And this is exactly why I'd never represent myself, given the unfortunate opportunity.:) Thanks, Country Lawyer. I can't help but think, however, that declining to go on record in support of or against "making available" arguments speaks to the success of the RIAA lobby effort.
Of course, that's the cynical me talking. In any case, I still think a class action suit against RIAA's tactics ("tantamount to extortion" - it's been used in attempted countersuit) would make any lawyer nervous.
Class action lawsuits against RIAA actions have never taken place, as far as I know. No lawyer in his right mind would be willing to take on The US Attorney General's Office, who have been not only allowing, but backing, the RIAA's actions. RIAA lobbyists have been quite effective in swaying legal interpretation to their favour - it's no longer about copyright law, it seems.
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename= elektra_barker_usstatement
Pretty dry reading, but it does show that the US AG has gone on record and expressed their stance.
Note as well that the Wilke case was dropped "with prejudice", which basically states that although the RIAA is agreeing to not chase this case any further, they still "believe" he is guilty and reserve the right to sue him under the same charges again. Definitely not a win for Wilke. They do this in every case they drop. Basically means that they have never lost a case, and they use this as precedent in subsequent cases.
Point being, you'd be initiating a suit against the RIAA's proven legal machine, as well as bringing the integrity of the US Attorney General's Office into question as well. Good luck!
Slashdot Mirror
And this is exactly why I'd never represent myself, given the unfortunate opportunity. :) Thanks, Country Lawyer. I can't help but think, however, that declining to go on record in support of or against "making available" arguments speaks to the success of the RIAA lobby effort.
Of course, that's the cynical me talking. In any case, I still think a class action suit against RIAA's tactics ("tantamount to extortion" - it's been used in attempted countersuit) would make any lawyer nervous.
Class action lawsuits against RIAA actions have never taken place, as far as I know. No lawyer in his right mind would be willing to take on The US Attorney General's Office, who have been not only allowing, but backing, the RIAA's actions. RIAA lobbyists have been quite effective in swaying legal interpretation to their favour - it's no longer about copyright law, it seems. http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename= elektra_barker_usstatement
Pretty dry reading, but it does show that the US AG has gone on record and expressed their stance.
Note as well that the Wilke case was dropped "with prejudice", which basically states that although the RIAA is agreeing to not chase this case any further, they still "believe" he is guilty and reserve the right to sue him under the same charges again. Definitely not a win for Wilke. They do this in every case they drop. Basically means that they have never lost a case, and they use this as precedent in subsequent cases.
Point being, you'd be initiating a suit against the RIAA's proven legal machine, as well as bringing the integrity of the US Attorney General's Office into question as well. Good luck!