Court Appoints Pro Bono Counsel For RIAA Defendant

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Appoints Pro Bono Counsel For RIAA Defendant

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Friday July 17, 2009 @09:12AM from the level-the-playing-field dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In what could be a turning point in the RIAA's litigation campaign, a Michigan judge has decided to appoint pro bono counsel to represent college student Brittany Kruger, who is being sued by the RIAA in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Kruger. As this article points out, 'if other judges follow suit, things will change dramatically.' That is because the RIAA's entire litigation campaign is based upon economic inequality of the litigants: almost none of those sued by the RIAA can afford legal representation, and the RIAA has a huge economic incentive to fight cases to the death, while the defendants have no economic incentive greater than the 'settlement' amount, which they often pay even when entirely innocent. If the courts follow the lead of District Judge Timothy P. Greeley [PDF], and appoint pro bono legal counsel, the RIAA will no longer be able to achieve the easy pickings default judgments and 'settlements' it's routinely obtained in the past."

104 of 123 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Faulty assumption? by Lead+Butthead · 2009-07-17 09:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

This assumes the appointed pro-bono counsel is competent and interested in the welfare of his/her client, which may or may not be the case.

--
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
1. Re:Faulty assumption? by scubamage · 2009-07-17 09:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They're required to be interested in the welfare of their client. The issue is more that a public defender will likely have 40-50 cases to worry about, where a private defender may have 2-3. That means more time to spend on each one.
2. Re:Faulty assumption? by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2009-07-17 09:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This assumes the appointed pro-bono counsel is competent and interested in the welfare of his/her client, which may or may not be the case.
  Assuming they are competent, all I can say is that It's about time.
3. Re:Faulty assumption? by markov_chain · 2009-07-17 09:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Of course not, he is pro Bono.
  
  --
  Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
4. Re:Faulty assumption? by fishbowl · 2009-07-17 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  "This assumes the appointed pro-bono counsel is competent and interested in the welfare of his/her client, which may or may not be the case."
  It's a hard thing to prove, but if you can prove it, the attorney can be disbarred and/or fined (and even jailed) for contempt.
  
  --
  -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
5. Re:Faulty assumption? by MarkvW · 2009-07-17 09:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Pro bono is not the same thing as public defender.
  Public defenders are for criminal cases--this is civil.
  There are lawyers in big firms who take on cases for the public good. These lawyers have an enhanced sense of social responsibility. Pro bono is short for "pro bono publico" (for the benefit of the public).
  The pro bono lawyer will probably be skilled and ethical and not simply out to make a name for himself/herself. The defendant won't get absurd theatricals and stupid gamesmanship, but will get decent fair representation.
  That alone should be a pain for the RIAA.
6. Re:Faulty assumption? by azakem · 2009-07-17 09:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They are required by the rules of ethics to provide zealous representation to their client, even if the client is a pro bono client.
7. Re:Faulty assumption? by sumdumass · 2009-07-17 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  The interesting thing is that there is no requirement for a lawyer to do anything pro-bono. They pretty much have to volunteer for it. So I'm not sure why we would be worried about someone not representing their clients when pro bono operations are more or less either some sort of ego stroking "look at me, I helped those who needed it" or are looking for exposure of some sort to further their career (again, look at me, I did a great job helping this person).
  I think that some people have this pro bono just as confused with a public defendant as they do RIAA's civil cases with a criminal prosecution.
8. Re:Faulty assumption? by MarkvW · 2009-07-17 10:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Your statement is not correct. I know of many lawyers who take pro bono cases because they think that it is the right thing to do.
9. Re:Faulty assumption? by ari_j · 2009-07-17 10:41 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Actually, as an attorney, I can say that it's not always that cynicism-worthy. Many young, bright attorneys choose to work for firms that give them leeway to take on pro bono cases, specifically because they know that they can do some good for the world by taking them. I personally hate the numerous times every week that my phone rings and I think to myself, "I wish I could afford to help this guy for free, because what was done to him is just plain wrong.," and then explain that it's not the type of case I can handle on a contingency fee basis and that it will cost him X dollars per hour. I give every person who calls me the advice not to chase bad money with good, and all too often they take it, much to my chagrin, because I really wanted to help them out.
  
