The RIAA vs. John Doe, a Layperson's Guide

Grant Robertson writes to tell us that he has made a pass at translating a recent guide to surviving an RIAA lawsuit from technical lawyer-speak into a much more easy to understand layperson's guide. The law, being complex and sometimes cryptic, allows ways for the RIAA to tilt the odds in their favor forcing unsuspecting victims to settle rather than fight. Take a look at Ray Beckerman's tips to survival translated into words anyone can benefit from.

Comments

More such as this.

[mcai8rw2]

I wish there were more 'guides' like this. Usually the corporations hide the true meaning of their T's & C's behind so much confusing babble that the end user usually has zero idea of what is actually going to happen to them in certain scenarios.

Its like contracts...I read them. Over and Over again...it doesn;t mean I understand what they mean. We all need pet solicitors.

Re:More such as this.

[Agent00Wang]

The confusing babble is part of the reason why we have lawyers. Nearly everything can be argued in court and lawyers just make more (paid) work for themselves by having the T&C be confusing in the first place.

Well...

[cpt kangarooski]

There are some minor errors in it, and I'm busy right now, but hopefully I can go through line by line and post about them this evening.

Still the main piece of advice he gives -- immediately get a lawyer who knows what he's doing with regard to these sorts of cases -- is good advice. Waiting too long, or going without one for a while can irrevocably screw up your defense if you don't do the right things, in the right order, at the right times.

I am less than a layman

[Don_dumb]

I read TFA and still didn't understand parts of it, despite that it is well written.

However, I would be grateful to know how this compares with the RIAA's attempts in other nations, especially here in the UK. TFA did allude to Canada and The Netherlands but only a mention. Some of the tactics outlined did seem to be only possible in the US (in particular the limitations of state laws)

Useful guide, but not to survival

[Clovert Agent]

Great piece, but it's far from a guide to survival. It's a translation into Laymanese of how you're going to be screwed by the RIAA's gaming of the legal system.

1) You're going to lose a motion and not be told how or why
2) You're going to be sent legal documents but will not be able to get a lawyer to defend you because the lawyer won't have the information he needs
3) You're going to have your information handed over to the RIAA and there's nothing you can do
4) You're going to land in a civil case and the precendents are murky enough that you may well lose, but it's certainly going to cost you a bundle anyway

What I'd like to see is a real survival guide on the back of this. For example, when you get the notice that you've lost that first motion, what should you do? What can your lawyer do to get up to speed and file a motion to dismiss in time? What can you present to the judge to show that the case, on the evidence to hand, is baseless?

Good article, and a great starting point, but it'd be so much more useful with some real advice rather than just being a well-written explanation of exactly how screwed you are.

I think the original sources are the best reading

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Personally, I think (a) the people at Slashdot are a pretty intelligent lot, and (b) the best things for them to read are not what a commentator has to say, but the actual court records.

I have seen some spirited, high-level debates in these pages where people cite to different parts of different litigation documents.

That is why my site is the way it is; it is information, not entertainment. The key elements are (a) the index of litigation documents; (b) the directory of lawyers who are fighting the RIAA; and (c) the posts highlighting significant level events. The post, How the RIAA Litigation Process Works, which Grant Robertson describes as being as 'dry as a bread sandwich', is merely intended to be an accurate summary of what is going on out there, not a substitute for informing onesself and forming one's own opinions. (I hope punkr0x is right, that it is not quite as poorly written as Grant makes it out to be.).

My site is intended to serve the following readers: (a) people who are being targeted by the RIAA; (b) lawyers who are representing or would like to represent these folks; (c) journalists looking for primary rather than secondary sources; and (d) other intelligent people, lawyers and nonlawyers alike, who want to understand what is happening here, and who don't need to be told what to think.

I think the 'laymen' at Slashdot are pretty good readers.