Anti-Piracy Lawyers 'Knew Letters Hit Innocents'

nk497 writes "A UK legal watchdog has claimed lawyers who sent out letters demanding settlement payments from alleged file-sharers knew they would end up hitting innocent people. The Solicitors Regulators Authority said the two Davenport Lyons lawyers 'knew that in conducting generic campaigns against those identified as IP holders whose IP numeric had been used for downloading or uploading of material that they might in such generic campaigns be targeting people innocent of any copyright breach.' The SRA also said the two lawyers lost their independence because they convinced right holders to allow them to act on their behalf by waiving hourly fees and instead taking a cut of the settlements. The pair earned £150,000 of the £370,000 collected from alleged file-sharers. Because they were looking to recoup their own costs, the lawyers ignored clients' concerns about the negative publicity the letter campaign could — and eventually did — cause, the SRA claimed."

Comments

I think Shakespear had it right

[DragonFodder]

Famous qoute, "First Kill all the lawyers" seems apropos.

And I know it probably wasn't what was intended within the context of the play, but it sure does seem correct now.

Re:I think Shakespear had it right

[AnonymousClown]

Famous qoute, "First Kill all the lawyers" seems apropos. And I know it probably wasn't what was intended within the context of the play, but it sure does seem correct now.

No, no,no. That's like hitting all your dogs on the nose when one pisses on the rug.

Just shoot the assholes like these and let the other animals learn from that. And if Britain is creating lawyers half as fast as the US is, there will plenty of lawyers to fill in the gap.

Re:I think Shakespear had it right

[mcgrew]

No, there are good lawyers, but bad lawyers like these give the other 1% a bad name.

List of good lawyers I know of:
Lawrence Lessig
NYCL
My divorce attorney
My bankrupcy attorney

Yeah, it's a short list, but still...

Re:I think Shakespear had it right

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words, lawyers are good when they're on your side.

Re:I think Shakespear had it right

[Anonymous Coward]

of course, whenever you need a lawyer don't you want to have the meanest bastard you can find to drag the other guy through the coals and then spit on him to add insult?

its about winning, not justice.

Re:I think Shakespear had it right

[cdrudge]

Just shoot the assholes like these and let the other animals learn from that.

The death penalty hasn't worked to deter extremely violent crimes. If it doesn't work for the scum of the earth, why do you think it would work for an even lower life form?

Re:I think Shakespear had it right

[strength_of_10_men]

I'm not defending these lawyers, but isn't this "kill all lawyers"-kinda indiscriminate punishment very much akin to what these lawyers are doing and what we're all railing against in the first place?

Re:I think Shakespear had it right

[SuricouRaven]

And a successful lawyer knows that winning will define justice.

Re:I think Shakespear had it right

[scubamage]

One problem though; most death row inmates are not people with violent histories. Most of them are people who "snapped" at one point in time. It's also (as of the last time I had a prison studies class) the only portion of the prison strata where whites are more common than other races.

Re:I think Shakespear had it right

[girlintraining]

You have a very persuasive argument, except you neglect one minor detail: You assume people will take the moral high ground when money is involved. They usually don't. Lawyers aren't any different than Joe Q. Public on the street, excepting that they dress better, make somewhat more money, and (hopefully) are somewhat better trained for their professional field than most.

Additionally, your argument loses a lot of its intellectual purity and moral superiority when you make the reductio ad absurdum argument in paragraph two. Your post would have gone better without that.

Lastly, there is no transparency in the legal system and you're being intellectually dishonest to state otherwise: The legal system is incredibly complex and largely unavailable to the poor. When you have a system that necessitates the use of lawyers and attorneys in every legal preceding, to the point that attempting to advance a case pro se is laughed at by every judge and legal professional -- what then can we honestly say about transparency in the system? If the system requires experts that are licensed through the state to interpret or apply its rules, then the system is not transparent. In fact, it is utterly impervious to external examination, and any protests against it are swiftly dismissed as "uneducated" or rogue. The system is self-contradictory: Practicing law without a license is a criminal offense, but yet ignorance from the law is no excuse for breaking it.

You can be rid of the bastions of knowledge and reason – lawyers – only at the peril of the concept of principle itself.

This conclusion is fallacious. There are systems of justice for which lawyers and attorneys are forbidden from entry, and serve only their original role as counselors: Unable to act in any way on behalf of their clients or to have any direct influence over legal proceedings. These systems do not simply cease to function without oxford-educated people in expensive suits, and these systems generally avoid overly dense and burdensome legal texts because the participants are unable to interpret or use them in any meaningful capacity.

