Mr. Greubel's lawyers are Charles Mudd of Chicago, and John Browning of Dallas. They are two really good litigators. John Browning's the guy who got the excellent order on hard drive inspections in SONY v. Arellanes, which I predict will serve as a model for all future RIAA v. Consumer litigations.
It's not a question of "time and effort". It usually takes money to hire competent counsel.
There are a few lawyers who have handled cases for free, but even they can probably not afford to take one case at a time. Litigating with the RIAA bullies and their shameless lawyers is a very costly process consuming a lot of lawyers' "time and effort". The RIAA buries the defendant in all kinds of discovery demands.... stonewalls against any attempts by the defendant to get discovery from the RIAA... refuses to negotiate... refuses to compromise.... refuses to consent to routine amendments... fights to shroud the discovery process in unusual secrecy... makes frivolous arguments of "privilege". A lawyer who took 2 or 3 cases like that pro bono could easily go broke.
That's their strategy. Try to get a bunch of strange precedents that way, and use them as ammunition when they finally get into a showdown with the guys who have the wherewithal with which to fight back. Their strategy may be backfiring, however. They may wind up with some precedents they're going to have a tough time living down and which may actually hamstring them in the big showdown looming just over the horizon. Perhaps they should pick on someone their own size.
I wish the tech companies were fighting them directly, instead of leaving it up to poor people and middle class working people to fight their fight for them.
I guess Mr. Sherman never heard of SONY v. Universal Studios, the Betamax case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that noncommercial home time shifting of television broadcasts onto video tapes was a fair use.
Thank you, Josh. Your support is much appreciated. What I find most gratifying is that as the news gets out about this "reign of terror" presided over by Cary Sherman and his gang of thugs, more and more lawyers with a conscience are getting into the fight on behalf of the RIAA victims. And we are becoming a team. Some day, the good guys will win.
You are right that there are terrible problems with the economics of litigation in the United States. These problems can be corrected by the Courts and by the Legislature, not by the practicing lawyers. We have to (1) play within the rules we're handed and (2) try to make a living.
The big corporations and the wealthiest people in our society want it to stay the way it is right now. If poor and middle class people and small businesses had equal access to legal representation, it would take away the big guys' advantage.
There are a few equalizers left -- such as class actions and contingent fees. Which is why the wealthy and the insurance companies are constantly lobbying, mostly secretly, against "the trial lawyers" who bring class actions or who receive contingent fees, i.e. the trial lawyers for the little guy. When Bush and his cronies attack "trial lawyers" they mean trial lawyers who represent the little guy. They're not attacking the $500-and-up-per-hour trial lawyers that protect their interests.
In my personal opinion, every well meaning disgruntled person like yourself who rails against lawyers is just playing into the hands of the fat cats in our society. If you want to help them, keep on saying stuff like that. If you want to change things, start writing to your legislators, and stop disrespecting those who making a living by trying to preserve the rule of law.
I think this kind of anti-lawyer rhetoric plays into the hands of the big corporations. As I said in responding to question 5 in my September Slashdot interview:
"Lawyers are just like any other people. There are good people and bad people. The people who come out the strongest against 'trial lawyers' are the big corporations' PR departments. They want the 'common folk' to think ill of lawyers, because the law -- as imperfect as it is -- is the only equalizer left. And it's being eroded rapidly. And people dissing lawyers all the time helps that process."
Thank you for coming to my aid, hkmwbz. I wish Slashdot offered a private "foe" list. I really don't want to offend people by labelling them as "foes", I just want to be able to remind myself which users I should (a) suspect of trolldom, or (b) just avoid.
I did want to do it, and I put in lots and lots of time on it. I just have no patience for phonies, trolls, and people who only want to hear what they want to hear.
Sorry you didn't understand that correctly. Awarding penalties that are wildly disproportionate to the actual damages is, according to legal authorities, unconstitutional.
I don't consider, and I'm sure you don't consider, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to be a radical lunatic fringe. See Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., 331 F. 3d 13, 22 (2d Cir. 2003), cited in our brief at page 4.
And I find the reasoning of In re Napster and of the law review articles cited in our reply memorandum, as to why Parker should be applicable to aggregation of statutory copyright damages in p2p file sharing cases, to be most compelling.
Neither do I find Judge Trager to be a radical lunatic fringe, nor do I for a moment think he would have permitted us to add issues to the case which he had already resolved to be futile.
Nor is your assumption correct that we are asking the Court to find the statute unconstitutional. We are asking the Court to find the RIAA's absurd interpretation of the statute to be unconstitutional. I have total confidence that the Court can find a way to interpret the statute in a way that would not lead to an unconstitutional result in these p2p file sharing cases.... I personally can think of a number of such interpretations.
The judge's decision signals to you that he is aware of that important distinction, because on the subject of Attorney General notification, he indicates in so many words that he will notify the Attorney General if and when he feels we're asking for the statute to be struck down.
Yes I confess to being terse and dismissive to two of the questions in the interview, which I believe were the work of RIAA trolls, and to several comments posted in the ensuing discussion which were disrespectful and troll-like. I don't think I'm a "wonderful, open" person in person. I'm the same kind of person you saw in the interview. I have zero tolerance for phonies or for liars, and I have very little patience with people who ask questions but only accept answers that fit their preconceived ideas of what they would like to hear.
I think it is more important for a lawyer to be clear than to be cuddly, at least if he's more concerned with his clients than himself.
As to targeting my target audience... well I don't play games like that. I didn't have a target audience. I don't talk up to people or down to people. I assume the people I'm talking to are no better or worse, and no smarter or dumber, than I am. I just try to be straight with people.
People who don't like that wouldn't like me, and wouldn't want me as their lawyer. That's ok. I am what I am.
Slashdot Mirror
Mr. Greubel's lawyers are Charles Mudd of Chicago, and John Browning of Dallas. They are two really good litigators. John Browning's the guy who got the excellent order on hard drive inspections in SONY v. Arellanes, which I predict will serve as a model for all future RIAA v. Consumer litigations.
I wouldn't bet against these guys.
We don't need jury nullification. The plaintiffs have no case.
For my thoughts about what the universities are not doing and should be doing you might want to see my comments in this interview by the University of Maryland student newspaper: http://www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/pap er873/news/2006/11/03/News/Riaa-Cracks.Down.On.Ill egal.Downloading-2437467.shtml?norewrite2006111611 51&sourcedomain=www.diamondbackonline.com
I think every university and law school that operates a legal clinic should be in the business of defending RIAA suits against poor and working class people, for the reasons enunciated by the ACLU, Public Citizen, Electronic Frontier Foundation and others. See http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capi tol_foster_amicus and, for an example of a law student's contribution, see http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =660601 (whole Note available on Westlaw).
Insert "
" before each paragraph.
It's not a question of "time and effort". It usually takes money to hire competent counsel.
There are a few lawyers who have handled cases for free, but even they can probably not afford to take one case at a time. Litigating with the RIAA bullies and their shameless lawyers is a very costly process consuming a lot of lawyers' "time and effort". The RIAA buries the defendant in all kinds of discovery demands.... stonewalls against any attempts by the defendant to get discovery from the RIAA... refuses to negotiate... refuses to compromise.... refuses to consent to routine amendments... fights to shroud the discovery process in unusual secrecy... makes frivolous arguments of "privilege". A lawyer who took 2 or 3 cases like that pro bono could easily go broke.
In BMG v. Gonzalez a defendant who admitted to downloading 30 songs without authorization was held liable for copyright infringement.
That's their strategy. Try to get a bunch of strange precedents that way, and use them as ammunition when they finally get into a showdown with the guys who have the wherewithal with which to fight back. Their strategy may be backfiring, however. They may wind up with some precedents they're going to have a tough time living down and which may actually hamstring them in the big showdown looming just over the horizon. Perhaps they should pick on someone their own size.
I wish the tech companies were fighting them directly, instead of leaving it up to poor people and middle class working people to fight their fight for them.
It was Cary Sherman, not the judge, who told a lie. Mr. Sherman has repeatedly misquoted that decision.
I guess Mr. Sherman never heard of SONY v. Universal Studios, the Betamax case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that noncommercial home time shifting of television broadcasts onto video tapes was a fair use.
Thank you, Josh. Your support is much appreciated. What I find most gratifying is that as the news gets out about this "reign of terror" presided over by Cary Sherman and his gang of thugs, more and more lawyers with a conscience are getting into the fight on behalf of the RIAA victims. And we are becoming a team. Some day, the good guys will win.
Everyone raise your hand who thinks Cary Sherman gives a fig about what's "fair".
