Lawyer Banned for Threatening File-Sharers

S. Hare brings us a report from TorrentFreak about a lawyer working for a Swiss anti-piracy group who was recently given a 6-month ban for her attempts to intimidate file-sharers though letters threatening fines and court fees. Elizabeth Martin demanded 400 Euros each from "hundreds of thousands of file-sharers," and suggested that they would have to face large settlements if they did not comply. The Paris Bar Council took exception to this and instituted the ban. Martin worked for Logistep, a company who has had trouble following laws in the past. "The disciplinary board decided that 'By choosing to reproduce aggressive foreign methods, intended to force payments, the interested party also violated [the code] which specifies that the lawyer cannot unfairly represent a situation or seriousness of threat.' In addition, the lawyer also violated the code by cashing payments into a private account, not the usual dedicated litigation account, known as a 'Carpa'. Martin also refused to reveal how many payments had been received from file-sharers."

Re:Value

[y86]

It's truely amazing that people continue to support copyright theft here. It's an indection that most Slashdotter's don't actually produce anything of value.

I beg to differ.

Ever heard of Linux? Jackass. Go back under your bridge.

Do the same to RIAA and its lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA and their lawyers do the same (scare tactics), and do it more and more blatantly.

Re:Value

[CyberData4]

How does the RIAA know that it's theft? That's the issue many take with them. It's the way they go after people through their ISP's. Which they SHOULDN'T have access to in the first place. But silly me, I always assumed "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" meant just that. My mistake.

balless bars

[Anonymous Coward]

If they had any real ballz they would have permanently dis-barred her, especially given her past abuses.... oh wait the law really doesn't apply to those who are supposed to enforce it...

Also I wonder if anyone who received the letter could sue?

Re:Value

[TheLink]

Yeah, and some of us can keep producing value, not like other people who _apparently_ can only produce value once in their lifetime and so require copyright terms of > 100 years to support them (or long patent terms).

To the latter bunch I say, go find something you are better at and stop wasting time and resources.

If the speed of communications has got faster, and people want a faster pace of progress, then the length of all these monopolies should be getting shorter and shorter, not longer and longer. In the old days it takes a long time for a book (or other work) to get from an author to people (takes time for people to get to know about the book, and for payment to reach the author etc). Now I believe it should be much faster if you are doing things right.

Re:Banned from torrent freak?

[nurb432]

Should be permanent, and charged with extortion or at the least fraud.

Re:6 month ban seems rather lite....

[mboverload]

ONLY A 6 MONTH BAN - WHAT???

I agree that this SHOULD be grounds for disbarment or worse. Of course, I am not a lawyer but if I used my knowledge of computers to scare payments out of people I would probably go to jail or have a huge fine. Then the company I work for would find out and I would be fired ASAP.

How is this different? Isn't this some kind of extortion? Someone please clue me in.

Re:balless bars

[mboverload]

> If they had any real ballz they would have permanently dis-barred her, especially given her past abuses.... oh wait the law really doesn't apply to those who are supposed to enforce it...

Lawyers are not charged with enforcing the law. They are charged with bending it to their own purposes, should that be getting an innocent man out of jail or extorting money from large amounts of people.

Re:To illiterate poster below my normal threshold:

[owlnation]

Languages still have rules, even if they are informal.

However, the beauty of English over many other languages is that it is still possible to massacre grammar and spelling and still be perfectly understandable. This article is wholly understandable. There's really no need for any issue. Instead of funny or insightful comments relating to this very interesting article, we've got a dozen pointless, pedantic posts by grammar nazis. Be off with you all, return to wikipedia along with others who enjoy rules for rules sake.

All nazis must die, and grammar nazis are not excluded from this.

Re:6 month ban seems rather lite....

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems more in keeping with a blackmail fraud. File sharers who have been fed a constant tide of propaganda and disinformation about the legality of their actions are in a vulnerable position. Young people who have commited no crime are easily intimidated and made to feel guilty if a letter from an apparently reputable law firm tells them they've broken the law and pressures them to settle.

The fact that the money was deposited in a private account shows this was nothing more than a mafia style shakedown.

Yes, the legal profession should look after its own, by throwing the book at these crooks. It's in the interests of every honest lawyer in the world that these scammers do hard jail time, and lots of it. Permenant disbarment would seem only the first step. They should never work as lawyers again.

Re:Value

[b4upoo]

Here is the really disturbing part. That lawyer may have collected a fortune from people seeking to avoid a court hearing. By simply suspending him for six months the court effectively encourages others to do exactly the same thing. This is a case where a staggering fine would have sent a message that no other party dare pull such nonsense.

Re:To illiterate poster below my normal threshold:

[Jane Q. Public]

I am well aware of all these points, however, this particular use of the word is still wrong, according the majority of people who speak the English language, and therefore your own logic shoots down your argument. You make the point that things can change, and yes they can. But you also point out that these changes are based on common usage, and that is where your argument falls down. In order for your defense to have merit, calling an inanimate object "who" would have to be a usage that is becoming commonly accepted... but it is NOT. It is simply illiteracy. In fact it is something that people who have possessed low levels of literacy have "commonly" gotten WRONG for at least a couple of hundred years, and in that time the commonly accepted rules concerning it -- and the definition of the word "who" -- have not changed significantly. If you want to talk commonality here, the exact form used in the post is "commonly" accepted to be incorrect!

