Slashdot Mirror
University of San Francisco Law Clinic Joins Fight Against RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's litigation campaign has met resistance from the academic community before, but now it's been taken to a whole new level: the defense of RIAA victims who are not part of the college community. First the University of Oregon lashed out on behalf of its students, then it was the University of Maine's Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic on behalf of its undergrads. Now, the University of San Francisco School of Law has taken the fight a giant step further. Its Intellectual Property Law Clinic's attorneys-in-training, working under the supervision of law professors, are going to bat against the RIAA by helping outside lawyers to defend their clients, pro bono. They reached out 3000 miles to get involved in Elektra v. Torres and Maverick v. Chowdhury, two cases going on in Brooklyn, NY, against non-college defendants. Two of the law students in the USF's legal program assisted in the research and preparation of briefs in these cases, opposing the RIAA's motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaims. Thousands of honor students throughout United States law schools, most of them digital natives who actually understand the legal fallacies and technological missteps the RIAA is taking, and who can't wait to expose them, make a pretty good resource for the poor and middle class people trying to defend these cases."
Is there a legal way the RIAA could be achieving their goals or is the mere concept of aggressively enforcing their rights under copyright law against regular folk something the legal system is currently stacked against?
I guess what I'm asking is, are they just lazy or just stupid?
How we know is more important than what we know.
I think if I was a law student, I'd be very very happy doing this sort of work.
Actual cases with a lot of what every defence lawyer is looking for: Suspense, Lying, Cheating, Inexpert Witnesses, Corporate Greed, Perjury, Farfetched application of laws...
This would be great. You could probably make a TV series out of it even!
(Okay okay.. Some of this is tongue in cheeck, but the basic premise is obvious: This is great material for law students to study and participate in. They get a real life example of how screwed up and convoluted cases can get)
And maybe, just maybe this'll breed a generation of lawyers not hellbent on making Escheresque pictures out of the law.
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
It doesn't expire. The DMCA is unConstitutional on its face. The RIAA are trying to enforce an illegal law. Enforced by a corrupt judicial system.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Which "sacred human rights" you're talking about that the government is violating (which I presume to mean "is violating unconstitutionally")?
The constitution, albeit a fine document, is not the be-all and end-all of human rights; not least because it is somewhat limited in the people to whom it applies. While I will freely admit that the US gov. has a positively sparkling human rights record compared to some, I note that the country is still not party to, for example, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights among others.
Apologies for being somewhat OT here, but the difference between human rights law in general and the US constitution is an important one and I think it important not to blur the difference.