Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Archive for 2006

Milk of RIAA’s kindness; “spamigation”

Iola Scruse, 66, of Louisville, who is on Social Security and paying bills for dialysis, “must pay $6,000 for the 872 songs her grandchildren downloaded, in addition to court fees.” Scruse “said she has no idea how she will pay the fine or what her next action will be.” Self-employed engraver Michael Brown paid $5,000 “because his teenage daughter had shared nearly 900 music files with others”. And: “No lawsuits anywhere have gone to trial, said Jenni Engebretsen, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group that files the suits on behalf of the companies. … ‘We hope that what is coming out of these lawsuits is that parents are having conversations with their kids,’ she said.” (Amy H. Trang, “Illegal downloads create unlikely defendants”, Louisville Courier-Journal, Jul. 31). The recording industry had sued a Ypsilanti, Mich. man for unlawful downloads; after he died, “the RIAA made a motion to stay the case for 60 days in order to allow the family time to ‘grieve’, after which time they want to start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury’s children”. (new blog Recording Industry vs. the People, Aug. 13; see David Berlind, ZDNet, Aug. 14).

Relatedly, Brad Templeton (Interesting People message list, Aug. 19; via Boing Boing) has coined the term “Spamigation” for litigation or threats of litigation mass-generated by automated processes:

The RIAA strategy is an example of a new legal phenomenon that I have dubbed “spamigation” — bulk litigation that’s only become practical due to the economies of scale of the computer era. We see spamigation when a firm uses automation to send out thousands of cease and desist letters threatening legal action. We saw it when DirecTV took the customer database for a vendor of smartcard programmers and bulk-litigated almost everybody in it…

The RIAA uses systems to gather lists of alleged infringers, and bulk-sues them. It has set a price that seems to be profitable for it, while being low enough that it is not profitable for the accused to mount a defence, as they do not get the economies of scale involved.

Filed under: , ,

Virtual property, real lawsuits?

Hanno Kaiser at Law and Society Blog (Jul. 18): “Suppose you spent the last eight weeks leveling up in a massive multiplayer online game to obtain a particular armor, only to find out that two days later the online game company took away some of the protective effects of that armor. Do you have a legal remedy for the devaluation of your virtual property?” See also Dec. 30, 2003.

Filed under:

“Save a Cocktail Napkin, Win a Lawsuit”

In a 2004 case entitled Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., the Ninth Circuit ruled that federal copyright laws do not pre-empt state-law contract claims over allegedly swiped ideas for entertainment ventures, shows and products. Other federal judges have rejected that position, but a West Coast boom has ensued in idea-submission lawsuits against Hollywood and TV producers, and large plaintiff’s firms like L.A.’s Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack are getting into the field. (Amanda Bronstad, National Law Journal, Jul. 31).

Filed under: , ,

Oz: logic of “religious vilification” laws

An Australian QC has appeared in court to argue that vilifying a religion should be considered per se unlawful under the state of Victoria’s paradoxically named Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. “[Brind] Woinarski was appearing for the Islamic Council of Victoria in the appeal by Christian group Catch the Fire Ministries and pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot against a finding under Victoria’s religious hatred law that they vilified Muslims in 2002. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons.” (Barney Zwartz, “Religion in the dock in Muslim vilification appeal”, Melbourne Age, Aug. 22; “Questions over ruling on Muslims”, Aug. 23). See Dec. 19 and Dec. 3, 2004, etc.

Filed under: ,

“Man mauled by pet tiger fails in bid to sue rescuers”

“A man who sued the city for entering his apartment without a search warrant after he was mauled by his 450-pound pet Siberian tiger demonstrated a lot of nerve in taking the city to court, a judge said as he threw the lawsuit out.” After Antoine Yates was seriously bitten by the 10-foot-long pet tiger he was keeping in his East Harlem apartment in Manhattan, police removed it along with an alligator named Al and Yates served 3 1/2 months on a reckless endangerment plea. U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein dismissed his lawsuit, saying it demonstrated “chutzpah”. (Larry Neumeister, “Judge Bites Off Tiger Owner’s Lawsuit”, AP/New York Sun, Aug. 8; Volokh, Aug. 9). The headline in the title above is from the UK’s Guardian.

Filed under:

Driving while loaded

A Nebraska state trooper stopped Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez for speeding on Interstate 80 in 2003 in his rental car, then proceeded to seize $124,000 from a cooler in the back seat. According to the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (opinion, PDF), Nebraska was within its rights to seize the $124,000 as presumed drug money (it then became the subject of a federal forfeiture action) even though 1) Gonzolez had no substantial or drug-related criminal record; 2) witnesses backed up his claim that the money had been pooled by several immigrants for purposes of buying a refrigerated truck for his produce business. Gonzolez had initially denied carrying money, and a drug-sniffing dog had detected drug residues in the rental car, though the same would probably prove true of many other rental cars. (“Court rules 2003 money seizure correct despite no drugs found”, AP/Sioux City Journal, Aug. 19; TheNewspaper.com, Aug. 19; libertarian blogs galore including KipEsquire, Radley Balko, Unrepentant Individual). Mike Cernovich (Aug. 21) analyzes what he finds the dubious maneuvers of the Eighth Circuit panel majority in dodging the requirement of deference to the trial court judge’s findings.

Filed under: , ,