Actually, IAAL and "future profits" aren't that uncommon - in fact, they are becoming much more common. Still not the norm, though. The courts do have a say though - anything more than 50% and the lawyer will be in trouble with his bar association for ethics violations.
Incidentally, the US is one of the only common-law jurisdictions. England is the other one. Pretty much the rest of the world is civil-law based. The general rule in civil law countries is that contingency fees are not allowed, but there are exceptions. There is no rule that contingency fees cannot exceed normal fees. I think many other factors lead to our litigious society and that contingency fees serve a very useful purpose: they allow those without a lot of money to enforce their rights. Also, few frivolous contingency fee suits are filed: if they are frivolous, the attorney won't get paid because the case is kicked out!
Agreed future profits increases the amount of money received. And IANAL but "future profits" are an unusual part of any settlement. Lump sum is more customary. But percent is percent, whether now or in the future. The lawyers could have asked and often get 40% from their clients. The Courts have no say.
The US legal practice around contingency cases is unusual in the Western world. AFAIK, In other common-law jurisdictions, a lawyer would be disbarred for such usurious agreements. The usual rule is that contingency fees cannot exceed normal "pay as you go" [taxed] fees. This makes the US more litigious than otherwise, but it is not the only reason. And perhaps the litigation is needed from a wider social perspective.
"Fucking sharks"? How can you say that? This was a contingent fee case, obviously, because the attorneys are getting part of the settlement. That means that the attorneys financed all witness interviewing, depositions, court filings, court fees, research, etc. The plaintiffs didn't pay one red cent. If contingent fees weren't allowed, why would any attorney work for poor clients, or even middle-income clients who didn't have the means to go against big corporations. Learn the facts before posting your self-righteous crap...
"Oh come off it, how much non-copyrighted music is there out there that you really want to listen to?" Well, quite a bit actually. I love listening to small, local, independent bands. But that doesn't matter. Banning napster will be an overbroad repsonse to the problem. By banning it, legitimate trading will be stopped. It doesn't matter how much goes on, all that matters is free speech will be abridged by an overbroad law. And, for the record, I don't even use napster or anything else - I live in the backwoods of Texas and only have a 28.8 connection - too damn slow to move any files of any size.
Profit isn't the only motive for incorporating. Many people do it to protect themselves from liability - a corporation is only liable up to the limit of their assets, private shareholders can't be touched.
The main argument is that napster should be shutdown because it contributes to piracy. Nevermind the fact that it can be used to trade non-copyrighted music, too. This is like shutting down Chevy and Ford because some of their cars are used in bank robberies. Gimme a break... mr. seabourn "Guns don't kill people, I kill people."
You argue it out in lower courts first so that issues will be discussed, boiled-down, thought-out, drug-out, pondered, and turned inside-out... thus giving higher courts one or more succinct issues to decide.
Slashdot Mirror
Love them or hate them, it is their EULA and they can do whatever they want... seabourn
Actually, IAAL and "future profits" aren't that uncommon - in fact, they are becoming much more common. Still not the norm, though. The courts do have a say though - anything more than 50% and the lawyer will be in trouble with his bar association for ethics violations. Incidentally, the US is one of the only common-law jurisdictions. England is the other one. Pretty much the rest of the world is civil-law based. The general rule in civil law countries is that contingency fees are not allowed, but there are exceptions. There is no rule that contingency fees cannot exceed normal fees. I think many other factors lead to our litigious society and that contingency fees serve a very useful purpose: they allow those without a lot of money to enforce their rights. Also, few frivolous contingency fee suits are filed: if they are frivolous, the attorney won't get paid because the case is kicked out! Agreed future profits increases the amount of money received. And IANAL but "future profits" are an unusual part of any settlement. Lump sum is more customary. But percent is percent, whether now or in the future. The lawyers could have asked and often get 40% from their clients. The Courts have no say. The US legal practice around contingency cases is unusual in the Western world. AFAIK, In other common-law jurisdictions, a lawyer would be disbarred for such usurious agreements. The usual rule is that contingency fees cannot exceed normal "pay as you go" [taxed] fees. This makes the US more litigious than otherwise, but it is not the only reason. And perhaps the litigation is needed from a wider social perspective.
"Fucking sharks"? How can you say that? This was a contingent fee case, obviously, because the attorneys are getting part of the settlement. That means that the attorneys financed all witness interviewing, depositions, court filings, court fees, research, etc. The plaintiffs didn't pay one red cent. If contingent fees weren't allowed, why would any attorney work for poor clients, or even middle-income clients who didn't have the means to go against big corporations. Learn the facts before posting your self-righteous crap...
"If metallica said no do u really think napter will all metallica mp3????" Hmm... Highly thoughtful post... Proofread, moron.
"Oh come off it, how much non-copyrighted music is there out there that you really want to listen to?" Well, quite a bit actually. I love listening to small, local, independent bands. But that doesn't matter. Banning napster will be an overbroad repsonse to the problem. By banning it, legitimate trading will be stopped. It doesn't matter how much goes on, all that matters is free speech will be abridged by an overbroad law. And, for the record, I don't even use napster or anything else - I live in the backwoods of Texas and only have a 28.8 connection - too damn slow to move any files of any size.
Profit isn't the only motive for incorporating. Many people do it to protect themselves from liability - a corporation is only liable up to the limit of their assets, private shareholders can't be touched.
The main argument is that napster should be shutdown because it contributes to piracy. Nevermind the fact that it can be used to trade non-copyrighted music, too. This is like shutting down Chevy and Ford because some of their cars are used in bank robberies. Gimme a break... mr. seabourn "Guns don't kill people, I kill people."
You argue it out in lower courts first so that issues will be discussed, boiled-down, thought-out, drug-out, pondered, and turned inside-out... thus giving higher courts one or more succinct issues to decide.