Rossi sues the MPAA
p2pnet.net News:- Michael Jay Rossi is back. And this time he’s suing the movie industry cartel.
That was his New Year’s resolution and he’s followed through by filing a writ with the US Supreme Court to review his case, Rossi vs Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), for the wrongful shutdown of his Website, http://www.InternetMovies.com in 2001.
The MPAA’s legal heavies had him pirating Lord of the Rings – Return of the King, basing their claims on ‘information received’ – that’s to say they acted on data dredged up by ‘Ranger’ detection software which ‘proved’ Rossi had made Return of the King available for “illegal download”.
So the MPAA has his site shut down under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act ) for alleged piracy and copyright violation.
The trouble was, as incredible as it may seem, all this happened nine months before the first in the Ring series had even been completed.
The MPAA in effect says even though it was wrong, it was acting in good faith so it was OK to shut Rossi down.
Rossi, however, is arguing, “The Ninth Circuit Court’s subjective interpretation of good faith belief stated in the DMCA is unconstitutional, allowing copyright holders to abuse people’s rights without conducting proper investigation on alleged violations.”
In the Ninth Circuit ruling, Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson also states, “The record reflects that the MPAA’s actions were certainly not beyond all bounds of decency in communicating with Rossi and Rossi’s ISP,” says Rossi.
And his question to the Supreme Court now is, “How can the MPAA’s communication that I was distributing a movie from 3 years in the future not be beyond all bounds of decency in communicating with me and my ISP?” Rossi believes, “The Ninth Circuit had to have overlooked my attorneys opening brief, which pointed out my alleged time travel abilities!”
“My fear,” he says, “is that if the Ninth Circuit court’s ruling that the DMCA Good Faith standard is subjective is not overturned, is that copyright owners will continue to abuse the law unjustly shutting down online publications like mine giving them an unfair advantage in the marketplace and abridging free speech. Also in danger is the right given by the Fifth Amendment to due process in cases of lost life, liberty or property. The freedom to defend oneself is being curtailed by the ’shoot now, ask later’ style of shutting people down when offenses may not be occurring. Any industry or person should not have the power to curb the rights of another under the protection of the DMCA’s subjective interpretation of good faith belief.”
Keep tuning in.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
New Year’s resolution – Mike Rossi takes on the MPAA, p2pnet, December 31, 2004
arguing – InternetMovies.com Files Petition, April 19, 2005
April 19th, 2005 at 11:49 pm
Here is part of my problem with DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act ). Against all legal precedent the law assumes that anyone accused of violating such is automatically guilty until proven innocent. When one does attempt to prove he is innocent he runs into such as Mr. Rossi has. A no appeal, no listen, approach to his claims. With this sort of law unchecked, any competion, any site, can be shut down simply by claim with no proof required other than “we have reason to suspect”.
Worse if the operator of such a site refuses, opting to fight such a claim, then the ISP is held also responcible even though the ISP had nothing to do with it. So either way the site is such down, even without probable cause to be necessary to be proven. Just such a scenerio could shut this site down merely by the claim of “we suspect”. All of us here know that there isn’t an infringing file to be found here. Bots don’t distinglish, this is part of the problem. By mentioning a copyrighted name in commentary, even though legal for the purposes of discourse you could be set up as a host for an infringement and the invoking of the DMCA. While you are innocent of such charges the legal battle will break most cases into submission by the simply outspending beyond the capabilities of most citizens.
So where does this leave average Joe when it comes to being upheld by the law? Out in the cold is where it leaves him…
April 20th, 2005 at 12:35 am
Rossi is just a scammer who gets way more press than he deserves. His site promised things like “Join to download full length movies online now! new movies every month. NOW DOWNLOADABLE ONLINE!” … and he even made it look like you could download a long list of specific titles from his website.
He charged people six bucks per month for becoming a member – only to show them basically worthless stuff about how they could get movies on P2P networks in the member section. The articles themselves – called “special reports” are much worse that what you would get on countless free P2P websites – e.g. they recommend using Earthstation 5.
This is completely the same thing as Kazaagold and all those other scammer sites. The only difference: Rossi apparently fooled the wrong guys. Even the MPAA thought he’d sell movie downloads. They sued him out of existence. Big deal.
April 20th, 2005 at 12:45 am
In fact I’d argue that this whole SCOTUS filing is just another part of Rossi’s scam. Go to his site and he’ll tell you how you can fight the evil copyright cartel: By becoming a paying member of his scam website. Today P2Pnet, Zeropaid and Slyck gave him a whole lot of free advertising …
April 20th, 2005 at 1:40 am
way to go Rossi, take it to them, stand up where everyone else has crumbled or been settled out…
TT
April 20th, 2005 at 2:41 am
He may be a scam artist, he may not. that’s not the point. the point is that someone is challanging the DMCA and there is an oprotunity to further define it or have the supremes Nullify certin parts. That is something we should all embrace reguardless who is doing it.
Rick
April 20th, 2005 at 3:08 am
Yeh !!
April 20th, 2005 at 3:20 am
License to Gill
The entertainment media’s practices are not unlike the controversial gill nets used by fisherman – the huge dragnets which often cause widespread injury and death to a great many animals which are not the actual target of the nets, often causing immense environmental destruction for the small benefit of catching a few fish.
Similarly, the MPAA’s scorched-earth campaign that ensnares a lot of innocent people is simply brushed off as the necessary evil of enforcing copyright, a type of ‘collateral damage’ – a common offensive euphemism mouthed by military leaders when they recklessly slaughter huge numbers of civilians in their pursuit of a small military target.
immunity and impunity
The DMCA specifically gives copyright holders blanket immunity from any and all damages caused by their own recklessness or negligence, no matter how extreme or blatant. This flies in the face of every principle of personal responsibility and common law.
For a drunk driver to have a “good faith belief” that his driving ability was not impaired after downing a sixpack, and another “good faith belief” that the traffic light was green when plowing through a busy intersection – a rather rational argument, indeed – does not absolve him of responsibility for his own reckless actions.
Yet this is exactly the same sort of situation in which the record and movie industries are able to execute with impunity – after all, they practically wrote their own loopholes into the DMCA law, giving themselves blanket immunity.
-tm
April 20th, 2005 at 4:37 am
Rossi doesn’t have to be an “nice guy” or to have been running a “good” business. He’s still entitled to justice, just like everyone else is supposed to.
Perhaps some people are looking over the fact that he wasn’t doing what the MPAA said he was, yet he still got hammered. The movie he was supposed to be making available didn’t even exsist yet, but the multi-billion dollar industry was still able to sue him into the ground. Were the judges deaf? Drunk? Mentally retarded?
Like a previous poster said, Rossi is challenging a law, which by it’s very nature, should be un-constitutional. It’s not about his reputation, it’s a principal that’s being fought for, and a right that Amaricans are entitled to enjoy.
April 20th, 2005 at 7:00 am
You can get punished for selling Oregano if you pretend it’s weed …