Languages do change. And you may be very knowledgeable in the history of same. But trying to defend a usage that is acknowledged to be incorrect by the vast majority of English speakers looks to me like nothing more than talking out your ass just so you can admire the sound it makes.

Re:To illiterate poster below my normal threshold:

[ppanon]

However, the beauty of English over many other languages is that it is still possible to massacre grammar and spelling and still be perfectly understandable.

True, but unless you're deliberately massacring the grammar and spelling for poetic or satirical reasons, what you say will come across weakly and reflect intellectual sloppiness. You and CRCulver may not like it but one of the insights from the 20th Century is Marshall McLuhan's observation that "The medium is the message". A sloppily written post doesn't carry as much weight as a gramatically correct one.

do u get it? lolz

Re:Value

[TheLink]

"In much writing things are still going to take a while"

AFAIK the copyright term stuff is _after_ publication. So if you're not done yet, don't publish.

My point was nowadays, after you publish, you should be able to get word out really quickly. Just some emails to your friends linking to your "teaser material" and word will soon get around, especially if you didn't actually produce crap. Or your crap is so crap that it "wrapped round to great" - just look at some of the "internet phenoms" ;). If you're good or entertainingly crap you can get $$$.

If the teaser material is all you've managed to produce, perhaps you should just do it as a hobby and get different job.

Wouldn't it be great if my employer paid me for the next 100 years just because I created one piece of work? It might be cushy for me, but I doubt this sort of thing benefits society, especially if it means nobody else can use that piece of work or a close derivative without my permission for the next 100 years. I think that's very wrong.

Lastly, someone else putting name on your work = plagiarism, which is something different from copying since it involves lying.

A copyright term of even just 7 years should be ok. Microsoft will still get money from XP, but they'd then have to make something much better than Vista, since people could use Win2K instead.

If they don't like it, I'm sure Apple or IBM will happily step up to take their place.

Re:6 month ban seems rather lite....

[Dhalka226]

Should not such an act as this hold a penalty of disbarment?

No.

Look, I hate the RIAA's tactics as much as anybody and this issue seems like it was taken from their playbook, but we need to very carefully consider what we're doing before we tell somebody they wasted tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars going to law school and take their livelihoods from them. At the very least, I don't think a second chance is out of line.

Further, what they seem to be citing her for is overstating the seriousness of the matter. It's unethical, but I certainly don't think it falls into the "you can't practice law" category. The money-into-a-private-account thing is a serious issue, but there doesn't seem to be an accusation of theft. If that's the case, the firm she's working for should sue her into the dirt and file a complaint -- and then she should be disbarred. If they don't feel any money is missing, well, then let's give that second chance again. If she does anything like this in the future, send her packing.

Now, on the other hand if what another poster said is true and the six month ban isn't even really in effect--then that's too light. The lapses certainly deserve a punishment, not a notification that a punishment might come next time.

Not true.

[an.echte.trilingue]

Lawyers are not charged with enforcing the law. They are charged with bending it to their own purposes, should that be getting an innocent man out of jail or extorting money from large amounts of people.

Bullshit. Lawyers are officers of the court. While they are not charged with enforcement per se, they are charged with presenting the law and interpreting it in good faith. There are sanctions for "bending" the law, up to and including prison.

Re:From the Summery...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world." [wikipedia.org]

i'm reminded of a joke i was once told. during WW2, hitler spoke to a swiss national saying, "y'know, there are only 500,000 people in your entire country. i've got a million people in my army. what do you think will happen if i just decide to walk right in?" to which the swiss person replied, "well ... i guess we'll have to shoot twice."

Re:This was her first offense

[iminplaya]

People in authority shouldn't get a second chance. I know I wouldn't if I committed extortion. She's a common criminal who should suffer the same fate as any other common criminal. Too bad they let her off. But then, file sharers aren't exactly politically connected.

Re:This was her first offense

[Dan541]

Who cares about first offense!!

What if it's my first offense filesharing copyrighted content?

Somehow I doubt I'll be given a such lenient sentence for the lesser crime.

Re:6 month ban seems rather lite....

[penix1]

The money-into-a-private-account thing is a serious issue, but there doesn't seem to be an accusation of theft. If that's the case, the firm she's working for should sue her into the dirt and file a complaint -- and then she should be disbarred. If they don't feel any money is missing, well, then let's give that second chance again. If she does anything like this in the future, send her packing.

There is no way for those punishing her to know if any money was stolen. She isn't cooperating. From TFS above:

In addition, the lawyer also violated the code by cashing payments into a private account, not the usual dedicated litigation account, known as a 'Carpa'. Martin also refused to reveal how many payments had been received from file-sharers.

She violated code. That's law to the lay person. There is no way to know if she "stole" because there is no way to know how much she put into the account.

Second, by putting it into a separate account that shows willfulness to this IANAL. It shows she knew she was wrong. Couple that with the previous violation and it sure sounds like she got off way too easy.