Slashdot Mirror
Camara Goes On Offense Against the RIAA
whisper_jeff writes "Ars has an excellent write up outlining how Kiwi Camara (Jammie Thomas-Rasset's new lawyer) is following the 'Best Defense is a Good Offense' philosophy and going on the attack against the RIAA. Not content to just defend his client, he is laying siege against the RIAA's entire campaign and beginning the work of dismantling it from the bottom up, starting with the question of whether they actually do own the copyrights that were allegedly infringed. And, if you're thinking this is good for everyone who's been harassed by the RIAA, you'd be right — Camara, along with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, plans to file a class-action suit seeking to force the RIAA to return all the (ill-gotten) money they've earned from their litigation campaign."
We first discussed the efforts of Nesson and Camara to thwart the RIAA last month.
What does the Campaign for Real Ale have against the RIAA?
It's time to kick some serious RIAA boo-tay.
On a more serious note, it warms my heart to find that there is at least a couple of "good" lawyers out there who have their clients best interest at heart.
NYCountryLawyer excluded - dude you do good work.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
I think this is the equivalent of the breakaway in the third period last night.
It's about time.. Though it does seem like a lick and a prayer, it may open some eyes.
Just me
Refuses to film copyrighted content!
... and a lawsuit they can't just back out of when they realize they're not going to win. It's two great tastes brought together into a cocktail of bitter irony for the RIAA!
That is a hell of a name for a lawyer.
"Meet Kiwi Camara. He's a high-powered defense attorney by day... and she's a pole-riding stripper by night! What will happen when these two lives collide? Find out this Fall on Barely Legal, only on Fox!"
NYCountyLawyer, what is your take on this?
I wish them the very best of luck - thats a very powerful business lobby with a lot of politicians in pocket that they are going after.
Still, its very clear why he chose to represent her - the publicity on this high profile case could make him and give his career a hell of a head start.
We would all like to see the RIAA lose on all points brought up here, but how strong are these arguments, and are there known ways the RIAA could dodge them?
My webcomic
Does young "Kiwi" there really have your best interests at heart, or is he more interested in making a name for himself by shooting for the moon?
It's good that someone is fighting this case, but old age and cunning will always defeat youth and vigour. And the RIAA are ancient and well versed in the ways of the Dark Side.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If the RIAA were forced to give all the money they collected BACK, the RIAA would simply close up shop permanently, probably filing some sort of bankruptcy or some such action to prevent their actually having to pay anything back.
And what would that mean with regards to the MPAA or BSA? They both, quite often, use similar tactics and means of evidence collection.
This will undoubtedly stir up a hornets nest on a scale we have never seen before. If this guy actually manages to win his cases and motions, it will likely result in new laws being introduced that would effectively make the RIAA's activities legal... that is unless some people are there to stop it which isn't likely considering the way laws like the DMCA are passed... subversively and practically secretly.
IANAL
Someone on slashdot once wrote "99% of all lawyers make the rest of us look bad".
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
There's more happening, and not all of it is necessarily going to work. I hope Thomas comes out on top, but I wonder how some of these tactics will affect the case overall.
Camaraaaaaaaaaa! Camaraaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Camara is really neat,
Camara the RIAA won't beat,
We've been eating Kiwi, Camara!
This case brings me very mixed feelings. On the one hand, the RIAA (and to a lessor extent, the MPAA) needs to have its ass seriously kicked.
But on the other hand, I wish this was a case where the defendant wasn't so obviously guilty of what the RIAA claimed in the first trial. It sucks that this isn't one of the cases where the RIAA went after a senior citizen who doesn't even know hot to turn on a computer. Its a good thing that the RIAA is so evil and stupid, because otherwise I'd find it much harder to root for her side.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
First my country finally shows signs of sanity by rejecting the Hadopi law (by way of the Constitutional Council, which verifies that a law doesn't break the constitutional rules), and then this ? Time to start celebrating :)
In class action lawsuits, the lawyers are the ones that get most of the money. A tiny sliver will go to the people that tried to win it back.
Did anyone else read the story title as Camera Goes On Offense Against the MPAA?
Although we can dream, yes? :)
They'll pay off some lawmaker like they're doing still.
- Kc
-- Kevin C. Redden kcredden@ gmail 392992
BTW, boycott the major labels, listen to indie music. By boycott I mean don't just not buy, don't even download or listen.
How do I avoid listening to major label music at work or in a grocery store?
Actually I would like to see Open Source/ Creative Commons type licences covering intellectual and creative works. With a good dash of community pooling of resources to sue any big corporation that infringes the above IP.
The situation we have now of large companies using the law to lock down markets would change. If they they feel they are being controlled and constrained by laws they initiated, the law will change.
This stunt is dangerous. This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny.
Remember he could lose and set more case precident in favor of the RIAA. This guy is gambling and the stakes are incredibly high.
