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."

4 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Why should copyright-breakers have it easier? by mi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    understand that they are fighting people without lawyers... to understand that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people

    Why should someone accused of copyright infringement have it any easier (cheaper), than someone accused of running a red light, or breaking a contract, or committing a felony (tort, civil, and criminal examples mixed here deliberately)?

    The judge is part of the Judiciary, that slowly made litigation a very expensive option — heal thyself, and consider awarding legal expenses to the winners, whoever they are, by default (rather than by special request, as happens now).

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Why should copyright-breakers have it easier? by CorporateSuit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why should someone accused of copyright infringement have it any easier (cheaper), than someone accused of running a red light, or breaking a contract, or committing a felony (tort, civil, and criminal examples mixed here deliberately)?

      The other day, my girlfriend got a ticket in the mail saying "You were double parked, pay us $50. Your car wasn't there to give you the ticket, so we're sending it in the mail"

      So you're right. This gross violation of rationality doesn't stop at copyright violations. It's spreading, and it needs to stop.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
  2. Judge did not create the situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "The judge did not seem to acknowledge any responsibility on her part, however, for having created the 'imbalance'"

    What are you talking about? No, because she didn't create the imbalance. The legislators and litigants created it. The legislators by creating the relevant laws, the RIAA created it by suing people, and the people being sued provoked the RIAA by allegedly sharing the files in question. Copyright law exists to stipulate who is within their rights and who isn't, and the judge is there to PRESIDE over the case and the decision, the procedure for which is also constrained by law.

    The imbalance exists because the RIAA has loads of money and the people they've decided to sue don't. Did the judge establish that situation? No. To imply that she's at fault for even hearing the case is silly (it's her job), unless you think the case shouldn't be heard simply because one litigant has loads of money and the other doesn't. It would be an interesting precedent.

  3. Re:With friends like her .... by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Interesting

    " companies are represented by large law firms with substantial resources,' while it is futile for self-represented defendants to resist. "
    ..." lawyers turned around and sued the very people they represented because they wanted a bigger share of the blood money.
    "

    It's a symptom of a broken legal system when self representation is "futile" and legal fees become "blood money". Yes, some might argue that lawyers are expert, trained professionals, so it only stands to reason that it would be futile for an untrained citizen to stand against them in court. That argument would make perfect sense if you were talking about pros vs joes in a different venue like sports or some industry specific contest. But the purpose of a court room isn't to determine the best performance or find a winner and a loser. A courtroom is a place to find the truth in a legal or civil dispute. Now is some of the participants are unskilled at the labyrinthine dance of courtroom etiquette, then the process should merely become less efficient at determining the truth, not less accurate. That this is not the case show a onerous flaw in our system. A flaw which has allowed lawyers to become a elite class within our supposedly egalitarian society, just look at their pay scale and tendency to become government officials.

    I realize that I am idealizing what our courtroom and legal system should be, but we have to pursue idealism in our societal systems to minimize the damage done by the imperfect humans that take part in those systems.

    --
    We are all just people.