Slashdot Mirror
Judge Tells RIAA To Stop 'Bankrupting' Litigants
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Boston judge who has consolidated all of the RIAA's Massachusetts cases into a single case over which she has been presiding for the past 5 years delivered something of a rebuke to the RIAA's lawyers, we have learned. At a conference this past June, the transcript of which (PDF) has just been released, Judge Nancy Gertner said to them that they 'have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers ... to understand that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it ...' She also acknowledged that 'there is a huge imbalance in these cases. The record companies are represented by large law firms with substantial resources,' while it is futile for self-represented defendants to resist. The judge did not seem to acknowledge any responsibility on her part, however, for having created the 'imbalance,' and also stated that the law is 'overwhelmingly on the side of the record companies,' even though she seems to recognize that for the past 5 years she has been hearing only one side of the legal story."
Too bad that our legislators aren't as honest and bright as this judge. Too bad that the mainstream media always sides with the MAFIAA; but it's not surprising, considering the same people who own the newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations also own the major record labels and movie studios.
The way American campaigns are financed it's a wonder we have any freedom at all. I'm thinking of the movie Brazil and the old TV show Dinasaurs with its "WeSaySo Corporation".
I'm still trying to figure out how to tell if a file I want to download is one its creator wants me to have, or one that may get me sued and bankrupted. Ray, maybe you could use this angle in a court case?
Free Martian Whores!
The judge did not seem to acknowledge any responsibility on her part, however, for having created the 'imbalance,'
Come on, now. Let's not be greedy or ungrateful. Sometimes change must happen gradually and we shouldn't bite the hand for feeding us so long as it is doing the Right Thing(tm).
What about the falsely accused?
Wow, you're dense. The judge was clearly being sarcastic in this comment. If you read the rest of the text, it seems awfully like the judge was trying to help Mr. Atkinson by implying that his son should tell the plaintiffs he has no money, having just graduated from school, rather than Mr. Atkinson giving his son money to pay the settlement.
This judge clearly feels that while the RIAA is legally correct, their heavy-handed approach to dealing with people who don't really cause all that much damage, cannot afford a lawyer, and have no clue about the legal system, is a despicable way to attempt to solve their problems.
There is a damage component and a punishment component. Its reasonable for damages to scale up as actual damages go up... there is no reason to do the same for punishment.
The problem with the penalties for copyright is that they are punitively applied 'per infringement'. Getting nailed for $500 for violating copyright is actually a reasonable punishment, call it $2 damages, and $498 for punishment; that's a relatively fair outcome.
The problem is that sharing 22 songs SHOULDN'T be counted as 22 separate acts of infringement; the damages might be at most $2 x 22 = $44, plus the SAME $498 for punishment. So the final award for 22 songs ought to be around $542, not $11,000, and certainly not $222,000.
It is a crime for someone with enough knowledge to help you by giving legal advice - can't allow competition you know.
No, it isn't, unless you claim you are a lawyer.
Basically, the lawyers write the laws to make themselves richer. And you are going to elect another one to the highest office now.
A lawyer who has 1) grown up on welfare, 2) has shown at least some interest in returning balance to income inequality which threatens our entire culture, and 3) will replace the Bush Administration with a cabinet full of something besides the Bush Administration.
If the ABA were under government oversight, you could pressure your congressperson to change the way it runs, or cut their funding. Since it has no governmental oversight, all you can do is bitch. That's the "freedom" of unregulated but necessary industry - they're free to extort money, you're free to waste your breath complaining about it.
It sounds like someone needs to take this transcript, build a very coherent response countering any points she screwed up on while congratulating the things she got right, and give her a counter to remind her that she has contributed to this problem by paying attention too much to the MafiAA side so far.
Um, lolwut? Corporations did not exist? Or large corporations did not exist?
Like, say, the Hudson's Bay Company, who at the time the Constitution was written, as with the British East India Company, probably had a greater ability to project force than most countries, and at various times in the past had actually exercised governmental functions?
Does Microsoft operate a fleet of warships and control its own country now?
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance