New Hampshire Law Students Take On RIAA

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "We have recently learned that another law school legal aid clinic has joined the fight against the RIAA. Student attorneys from the Consumer and Commercial Law Clinic of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire, working under law school faculty supervision, are representing a lady targeted by the RIAA in UMG Recording v. Roy in New Hampshire. The case is scheduled for trial next Fall. That makes at least 4 law schools providing anti-RIAA defense services: University of Maine, University of San Francisco, Franklin Pierce, and, most recently, Harvard. Hopefully many more will follow. One commentator theorizes that this news 'will ... [encourage] professors and students at other law schools to take on hitherto defenseless people being pilloried by the corporate music industry.'"

Comments

Awesome

[kno3]

We need more of this to happen! See, not all lawyers are bad.

Re:Awesome

[musikit]

they didnt say the lawyer was working for free. wait for the bill to come. she might have been better off settling

Re:Awesome

[retech]

Wait till they graduate. Right now they're idealistic and assume they can change the world.

Re:Awesome

[mcgrew]

See, not all lawyers are bad

Ray is my third favorite lawyer, right behind the lady who handled my divorce and the gentleman who handled my bankrupcy. When you need a lawyer, you NEED a lawyer!

The only "bad" lawyers (a) work for corporations or (b) are suing you. When you need a lawyer, one will save you far more than (s)he costs in fees. If you need to sue (say an uninsured drunk driver puts you in the hospital), one will tell you if you have a case or not. Here in Illlinois lawyers generally charge 1/3 of a settlement, or 50% of a judgement if it goes to court.

In an auto accident here, you get 3x the medical costs for "pain and suffering". If you have $10k in medical bills, the doctor(s) get(s) $10k, your lawyer gets $10k, and you get $10k. Without a lawyer you'll be lucky to get your bills paid.

Re:Awesome

[easyTree]

See, not all lawyers are bad.

Wash your mouth out!

Re:Awesome

[zappepcs]

Why just cases vs RIAA? Now THAT is a pretty damned good question! It might just be that the tactics of the RIAA's legal team are so reprehensible that people are volunteering to fight them. If you are a judge or know one, you should perhaps help point this out to them.

It has always been my thinking that Harvard law school very rarely ever comes out on the wrong side of a legal issue. It is their business after all. That term Preponderance of evidence would seem to apply here when so many law schools are weighing in on this issue, and doing so against the RIAA legal team.

It would seem to me that this should be seen as a very bad omen for the RIAA et al. When all the kids circle around and start picking on the class bully, things normally get sorted out, and the bully gets a black eye or two as needed. I think that is what we might be witnessing in the greater stage of legal theater.

Re:Awesome

[homer_s]

When you need a lawyer, you NEED a lawyer!...

And when you DON'T need a lawyer, you still need to pay a lawyer! Because they write laws that ensure that they get paid even when you don't need them.

(I needed some work done reg. my immigration and I approached a friend of mine who works as a paralegal. Even though the work was trivial and she was more than capable of doing it, she told me that it was illegal for her to do that as she was not a lawyer.)

Re:Awesome

[Jherek Carnelian]

The only "bad" lawyers (a) work for corporations or (b) are suing you.

You've been fortunate.

Here's one anecdote in contradiction with your anecdotes: A friend of mine had a divorce lawyer that dropped him 6 months in and 1 week before court because they discovered that his wife had done one of those "free first appointments" with them 7 months prior (she apparently did that with all of the local divorce attorneys so that he would have a hard time finding representation). They kept his money and because of the "old boys club" of lawyers in his town he had to go out of town to even find an attorney who was willing to sue the first for his money back.

Which leads to the real problem with lawyers - the bar. Lawyers are "self-regulating" which we should all know by now is an inherent conflict of interest that inevitably leads to corruption, regardless of what industry does it.

In an auto accident here, you get 3x the medical costs for "pain and suffering". If you have $10k in medical bills, the doctor(s) get(s) $10k, your lawyer gets $10k, and you get $10k. Without a lawyer you'll be lucky to get your bills paid.

Your last sentence is telling. How much of that is because of the way the system works? The system that was setup by, is run by, and is regulated by lawyers?

Re:Awesome

[Aladrin]

"The only "bad" lawyers (a) work for corporations or (b) are suing you."

Oh man, you couldn't be more wrong. There are many, many lawyers out there just aiming to make a quick buck on someone who "NEEDS" a lawyer and doesn't know how to pick one.

My father hasn't had to deal with lawyers much, and he picked a bad one. It ended up costing him a LOT of money without actually fulfilling his 'need'. The lawyer was good at one thing: Convincing the client to stay with him instead of going elsewhere. No matter what I said, my father refused to leave and find a better lawyer, even after admitting that the guy wasn't doing the job.

Re:Awesome

[Hordeking]

Yeah?

Well i can taste your anger.

Does it taste like chicken?

Re:Awesome

[barnackle]

Lawyers are "self-regulating" which we should all know by now is an inherent conflict of interest that inevitably leads to corruption, regardless of what industry does it.

Professional engineers are self-regulated. State boards of professional engineers, the exams, all that stuff is run by engineers and for engineers. In Florida, for example (which is typical of most states), the only government involvement is a few laws that give the Board its power. And medicine is not all that different.

Re:Awesome

[stewbacca]

The only "bad" lawyers (a) work for corporations or (b) are suing you.

or (c), advertise heavily on tv, asking if you've been injured in an accident.

Re:Awesome

[DinDaddy]

I always imagined it tastes like a slim jim.

Re:Awesome

[Dun Malg]

My cousin is a bad lawyer under category (c) "Lawyers who you know are bad because you know them". The stories he proudly tells about using courtroom dirty tricks are astounding. One of my favorites is the "jar of marbles". He currently works for a large hotel chain defending them against suits brought by workers they've cheated. In one case, the suit alleged that the hotel would only promote white men to management. He argued that the fact that all management was white men could be pure chance. He produced a jar of marbles that were 10% black and 90% white and said "is it not possible to reach into this jar and, by chance, pull twenty marbles and not pull one black one, just by chance?" The plaintiff's attorney objeted at this bullshit and the objection was sustained, and the jury told to disregard that little bit of irrelevantr statistics; but (as he proudly related) "I kept that jar of marbles on the defense table, right where the jury could see it, for the whole trial--- and we won". Even if it was lack of evidence that caused him to prevail, the fact that he is proud of that marble shit just goes to show what kind of dickhead tends to become a lawyer--- or maybe, what kind of dickhead becoming a lawyer tends to turn you into.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

The clinics at law schools are virtually always free of charge. That is the entire point, to provide services to those who couldn't afford them.

Re:Awesome

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

the fact that he is proud of that marble shit just goes to show what kind of dickhead tends to become a lawyer--- or maybe, what kind of dickhead becoming a lawyer tends to turn you into.

Isn't there a third possibility? Like that some lawyers are jerks? Just like there are some jerks everywhere else in the general population?

Re:Awesome

[mcgrew]

c) lose your perfectly valid case

That's not a bad lawyer, it's an incompetent one. Lawyers are like programmers or doctors, though - some of them are excellent, some are mediocre. Like finding a mechanic, doctor, or barber, the trick is to find a competent one.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Your friend didn't get dropped because of any "old boys club". Your friend was dropped because it is against the Rules of Professional Conduct to represent someone in the situation you mentioned. That lawyer could have been disbarred if he had not withdrawn.

And should have promptly returned the fees paid - which should never have been accepted in the first place. The lawyer failed to do due diligence to check if the wife had already consulted him prior to taking on the husband as a client.

Anyhow, the GP didn't say his friend got dropped because of the old boy's club. He said the friend couldn't find a local lawyer willing to challenge the original lawyer who was at fault. This is common. I've been to court many times, and all the attorneys know they will one day come up against each other in court and have to have good relationships in order to be successful. It's stupid, but that's how it is.

Re:Awesome

[z0idberg]

Like if you had a jar of marbles and 10% of the marbles were jerks?

New Hampshire!

[Samschnooks]

Don't Tread on Me! Baby!

Re:New Hampshire!

[Amazing Quantum Man]

NH is "Live Free or Die!", which is even better.

Not mainstream yet.

[retech]

Until this hits the masses the RIAA will continue its mad dog attacks and back room deals. Get this out there for everyone to see. Run an RIAA case in front of Judge Judy and then we'll see the changes that really matter.

/tag this +1 sarcastic please.

Why?...

[whisper_jeff]

Why did it take this long for schools to fight against the RIAA? Ignoring the possibility that the RIAA might have been right * (which the majority of us would be arguing against, surely...), it just seems to be a perfect opportunity for any law students to actually practice law and earn some valuable experience on high profile cases. Were I a law student, I would salivate at the chance to be involved with something like this in the defense of fellow students. I'm surprised it took this long for law departments to get involved.

*And, really, it doesn't matter if the students being targeted were guilty. In our society, everyone deserves legal representation, even the guilty. Right or wrong, it's just how our system works. The law departments view shouldn't have been "this person is obviously innocent - we should get involved and help them". It should have been "these cases are high profile cases that will involve a lot of complex legal issues and will teach our law students a lot of valuable lessons that will make them better lawyers in the future. We should be involved." In my opinion, of course...

Re:Why?...

[girlintraining]

They took this long because despite what most believe, universities are exceptionally political. They have been targeted by RIAA in the past and did not want to lose potentially millions in legal fees at a time when enrollment is dropping due to rising costs. Ethical discourse is a luxury that few universities can afford right now; As you might notice, all of the universities to date have been financially well-off.

As to the position the law departments' take, I would point out that they are under no ethical obligation to represent a person based on presumed guilt or innocence. Most practitioners of law are doing so to make money, and pick and choose who they represent based on how much income can be derived from a case. The issue of innocence or guilt has no bearing on the decision to (or not to) represent someone. And besides, you don't want a lawyer who presumes one way or another, you want a lawyer who will argue your side to the best of his/her abilities.

Re:Why?...

[cdrguru]

Part of the problem is stigma. Let's say there was a high-profile child pornography ring in the city where the university is. Under the concept of "everyone deserves representation", shouldn't the law school assemble an army of lawyers to help out in the defense of the accused?

No, they wouldn't because the local (and maybe national) press would utterly crucify the school, the professors and the students.

Now, the RIAA is interesting because the battle is clearly over the University's rights to shield their students, no matter what the students do. In a lot of ways, the University may be right that they can shield the students and are not required to expend any resources on the behalf of the RIAA attempting to track down the students. It might even be that all the students were doing is covered by fair use. However, it is highly likely that the student's activities are in fact infringing on copyrights and shielding them isn't a great policy.

The one problem is that no matter how "wrong" the students may be, forcing the University to do anything at all in support of a lawsuit against the students would seem to be an unpopular move.

And besides, everyone that knows how is downloading stuff today. Free has won the day and paying for digital stuff is unlikely to ever come back into favor.

Re:Why?...

[Harin_Teb]

Nitpick: in our society nobody is legally guilty until proven so in a court of law for criminal matters. In reality someone can still be guilty as sin even if they aren't convicted. If you are going to harp on someone's choice of words make sure that the word doesn't have different meaning in different contexts. In the context he used its clear that "guilty" is not refering to "legally guilty of a criminal offense."

Re:Why?...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

These law schools aren't necessarily representing their own students -- more than likely, they're representing average people who don't have the means to defend themselves.

Correct. In this case, the defendant is just an average person who doesn't have the means to defend herself. (By the way, almost nobody has "the means to defend themselves" in a federal copyright infringement litigation, let alone one brought by the unscrupulous vipers the RIAA uses.)

Re:Why?...

[fuckinshitmotherfuck]

I would pose another why? question. Why in today's society does one feel it necessary to illegally download music? In the past record industries failed to acknowledge the need for downloadable content. Once they did they wrapped DRM around it so tight that it was easier to go out and buy a CD, go home and bit torrent the same cd just to get a copy to play on your freaking mp3 player. I support drm free providers (Amazon seems to have a good policy, and the price of music has come down significantly in recent years). I applaud piracy for one reason. It forced the industry to address their antiquated products for a 21st century consumer. The biggest thing now isn't pirating music, it's movies. Why? Because the movie industry has been slow to provide a full array of online content in a portable (non drm) format. After years of lawsuits and tens of millions spent on litigators, maybe they will also figure it out.

"Free" as in beer High profile Trainning!

[bubulubugoth]

Great, now this law schools are really delivering what they promise. High profile, real case of study against mayor law firms.

Lots of legal battles to teach their students the ways of the corporate warfare...
They students not only will have Harvard Law Student in their resume, also RIAA legal case.

For the fee this universities collect, they have found a new way to train legal sharks...

I should patent this "field training from school active model" :D

All the so called evidence is circustantial:

[Smidge207]

BUT: "Circumstantial" does not mean any of the following, about evidence: (1) inadmissible; (2) insufficient to prove a fact in court; or (3) unreliable. You can be convicted of murder based on nothing but circumstantial evidence, if it is strong enough. Otherwise, murderers who hide their victims' bodies the best could not be convicted. And the RIAA only has to prove infringement by a preponderance of the evidence, a much lower standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt as required for a criminal conviction.

This is about the RIAA's abuse of the discovery process and, in particular, its filing lawsuits for the sole purpose of collecting evidence through discovery. You personally can't just send me interrogatories without having a pending lawsuit against me, and you also can't file a lawsuit whose only purpose is to allow you to send me interrogatories. And that's what the RIAA is apparently doing...

=Smidge=

Its Standardized Education

[thtrgremlin]

Taking the humanitarianism out of the equation (as wonderful as it is) this is the perfect opportunity for hands on experience. Lawyers usually only get to look at the same old cases that have been reviewed to death, but here is the opportunity go up against the same prosecutor in the same case over and over again. These are nearly scripted debate speeches. Sure, in a way you could say that is what a lawyer does, but this is uniquely different in that there are just sooo many cases, all with the same prosecutor fighting the same fight.

A class where students get into groups and provide legal council in different cases that almost all look the same? Computer science students can get identical computers, biologists can dissect many of the same species, but I don' think before the RIAA started going sue happy across the country was there such an opportunity to standardize a law class year after year fighting the same case in a real courtroom over and over again.

This is going to help real people, but realistically I hope it doesn't last long. I can just see it now: RIAA gets bailout from congress to save law school curriculum across country. HA!

Good law schools should really take advantage of this opportunity. I think schools could be judged by this for how up to date they are and how much they really care about their lawyers getting real experience in the classroom.

Re:Its Standardized Education

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Good law schools should really take advantage of this opportunity. I think schools could be judged by this for how up to date they are and how much they really care about their lawyers getting real experience in the classroom.

I agree, and Franklin Pierce happens to be one of those institutions that really cares about getting its students real-world, law-practice, experience.

Re:Its Standardized Education

[Corpuscavernosa]

I can attest to that, having graduated from FPLC. They had extensive externship opportunities (actually working for an entire semester in lieu of classes), clinics, competitions. They are best known as being an IP school so they are particularly well suited for this sort of work in fighting the RIAA.

Re:Its Standardized Education

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I can attest to that, having graduated from FPLC. They had extensive externship opportunities (actually working for an entire semester in lieu of classes), clinics, competitions. They are best known as being an IP school so they are particularly well suited for this sort of work in fighting the RIAA.

1. As someone who worked in a law firm all the time I was in law school, I know from personal experience that getting the practical experience along with the law school curriculum is an incredibly valuable part of one's legal education.

2. You have good reason to be proud of your alma mater. This is really in the finest tradition of our profession.

Let's not stop just here

[Anonymous Coward]

We need the IT students to be the expert witnesses too :)

Re:Remember, kids!

[mcgrew]

I swore off biting trolls but dammit, I guess I'm relapsing. Guess I need trollbiter rehab.

If you're spewing out copies of music, movies, or software, it's because information wants to be free and copyright infringement != theft...

If I'm spewing out copies of music, movies, or software, it's because the writers WANTED it to be "spewed out", like most file sharers. Like Lessig said in his book, of the three kinds of P2P, only one can possibly harm the artist, and the other three actually help. P2P is no more a threat to the entertainment industries than the VCR and cassette were. It's only a threat to the established but outmoded business practices. Everyone else from musicians to film makers are using P2P constructively.

Information doesn't want anything. I guess you could anthropomorphise and say "information wants to be free like compressed gas wants to escape", or you could just say "when information isn't free, neither are you."

However, copyright infringement is indeed not theift. Neither is smoking dope or jaywalking. Extortion IS theift, which is exactly what the RIAA is doing, Mr. Record Company Executive (you guys must get some killer cocaine to be such greedy, selfish, heartless bastards).

unless you're messing with open-source software

No, it's still not theift. It's copyright infringement.

The rest of your incredibly stupid rant is beneath discussion. Go back under your bridge.

Re:Ok. Where do i donate ?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

dont these people have a site they take donations for the effort, or we just donate to eff.org ?

Yes you can! Go here to donate to the Franklin Pierce Law Center. Let them know why you're doing it, too, because you appreciate the courageous work that their law clinic is doing on behalf of Mavis Roy.

Oops... correction

[mcgrew]

Four kinds of P2P, not 3. That was a typo, sorry

Re:Remember, kids!

[cdrguru]

Like Lessig said in his book, of the three kinds of P2P, only one can possibly harm the artist, and the other three actually help. P2P is no more a threat to the entertainment industries than the VCR and cassette were.

Indeed P2P is a great threat to all creators that use a digital medium. It is simple - I and everyone else on the Internet has a choice now. We can consume for free, or we can consume and pay. It is a simple and obvious choice.

I can choose to pay for what I download. I can use many different "stores" to make purchases. But at the same time, perhaps with even greater breadth of products to choose from, I can just take for free. Most of the people I know that are Internet-savvy are taking without paying. There doesn't seem to be any clear consequence to them why they would choose to pay.

There is no "download for free and pay later" option. How many times does the average person read a book or watch a movie? Once? Twice? OK, so now you have read it or seen it. Why would you ever, ever in your entire lifetime pay for the opportunity to do so again.

So I would say P2P is clearly harmful to content creators. If content is available in digital form, it is available today on the Internet for free. Sure, there may be greater familiarity with some content creators and it might mean that I would seek out there other works in the future. But if it is available for free, why would I ever pay for it?

Now this looks like a perfect world, as long as you aren't hoping for revenue from digital content. I do not see this going back to a "pay" model anytime soon, if ever.

Agreed

[Drakkenmensch]

The Righteous Inquisition Army of America will know the full extent of public scrutiny once the whole of North America sees Denny Crane get sued for a million dollars because his next door neighbour uses his unencrypted wifi to use his limewire to download Metallica's latest!

Re:Remember, kids!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm most saddened when I see artists give in to the brainwashing the music executives do to them and come out against it.

Most performers today totally get it... and can't wait for their recording agreement commitments to be over.

Re:Remember, kids!

[mcgrew]

care to explain why Cory Doctorow's Little Brother sells well despite being on the internet? Look it up and read the introduction for his excellent reasons for doing so.

Everyone is listening to the RIAA's bullshit, good thing we dodn't listen to the MPAA when Heston said "the VCR is to movies like Jack the Ripper is to women." Logical, reasonable, but dead wrong.

No artist has ever starved from having his works given away, but many have starved from obscurity.

Re:Remember, kids!

[Toandeaf]

Interesting, one of the things blamed for declining CD sales was the increasing use of concerts by artists to make money. Content producers often do want monetary recognition of their work, though this is not universal, but the truth is that they are screwed over more by the content controllers than by P2P. Associations such as the RIAA were not formed in order to protect artists, they were formed because protecting artists was profitable and they wanted money. They protect artists whether they want it or not.

Re:Some good, some bad, how do you know which?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

How does someone find a good lawyer, except by chance?

The only reliable way is through referrals from people you know. I.e., networking. E.g., if you need a personal injury lawyer, but the only good lawyer you know is a real estate lawyer, ask the real estate lawyer to help you find a good personal injury lawyer. If you can't do it through a good lawyer, reach out to friends, business associates, etc., whose judgment you respect.

I didn't think it was possible

[hyades1]

Rightly or wrongly, the legal profession enjoys somewhat the same level of public approval as your average used car salesman. The fact that law students fighting the RIAA are looked on as the good guys shows you what complete douchebags the RIAA really are.

Re:Boston Legal

[av567]

..And they better hurry since that show ("Boston Legal") is in it its final, truncated, season.

It was already covered in The Paper Chase...oh wait, I'm giving away my age again.

That bogus "deadline" is a canard! Besides the Paper Chase, "Boston Legal" was also preceded by "L.A. Law", and probably others too numerous to remember; they can *always* make a sequel.