dept

Eric Goldman knows I sure do love wacky and ridiculous lawsuits against various tech and media companies, but the latest case he sent over may set a new standard. At least in the past, those lawsuits were something close to understandable -- if totally unbelievable. But the latest lawsuit, Barboza et al v. Fox-32 WFLD-TV et al is simply incomprehensible. The plaintiff, which seems to be an individual, a film company, an advertising company and a psychic reading company (or perhaps all a single entity wrapped into one) is suing a whole bunch of tech and media companies, including News Corp., Google, MSNBC and a bunch of radio and TV affiliates of CBS, ABC and others. For what? I have absolutely no clue and would appreciate some help trying to decipher it. There's something about sexual harassment. Some other stuff about copyright or potentially patent infringement, and then a whole bunch of gibberish. Oh yeah, and something about human brain telepathy.

You can basically pick your spot at random to get a sense of the utter oddity of the lawsuit. There are words there, but they're sorta thrown out at random:

For this, he's demanding $450 million. The lawsuit will, of course, be thrown out in no time flat (if it hasn't already been tossed), but it's posted here for your enjoyment (or bewilderment).

52 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Woman Sues MySpace For Taking Down Her Page

from the mental-anguish dept

It's no surprise that some people get attached to their various social networking profiles, but would you sue if the social network took down your profile? That's exactly what one woman is doing, as seen in a lawsuit filed last week and brought to our attention by Eric Goldman. The complaint lays out the details, but a quick summary is that the woman was shocked (shocked!) to find out that some of the celebrity profiles on MySpace are not, in fact, run by the actual celebrities. So she set up a profile that would "verify" celebrities, and allow those verified celebrities to place her logo on their MySpace page. She claims that one of the fake celebrities complained to MySpace and they took down her profile.

Now, you might think that since its MySpace's site, they can take down whatever profile they want -- but not according to this woman, who mentions the "mental anguish" caused by this over and over again. While it may be a bogus reason for MySpace to have taken down her page, it's not clear what legal grounds she has to stand on. There are some other complaints in the filing, including the fact that MySpace allowed fake celebrities to sign up (and the lawsuit demands that MySpace be forced to take these fake profiles down) and that she had asked MySpace (via a cold call) to support her efforts -- and then was offended when MySpace "stole" her idea and had created their own "celebrities" site (of course providing no evidence that the idea was "stolen"). She also complains that she tried to take her complaint to the arbitration firm listed in MySpace's terms of service only to discover that the firm no longer did work for MySpace, so she claims that MySpace committed unfair business practices by including the arbitration clause in its terms without living up to it.

The best line in the filing may be after MySpace took down the woman's second attempt at this "celebrity verifying" profile:

"At this point Plaintiff was literally seething with anger to the point that she was now consumed by it."

It's not clear what's illegal about making someone angry, but these days, you never know... Anyway, the full legal complaint is below (click through for those reading this via RSS):

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Woman Who Claimed RIAA Infringement Damages Were Unconstitutional Settles For $756/Song

from the cheaper-to-settle-than-to-fight dept

We were a bit surprised last month when Denise Barker, who had been fighting the RIAA in a file sharing lawsuit decided to take the strategy of admitting guilt but challenging the constitutionality of the Copyright Act. That seemed like a longshot that was unlikely to play well in court -- especially a court that had already decided against her in interpreting the whole "making available" thing. So, it should come as little surprise that Barker has agreed to settle, rather than fight on, even if her lawyer, Ray Beckerman was more than willing to keep fighting.

The settlement comes to $756 for each of the eight songs she's accused of sharing, and the details of the settlement work out that she'll be paying $110 per month for 55 months (running through February of 2013). That adds up to $6,050, which I imagine will put a crimp on Barker's spending on actual music. While she did break the law, and admitted to breaking the law, the punishment does seem way out of line with the "crime." It's arguable that she did any "damage" at all to the recording industry, as there's a decent chance that she actually helped promote certain artists.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Craigslist Countersues eBay... But Still Doesn't Answer Questions About Diluting eBay

from the almost,-but-not-quite dept

I'm generally a fan of Craigslist, and think that people all too often blame the company for things it didn't do. However, I'm still having trouble understanding Craigslist's position in the legal battle it's now having with eBay. After getting sued by eBay for unilaterally changing eBay's ownership percentage, Craigslist has now countersued eBay for a laundry list of things, including: "unlawful and unfair competition, misappropriation of proprietary information, deceptive passing-off, business interference, false advertising, phishing attacks, free-riding, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and breaches of fiduciary duty." That's quite a list, but it doesn't respond to the key point of eBay's lawsuit: did Craigslist break the law in changing eBay's ownership percentage? As Rob Hyndman points out, it really appears that Craigslist is now trying to "accomplish by litigation what it failed to accomplish by business planning and sensible precautions among co-founders when it first issued shares, and by negotiation with eBay when it acquired its interest."

As for the specific charges filed by Craigslist, it claims that eBay tried to put Kijiji execs on its board (which contradicts what eBay has said). Also, it claims that eBay has bought keyword advertising on sites like Google that were misleading, appearing to look like they came from Craigslist, when they really pointed to eBay or Kijiji. That certainly could be a trademark violation, if true, but hardly excuses the behavior of Craigslist's board in diluting eBay's shares. You can certainly see where Craigslist is coming from, and why it's quite uncomfortable with the relationship with eBay -- but the company now seems to be throwing the kitchen sink at eBay, dredging up any kind of complaint it can, without dealing with that core issue of how it diluted eBay's shares. That only lends more credence to the idea that Craigslist knows what it did was wrong, and is now throwing out all sorts of other complaints to distract from that. It's like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, who responds by pointing out that his mother who caught him ran a red light when driving home. It may be true, but it's totally unrelated and doesn't excuse grabbing the cookie.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..