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).

Filed Under: lawsuit

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):

Filed Under: lawsuit, mental anguish, myspace profile
Companies: myspace

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.

Filed Under: copyright, denise barker, lawsuit, riaa, settlement
Companies: riaa

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.

Filed Under: dilution, fiscal responsibility, lawsuit
Companies: craigslist, ebay

Take Two Sues Chicago Transit For Taking Down Grand Theft Auto IV Ads

from the now-the-ads-inspire-crime? dept

Take Two Interactive, the makers of Grand Theft Auto IV, have now sued the Chicago Transit Authority for taking down a series of ads for the video game that had appeared on the transit system. The Transit Authority took down the ads in response to a local news broadcast questioning the ads since there has supposedly been a wave of violent crime lately. So... now people think that just advertising GTA IV leads to crime? Considering there's no evidence that even playing the game leads to violence, what's wrong with the ads? It's hard to see why the CTA pulled the ads based on a silly, sensationalist news piece, though suing in response does seem a bit extreme as well. Of course, either way, now that it gets GTA IV back into the news cycle, Take Two may just be leveraging the Streisand Effect for all it's worth.

Filed Under: advertising, chicago, grand theft auto, lawsuit, streisand effect
Companies: chicago transit authority, take two interactive

RIAA Now Decides That Not Enough People Have Heard Of Project Playlist

from the reverse-attention-whores dept

There they go again. The RIAA and MPAA keep picking totally random, mostly unknown, startups and suing them -- giving them all sorts of free publicity. They did it years ago with Napster and more recently with The Pirate Bay. And yet... they keep doing it. In the latest example, the RIAA is suing a company called Project Playlist, which offers apps for MySpace and Facebook that let you play music found elsewhere online. There are a bunch of similar offerings out there (some of which I think are even more well known). If this case goes forward, it could be quite interesting, as again it's hard to see how Project Playlist is the liable party. It just lets users point its player to mp3 files that are found on other sites. Those files may be infringing, but Project Playlist is just the player. It would be like suing Sony for making a Walkman on the assumption that most tapes used in Walkmen include infringing copies of songs.

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuit, mp3s, riaa
Companies: project playlist, riaa

Musician Upset That He's Being Used In Lawsuit Against Pirate Bay

from the not-against-it-at-all dept

Earlier this year, Swedish prosecutors finally filed charges against the Pirate Bay, using some of the evidence given to them by the IFPI. Among that "evidence" was a list of Swedish musicians supposedly "hurt" by file sharing. Apparently the IFPI didn't bother to check with those musicians to see how they felt about this. One Swedish hip hop star stood up to the IFPI pointing out that he has nothing against the Pirate Bay and, in fact, is "pro-file sharing," which is even represented in his music. On top of that, the IFPI doesn't own the rights to his music. Because of this, the IFPI has now had to cut back on how much money they're claiming the Pirate Bay owes them. However, if they did that with one artist, it makes you wonder how careful the IFPI was with other musicians as well.

Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, lawsuit, musician, sweden
Companies: pirate bay

Pirate Bay Sued, As Expected

from the significant-blow,-right? dept

As was widely expected, Swedish prosecutors have filed criminal charges against the guys who run The Pirate Bay. It's still unclear how creating a search engine that doesn't actually store or handle any unauthorized material breaks the law, but I guess we'll find out how that works during the trial. If anything, though, this will probably work just like every similar file sharing lawsuit, where the end result is merely that more people know about it and more people use it (or move on to use the "next" version that comes out). Also, as some are pointing out, the indictment only includes a very small number of files. It really took one and a half years to come up with such a small list?

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuit, pirate bay, sweden
Companies: pirate bay

RIAA Wins Case, Gloats

from the this-won't-help dept

As we expected this morning, the RIAA has won its lawsuit against a woman for sharing files. This is unfortunate in the long run, as the decision is actually going to hurt the companies the RIAA represents more than if it had lost the case. That's because the RIAA will take this as a validation of its "sue our fans" strategy, rather than realizing it's finally time to try a different model. In the meantime, the woman in the case, Jammie Thomas, never should have let the case go this far as there appeared to be plenty of evidence that she actually did break the law. The RIAA often has weak evidence, but in this case the evidence was much stronger. Unfortunately, that distinction won't be made by most, and they'll simply assume that if the RIAA won this case, it should win many others. The RIAA, of course, wasted no time in gloating about the decision and is using this to push others to settle rather than fighting the RIAA lawsuits. This actually is reasonable advice if, as in this case, you were guilty of breaking the law and the RIAA has the evidence to show it. The problem is that's often not the case -- yet, again, that important point will get lost.

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuit, riaa
Companies: riaa

RIAA May Have A Pretty Strong Case

from the some-evidence-is-sticking dept

Lots of folks are paying plenty of attention to the first RIAA lawsuit to go to a jury trial. Initially the reports were that the defendant's case was strong, and the RIAA didn't have very much evidence. In fact, the RIAA's star technical witness has been debunked before, and it appears that many of his claims were once again debunked in the court room. However, even with such weak technical evidence, I have to agree with Tim Lee that this sounds like the RIAA has a pretty strong case, based on the combination of the IP address and the username in Kazaa. It's the identical username that the woman uses for many, many different online accounts -- making it tough to believe that someone else happened to be using that same username from an IP address assigned to her account. It also seems highly questionable that the woman would claim she never had Kazaa with that kind of evidence. There are still some legal questions here -- including whether or not the court will instruct the jury that simply making content available is copyright infringement. However, it's disappointing that this is the case that's going to trial, because it certainly looks like the RIAA has stronger evidence than usual in this particular case. Despite what some people think my position is on the issue of unauthorized sharing, I absolutely do not condone it (nor partake in unauthorized sharing). I think the laws covering this type of thing tend to do more damage than good to the very industry it's supposed to help -- but that doesn't mean people should be free to ignore them. I also think the RIAA is making a dumb business decision with these lawsuits and that it often accuses people without much real evidence. However, even with the flimsy technical evidence, the combination of other factors certainly makes this look like a much stronger case from the RIAA's side. That's unfortunate, because if the RIAA does win, more people will assume it legitimizes their lawsuit strategy and even supports their other cases where the evidence is a lot weaker. Perhaps I'm missing something, but it's difficult to see how this case was a good one to fight the RIAA on.

Filed Under: copyright, jury, lawsuit
Companies: riaa