  That said, by most attorneys' third year at the mega-firms that have very pro-bono-friendly policies, they fit the pattern you described to a tee. Youthful idealism gives way to wanting more status symbols fairly rapidly when you work at those places.
10. Re:Faulty assumption? by Chabo · 2009-07-17 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  and not simply out to make a name for himself/herself.
  Lionel Hutz: "Murder one!?! Wow, even if I lose I'll be famous!"
  
  --
  Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
11. Re:Faulty assumption? by Hurricane78 · 2009-07-17 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  What? Lawyers with a heart *and* a conscience? Unpossible!
  Can someone check if Satan plays Duke Nukem Forever because it's too cold to go outside in hell?
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
12. Re:Faulty assumption? by darkmeridian · 2009-07-17 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Outstanding lawyers may choose to take on these cases pro bono, especially at the beginning, for the publicity. But even if you get a retarded lawyer, it's probably better than the average college student strolling into court without a clue. I mean, most lawyers will go on Westlaw or Lexis and crib off of the successful RIAA cases. Soon, they'll probably all trot out the same arguments regarding making available =/= distributing and the Media Sentry stuff. I can imagine RIAA just lowering their settlement demands once a student gets a pro bono lawyers because let's face it: RIAA's lawyers aren't THAT stupid, and they're not really after money away. They want the stat that says, "99% of the people we sue settle or lose, so our campaign is just." They can make that claim no matter how small the settlement is.
  
  --
  A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
13. Re:Faulty assumption? by Dan541 · 2009-07-18 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  As long as they are more competent than a collage student it's a plus.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
14. Re:Faulty assumption? by Dan541 · 2009-07-18 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  I think that some people have this pro bono just as confused with a public defendant as they do RIAA's civil cases with a criminal prosecution.
  Civil cases are worse than criminal case's, at least for the defendant as we have seen all it takes in a civil case is an accusation.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
15. Re:Faulty assumption? by Danse · 2009-07-18 05:17 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  As long as they are more competent than a collage student it's a plus.
  Yeah, I wouldn't want an art major taking my case either...
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
16. Re:Faulty assumption? by torkus · 2009-07-19 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I don't think it's as important as you think.
  If you're faced with $bazillions in 'potential' fines and offered a settlement of $buy-a-car instead of paying a lawyer $buy-a-new-mercedes ... well we know which way many people have gone.
  Instead if you offer even mediocre legal counsel the person is much more likely to try for the newly available fourth choice of $nah-nah.
  Having to go to trial on even 20% of the extortion threats (oh, sorry, pre-trial settlement offers) would suddenly make the whole prospect much less promising for the MAFIAA.
  
  --
  You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
sigh... by macbeth66 · 2009-07-17 09:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

I know I shouldn't feel this way, but I just don't care any more. The RIAA has worn me out. I hate all music now. I never want to buy any of their crap again.
I'll just eat the magical fruit and toot myself to death.
1. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-17 09:36 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  ironically, my music consumption has gone way down as well. i used to listen to mp3s in the car but cbc talk radio has taken over my commute.
  result ? no music.
2. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-17 09:41 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  So RIAA should be suing talk radio hosts for luring people away from music! Genius.
3. Re:sigh... by garcia · 2009-07-17 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  The RIAA has worn me out. I hate all music now. I never want to buy any of their crap again.
  I have been saying for *YEARS* (long before the RIAA was pulling the bullshit they are now) that you should be listening to free music. There are plenty of bands that allow the release of their live stuff on the web and no, we're not talking about crappy Indy artists that you've never heard about before. We're talking real bands that care more about their fans and who actually tour rather than live off the royalties of overprocessed studio shit.
  I suggest supporting those bands by buying their records and/or going to their shows instead of paying for music that sucks and that has no chance of expanding what is freely available out there.
4. Re:sigh... by Estragib · 2009-07-17 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  I know how you feel. And I know how they feel:
  Plenty more where you came from.
5. Re:sigh... by sbeckstead · 2009-07-17 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Brains turning to mush is another result, I'd see about getting that looked at.
  