You are right that there are terrible problems with the economics of litigation in the United States. These problems can be corrected by the Courts and by the Legislature, not by the practicing lawyers. We have to (1) play within the rules we're handed and (2) try to make a living.
The big corporations and the wealthiest people in our society want it to stay the way it is right now. If poor and middle class people and small businesses had equal access to legal representation, it would take away the big guys' advantage.
There are a few equalizers left -- such as class actions and contingent fees. Which is why the wealthy and the insurance companies are constantly lobbying, mostly secretly, against "the trial lawyers" who bring class actions or who receive contingent fees, i.e. the trial lawyers for the little guy. When Bush and his cronies attack "trial lawyers" they mean trial lawyers who represent the little guy. They're not attacking the $500-and-up-per-hour trial lawyers that protect their interests.
In my personal opinion, every well meaning disgruntled person like yourself who rails against lawyers is just playing into the hands of the fat cats in our society. If you want to help them, keep on saying stuff like that. If you want to change things, start writing to your legislators, and stop disrespecting those who making a living by trying to preserve the rule of law.
I think this kind of anti-lawyer rhetoric plays into the hands of the big corporations. As I said in responding to question 5 in my September Slashdot interview:
"Lawyers are just like any other people. There are good people and bad people. The people who come out the strongest against 'trial lawyers' are the big corporations' PR departments. They want the 'common folk' to think ill of lawyers, because the law -- as imperfect as it is -- is the only equalizer left. And it's being eroded rapidly. And people dissing lawyers all the time helps that process."
We're working on it. It's early in the game.
So the RIAA would have you believe.
The fun part is that you and the RIAA are dead wrong, and don't know anything about copyright law.
Thank you for coming to my aid, hkmwbz. I wish Slashdot offered a private "foe" list. I really don't want to offend people by labelling them as "foes", I just want to be able to remind myself which users I should (a) suspect of trolldom, or (b) just avoid.
And how is the RIAA going to prove that the defendant 'distributed' the song to anyone? Do you want the Court to speculate?
No offense. If there was a way to do it privately, I would, but there isn't. I just need to keep track of people with whom I'm wasting my time.
I did want to do it, and I put in lots and lots of time on it. I just have no patience for phonies, trolls, and people who only want to hear what they want to hear.
Sorry you didn't understand that correctly. Awarding penalties that are wildly disproportionate to the actual damages is, according to legal authorities, unconstitutional.
Dear Captain:
I don't consider, and I'm sure you don't consider, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to be a radical lunatic fringe. See Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., 331 F. 3d 13, 22 (2d Cir. 2003), cited in our brief at page 4.
And I find the reasoning of In re Napster and of the law review articles cited in our reply memorandum, as to why Parker should be applicable to aggregation of statutory copyright damages in p2p file sharing cases, to be most compelling.
Neither do I find Judge Trager to be a radical lunatic fringe, nor do I for a moment think he would have permitted us to add issues to the case which he had already resolved to be futile.
Nor is your assumption correct that we are asking the Court to find the statute unconstitutional. We are asking the Court to find the RIAA's absurd interpretation of the statute to be unconstitutional. I have total confidence that the Court can find a way to interpret the statute in a way that would not lead to an unconstitutional result in these p2p file sharing cases.... I personally can think of a number of such interpretations.
The judge's decision signals to you that he is aware of that important distinction, because on the subject of Attorney General notification, he indicates in so many words that he will notify the Attorney General if and when he feels we're asking for the statute to be struck down.
Yes I confess to being terse and dismissive to two of the questions in the interview, which I believe were the work of RIAA trolls, and to several comments posted in the ensuing discussion which were disrespectful and troll-like. I don't think I'm a "wonderful, open" person in person. I'm the same kind of person you saw in the interview. I have zero tolerance for phonies or for liars, and I have very little patience with people who ask questions but only accept answers that fit their preconceived ideas of what they would like to hear.
I think it is more important for a lawyer to be clear than to be cuddly, at least if he's more concerned with his clients than himself.
As to targeting my target audience... well I don't play games like that. I didn't have a target audience. I don't talk up to people or down to people. I assume the people I'm talking to are no better or worse, and no smarter or dumber, than I am. I just try to be straight with people.
People who don't like that wouldn't like me, and wouldn't want me as their lawyer. That's ok. I am what I am.
According to their complaint, they're also suing for downloading.