Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
You have just invented insurance. Congratulations.
Not a sentence!
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.