Social Question

jerv's avatar

How do you feel about people suing other people for stuff they haven't done yet?

Asked by jerv (31032points) August 11th, 2010

According to this article , concert producers are suing bootleggers who have yet to actually bootleg anything!

To me, this smacks a bit of both Big Brother and Minority Report as well as the music industry getting totally out of hand.

I would like to hear your opinions on this matter. Do you think it’s right to be dragged into court for crimes that have not been and may never be committed?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

16 Answers

Seaofclouds's avatar

I could understand them wanting to draft up the paperwork in advance so that they would be ready as soon as possible, but I don’t understand how they can actually file a law suit against John and Jane Doe. I wonder if someone with that name could stand up against the law suit. I think it’s a bit over the top and they should just wait until someone actually does it (which I’m sure will happen soon enough).

escapedone7's avatar

My opinion is it violates due process of law, since the defendents are not named yet nor notified they do not get a chance to contest the lawsuit in court. I am surprised a judge allowed this.

Mom2BDec2010's avatar

I think thats ridiculous for them to be able to do that. I know if I had to take time out of my life, waste my gas and be accused of something I didn’t do I’d be very angry.

rooeytoo's avatar

Sounds like a good idea to me so as we speak I am having my attorney draw up a complaint against @jerv cause you will probably annoy me any day now and that is a crime in my book!

Jeruba's avatar

On a cursory (but not a close and careful) reading, I see that the festival organizers are trying to protect themselves against people showing up at the festival and selling unauthorized materials such as T-shirts and programs and other merchandise with their proprietary trademarked logo on it. They know somebody will do this, presumably, because it’s been done in the past. If they wait until somebody shows up and starts selling unauthorized merchandise, they won’t be able to get the papers drawn up in time. Maybe they can prosecute the offenders after the fact (and maybe not), but it looks like they want something that will stop them in their tracks during the festival itself.

How does this drag an unnamed person into court for something he hasn’t done yet? I don’t see that.

I don’t know if this is legal or not, and I don’t know if it’s likely to work, but I can understand the logic. And I don’t think it is any more unreasonable to prepare papers to try to stop someone just in case he does it than it is to, say, manufacture handcuffs in the event that some criminal will need to be handcuffed, or to arm a cop in case he needs a weapon in the line of duty. It does not mean that cops are going to go out and start handcuffing or shooting people that they think might commit a crime in the future.

Cruiser's avatar

This does not appear to be a suit per se, IMO this looks more like a court order of protection of this promoters copyright and will enable local law enforcement officials to act immediately and with clear cut remedies for anyone dumb enough to try and sell knock off merchandise. No big brother involved just big corporate muscle trying to protect what is rightfully theirs. Too many mini-me’s nowadays sponge off the hard work and initiative of go getter’s who put in a years worth of work for a few days of income. I don’t blame the promoter one bit.

jerv's avatar

@rooeytoo If I haven’t already, I’m doing something wrong :D

Jeruba's avatar

@Cruiser, your analysis says more crisply what I was trying to say.

I do question this part: “big corporate muscle.” I don’t see any evidence that there’s a big corporation involved here. I thought it more likely that this was a small operation, very vulnerable to fraudulent competition and very likely to be badly hurt if someone rakes off the profits they were depending on in mounting such a large-scale event.

Big or small, they’re entitled to protect themselves from being ripped off.

rooeytoo's avatar

@Jeruba :-) (Where I am, the day is still young, give it some time)

Jeruba's avatar

I think that remark was meant for @jerv.

rooeytoo's avatar

hehehe, sorry @Jeruba, I just saw “J” and hit return, was definitely meant for good ole @Jerv, wow, I almost did it again, usually you can get to the correct person with 1 or 2 letters, but for you and jerv, I need his entire name!

jerv's avatar

@rooeytoo…all four letters of it :D

Cruiser's avatar

@Jeruba I must admit I did not read your answer before I gave mine and we are strumming the same chord concerning this issue. But I will offer up this quote concerning the Parent company of the promoter arm from my least favorite source…Wiki…

“The Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) is a sporting and music entertainment presenter and a subsidiary of The Anschutz Corporation. It is the world’s largest owner of sports teams and sports events, the owner of the world’s most profitable sports and entertainment venues, and under AEG Live the world’s second largest presenter of live music and entertainment events after Live Nation”

So IMO big corporate muscle is behind this legal maneuver and I chuckled when I read…

“Furthermore, the Anschutz company was criticized for bully-like behavior in regards to the changing of the outer parameters of the sports arena.”

Jeruba's avatar

@Cruiser, I concede the point. Facts beat supposition any day. I looked only at the cited document, and that alone was no basis for an inference that the promoters were a big corporation. You’ve done research and found that they are.

I still maintain that, large or small, they are entitled to protect their own interests, as a matter of principle. In this case, they happen to be large.

Cruiser's avatar

@Jeruba Agreed! In this instance, size does not matter! XD

CrankMonkey's avatar

In a sense this is a fraud on the court, as it makes allegations against people who are not identified and who have not yet done anything. The complaint should be dismissed, as it is not possible to provide proper notice to unknown individuals.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther