Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Victim Jammie Thomas Gets a New Lawyer
newtley writes "Only days after Brian Toder, her previous legal representative, had decided discretion was the better part of valour, leaving her fend for herself against the RIAA, Jammie Thomas says another lawyer has come forward with an offer of pro bono help. He's K.A.D. Camara from Camara & Sibley in Houston, Texas, says Jammie. And, 'He's the youngest person in history to graduate from Harvard Law school with honors,' she points out. Nor will her retrial be delayed, as was expected. It'll now go forward in June 15, as slated. 'I'm so happy!' Jammie said."
I'm happy for Jammie that she got a new, free lawyer. But haven't we learned already that free isn't always a good thing?! If I was going up against the RIAA I would like someone with large amounts of experience, who knows all the tricks of the trade, and who knows how the RIAA fights.
Sounds like he has a bone to pick. This guy's smack dab in the middle of the age range most concerned about and most knowledgeable about the issues at hand. He's obviously smart. The RIAA has been flailing left and right, so there's even hope.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Look, I hate the RIAA as much as anyone else on this forum, but did we honestly need to resort to that type of summary in order to grab readers? "leaving her fend for herself" -- The lawyer that left was helpful for quite sometime, but has to feed himself (and family?) as well. You're throwing this guy away like he's part of the prosecution or something. He needs to make money like anyone, and she obviously can't pay those kinds of fees. Time for another crusader to shoulder some of the burden.
It costs money.
What's your point though? I don't think that anyone has suggested Ms. Thomas was stealing music, or even downloading it without permission.
Many blacks refer to each other and themselves as niggers.
Non-whites can actually (usually) get away with using the term. Whites can't, but that's because whites are, by definition, racist.
Not all black people think this way, but the word nigger is not necessarily racist. At least this guy is willing to post his raw brain dumps with a warning instead of a whitewash. Maybe he has prejudices, maybe he was just writing as fast as he could during the lecture.
FWIW, I've found that people who recognize their own prejudices generally are less prejudiced in their behavior than people who don't.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Pro bono basically means the lawyer is free. This doesn't mean the lawyer doesn't get anything out of the deal though. If I were a young, smart, talented lawyer like him I would try and get some experience and boost my career with a hard high-profile case like this too. Even if it means I don't get a penny out of it right now, the reward will be large in the long run.
Should have just called for /b/lackup
Stealing my music? How do I steal something I already own?
"I don't think that anyone has suggested Ms. Thomas was stealing music, or even downloading it without permission."
Well for starters, the jury MORE than suggested it. Even commenters on previous stories admitted that she more than likely did it, based on all the available information.
It's not stealing.
With a name like "Anonymous Coward", you look down on whiny snotnoses? Stop whining anonymously, you - you - you COWARD!!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
How is this bitch a "victim"? She stole 10s of dollars worth of music from billionaires. Damn injun.
Jammie Thomas is a parent herself. Also, nobody has actually proven she has stolen anything. Innocent until proven guilty, you know?
I'm aware basic judicial procedures and fair trials have lost popularity in the US in recent years, but as long as the RIAA doesn't accuse her of terrorism (they just might), she deserves to be assumed innocent.
Well for starters, the jury MORE than suggested it. Even commenters on previous stories admitted that she more than likely did it, based on all the available information.
How much of the available information was gathered by MediaSentry, and therefore is supposedly not admissible?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Well for starters, the jury MORE than suggested it.
Nope. They were quite clear that she was making them available. Whether she downloaded them or ripped them from her own CDs didn't factor into their considerations.
"With Professor Charles Nesson of the Harvard Law School, we are defending Brittany English, a junior and cheerleader at Case Western Reserve University in a prosecution brought by the recording industry under the Copyright Act for allegedly illegal music downloading and sharing. Brittany is counter-suing the Recording Industry Association of America, its members, and the individuals who organized its litigation campaign.
Armed with the threat of $150,000 in statutory damages per illegal download (a $1.5M judgment in a small, 10-song case, where the actual damages are about $10, the price of 10 songs on iTunes), the recording industry has obtained more than $100M in settlements from individuals like Brittany. We are asking the courts to declare that statutory damages like these â" 150,000:1 â" are unconstitutional and that the RIAAâ(TM)s campaign to extract settlements from individuals by the threat of such unconstitutional damages is itself unlawful, enjoin the RIAAâ(TM)s unlawful campaign, and order the RIAA to return the $100M+ that it obtained as a result of its unlawful campaign."
the thing wrong with buying is that it is not free.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
may i introduce my new lawyer...crafted from pure win. you will refer to him as "Mr. Busdriver man," because today he's taking you to school.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I, too, am pro Bono.
But those glasses? Come on...
Here in the UK the majority suddenly seem to have woken up to what their "elected representatives" have done in their name, and unexpected people we know are pretty cross about it. In the US, the RIAA affair is, quite literally, a slide into Fascism - a state in which corporations enjoy special privileges and are part of the Government. Here is a 25 year old lawyer actually saying this on his website, that the behaviour of the RIAA is unConstitutional. Either he's hoping to be bought off after the case (cynical) or he has ambitions for a career in politics (much less cynical).
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
It is "Liberté, égalité, fraternité", which translates to "Freedom, equality, party like a frat boy!" Or that last one might translate to "brotherhood"; can't be sure about those French...
Because the parasite music companies engage in price fixing, payola and racketeering in order to steal our money. They profiteer off artists by the same corrupt methods. Because they lobby the government they get away with it. They steal from us as much as humanly possible. It's the kind of relationship THEY created. Now that they are getting the short end of the stick and the universe is balancing out they are crying like a bunch of little babies. Screw them let them starve if they all go out of business the world will be a better place.
Ask how much of the money the RIAA has won they shared with the artists.
What the hell is a gubmint?
A dialect pronunciation of "government", in the sense of an organization that makes and administers the law of the land.
in addition to a) cynicism, and b) ambition, is c) a genuine dislike for the might-makes-right tactics of the RIAA, coupled with the ability (being a licensed attorney) to actually do something about it.
Unlikely as it may sound, there are quite a few lawyers out there who actually have principles and respect for the rule of law. It's entirely reasonable to think that they would dislike seeing the system gamed by the RIAA in this way. Time and events will be the ultimate proof, but don't discount the possibility this fellow is motivated, at least in part, by principled indignation.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
25% of that is still a lot for a months work.
There's no way that stuff will stand up to even a half-hearted attempt to counter.
You know you want to.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is what makes the RIAA so outrageous.
They want to have a wet-dream of pay by the minute for you RENTING your own stuff, and transfer fees for putting it on your devices.
This is, by definition, rent seeking.
Hey, I just noticed something...The RIAA doesn't have much real competition does it?
What if the RIAA had to fight with a rival for its dough?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"RIAA victim?" Give me a break. How do you people stand Slashdot anymore and it's completely biased headlines?
Remember when this site posted technical news having to do with science and programming? Now, it's five pro-piracy articles every day with stupid tags like "mafiaa."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Shit!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I thought it meant legally representing someone charged with file-sharing U2 songs.
Innocent until proven guilty, you know?
IIRC, that's not applicable in civil cases.
There are some professors out there who teach Sociology who will tell you that only whites can be racist. If I had only heard this once, I'd write it off. However I've heard this from many different people who have went to different schools across the U.S.
Apparently the underlying argument for this ridiculous notion is that whites weren't enslaved (I assume they mean in recent history in large notoriety), and therefore can not know the hardships of being discriminated against.
Now when you evaluate that, it sounds like a lot of bullshit. Mainly because it is.
For whatever reason, there are people out there teaching this stuff. And unfortunately, there are people who actually believe this bullshit and repeat it.
I thought it was only libel/slander cases where the burden of proof was reversed.
He is taking the side opposite of corporate fatcats, people who could potentially employ him for large sums of money. If he's doing this for the dough, he's not very smart.
The fatcat hires the experienced trial attorney.
It is a world all it's own.
You have to prove yourself again and again and again.
You can be very, very good at preparing a brief and very, very bad in presenting a case before a jury.
Sometimes you just crap out.
Your client will insist on taking the stand - the client with her own theory of the case, her own spin on the facts.
The client who can't shut up.
There is no way to teach this stuff. You have to learn it from experience.
I believe you might be thinking of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases.
Civil cases are only "preponderance of evidence" when it comes to guilt. You still have to be shown to be guilty in both types.
What conversation?
Sorry for the drive-by post the other day, but I was tired, and when I woke up I had to go to work.
You make a lot of assumptions, and seem to get your back up for not much purpose.
I have no desire to use the word, "nigger". The word offends me, to a certain extent, whatever the race of the person who says it, although it offends me for different reasons according to the person saying it and the (apparent) intended meaning. I suppose I also gave a nod to a self-contradictory attitude that seems to be common among minorities. (Prejudices are often self-contradictory.)
But I was merely pointing out that the lawyer who has stepped forward would seem to be outside that group for which the word "nigs" would be something near an automatic indication of white supremacist leanings.
And I did acknowledge that, if the guy does have prejudices, he would seem to be more conscious of his prejudices than many who pretend they are not prejudiced.
Does it bother you to know that I know that you are prejudiced? It shouldn't, because there is not a human alive who is not prejudiced. Even brand-new babies have their unreasoned (and unreasoning) preferences. Part of the purpose in life would seem to be to have the opportunity of getting many of our prejudices broken over our own heads. Once we recover our composure, no, it's not a big deal.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
They are definitely *not* getting the "short end of the stick". It is just not quite as long as they got used to.