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.
Refuses to film copyrighted content!
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!"
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
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.
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? ]=-
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.
Well that would be kind of dishonest, wouldn't it? Your average file-sharing culprit isn't an innocent old grandpa, but a young adult who downloads movies and music for his/her own use, full well knowing it's illicit. If we're going to defend file sharing, let's be honest and call things for what they are, and not try to embellish the truth or cherry pick facts. The RIAA may resort to reality distortion, but that doesn't mean we should.
She's "obviously guilty" only if file-sharing is not fair use. And she's "obviously guilty" only if the RIAA truly owns those copyrights. If the copyrights were, in effect, extorted from the artists, falsely filed, then the RIAA is representing an industry who's claim of ownership is fraudulent.
This does not, by the way, under current US law, cheat the artists. You by default own copyright in your creative work, even without filing. Clearing the bogus recording industry copyrights off the federal register would, under our law, enable the true artists to file copyrights to their work in their own names. This would then open the opportunity for the true artists to recovery money properly owed them, from whoever has been commercially distributing their music - whether record companies or commercial online enterprises.
That would be a great boon for musicians. If file sharing is not fair use, but the copyrights properly belong to the creative artists rather than the recording companies, then it would be up to the artists to form a cooperative to claim money from file sharers. However, in this case it may well turn out that (1) file sharers are more willing to pay directly to the artists they love, and (2) artists are more willing to be generous to the fans who love them.
This ends up good all the way around. The file sharers, in defending themselves from the RIAA, can make the greatest gift back to the artists themselves - the true ownership of their own works.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I think the issue that's here in this case is not that she is guilty or innocent, but what the RIAA is doing to win the case (attempted denial of a future lawyer, etc), and how much they want to take from her. Even though she is likely guilty, what she is guilty of is still insanely disproportional to what the RIAA is trying to get from her in exchange. That's my opinion, at least.
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'll ignore the snarky end of your reply
What do you mean you'll ignore it? Damn, that's the best part.
and chalk it up to this being a subject near and dear to your heart.
Instead of my just being a snarky bastard? Well thanks for the more charitable interpretation.
Instead, I'll ask for clarification
I can do that too, although I prefer snarky.
- are the lawsuits not the individual company versus the alleged infringer?
Yes they are. But the actual filing and preparation is done by the RIAA. They just stick the record companies' names in. And when needed they give the record companies papers to sign. And then, if they get a judgment, the record companies assign the judgment to the RIAA, and the RIAA brings its own judgment collection proceeding.
For example, the case at hand is "Capitol v. Thomas" not "RIAA v. Thomas". Or is it the cases are filed BY the RIAA on BEHALF OF the company?
Right.
As for the checks, I'll write that off as me being incorrect. It happens.
Yeah, the settlement checks are payable to "RIAA Litigation Fund" (or something like that).
Oh, and by the way, Matthew Oppenheim, who acts as the "client" and the "principal" of the record companies, for settlement purposes, was at the counsel table during the first trial (and was observed by Ars Technica's reporter as reading my blog on his laptop), and has gotten himself admitted pro hac vice in the case this time around, which means he will be doing some questioning, or argument, or both.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The term "indie" has somehow become a genre, and not an actual signifier of "independent". This is also true for Hollywood, most "indie" films are produced by major studios, and the signifier basically means "emulating Juno" now. Indie in music basically means watered down punk rock, or "sounds kind of like Radiohead", or "pop for people over 15". Actually, it might be one of the most useless genre tags after "alternative".
There are TONS of decent independent labels out there. John Zorn's Tzadik, Mike Patton's Ipecac, Mimicry, Drag City, Relapse, etc... Odd thing, most of the music put of by the aforementioned labels would never actually be called "indie", even if they are independent artists.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey