1. I've spent many hundreds of hours on these cases. I know what their investigation is. Their investigator at Media Sentry pretends to be a Kazaa user (or Limewire, Gnutella, Imesh user), finds a member with a large shared files folder, takes a screenshot, downloads a handful of files (usually 6 to 10) and plays them [or downloads a lot more files than that, until he's found 6 to 10 that actually work), asks the ISP who paid for the account attached to that dynamic ip address at that date and time, and then sues that person. They don't know anything about how the files got into the shared files folder, whether by lawful means or unlawful means. They don't know anything about what happened to the files, other than the fact that their investigator was able to download 6 to 10 of them. And they don't know whether the person who paid for the internet access -- i.e. the person they're suing -- had anything to do with the shared files folder at all.
2. There's nothing in their papers about asking for an estate representative to be appointed and substituted. So why are you saying it's ok for them to do something they're not doing? If it was a motion to appoint an estate representative and have the estate representative substituted, it wouldn't have been newsworthy. Although it would be unusual in the extreme -- in the legal world (as opposed to the RIAA's world) -- to make such a motion where the lawsuit is for about $6000.
Thank you, Damvan, I was a little perplexed myself about how I got the "flamebait" moderation. Was wondering if it was Slashdot moderators, or reader moderators.
Dear CAIMLAS, you're being too hasty. The court hasn't done anything yet. Don't be surprised for the court to bounce Mr. Krichbaum's motion, unceremoniously.
Nothing in the headline, the underlying article, or the motion papers, says that they are planning to depose the dead. It says that they are planning to depose his children after giving them 60 days to grieve, and that they are planning to sue one or more of the children.
True, it is headed and run by lawyers, I am ashamed to say, being a lawyer myself. But I don't think of them as real lawyers, just as people pretending to be lawyers because they're indifferent to the ethical principles they swore to uphold.
Jah-Wren Ryel said: "Ask any lawyer - they will tell you that it is not their place to judge their client, only to see that they get the maximum legal representation that they are entitled to under the law."
Well I'm a lawyer, ask me.
I'll tell you that a good lawyer (a) judges all the time, (b) tells his client when it is in the wrong, and (c) if the client won't change his course of action, refuses to go along with it.
A lawyer who isn't willing to stand up to his client, and resign the representation if the client is in the wrong, isn't a lawyer at all in my opinion, just someone pretending to be a lawyer.
From my experience with the RIAA cases, I haven't yet seen a real lawyer among them.
I don't know how they sleep at night.
(By the way, take note that in the Scantlebury case Mr. Krichbaum's partner Jonathan Rowe did resign the representation in May; there might be an interesting story there, although we'll of course never find out what it was.)
As a practicing attorney, it is my opinion that an attorney who will do whatever his client tells him to do is not an attorney at all. He or she is not a member of the same profession to which I belong.
Thank you, anagama. A voice of reason. How can people equate the Matthew Krichbaums of the world with the John Hermanns of the world who fight these low lifes?
jazman says : "But what did he actually do (allegedly)?"
The RIAA bases its suits on the same thing: all they know is that someone using internet access that the defendant paid for had a shared files folder on kazaa, or one of the other fasttrack clients. They do not know if they were lawfully or unlawfully obtained. They do not know if anything unlawful was done with them. They do not know if defendant had anything to do with the shared files folder. In this case, it is my understanding, the defendant denied having a shared files folder.
"It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable that their claim moves from him to the executors of his estate on his death." You are fictionalizing here. There is nothing in the motion indicating any intention of substituting his estate, which is what is legally required. They are trying to use the open case against a dead man -- which in legal contemplation doesn't even exist anymore unless and until an administrator or executor is appointed -- as an opportunity to oppress the man's family. The lawyer has every right to substitute the estate representative; no right to pursue the case unless and until he can do that. But he is trying to take advantage of the fact that the family members do not have a lawyer to tell them that.
Please in future don't make unwarranted assumptions.
It has long been held that the copyright law has 2 purposes: one is to secure some compensation to the creator; the other is to ensure that the end product goes back to the public after a limited amount of time. Hence the old 25 year limit on copyrights.
Of course in today's climate, where a copyright can last for 75 years and is owned by a corporation rather than the author, both purposes have been pretty well smashed.
1. Being hit with sanctions has very negative consequences for an attorney. It's not just the money. For a court to have held that a lawyer behaved frivolously will reverberate throughout a lawyer's career.
2. The granting of attorneys fees here will have a huge impact throughout the country. It will give more defendants the knowledge that they can fight back, and it will give more attorneys the knowledge that if they do jump into this fight and win, they may well get paid.
3. If defendant's lawyer gets her fees paid in full, it gives her the financial wherewithal to take on other similar cases where the defendant doesn't have enough money to pay the bills out of hand.
Bottom line. This is huge. And a substantial attorneys fee award here will send a shockwave through the corporate heirarchy of these greedy behemoths. They are already reeling from the public relations debacle they have engendered.
These lawyers aren't "on staff". They're outside law firms. In most cases there are 2 firms, the local counsel, and the "national" counsel. They are probably all paid by the hour.
"As far as I understand, the suit alleges that Foster participated in illegal downloading, which would seem to make the suit being discussed one against a "pirate"."
Plaintiffs "alleged" downloading in the complaint, but had no basis for making the allegation. If you sue an innocent person and call them a pirate, that does not make it a suit against a pirate; it is a suit against an innoncent person. The only 'pirate' is the person who made a deliberately false allegation against another person.
"yet they couln't manage it"?.... and "we wonder why they argument"?
Is that the pot calling the kettle black?
Meanwhile, (a) I don't think your charge of grammatical impropriety is correct, and (b) I would think the substance would be more important to you than a grammatical error if indeed there were one.
I don't want to be a flamer, but I can't help but wonder if you have some agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
Bye bye.
Bravo, JD.
1. I've spent many hundreds of hours on these cases. I know what their investigation is. Their investigator at Media Sentry pretends to be a Kazaa user (or Limewire, Gnutella, Imesh user), finds a member with a large shared files folder, takes a screenshot, downloads a handful of files (usually 6 to 10) and plays them [or downloads a lot more files than that, until he's found 6 to 10 that actually work), asks the ISP who paid for the account attached to that dynamic ip address at that date and time, and then sues that person. They don't know anything about how the files got into the shared files folder, whether by lawful means or unlawful means. They don't know anything about what happened to the files, other than the fact that their investigator was able to download 6 to 10 of them. And they don't know whether the person who paid for the internet access -- i.e. the person they're suing -- had anything to do with the shared files folder at all.
2. There's nothing in their papers about asking for an estate representative to be appointed and substituted. So why are you saying it's ok for them to do something they're not doing? If it was a motion to appoint an estate representative and have the estate representative substituted, it wouldn't have been newsworthy. Although it would be unusual in the extreme -- in the legal world (as opposed to the RIAA's world) -- to make such a motion where the lawsuit is for about $6000.
Thank you, "Anonymous Coward". I didn't think I deserved it, either.
Thank you, Damvan, I was a little perplexed myself about how I got the "flamebait" moderation. Was wondering if it was Slashdot moderators, or reader moderators.
Dear CAIMLAS, you're being too hasty. The court hasn't done anything yet. Don't be surprised for the court to bounce Mr. Krichbaum's motion, unceremoniously.
Nothing in the headline, the underlying article, or the motion papers, says that they are planning to depose the dead. It says that they are planning to depose his children after giving them 60 days to grieve, and that they are planning to sue one or more of the children.
There was no evidence of stealing whatsoever. Why are you fictionalizing on behalf of the RIAA?
True, it is headed and run by lawyers, I am ashamed to say, being a lawyer myself. But I don't think of them as real lawyers, just as people pretending to be lawyers because they're indifferent to the ethical principles they swore to uphold.
Jah-Wren Ryel said: "Ask any lawyer - they will tell you that it is not their place to judge their client, only to see that they get the maximum legal representation that they are entitled to under the law."
Well I'm a lawyer, ask me.
I'll tell you that a good lawyer (a) judges all the time, (b) tells his client when it is in the wrong, and (c) if the client won't change his course of action, refuses to go along with it.
A lawyer who isn't willing to stand up to his client, and resign the representation if the client is in the wrong, isn't a lawyer at all in my opinion, just someone pretending to be a lawyer.
From my experience with the RIAA cases, I haven't yet seen a real lawyer among them.
I don't know how they sleep at night.
(By the way, take note that in the Scantlebury case Mr. Krichbaum's partner Jonathan Rowe did resign the representation in May; there might be an interesting story there, although we'll of course never find out what it was.)
As a practicing attorney, it is my opinion that an attorney who will do whatever his client tells him to do is not an attorney at all. He or she is not a member of the same profession to which I belong.
Thank you, anagama. A voice of reason. How can people equate the Matthew Krichbaums of the world with the John Hermanns of the world who fight these low lifes?
jazman says : "But what did he actually do (allegedly)?"
The RIAA bases its suits on the same thing: all they know is that someone using internet access that the defendant paid for had a shared files folder on kazaa, or one of the other fasttrack clients. They do not know if they were lawfully or unlawfully obtained. They do not know if anything unlawful was done with them. They do not know if defendant had anything to do with the shared files folder. In this case, it is my understanding, the defendant denied having a shared files folder.
"It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable that their claim moves from him to the executors of his estate on his death." You are fictionalizing here. There is nothing in the motion indicating any intention of substituting his estate, which is what is legally required. They are trying to use the open case against a dead man -- which in legal contemplation doesn't even exist anymore unless and until an administrator or executor is appointed -- as an opportunity to oppress the man's family. The lawyer has every right to substitute the estate representative; no right to pursue the case unless and until he can do that. But he is trying to take advantage of the fact that the family members do not have a lawyer to tell them that.
Please in future don't make unwarranted assumptions.
It has long been held that the copyright law has 2 purposes: one is to secure some compensation to the creator; the other is to ensure that the end product goes back to the public after a limited amount of time. Hence the old 25 year limit on copyrights.
Of course in today's climate, where a copyright can last for 75 years and is owned by a corporation rather than the author, both purposes have been pretty well smashed.
I know this is offtopic, but can you tell me what "IMHO" means? Thanks.
What about altavista.com? I use it all the time.
By the way "sudog", tell me what cases you are referring to that the ACLU lost. I'm betting you don't know any cases they've won or lost.
In my opinion, it's a "landmark". It's a landmark not because of whose name is on it, but because of what it says.
If you have read it, and do not think it's a landmark, you are entitled to your opinion.
If you haven't read it, then you shouldn't be giving opinions until you have.
1. Being hit with sanctions has very negative consequences for an attorney. It's not just the money. For a court to have held that a lawyer behaved frivolously will reverberate throughout a lawyer's career.
2. The granting of attorneys fees here will have a huge impact throughout the country. It will give more defendants the knowledge that they can fight back, and it will give more attorneys the knowledge that if they do jump into this fight and win, they may well get paid.
3. If defendant's lawyer gets her fees paid in full, it gives her the financial wherewithal to take on other similar cases where the defendant doesn't have enough money to pay the bills out of hand.
Bottom line. This is huge. And a substantial attorneys fee award here will send a shockwave through the corporate heirarchy of these greedy behemoths. They are already reeling from the public relations debacle they have engendered.
Here are two alternate links to the actual version submitted to the Court: http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capi tol_foster_amicus at Internet Law & Regulation or http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Capitol_v_Foster/am icus_in_support_of_fees.pdf at Electronic Frontier Foundation.
These lawyers aren't "on staff". They're outside law firms. In most cases there are 2 firms, the local counsel, and the "national" counsel. They are probably all paid by the hour.
Usually if one ignores the suit, one winds up with a default judgment against onesself.
"As far as I understand, the suit alleges that Foster participated in illegal downloading, which would seem to make the suit being discussed one against a "pirate"."
Plaintiffs "alleged" downloading in the complaint, but had no basis for making the allegation. If you sue an innocent person and call them a pirate, that does not make it a suit against a pirate; it is a suit against an innoncent person. The only 'pirate' is the person who made a deliberately false allegation against another person.
Dear prgrmr,
"yet they couln't manage it"?.... and "we wonder why they argument"?
Is that the pot calling the kettle black?
Meanwhile, (a) I don't think your charge of grammatical impropriety is correct, and (b) I would think the substance would be more important to you than a grammatical error if indeed there were one.
I don't want to be a flamer, but I can't help but wonder if you have some agenda.
You don't have to be a citizen to be sued by the RIAA, so that wouldn't be accurate.
By "consumer" I think is meant "end user".
Bottom line, they're suits against ordinary people, not suits against businesses, and not suits against "pirates".