  --
  Why bother
6. Re:sigh... by flaming+error · 2009-07-17 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  you should be listening to free music. There are plenty of ... real bands that care more about their fans and who actually tour rather than live off the royalties of overprocessed studio shit.
  ...
  I suggest supporting those bands by buying their records
  You're a hard one to please.
7. Re:sigh... by Nethead · 2009-07-17 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Bill: Any listening suggestions for an old deadhead?
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
8. Re:sigh... by sbeckstead · 2009-07-17 10:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Ya know, I have to believe that people that advocate only patronizing free bands and such, just don't much get why there is a music industry in the first place and in not getting it they have missed a complete cultural experience that the rest of the population share in. I'm sure that these independent free bands are just fine and have great music but the usual reason for a band publishing itself is that they suck too much for the biggies to offer them a contract. The other reason of course is what the recent spate of indy bands have done and that is rebel against the labels. However we have created a culture and while it is changing I admit there is still a large amount of talent being found and publicized by the majors. The culture is also still there and being counter culture while briefly exciting is very lonely in the end. So maybe we should just keep nudging the industry in the right direction, keep fighting these fights and maybe just maybe we can have our culture and the free stuff too?
  
  --
  Why bother
9. Re:sigh... by d4nowar · 2009-07-17 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  We should just listen to some public domain music!
  If anyone needs me, I'll be listening to "Are You From Dixie, 'Cause I'm From Dixie Too" and "Be My Little Baby Bumblebee" until the cows come home.
10. Re:sigh... by garcia · 2009-07-17 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  These bands do have labels, many are RIAA (The Grateful Dead), but they also allow their shows to trade freely. Apparently I didn't make myself clear, hope that helps.
11. Re:sigh... by ozbird · 2009-07-17 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  I have been saying for *YEARS* (long before the RIAA was pulling the bullshit they are now) that you should be listening to free music.
  Free as in beer, or free as in speech?
  
  There are plenty of bands that allow the release of their live stuff on the web and no, we're not talking about crappy Indy artists that you've never heard about before.
  You should get out more often. ;-) You've probably never heard of them because they are independent - or not American. Nor does that make them "crappy". My favourite band of all time, The Gathering is unknown in Australia; if it wasn't for the Internet and a lot of digging, I would never have known they existed. Most of the bands I've bought CDs etc. from recently are from The Netherlands and Finland - whatever they're doing over there, they're doing it right.
  
  We're talking real bands that care more about their fans and who actually tour rather than live off the royalties of overprocessed studio shit.
  Real bands care about their music first, and everything else a distant second.
12. Re:sigh... by garcia · 2009-07-17 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  archive.org's Live Music Archive or http://bt.etree.org should get you where you need to go.
13. Re:sigh... by mmaniaci · 2009-07-17 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  Weird, my consumption of music has gone way up.
  $40 a year for Pandora and I get a high quality, on demand, just random enough stream of music 8+ hours a day, 7 days a week. The amount of new music I listen to boggles my mind... I hate the *IAA as much as the next, but you have to admit that our options for purchasing music have opened up recently. Digital downloads from Amazon and iTunes along with streaming services like Pandora and Last.fm are starting to grab hold. People are fed up with the music industry, everybody knows it, and things are starting to change. In 5-10 years we'll look back and think of this as an overnight music medium revolution, so long as *IAA gets whats coming to them.
  If you're honestly fed up with shallow, carbon-copy pop music, look for new music and don't let new music be served to you. Local record shops still exist and they are chock full of people that love music, and love spreading that love. And most of all, use the internet! Wikipedia does bands decently well, and can be a great place to start spiderwebbing out into new genres. Don't let the RIAA ruin one of the few truly human things we humans have left.
14. Re:sigh... by segfault7375 · 2009-07-17 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  I agree it's frustrating, and that's a very good thing. The more and more people like you that decide you are done with the RIAA's shit, the less revenue they will have to pay their lawyers. And with judges (hopefully) beginning to see what the RIAA is up to and giving the defendant a better means to defend himself (the pro bono help), it's only going to speed up the downward spiral. I haven't bought (or downloaded) any music in years and I'm enjoying watching them flail a bit :)
15. Re:sigh... by seekret · 2009-07-18 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  I see a trend forming...it's rare I listen to music anymore, and when I do it's out of my very small collection of about 10 cd's of music created before any of us were born. Talk radio suits me just fine in my car, though I do get weird looks from people the first time they get a ride from me since it's considered "old people's radio" I guess. *shrugs*
  
