If you want to make sure you don't 'screw up your legal career', work very hard and be highly prepared for everything you do, and treat every case as the most important case in the world.
I didn't say this guy is going to 'screw up his career'; his career is going very nicely, and his RIAA client is dumb enough to keep on using his firm, which has accomplished exactly nothing. When the Big 4 record companies are in Chapter 11, then they'll probably change lawyers.
The reason this guy won't be enhancing his career, is that even were he to win, it would be meaningless: -he is taking on a poor defenseless Native American woman who can't even afford to pay a lawyer -in a lower court case that will not establish any binding precedent anywhere.
But what makes it worse is that he's going to be trying to push a completely frivolous theory, and trying to defend completely unethical conduct on the part of his predecessors, so that his own reputation will be besmirched by reason of his having even entered this fray. And what makes it even worse is that he's going to lose.
So bottom line, he's fighting against someone who can't fight back, he's doing the fighting in a way that will either be dishonorable (if he really tries to sell the judge on the RIAA's phony theory) or weak (if he admits the RIAA has no case), and he's going to get beat by a defenseless person. So that doesn't sound like a good thing to me.
In Capitol v. Thomas, the judge's request for amicus briefs on an important issue like this was definitely a good thing. I don't feel I can make a generalization, though, about whether it would be a good practice in general.
No, I think you are the one being imprecise. Cannon fodder are soldiers deliberately placed in harm's way in order to draw or test enemy fire. They are definitely expendable, but there is no assurance that they will be completely wiped out. In fact, it is hoped that some will survive in order to return information about enemy capabilities.
Call the RIAA's big gun cannon fodder is correct: he is being put in harm's way (career-wise) although it is not assumed that he will be destroyed by it. Hopefully (from the RIAA's perspective) he will survive intact, so that he can be reused another day.
Losing an argument in a district court in Duluth, Minnesota, can't be helpful to his career. After he loses the argument in Duluth, I don't think they'll want to use him again in another case on the same subject. I think they brought him in because they just don't have enough confidence in the present lawyer they're using. They trusted his old supervisor, but that guy's left the firm and become a state court judge.
The problem is, nobody knows how many people downloaded from Ms. Thomas. Nobody. Not even Ms. Thomas. Could be nobody. Could be the entire Internet-using population of the world. Nobody can find out.
We can put an upper bound on it. At the time of the alleged infringement Comcast would have capped her upload rate at 256kbps or 512kbps depending on her subscription level. A typical song is compressed down to a 3MByte MP3. That comes out to 25Mbits. At 512kbps it would take 48 seconds to upload one song. Over a two year period she could upload 1.3 million copies. That assumes her connection is saturated 24/7 with 100% efficiency, no network overhead, no activity for other purposes, and no down time.
According to the technical people with whom I've spoken, under the software that was allegedly used, it would have been impossible for it to have been more than a couple of hundred, and even a number would have been highly improbable.
Isn't is a matter of perspective? The RIAA sees this guy as a "big gun", but the legal scholars' briefs may make him cannon fodder. The shades of meaning were clear to this reader.
Thank you HikingStick. You would be a good mediator.
he would probably have more reasonable arguments than the asshats they are using now
There are no reasonable arguments that can be made on behalf of an absurd and frivolous legal theory. The RIAA has so little confidence in it they themselves began leaving it out of their complaints last October.
(I'm replying a second time because my first reply got butchered somehow. I guess I shouldn't be doing this so late at night)
I see what you mean. Your point has merit. He's not the usual type of cannon fodder.
But I did mean what I said. He's unintentional cannon fodder. They aren't bringing him in for the purpose of getting him wiped out; they're arrogant enough to think he might be able to get this judge to humiliate himself a second time. But I'm predicting the result will be the same, only exponentially more embarrassing than it would otherwise have been had they brought in the original cannon fodder, instead of the high powered replacement cannon fodder.
I see what you mean. Your point has merit. He's not the usual type of cannon fodder.
But I did mean what I said. He's unintentional cannon fodder. They aren't bringing him in getting him wiped out; they're arrogant enough to think he might be able to get this judge to humiliate himself a second time. But I'm predicting the result will be the same, only exponentially more embarrassing than it would otherwise have been had they brought in the original cannon fodder, instead of the high powered replacement cannon fodder.
I'm thinking NYCL's excited about this, as the RIAA has spent time and resources to try to keep the courts from seeing that they are acting much like the stereotypical mafia boys roughing up innocent people for payment.
