Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's top litigation lawyer, who has been personally leading the RIAA's litigation campaign for the past several years, Richard Gabriel, will be leaving his law practice after getting a job as a state court judge for a 2-year term in Colorado. What this will mean to the RIAA's litigation machine is anyone's guess. Mr. Gabriel has personally argued all of the RIAA's main cases, including Elektra v. Barker, Atlantic v. Howell, Atlantic v. Brennan, Capitol v. Foster, Atlantic v. Andersen, UMG v. Lindor, and London-Sire v. Doe 1, and personally tried the Capitol v. Thomas case, the only RIAA case that has ever gone to trial. He was working directly under the supervision of the RIAA's mysterious 'representative' Matthew Oppenheim."
so a man that thinks the RIAA is honest and right is now a judge in the United States Courts. Somehow the words just can't describe the feelings of failure that have surfaced when I read this post.
It means they'll file to get every case moved to his courtroom.
So that every defendant moves to have him recuse himself from the proceeding.
Sig this!
"RIAA announces they'll be filing all future litigation in Colorado!!!"
Whew! This water sure is cold!
I thought the RIAA lawyers were the sharks.
I was once a horse.
Actually, I'm sitting here thinking how copyright has been part of the tide that helped turn the US Constitution upside down.
Matters of individual and family welfare were supposed to be handled at the bottom level as much as possible. Somehow, the need to monitor the Kluless Klutz Klan and its ikl from above has been an inroad to stretching the normal lines of control. But people who see chances for personal "advantage" in those long lines of control are naturally going to push to extend them further, so it's only natural that matters of personal privacy end up getting handled under "federal" law now.
So maybe there aren't any privacy concerns that will come up in state court, and this will be a good place to keep the guy where he can't do further damage.
Somehow, I'm not optimistic.
(Yes, I am of the opinion that the primary evil in giving IP a legal existence is that it finishes off the erosion of privacy. RMS's essays on the relationship seemed extreme when he wrote them, but the reality of the threat is becoming quite obvious now.)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Also, he may have been bucking for a seat on the Bench for a long time now, and finally got his chance.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
So what? He's a judge now. Unseating a sitting judge takes a lot. The old expression of 4 acts of God & an act of Congress come to mind.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
He probably doesn't, because it's only to an extremely small minority that it does. Outside of the relatively small number of people reading this website, you'd be amazed at how little awareness there is.
Um... why would they? RIAA is only one client of the law firm. None of his (or other judges listed) clients were mentioned either. This is a typical fluff press release, identical for companies and governments: make the people you just promoted look good. What has this to do with political party?
How about "since the RIAA noticed that judges turn against them, they think it's time that they not only get lawyers but also judges that support their cases"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
now theyre judges. yay.
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
And therein lies the horrible though that crossed my mind when I read the headline. "Those scumbag riaa bastards have put a guy on the bench."
He *might* serve five years, then go back to the riaa for giant buckos.
---
Damned weed, three pokes and I figured Iraq might turn into another Vietnam.
which he will decline to do. This man has foolishly tainted his entire professional career by arguing for the RIAA, I see no reason why we should trust him to be honest as a judge either.
If you cannot win cases on there merits then get your lawyers to become the judges. That way they can judge in your favor regardless of merits.
Everyone doing litigation for the RIAA has shown lack of ethics and shady practices. Having that type of background doesn't sound like a good resume to be a judge.
I'm not an American, so please accept my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.
I don't agree that the RIAA are tainted. Their tactics certainly are and they should be prevented from repeating them. But they have a job to do. There is illegal sharing of copyrighted material taking place and it is their job to protect their interests. Those who simply advocate the sharing should be made legal have, in my view, placed their heads up their arses.
Now I don't expect my point of view to receive wide acclaim here on /., but take a look at NYCL's post earlier on. He doesn't 'hate' Gabriel for what he has done, in fact if I read it correctly he respects him as a fellow professional. But he does question Gabriel's understanding of his own job. That's fine and is a reasonable attitude to take. Others have explained why Gabriel might have been duty bound to accept the cases in the first place but I, for one, am glad that the legal profession has many such individuals. Otherwise, who would defend the person accused of murder, who would look after the interests of the poor and homeless, and who would defend those accused of illegal file sharing? They all need lawyers.
The object of your displeasure ought to be the legal system that allows the RIAA to use the tactics that they do (although I think we all sense that this is changing for the better), but not the lawyer who uses the system within the current rules to win his case. I would want any lawyer that I employed to try his hardest to win on my behalf - providing that he did not do something illegal by doing so. If your response is that people cannot afford to fight the big money then that, again, is the system that needs changing, not the fact that some people have more money than others. Change the system so that the poorest can get access to the best legal minds. Make sure that all evidence is collected legally, presented accurately, and judged fairly. That is what NYCL seems to be so good at doing.
Of course we all feel dismayed when the system is gamed, and the RIAA do seem to have had some success at gaming it over recent years. But change the system - or find a better way of preventing illegal file sharing so that there is no need for the RIAA to have to go to court to try to protect their interests.
Why do I have the feeling that some will misunderstand what I have written and they are bashing at their keyboards seconds after I have pressed the 'Submit' button.....?
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
I can't imagine what you were reading of mine that could have made you believe I felt otherwise. This what I said about him. What part of that do you think shows "respect"? Then when someone said I shouldn't attack Mr. Gabriel just because he was my adversary, I responded with this, saying that the reason I hate him has nothing to do with his being an adversary or taking positions contrary to mine.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful