Court Appoints Pro Bono Counsel For RIAA Defendant

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."

Comments

Faulty assumption?

[Lead Butthead]

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.

Re:Faulty assumption?

[scubamage]

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.

Re:Faulty assumption?

[The Grim Reefer2]

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.

Re:Faulty assumption?

[markov_chain]

Of course not, he is pro Bono.

Re:Faulty assumption?

[MarkvW]

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.

 

Re:Faulty assumption?

[azakem]

They are required by the rules of ethics to provide zealous representation to their client, even if the client is a pro bono client.

Re:Faulty assumption?

[MarkvW]

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.

Re:Faulty assumption?

[ari_j]

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.

Re:Faulty assumption?

[Danse]

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...

sigh...

[macbeth66]

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.

Re:sigh...

[sbeckstead]

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?

check http://riaaradar.com too

[Dan667]

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.

Re:check http://riaaradar.com too

[kheldan]

Buy used CDs instead whenever possible, and if you really want to support the bands themselves, send the the difference in cash.

Re:check http://riaaradar.com too

[MightyYar]

Any band that has signed with a major label since Napster was shut down is complicit.

Excellent news

[JustNiz]

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.

Re:Excellent news

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

Re:Excellent news

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

Idea

[immakiku]

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.

Re:Idea

[DMUTPeregrine]

You have just invented insurance. Congratulations.

Re:Idea

[MaskedSlacker]

Congratulations, you invented legal insurance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Expenses_Insurance Want a cookie?

Re:Idea

[michaelhood]

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.

Re:Idea

[cliffski]

what if we actually paid for music?
Just an idea

Original Motion

[HaeMaker]

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."

Fair's Fair

[FrankDrebin]

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

Meh

[AP31R0N]

U2 is overrated.