Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawyer Banned for Threatening File-Sharers

Posted by Soulskill on from the your-uppance-has-come dept.

S. Hare brings us a report from TorrentFreak about a lawyer working for a Swiss anti-piracy group who was recently given a 6-month ban for her attempts to intimidate file-sharers though letters threatening fines and court fees. Elizabeth Martin demanded 400 Euros each from "hundreds of thousands of file-sharers," and suggested that they would have to face large settlements if they did not comply. The Paris Bar Council took exception to this and instituted the ban. Martin worked for Logistep, a company who has had trouble following laws in the past. "The disciplinary board decided that 'By choosing to reproduce aggressive foreign methods, intended to force payments, the interested party also violated [the code] which specifies that the lawyer cannot unfairly represent a situation or seriousness of threat.' In addition, the lawyer also violated the code by cashing payments into a private account, not the usual dedicated litigation account, known as a 'Carpa'. Martin also refused to reveal how many payments had been received from file-sharers."

6 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. To illiterate poster below my normal threshold: by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    There is no such word as "indection". Better look it up before you get indected from behind.

    But seriously, while on the subject, what is with the Original Poster calling a company "who"? I admit that this is a pet peeve of mine, but that doesn't change the fact that it is just plain bad English. It is incorrect. Period.

    Companies are not "who". People are not "that" or "which". Get it straight, folks.

    1. Re:To illiterate poster below my normal threshold: by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Languages still have rules, even if they are informal. They absolutely must follow a common framework, otherwise they would not be languages!!!

      In English, it is NOT proper to refer to things like companies as "who". Even if you want to argue about rules, the definition of the word does not match. Look it up!

      Regardless of language rules, calling a dog a cat does not make it so. Calling an inanimate object a person does not make it so, and calling a person an inanimate object also does not make it so. I suppose the latter might be technically proper if the person were dead, but otherwise not.

    2. Re:To illiterate poster below my normal threshold: by CRCulver · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Languages still have rules, even if they are informal. They absolutely must follow a common framework, otherwise they would not be languages!!!

      Yes, but as we've known since Saussure and his concept of l'arbitraire du signe, the rules are ever-shifting and based on mutual intelligibility, which can stretch much more than you give it credit for.

      In English, it is NOT proper to refer to things like companies as "who". Even if you want to argue about rules, the definition of the word does not match. Look it up!

      Definitions are established by usage, and dictionaries do not set the meaning of a word, they merely reflect the meanings given to it by the community. Any dictionary maker will readily admit to this. If people start using "who" with non-animates, as they have already been doing in some varieties of English for decades or centuries, dictionaries will eventually reflect this usage.

      Calling an inanimate object a person does not make it so, and calling a person an inanimate object also does not make it so.

      Assigning grammatical animacy to non-animate items is a common development in languages. It's already happened once in the history of English (when Proto-Indo-European innovated animate terms for water and fire).

    3. Re:To illiterate poster below my normal threshold: by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And mutual intelligibility does not exist without generally accepted commonalities. You are arguing in circles.

      What you call "prescriptivism" is the basis of those accepted commonalities... in fact it is those, and nothing more. You made that point yourself. You can deride it all you want, but you cannot eliminate it without also eliminating those necessary commonalities. If you think it is folly to have mutually understandable languages, more power to you. You can go invent your own and try to communicate with others using it. I have no reason to care.

      But I am not the one here who is arguing in logical circles... you are. And there is very little in this world that is more "masturbatory" than that particular brand of circle-jerk.

      Have a nice day. :o)

    4. Re:To illiterate poster below my normal threshold: by CRCulver · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Get some actual training in linguistics and then come back, OK?

    5. Re:To illiterate poster below my normal threshold: by blankinthefill · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      By everything that you've said, Shakespeare was a hopeless illiterate. Without him, the modern vocabulary would be significantly smaller, as well as totally lacking in contractions. Changes in grammar do not happen over night, the majority of the populace doesn't wake up one morning and say, 'Oh, I think we should all talk like this today.' It has to start somewhere. Anyways, you're the one that started arguing in circles, pretty much ignoring the arguments provided against you in order to drive home your supposed point that this was WRONG. Well, scratch the circles, actually, you're just arguing like a brick wall, everything just bounces off.