I am not amused at this, it's risking everyone rights and the future of fair use, by putting the case in his hands. He has noting to lose in this, he'll get his 15 minutes of fame either way. If he wins, great a blow to intellectual tyranny. If he loses, the law suit lottery flood gates are blown wide open.
Going on the offense against an industry who is backed by both parties, who have pretty much hand picked damn near ever appeals judge out there, sounds like about the dumbest idea since the Sword-Chucks from 8 bit theatre.
I'm not a fan of gambling with people's freedom.
Yeah I said it. Mod me whatever, but this scares the hell out of me... IANALBMWIAPL and she's pretty spooked too.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
In his first year at Harvard, Camara was involved in a racial controversy that would gain attention from the national media. Like many students, Camara posted his course outlines to a popular student-run website. Camara's, however, referred to blacks as nigs. For example, to summarize Shelley v. Kraemer, he wrote "Nigs buy land with no nig covenant; Q: Enforceable?"[7] The notes were prefaced with a disclaimer that they may contain racially offensive shorthand.[7]
Upon discovering the outline, a classmate alerted other students and professors.[7] Camara issued an apology and the outlines were promptly removed, whereupon a third student using the pseudonym "gcrocodile" e-mailed the classmate who discovered the outline expressing disappointment that they were no longer available and an intention to use the word nigger more often.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Camara
He sounds like trouble in a box!
At the very least, I would hope that it will bring some real media coverage on the whole scandal. Sure, we read about it on /. all the time, but how often do you see it covered at 5PM? That will be the biggest test, because (from what I gather, and correct me if I am wrong) the same lobbyists who pull for the RIAA have a big hand in corporate media.
It would be no surprise to me if the majority would love to see the RIAA burn to the ground, with a crater the size of Texas where they used to stand, and not so much as a memorial dog crap to mark the spot. It is just getting the not-so-computer-savvy to actually give a damn.
It's a great step though.
Something witty.
The RIAA can easily drop the one case and hold up the class action suit in court for years. Even if that suit does go in favor of the RIAA's victims they can still appeal and hold it up a few more years. And in the meantime they have plenty of other tools at their disposal: re-education campaigns, new legislation to file lawsuits under, working with ISP monopolies, to name a few. Just sayin'... don't go recycling those tin foil hats yet.
mmmm...forbidden donut
goddammit. this was a long time coming.
Read radical news here
If the RIAA can go after people based on their IP address, why can't law enforcement press charges based on a DNA profile they find at a crime scene? The latter is doubtless more useful as a means of identifying the perpetrator, and that would presumably prevent the statute of limitations from running out. I'm not proposing this would be just, but I don't think that would stop the law from doing it without a court case. Is this something that's done, and I never heard about it?
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Hack the planet! er, wait...
but neither is Jack Thompson!
Sorry, I'd been waiting a while for an excuse to say that in a slightly relevant way.
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
I know in most cases where class action suits are filed, the attorneys filing and operating the case get a rather sizeable chunk of the take. If/when this class action is filed and won, does Kiwi intend to take from the rich to give to the poor or will he take a sizeable chunk for himself?
Isn't that Gamera?
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny.
This "Rookie" is teamed up with a Harvard law professor who's called the "Billion Dollar Charlie" and has a 1998 movie, "A Civil Action", about a case of his about a toxic polluter.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Remember when they used to have those parades of military hardware in Red Square? They didn't just do that to whip up domestic national pride. The parades were also an instrument of foreign policy. They reminded the West that it didn't really want a shooting war with the Soviet Union. The Soviets didn't want a shooting war with the West either. Everyone made sure everyone else knew that that was on the decision tree somewhere.
Litigation seems to be a little like that. Lawyers always prefer to settle, but first they have to put their arsenal on parade. Even that ridiculous cannon that fires marshmallows. Sometimes that sort of thing can cause more grief than you'd expect.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
IF RIAA loses, then look forward to retroactive immunity and a moving of the goalposts, a la the telcoms illegal wiretapping.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
They don't have a prayer. The legal system is this country is so bent it's going to snap in half. :(
Where??
How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
...sounds like about the dumbest idea since the Sword-Chucks from 8 bit theatre.
But with enough practice, sword-chucks can be nearly as dangerous to the opponent as they are to the person weilding them!
Once upon a time there were murderous thieves on the high seas. The cure was to license the hunting of them, with the prize whatever spoils they had won. Not the best system, bt it worked.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
This is the part where the Empire has the Death Star and then gets it's ass handed to it for being evil and idiots.
If you want to make the point that the RIAA's tactics are wrong and that their evidence is shaky (both true), then it might be a good idea to try and make a big hoo-hah out of a case where they sued someone who didn't own a PC or was in another country at the time.
Lets be honest about this, This woman is guilty as hell. The fact that she is so bloody minded as to proclaim her innocence so long after the fact is fascinating, but she is hardly a decent poster child for people who claim that the RIAA are going after the wrong people.
Isn't she the person who tried to destroy her hard drive after she got caught?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
What the hell is going on with all the wacky names here?