  On topic: I'm glad this guy is getting an actual chance at real legal defense, and I know it's popular to bash on lawyers but stereotyping an entire community is bad. Our history is full of large groups of lawyers working for the public interest because it's the right thing to do. Most organizations offer the bulk of these public rights defense free of charge.
check http://riaaradar.com too by Dan667 · 2009-07-17 09:20 · Score: 5, Informative

When you buy music, make sure to check http://riaaradar.com/ to see if the album is from a company that funds the RIAA. If they do, don't buy it and stick it to them a couple dollars of lost earnings at a time.
1. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2009-07-17 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  And, alas, until the beast is slain, they'll attribute those dollars to the Evil Content Pirates(tm).
  We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
  
  --
  Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
2. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by kheldan · 2009-07-17 09:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Buy used CDs instead whenever possible, and if you really want to support the bands themselves, send the the difference in cash.
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
3. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by MightyYar · 2009-07-17 09:41 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Any band that has signed with a major label since Napster was shut down is complicit.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
4. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by Dan667 · 2009-07-17 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  You are thinking to narrowly. As there revenue shrinks no matter what the cause, it will weaken their ability to operate. Not buying music from companies that fund the RIAA is a direct way to help.
5. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by jonnat · 2009-07-17 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  <quote>When you buy music, make sure to check <a href="http://riaaradar.com/">http://riaaradar.com/</a> to see if the album is from a company that funds the RIAA. If they do, don't buy it and stick it to them a couple dollars of lost earnings at a time.</quote> That was depressing... Most of the albums I own were released by members of the RIAA.
6. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by maxume · 2009-07-17 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Buying used takes a used copy off the market (making other people more likely to seek a new copy) and probably funds whoever bought the copy in the first place (making it easier for them to buy more new music).
  You can't buy something and simultaneously not participate in the market for it.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
7. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2009-07-17 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Buy used CDs instead whenever possible
  While that is certainly better than buy new RIAA CDs, it still doesn't completely eliminate the problem. If enough people buy used, it just increases the price of used discs. The more expensive used discs are, the more incentive there is for someone to buy a new disc and listen to it for a while and eventually resell it. The less they lose by selling it the more likely the are to buy it new. In fact, it might even cause this hypothetical buyer to purchase many more new CDs than the would otherwise because they have more money in hand after reselling than they would before.
  Kind of the way the used video game market actually increases the market for new games instead of hurting it.
  Pirating is really the only way to make sure your "purchase" does not result in more money going to an RIAA member.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
8. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by 91degrees · 2009-07-17 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Trouble is, you need a critical mass of people for a boycott to work and you simply don't have it. People either don't care enough about this, or think that the boycott will just be put down to piracy.
9. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by sbeckstead · 2009-07-17 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  yeah but I have to say, pirating to protest getting sued by the RIAA, sounds a lot like "Fucking for Virginity!"
  