Lawyers should be optional, not a requirement, in the judicial process. Our system has become broken when it requires people charging several hundred or thousand dollars an hour to act as an "advocate" for their clients, and in the process creating a closed system for which money funnels in, and justice is an occasional byproduct of it, happening as much by coincidence as by design.

Re:I think Shakespear had it right

[Your.Master]

I'm also opposed to the death penalty, but I don't think the GP was actually inconsistent. You're showing an unusual preconception by declaring that execution of a single person is greater violence than serial rape and dismemberment. I think you might be able to make that argument, maybe, if there's only one victim, but I think cutting off the arms and legs of 100 people without killing them is easily more violent than killing one person.

You know it's wrong to kidnap people and lock them into cages, even though the main alternative to execution is to kidnap the criminal and lock them in a cage. For many, many years. With murderers and rapists. There's really nothing inconsistent about executing criminals, and I think it's hypocrisy to complain about killing people to demonstrate it's wrong to kill when we imprison people against their will to demonstrate that it's wrong to imprison people against their will.

I think the death penalty is wrong because we have a flawed justice system, because I believe in attempting rehabilitation, and because I think that even if the person is guilty and a lost cause, I think locking them in a cage forever -- with the option of suicide -- is sufficient to protect everybody since they are now removed from the pool of people that can commit crimes relatively easily. I do not consider the revenge motive, sufficient cause to kill somebody, even if it gives comfort to the victims; I'm invested in the justice system to protect everyone, not for vengeance. This is, I believe, a non-hypocritical position against the death penalty.

Also, you got a flamebait because you flamebaited, not because people just disagree. You called the GP these things:

1. Immense hypocrite (to be fair, I also called your argument hypocritical here, lest I be accused of hypocrisy).
2. Fucking bully.
3. Irrational.
4. Psychopath.
5. Commie (that one might have been a joke).

When really he only pointed out what appeared to him to be an inversion of severity.

I see

[Pojut]

Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs?

"Screw the omlette. Can't go skeet shooting without breaking a few lawyers." -My wife's uncle

Re:Haven't we known this all along?

[oldspewey]

doing something about it

Exactly. These lawyers are in real danger of receiving a sternly-worded rebuke.

Re:Ahem...

[splutty]

I don't think "Pay up now, or we remove all your teeth" is considered a dental plan by most people.

But then again, we know all about those dentists being in cahoots with the mafia, don't we!

Can they be sued for malpractice?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

May be they should be sued for malpractice and made to pay triple damages. A taste of their own medicine might do a whole lot of good in this case.

Re:Can they be sued for malpractice?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The innocents who were sued by these lawyers, could counter sue them for extortion. But the copyright owners, the alleged clients of the lawyers, could sue their own lawyers for malpractice.

Nasty "no cure, no pay" lawyers

[wvmarle]

The typical problem of lawyers working on "no cure, no pay" basis. It is very close to police officers being allowed to keep (part of) the fines they hand out to people. They lose their integrity.

Lawyers have a very bad name on /., I believe that has a lot to do with those stupid lawsuits in the US, typical medical related (person is doing something stupid, gets hurt, sues maker, gets awards, and now irons come with warnings like "do not iron clothes while taking a bath"). Suits that are primarily started by "no cure no pay" type lawyers.

In many country that whole practice is outlawed, for good reason. Lawyers have an important role to fulfil in our society, but those kind of actions gives them a very bad name.

Re:Nasty "no cure, no pay" lawyers

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I don't think that blaming contingency-basis laywers as a general institution is all that accurate(and their lack can be positively harmful).

Because contingency-basis lawyers have to win cases in order to get paid, they arguably have to hew to a more selective standard than do standard per-hour lawyers. If I'm getting my hourly rate, I'll pretty much do whatever legal faffing you want, as long as it won't get me disbarred or otherwise open me to trouble that isn't worth it. If I get absolutely nothing until I win, I'm going to give the winnability(note, this is not identical with merit) of your case a very good look....

Now, the fact that winnability and merit are not identical, either because(as in this case) they are simply engaging in extortion outside the courtroom, or because(as in some malpractice cases) juries are simple emotional saps is a problem, and contingency-basis lawyers will(as a body that acts roughly value-rationally on average) be willing to take winnable cases whether or not they are justly winnable; but so will standard-fee lawyers(who will also be willing to take unwinnable cases, just or unjust, or harassment cases).

Plus, contingency-basis laywers are, in many cases, the only thing preventing access to justice(particularly civil justice) from being even more ludicrously lopsided than it already is. Criminal defendants have a right to an(often mediocre, horribly overworked) laywer, shockingly "law and order" plays better than "pay more public defenders"... People who have been wronged civilly have to get their own. Since lawyers aren't cheap, this pretty much means that civil justice for anybody who isn't at least upper-middle-class(or sticking strictly to small claims court) is available through a contingency-fee lawyer or not at all. Given the frequency with which civil wrongs are committed down the economic totem pole, "not at all" seems like a pretty lousy option...

The fact that it is possible to win unjust cases, and sometimes simply extort people, is a problem that needs to be addressed. The fact that there are lawyers who are willing to share their client's fate is, if anything, more conducive to justice than the alternative. Contingency-fee lawyers may be like cops who get a cut of the fine(if we consider fines that have to be demonstrated in court, not that "asset forfeiture" crap); in that they will swarm like flies over anything winnable in court; but hourly laywers are like mercenaries, in that they will do the bidding of whoever is paying them, without regard for winnability, much less justice, excepting only actions likely to make them liable to more punishment than is worth it.

If I were going to forbid a type of lawyer-payment arrangement, I'd actually say that justice would be better served by forbidding non-contingency lawyers(except in criminal cases, since a great many of those involve no money, only jail time, changing hands). A contingency-lawyer has to do the best job he can, on the best cases he can, or starve. A fee-based lawyer has to do the best job he can, on whatever his client is paying him to do, or starve. One will necessarily hew to winnability(whose relationship to justice is something that can be controlled by public policy), while the other will be a freelance heavy in the service of his client's economic interests...

Re:I thought...

[Shrike82]

Don't hold your breath, I highly doubt that the entire legal profession will disappear overnight. Even less likely that the profession will stop attracting assholes who are ready to do anything at all for money, including victimising innocent people like these two and their compatriots at ACS:Law.

This is nothing

[Aceticon]

Once the three-strikes law comes into effect and they become able to legally blackmail people, all kinds of slease-bags (lawyers or not) will be coming out of the woodwork.

In fact, the smart sleasy lawyers will be making a killing by selling "Kits" and giving "Courses" on "Using the 3-Strikes Legislation to protect your IP":
- Considering that everybody is an IP producer and it's easy to publish your IP on the Net (in fact, this post is an example of both), everybody can go around accusing everybody else of stealing their IP, collect the "settlements" (or "drop the case" when confronted with with somebody that actually fights back) without spending a cent in courts and lawyers beyond the standard notice templates and such from the "Kits".

There being no punishment for wrongfully accusing somebody of IP "theft" and no due process before somebody's connection is cut, a whole new class of easy, cheap and profitable scams will be born.

Re:This is nothing

[Chowderbags]

Nah, someone will post a torrent.

I have a cat

[AnonymousClown]

And I didn't use a cat analogy on purpose because....

the cat will shit on the rug, piss on the couch and when you discipline it, it looks at you with a look of "What the fuck is your problem?!" and goes off and does it again.

Re:I have a cat

[mwvdlee]

My cat is looking at me with disdain for reading your post. I'm sure by the end of this reply he'll claw me away from the keybo

Re:Trash

[augustw]

Class actions don't exist in England, or Scotland. Group actions do, but they are strictly for the benefit those who are direct parties to the action. Unlike class actions, once a judgement is made, it only applies to those who were parties to the action, and not all those affected by the original wrong. Those who were originally wronged, but were not party to the successful group action, must raise a fresh action, and cannot gain anything from a previous group action. So, very different from US class actions.

"The Economist" and "Viz" view of the UK

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I read these two UK periodicals to get a full spectrum of folks in the UK. From these two, one can conclude that UK citizens (née, subjects) are a highly intelligent, diplomatic and genteel folk, who will punch your fucking teeth out, if you spill their pint. "A pint and a fight, a great British night!"

So it boggles me a bit that UK folks would just pay up on this scam without resistance. It's a good thing that Darl Charles McBride doesn't know about this. Everyone in the UK would be sent a bill for $699 for running Linux on their refrigerators. "Oi! Are yee linuxing up oor lass?"