A defendant called "Jammie," with a lawyer named "Kiwi" who studied under a guy named "Billion Dollar Charlie..."
They should copyright their names and then charge the RIAA to use them in legal documents.
In an age where bands can make their own album with consumer recording equipment, and make it sound just as good or better than professional releases, then distribute that music with the most powerful communication medium known to humanity, why do we still have these record label middlemen?
Major record labels and major music publishers are supposed to provide access to some of the following services:
By the way, I submitted a proposed article a few days ago -- which is still in the Firehose -- about the Judge denying the RIAA's motion to bar Jammie from objecting to the defects in their copyright registration documents. I guess the article is being rejected, although it was voted up to "orange" in the Firehose, so you might want to check it out.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I really hope they kick the RIAA's ass, but I think he's going to have a tough time unless the judge is very anti-RIAA.
FTA:
Even if the RIAA comes up with the documents, though, Camara still has objections to their contents (or lack thereof). The registrations don't include the actual "specimen," for one thing (in this case the actual sound recording filed with the Copyright Office), so Camara says he has no way to know what was actually filed and whether it truly is identical with what Thomas-Rasset is accused of sharing.
Seems a little silly, and kind of a long shot.
This could really get into a big mess with the copyright office and what consitutes a specimen of a recording.
If the judge overrules the objection because he thinks it's silly, this one dies pretty easily.
FTA #2:
He will also charge that the registrations are simply invalid, since they were all done in the names of the various record labels, not of the artists. But the "work for hire" law under which this was done has been improperly applied in these cases, he says, and the registrations are therefore defective.
Depending on where he and the court take this one, it could really bring about some change in the recording industry.
As I understand it, when the artists sign their souls away to the recording studio, part of what they are signing away is their copyright.
The studios like to justify this as fair because they have to put forth a lot of studio time, remastering, audio tuning, etc. lots of things that are technically "part" of the artistic development, so they get to hold on to their sacred copyright.
If the courts rule that ultimately the copyrights remain with the artist and are non-transferrable to a recording studio, then the item remains as to whether the RIAA represents the "artists" as they say, or whether they represent the studios.
The RIAA could still remain as a copyright attack dog, but they would end up having to pay money to the actual artists, and not the studios.
Which means the studios won't back the RIAA, which means the RIAA will probably go away.
I guess this is now where the litigators for the RIAA are beginning to think; Paybacks are hell. Especially since I'm sure that money has moved to offshore banks and other places where the government could not even find it, assuming it came down to some form of mini-anarchy regarding this litigation as a whole.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
IANAL but I was thinking:
even if the RIAA doesn't hold legitimate copyrights to the music they sued for, somebody -does- have copyrights. The author of the song or the artist that played it or whomever. I guess returning the ill-gotten money is a great start and an ambitious goal (and I wish Camara all the best in this awesome quest) but when they settle to who actually owns the copyrights (unless it is 100% the buyer or public domain or fair use) it won't stop the true owner of the copyrights to go after the file-sharer no?
So if RIAA returns money
Artist is found to hold true copyrights
Artist can sue for said money now?
What are the implications of this outcome?
Maybe I'm thinking waaaaay ahead and I need to let it unfold some more?
A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere. -- Groucho Marx
Litigation is the only way to enforce the high prices they charge for each song. The average person can either 1) pay for the song and get in no trouble or 2) torrent the song and possibly get into big trouble. Equilibrium is when the two choices are equally attractive. When the "big trouble" has the price tag of hundreds of thousands of dollars, you know something is problematic in the balance. It is like a tiny pebble trying to balance a huge boulder on a see-saw, the pebble has to be so unreasonably far from the fulcrum. If only the music companies can price the songs at around 10 cents each, then the see-saw would be more reasonable, ie, the pebble can become larger so it can get closer towards the fulcrum. Personally, I see individual songs as a small, almost throwaway value of a dime.
Don't count on it. even if they lose, they will just claim they are a company that 'cant fail' and get a free pass from the Federal Government as they file bankruptcy and wash it all away. just like Chrysler did when they were absolved of their obligations to creditors after the filing ( short version - liquidation of their billions in assets was bypassed with agreement with the Feds and left people holding the bag, which normally would NOT happen in a bankruptcy like this. Bond holders and creditors get first grab at the assets, not some foreign company waving cash ).
Hey, its 'change', not following the law, right? Pfft
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The BSA acts on behalf of their clients, the RIAA/MPAA claims actual ownership. Sort of a different deal.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Gamera you say? What? What's that?
Bow-ties are cool.
"pro-bono" contingency lawyers are the last ones who want to see all funds returned to so-called victims. taking those 100 million riaa bux and keeping 30% or more for themselves seems a lot more likely. nevertheless sticking it to the media giant man deserves a few hosannas, even if it's impossible to separate the greed from the other ambiguities motivating this latest escapade.
- js.
Abunaaaaaiii!!
Meta will eat itself