  --
  Why bother
10. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by ari_j · 2009-07-17 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Any band that has signed with a major label since Napster was shut down is complicit.
  I agree with the fact of their complicity but not with the degree. Most bands sign with major labels because it gives them greater income, greater exposure, and an overall greater reward for their years of hard work in getting to that point. Don't punish the artists who are actually creating art just because they are part of a system that gives them no choice for ultimate success other than signing with a major label. Punish the source of the problem, not a fellow victim.
11. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by MightyYar · 2009-07-17 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, you sign a deal with the devil, that's what you get.
  There are a few successful acts that did not sign with the big guys. Bright Eyes comes to mind. In fact, the number 5 album at Amazon right now is Bryan Sutton, which is ranked "Safe" by RIAA Radar. A harder path to be certain, but I'll actually respect those guys.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
12. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by deimtee · 2009-07-17 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds good to me.
  
  --
  I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
13. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by blind+biker · 2009-07-17 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Buy used CDs instead whenever possible
  Buying used CDs will most likely result in a net benefit for the labels, because the person who sold you his/her used CD will promptly go to the store and buy some other (RIAA) CD.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
14. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by ThatsNotPudding · 2009-07-17 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  And if possible, contact the band / musician via Twitter, Facebook, official website, etc., point to their entry on the RIAARadar website and state: "This is why I will never buy any music you create".
15. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by kheldan · 2009-07-17 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  WTF are you even talking about? I'm offering an idea that doesn't involve downloading crappy MP3's but doesn't put money in the RIAA's pocket. What's your solution, smartass? PYR8 MOAR? WTF?
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
16. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by kheldan · 2009-07-17 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, yes it does. For ONCE I put up an idea that doesn't involve piracy and all I hear is "PYR8 MOAR!" from the peanut gallery. I don't buy it when they say that it'll just make the used CD market dry up and people will be incentivized to buy new instead. Not everyone saves every CD they buy just like not everyone keeps every book they buy, either. If it makes the PYR8 guys feel any better, people who sell their used CDs probably burned copies of them first!
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
17. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by kheldan · 2009-07-17 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'll say the same to you as I've said to the others: What's YOUR bright idea then? Don't say "PYR8 MOAR!" because it doesn't count, come up with a 100% legit idea.
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
18. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by ari_j · 2009-07-17 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you have real talent, getting signed by a major label isn't exactly an easy path. It's only easy after you get signed, or maybe even after a couple of albums when you've got enough momentum that you can bounce back when the record company stabs you in the back.
19. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by Merlin843 · 2009-07-17 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  I would say that 90% of my extensive music collection is from thrift stores or our library book sale. The most that I pay for cds is around four US dollars. I borrow some from our local library and rip them to my computer and then burn to a cd. I am working on burning my vinyl records to cds also. My wife and I have over 6000 records.
20. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by TimboJones · 2009-07-17 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  Their solution is "boycott artists on major labels". Don't buy them new, don't buy them used, don't listen to them.
  No pirating necessary.
21. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by JCZwart · 2009-07-17 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  Great advice, that seems like a marvelous remedy for all those artists I'd want to buy records from but have released their music under a label that funds the RIAA.
22. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by maxume · 2009-07-17 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  What I am talking about is right there in the second paragraph of my post.
  If you dislike the RIAA to the point that you don't want to see them funded, the only solution is to not purchase or listen to any music that is produced by a member company.
  You can insist that your idea does not put money in the RIAA's pocket all you want, I'm simply pointing out that it is quite likely that it does put money in the RIAA's pocket.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
23. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by MightyYar · 2009-07-18 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, they should realize that they are not signing on to the good life - but you have to remember that most of the time these bands are starry-eyed kids. It's rare that they are savvy enough to understand what is going on.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
24. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by blind+biker · 2009-07-18 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Their solution is "boycott artists on major labels". Don't buy them new, don't buy them used, don't listen to them.
  No pirating necessary.
  Exactly. This is what I would have answered the GP, if you hadn't preceded me.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
25. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by Dan667 · 2009-07-18 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  critical mass never starts with everyone all at once, someone has to be first. And I don't think you realize how sensitive these companies are to bad press. Once it starts to gain any momentum, they will run for the hills screaming. And probably do so while whining they are victims of everything but their own failed business model.
26. Re:check http://riaaradar.com too by SvnLyrBrto · 2009-07-18 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  They also provide a list of their members on their own website:
  http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_members
  And wow, that list has grown over the years. It used to be able to be printed on both sides of one piece of paper. I'd leave a copy in my car. And when the ocasion hit me to go music shopping, I'd bring it with me and if the label was on the list, I'd only buy the CD if it was available used.
  Used CDs have three big advantages. They're cheaper to guy, obviously. The profit margin for the store is higher; and music stores that sell used CDs tend to be locally-owned independent stores, not the big chains. And, best of all, the RIAA doesn' see a penny from used sales. You get to have your cake and eat it too.
  These days, I don't even bother with the list. I simply ONLY buy used unless Im buying directly from the band or DJ. That both simplifies and cheapens things.
  