Well "excited" is too strong a word for it, but I do find it amusing that -they're afraid of this little district court case in Duluth, Minnesota, and -they don't have enough confidence in their everyday bully boys who specialize in 'ex parte' motions, default judgments, and extorting settlements from kids, displaced persons, homeless people, the disabled, people on social security, people on welfare, the working poor, grandparents, etc., to handle it.
Actually... he's an incredibly respectable lawyer who is incredibly knowledgeable on the subject, and writes the entire story based off good, solid facts. His only fault is for using a good lead-in sentence to get you hooked.
For the most part, amicus curiae briefs are encouraged, much like pro bono work. Anyone with enough money can hire lawyers to exhaustively research legally grey areas looking for precedents.
Thanks for your kind words. As I understand it, the magazine goes to 5000 United States judges. Of course since I was granted the right to post it on my web site, many other folks have had an opportunity to read it as well.
of "troll". I use the term to refer to someone pretending to be something they're not. E.g., someone who's got a short position in a stock, and pretends to be a nervous holder of a long position, or -- more close to home for me-- the RIAA PR troll who repeatedly writes a post about how he owned a 'family' owned record store which got put out of business by peer to peer file sharing, or who writes "no one hates the RIAA more than me, but.........."
why dont you drop him a line and offer it ? one man may not be able to keep track of zillions of people to drop a line to, but each one of those people can drop a line to that man.
I couldn't drop him a line anyway, since I don't know how to get in touch with him; I don't know anything at all about Opportunist other than that he has (a) a much more venerable Slashdot User ID number, (b) fewer freaks, and (c) more "Funny" mods, than I do.
I had typed a response to this but I think slashdot ate it. I think it went something like this:
You are an exceptional person and I greatly admire the continued commitment you have to the cause. I am not of the opinion that all lawyers are sleezeballs or anything like that and the phrase was meant to amuse as it typically does here though I suppose they'd be Maine country lawyers.
Either way, you seem to be an exception in many ways. That you take the time to fight the case is not exceptional, there are a lot of great lawyers out there. That you ALSO take the time to update us, to keep us aware of the problems, and give us hope is above and beyond what I'd expect of anyone in any field.
I did have a question: Does your client, if you can say, have a homepage or anything where they accept donations to assist them with their legal fund?
As the first comment (hell both really) didn't suit properly I'll add that, in short (or really long actually), I truly appreciate the information you're sharing with us and thank you greatly for the time you take to keep us in the loop.
Thanks very much for your kind words.
In response to your question,
-you can contribute to Marie Lindor's legal defense fund by PayPal here, or by sending it to my firm and indicating that it's for Marie Lindor;
-you can contribute to the expert witness defense fund here;
-you can contribute to the legal defense funds of Tenise Barker, Joan Cassin, and/or Victor Torres, or to my blog, by making payment to my firm and indicating which defendant it's for;
if you want to contribute to a defendant being represented by another firm, I assume you can send payment to that firm and indicate which case it's earmarked for;
if you want to contribute to my blog you can send the payment to my firm, indicating it's a general contribution to the work of the law blog.
Also you can help support our work by patronizing the advertisers on Recording Industry vs. The People. We frequently have "affiliate ads" listed in the sidebar. If there are particular products or types of products you would be interested in, email me and I'll try to get advertisers of those products.
I don't know... I don't think alligators would enjoy eating undead blood-sucking vampires.
If an alligator were to unwittingly swallow an RIAA lawyer, he would definitely spit it back; if alligators can spit. If they can't spit, well..... you know.... they'd regurgitate.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to make sure you don't 'screw up your legal career', work very hard and be highly prepared for everything you do, and treat every case as the most important case in the world.
I didn't say this guy is going to 'screw up his career'; his career is going very nicely, and his RIAA client is dumb enough to keep on using his firm, which has accomplished exactly nothing. When the Big 4 record companies are in Chapter 11, then they'll probably change lawyers.
The reason this guy won't be enhancing his career, is that even were he to win, it would be meaningless:
-he is taking on a poor defenseless Native American woman who can't even afford to pay a lawyer
-in a lower court case that will not establish any binding precedent anywhere.
But what makes it worse is that he's going to be trying to push a completely frivolous theory, and trying to defend completely unethical conduct on the part of his predecessors, so that his own reputation will be besmirched by reason of his having even entered this fray. And what makes it even worse is that he's going to lose.
So bottom line, he's fighting against someone who can't fight back, he's doing the fighting in a way that will either be dishonorable (if he really tries to sell the judge on the RIAA's phony theory) or weak (if he admits the RIAA has no case), and he's going to get beat by a defenseless person. So that doesn't sound like a good thing to me.
In Capitol v. Thomas, the judge's request for amicus briefs on an important issue like this was definitely a good thing. I don't feel I can make a generalization, though, about whether it would be a good practice in general.
No, I think you are the one being imprecise. Cannon fodder are soldiers deliberately placed in harm's way in order to draw or test enemy fire. They are definitely expendable, but there is no assurance that they will be completely wiped out. In fact, it is hoped that some will survive in order to return information about enemy capabilities. Call the RIAA's big gun cannon fodder is correct: he is being put in harm's way (career-wise) although it is not assumed that he will be destroyed by it. Hopefully (from the RIAA's perspective) he will survive intact, so that he can be reused another day.
Losing an argument in a district court in Duluth, Minnesota, can't be helpful to his career. After he loses the argument in Duluth, I don't think they'll want to use him again in another case on the same subject. I think they brought him in because they just don't have enough confidence in the present lawyer they're using. They trusted his old supervisor, but that guy's left the firm and become a state court judge.
The problem is, nobody knows how many people downloaded from Ms. Thomas. Nobody. Not even Ms. Thomas. Could be nobody. Could be the entire Internet-using population of the world. Nobody can find out.
We can put an upper bound on it. At the time of the alleged infringement Comcast would have capped her upload rate at 256kbps or 512kbps depending on her subscription level. A typical song is compressed down to a 3MByte MP3. That comes out to 25Mbits. At 512kbps it would take 48 seconds to upload one song. Over a two year period she could upload 1.3 million copies. That assumes her connection is saturated 24/7 with 100% efficiency, no network overhead, no activity for other purposes, and no down time.
According to the technical people with whom I've spoken, under the software that was allegedly used, it would have been impossible for it to have been more than a couple of hundred, and even a number would have been highly improbable.
The terms, "shall have the power to" are imperatives. Congress MUST act.
Not so. They are grants of authority, not directives to act.
Isn't is a matter of perspective? The RIAA sees this guy as a "big gun", but the legal scholars' briefs may make him cannon fodder. The shades of meaning were clear to this reader.
Thank you HikingStick. You would be a good mediator.
Do you know of any other examples of that happening? I don't, and I've been in the litigation field for 34 years.
he would probably have more reasonable arguments than the asshats they are using now
There are no reasonable arguments that can be made on behalf of an absurd and frivolous legal theory. The RIAA has so little confidence in it they themselves began leaving it out of their complaints last October.
(I'm replying a second time because my first reply got butchered somehow. I guess I shouldn't be doing this so late at night) I see what you mean. Your point has merit. He's not the usual type of cannon fodder. But I did mean what I said. He's unintentional cannon fodder. They aren't bringing him in for the purpose of getting him wiped out; they're arrogant enough to think he might be able to get this judge to humiliate himself a second time. But I'm predicting the result will be the same, only exponentially more embarrassing than it would otherwise have been had they brought in the original cannon fodder, instead of the high powered replacement cannon fodder.
I see what you mean. Your point has merit. He's not the usual type of cannon fodder.
But I did mean what I said. He's unintentional cannon fodder. They aren't bringing him in getting him wiped out; they're arrogant enough to think he might be able to get this judge to humiliate himself a second time. But I'm predicting the result will be the same, only exponentially more embarrassing than it would otherwise have been had they brought in the original cannon fodder, instead of the high powered replacement cannon fodder.
I think we should all aspire to be someone who's only fault in a summary is using a good lead-in sentence. Thanks Ray!
I wish that were my only fault, but I have many others. Actually, I'm not even that good with lead-in sentences; I think I just got lucky on this one.
I'm thinking NYCL's excited about this, as the RIAA has spent time and resources to try to keep the courts from seeing that they are acting much like the stereotypical mafia boys roughing up innocent people for payment.
Well "excited" is too strong a word for it, but I do find it amusing that
-they're afraid of this little district court case in Duluth, Minnesota, and
-they don't have enough confidence in their everyday bully boys who specialize in 'ex parte' motions, default judgments, and extorting settlements from kids, displaced persons, homeless people, the disabled, people on social security, people on welfare, the working poor, grandparents, etc., to handle it.
Everyone brings in their big guns in on appeal.
That's why I say they're nervous. This isn't an appeal. It's just a district court case in Duluth, Minnesota. What are they so worried about?
Actually... he's an incredibly respectable lawyer who is incredibly knowledgeable on the subject, and writes the entire story based off good, solid facts. His only fault is for using a good lead-in sentence to get you hooked.
Well, I wouldn't say that's my only fault.
For the most part, amicus curiae briefs are encouraged, much like pro bono work. Anyone with enough money can hire lawyers to exhaustively research legally grey areas looking for precedents.
This situation is extremely unusual. In this case the judge actually invited amicus curiae briefs.
What's the circulation going to be?
Thanks for your kind words. As I understand it, the magazine goes to 5000 United States judges. Of course since I was granted the right to post it on my web site, many other folks have had an opportunity to read it as well.
Don't go for turbo-meta-troll creds for jumping on my spelling error. I at least avoided Godwin.
I wouldn't do that. I'm not a grammar Nazi. (oops, there... I did it...)
And yes, yes I am a musician...
So you know the kind of bad guys I'm up against.
of "troll". I use the term to refer to someone pretending to be something they're not. E.g., someone who's got a short position in a stock, and pretends to be a nervous holder of a long position, or -- more close to home for me-- the RIAA PR troll who repeatedly writes a post about how he owned a 'family' owned record store which got put out of business by peer to peer file sharing, or who writes "no one hates the RIAA more than me, but.........."
While (of course) you should not automatically trust what anyone says, NYCL says that there is no case law or statu[t]es on this particular subject.
Yeah, but if I've been wrong about that, will someone please send me the caselaw I overlooked? Thanks.
why dont you drop him a line and offer it ? one man may not be able to keep track of zillions of people to drop a line to, but each one of those people can drop a line to that man.
I couldn't drop him a line anyway, since I don't know how to get in touch with him; I don't know anything at all about Opportunist other than that he has (a) a much more venerable Slashdot User ID number, (b) fewer freaks, and (c) more "Funny" mods, than I do.
I had typed a response to this but I think slashdot ate it. I think it went something like this: You are an exceptional person and I greatly admire the continued commitment you have to the cause. I am not of the opinion that all lawyers are sleezeballs or anything like that and the phrase was meant to amuse as it typically does here though I suppose they'd be Maine country lawyers. Either way, you seem to be an exception in many ways. That you take the time to fight the case is not exceptional, there are a lot of great lawyers out there. That you ALSO take the time to update us, to keep us aware of the problems, and give us hope is above and beyond what I'd expect of anyone in any field. I did have a question: Does your client, if you can say, have a homepage or anything where they accept donations to assist them with their legal fund? As the first comment (hell both really) didn't suit properly I'll add that, in short (or really long actually), I truly appreciate the information you're sharing with us and thank you greatly for the time you take to keep us in the loop.
Thanks very much for your kind words.
In response to your question,
-you can contribute to Marie Lindor's legal defense fund by PayPal here, or by sending it to my firm and indicating that it's for Marie Lindor;
-you can contribute to the expert witness defense fund here;
-you can contribute to the legal defense funds of Tenise Barker, Joan Cassin, and/or Victor Torres, or to my blog, by making payment to my firm and indicating which defendant it's for;
if you want to contribute to a defendant being represented by another firm, I assume you can send payment to that firm and indicate which case it's earmarked for;
if you want to contribute to my blog you can send the payment to my firm, indicating it's a general contribution to the work of the law blog.
Also you can help support our work by patronizing the advertisers on Recording Industry vs. The People. We frequently have "affiliate ads" listed in the sidebar. If there are particular products or types of products you would be interested in, email me and I'll try to get advertisers of those products.
A lawyer's job is to twist the facts of the story to prove the illusion of something happening or not.
Then you wouldn't want me as your lawyer, because I didn't go to law school to become a liar.
A friend who wishes to remain anonymous has been kind enough to furnish me with an HTML version of the article, which is now available here
I don't know... I don't think alligators would enjoy eating undead blood-sucking vampires.
If an alligator were to unwittingly swallow an RIAA lawyer, he would definitely spit it back; if alligators can spit. If they can't spit, well..... you know.... they'd regurgitate.