  --
  Imagine all the people...
Excellent news by JustNiz · 2009-07-17 09:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

its great news, but doesn't fix the problem.
I guess now all the RIAA will do is shift their efforts to people that earn too much to get Pro Bono, but still dont earn enough to be able to defend themselves against being hounded with litigation. In fact this is probably most of us.
1. Re:Excellent news by Dragonslicer · 2009-07-17 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Is there some specific income limit to receive pro bono counsel? If there isn't, how could someone have enough money to hire a lawyer to defend them (and not qualify for pro bono counsel) and at the same time not have enough money to hire a lawyer to defend them?
2. Re:Excellent news by Hyppy · 2009-07-17 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Someone who makes a decent middle-class salary may not have the means to add legal counsel to the list of bills.
  Just because someone makes a decent amount of money does not mean that they have discretionary income to throw around.
3. Re:Excellent news by Dragonslicer · 2009-07-17 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Right, but either you can realistically afford a lawyer or you can't. If paying a lawyer means you won't have enough money for food, I'd say that qualifies as "can't". If there's no specific income requirement, I would assume that it's up to the judge on whether or not you qualify for court-appointed pro bono counsel (I also assume that if you yourself can convince a lawyer to defend you for free, the court has no say in the matter).
4. Re:Excellent news by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-07-17 11:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Right, but either you can realistically afford a lawyer or you can't. If paying a lawyer means you won't have enough money for food, I'd say that qualifies as "can't". If there's no specific income requirement, I would assume that it's up to the judge on whether or not you qualify for court-appointed pro bono counsel (I also assume that if you yourself can convince a lawyer to defend you for free, the court has no say in the matter).
  Plus these cases are more expensive than they need to be because of the RIAA tactics. They commence cases without proper evidence; they press cases even against people they know to be innocent; they do not withdraw cases until after the defendant has incurred excessive attorneys fees; they stonewall discovery, forcing unnecessary motion practice; they refuse to compromise on anything; they try to keep everything confidential, so it will not be available to lawyers in other cases.
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
5. Re:Excellent news by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-07-17 12:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Someone who makes a decent middle-class salary may not have the means to add legal counsel to the list of bills. Just because someone makes a decent amount of money does not mean that they have discretionary income to throw around.
  Almost nobody can afford to expend hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees, which is what the RIAA makes sure a contested case will cost.
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Idea by immakiku · 2009-07-17 09:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

What if we created a union of RIAA suit defendants? So we'd all pre-emptively buy in to a reasonable number - say enough money to go to court against RIAA if they sued 5% of everyone in the union. So say there's 1000 members, they'd contribute enough to the pool so that if 50 of the members get sued, they should have enough resources to go to court. Every time a case is lost against the RIAA the defendant will have to reimburse the pool.
I think this would level the playing field too. The idea is that everyone who is sued and is in this union is able to defend, instead of succumbing to debt. And the pool is only losing money proportional to how much the RIAA is losing. And if the RIAA legitimately have a case, the pool doesn't get diminished.
1. Re:Idea by aardwolf64 · 2009-07-17 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  You seriously think 1000 people could match the funding of the RIAA dollar for dollar?
2. Re:Idea by khellendros1984 · 2009-07-17 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  But how exactly would you set the limit of how much someone could pull out of the fund to defend themselves? There has to be a limit, since you're basically setting up a collective credit line. Maybe Defendant #1 can pay back $100k in 5 years, but Defendant #2 can only pay back $10k over 5 years, but #2 claims that he can pay more....what are you going to do? Audit all the people that join the pool? After all, if you let the wrong guy in and he loses his case, maybe he won't be able to reimburse the fund.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
3. Re:Idea by immakiku · 2009-07-17 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  That's a good point. And I don't have a solution to that. I imagine it'd be possible to get a big enough pool going that this shouldn't be a big problem.
  In the end, I don't think this is anything sustainable. I believe it is more like a weapon against the RIAA in a war of attrition. The purpose of the war, of course, is to get them to stop shotgunning cases based on the idea that defendants can only afford to settle.
4. Re:Idea by immakiku · 2009-07-17 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  And if he loses, he will have to reimburse. So his incentive for joining is low to negative if he believes he's going to lose anyway.
5. Re:Idea by AP31R0N · 2009-07-17 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  i like the idea. Almost like insurance. Making it work would be tricky. Seems a bit like hiring an army to protect us from the mafia. Paying a shark to protect us from the other sharks.
  i'd rather see a class action suit to shut down RIAA or reimburse their victims for abusing our legal system.
  
  --
  Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
6. Re:Idea by bughunter · 2009-07-17 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  You're criticizing the arbitrary number he chose to illustrate his idea, and ignoring his idea altogether.
  
  --
  I can see the fnords!
7. Re:Idea by DMUTPeregrine · 2009-07-17 10:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You have just invented insurance. Congratulations.
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
8. Re:Idea by hamburgler007 · 2009-07-17 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's a nice idea, but it would never work. You would have to find enough people to buy into it to make it sustainable, and I don't think you would find anywhere close to the number of necessary people. In the event of a successful defense, unless their is a counterclaim you are losing money. In the event of an unsuccessful defense, considering what the judgments handed down have been, the defendant ain't going to be able to reimburse anyone in any timely fashion.
9. Re:Idea by sbeckstead · 2009-07-17 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Whooooosh
  
  --
  Why bother
10. Re:Idea by sbeckstead · 2009-07-17 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Ask the guys that run the "Comic book legal defense fund"
  
  --
  Why bother
11. Re:Idea by MaskedSlacker · 2009-07-17 10:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Congratulations, you invented legal insurance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Expenses_Insurance Want a cookie?
12. Re:Idea by c · 2009-07-17 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  > What if we created a union of RIAA suit defendants?
  Because it would probably be cheaper to just buy music?
  c.
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
13. Re:Idea by michaelhood · 2009-07-17 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Could give way to an interesting class action [counter-] suit of sorts. IANAL
14. Re:Idea by michaelhood · 2009-07-17 10:42 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  For some reason this reminded me of the dialogs (and the dialogue) that comes up when you discover something in the old Civilization games. I even heard it in the voice of that narrator.
15. Re:Idea by bughunter · 2009-07-17 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  Oh great. You had to do it. You had to mention $nameofgamethatshallnotbementioned. Now I'm not going to be able to think of anything but $nameofgamethatshallnotbementioned, until I go on a sleepless 72-hour $nameofgamethatshallnotbementioned binge and get it out of my system. Thanks for ruining my weekend, you insensitive clod.
  
  --
  I can see the fnords!
16. Re:Idea by cliffski · 2009-07-17 20:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  what if we actually paid for music?
  Just an idea
  
  --
  DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
17. Re:Idea by MooUK · 2009-07-17 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  Ruining? Sounds like a much better weekend than some alternatives, like lawnmowing, watching football, and decorating...
Original Motion by HaeMaker · 2009-07-17 09:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

The original motion is quite well written. I especially like this part:
"Additionally, because criminal behavior on the part of the Plaintiffs may have occurred, I require assistance for qualified counsel appointed by the Courts."
1. Re:Original Motion by geekoid · 2009-07-17 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent. Maybe this will keep it in a civil court, where it belongs.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Fair's Fair by FrankDrebin · 2009-07-17 09:51 · Score: 4, Funny

Pro bono for the defense. Sonny Bono for the plaintiff.

--
Anybody want a peanut?
1. Re:Fair's Fair by LividBlivet · 2009-07-17 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Mary Bono, actually.
Meh by AP31R0N · 2009-07-17 10:00 · Score: 2, Funny

U2 is overrated.

--
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
i'm sorry by circletimessquare · 2009-07-17 10:00 · Score: 1

magical fruit tooting is copyright material under the protection of the recording industry association of america. unless you cease and desist infringing via magical fruit toots we will be forced to bring you to litigation
sincerely,
Magical Fruit and the Toots, Inc.

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:i'm sorry by sbeckstead · 2009-07-17 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  PS. Don't light a match...
  
  --
  Why bother
Bono by Carra · 2009-07-17 11:34 · Score: 1

I was wondering if U2 went bankrupt if Bono needs a to have his lawyer appointed by the court.
lawl by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-17 12:33 · Score: 1, Funny

She said she'll take the case pro boner.
Pro Bono is good? by zaivala · 2009-07-17 12:37 · Score: 1

In my area, I have yet to see a pro bono lawyer or public defender put up a good case. I hope Brittany wins this one, but am not encouraged.
Can't she just ask her uncle Freddy...? by Hurricane78 · 2009-07-17 12:48 · Score: 1

...to, you know, "haunt" the RIAA a bit?
Or is Freddy friends with other demons from "deeeep down under"? ^^

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Re:"As an attorney" by TaoPhoenix · 2009-07-17 14:23 · Score: 1

Offtopic, but Dottians should make a list of those who AAL so that famous acronym can DIAF.
Really, is that so tough?
1. Review poster handle
2. Review Resident Counsel List
3. Profit!

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Say, does NYCL work pro bono? by macraig · 2009-07-17 17:15 · Score: 1

Have I got a case for you! :-)
U2 or not U2 that is the question by algoa456 · 2009-07-17 17:32 · Score: 1

You may be pro Bono and that is your choice. I, however, think he is a meddlesome turd.
1. Re:U2 or not U2 that is the question by ScrewMaster · 2009-07-18 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  You may be pro Bono and that is your choice. I, however, think he is a meddlesome turd.
  Well. He is dead you know. Something about skiing and a tree. Not that he was greatly missed.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I hope this happens by gubers33 · 2009-07-17 17:51 · Score: 1

I hate the greedy RIAA, it is about time someone turned the tables on them. They go after people who can barely pay the settlement nevertheless for counsel. If this starts happening around the country, the RIAA will have no easy targets and greater lose the power of fear.

--
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
Re:Yes, Ray by ScrewMaster · 2009-07-18 04:47 · Score: 1

Because EVERYONE is innocent, aren't they?
Yes, indeed, until proven guilty in court by a preponderance of evidence. Nobody's claiming that file sharing is right or wrong here: what's wrong is the way the RIAA has chosen to combat their perceived enemy. The reality is that current communications technology does not really offer them a way to gain reliable evidence of wrongdoing, at least not without resorting to old-fashioned, expensive and non-automated investigative techniques. You know, the kind that involve licensed private investigators and so forth. Instead, they lie to everyone involved, they manufacture evidence, and they abuse the court system to a degree that is probably unprecedented in U.S. history. Unless you're one of those people who believe that two wrongs make a right, you ought to be able to see that the RIAA is, well ... full of it.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Extend right to counsel to civil cases by jhylkema · 2009-07-18 08:19 · Score: 1

The RIAA's campaign of litigation terrorism is exactly why. Also, the RIAA should be entitled to actual damages only. In other words, they should be required to prove up exactly how many sales were lost to file sharing.
U2 man U2 by algoa456 · 2009-07-18 08:26 · Score: 1

I am talking about a different Bono - U2 is the clue
Re:"As an attorney" by Bigjeff5 · 2009-07-18 14:55 · Score: 1

I don't follow, where's the ???

--
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller