Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Media Music News

Camara Goes On Offense Against the RIAA 316

Posted by Soulskill
from the balls-in-our-courts dept.
whisper_jeff writes "Ars has an excellent write up outlining how Kiwi Camara (Jammie Thomas-Rasset's new lawyer) is following the 'Best Defense is a Good Offense' philosophy and going on the attack against the RIAA. Not content to just defend his client, he is laying siege against the RIAA's entire campaign and beginning the work of dismantling it from the bottom up, starting with the question of whether they actually do own the copyrights that were allegedly infringed. And, if you're thinking this is good for everyone who's been harassed by the RIAA, you'd be right — Camara, along with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, plans to file a class-action suit seeking to force the RIAA to return all the (ill-gotten) money they've earned from their litigation campaign." We first discussed the efforts of Nesson and Camara to thwart the RIAA last month.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Camara Goes On Offense Against the RIAA

Comments Filter:
  • Hmmmm (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    What does the Campaign for Real Ale have against the RIAA?

  • A$$ kickin' time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by arizwebfoot (1228544) * on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @11:49AM (#28280493)
    It's time to kick some serious RIAA boo-tay.

    On a more serious note, it warms my heart to find that there is at least a couple of "good" lawyers out there who have their clients best interest at heart.

    NYCountryLawyer excluded - dude you do good work.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by mcgrew (92797)

      Ray Beckerman (NYCL) is my third favorite lawyer, right after the lady who did my divorce and the gentleman who did my bankruptcy. When you need a lawyer, you NEED a lawyer. If you need a lawyer, (s)he won't cost you, (s)he'll save you far more than his or her fee.

      I'm a fan of Lawrence Lessig, too. Too bad he lost that Supreme Court case he wrote about extensively in his book, available at your bookstore, library, or online. It's not full of lawyerese, it's a good read.

      • by ivan256 (17499)

        I like Lawrence Lessig too. Hell, how can you not like a guy who has been played on TV by Christopher Lloyd...

        But "The Internet changes everything" is one of the biggest face-slapping lines ever. I can't help but believe it was the one sentence that lost that case.

        • by mcgrew (92797) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @01:52PM (#28282431) Homepage Journal

          Well, the internet did change everything. But like at slashdot, it was offtopic and the Supreme Court modded him down.

    • lawyers. (Score:5, Funny)

      by gd2shoe (747932) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @12:09PM (#28280821) Journal

      IANAL

      Someone on slashdot once wrote "99% of all lawyers make the rest of us look bad".

      • Re:lawyers. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @12:39PM (#28281303)

        You can say that about many professions, from mechanics to plumbers to technical supporters to software engineers.

        Any profession that has special knowledge their customer can't even possibly have unless he's a professional in the field as well is prone to abusing this power. How often did you tell your boss it takes 2 hours even though you knew it would take 2 minutes so you can slack off?

        • by Tanktalus (794810)

          Er, hi boss. I'll get right on that bugfix now.

        • Re:lawyers. (Score:5, Funny)

          by d'fim (132296) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @01:01PM (#28281645)
          "How often did you tell your boss it takes 2 hours even though you knew it would take 2 minutes so you can slack off?"

          Not often enough to offset all the times he has given me 2-hour tasks and expected results inside of 2 minutes.
        • You can say that about many professions, from mechanics to plumbers to technical supporters to software engineers.

          Any profession that has special knowledge their customer can't even possibly have unless he's a professional in the field as well is prone to abusing this power.

          Very true. I've seen some very bad stuff done by some of my own co-workers. And I know a few mechanics I'll never go back to.

          How often did you tell your boss it takes 2 hours even though you knew it would take 2 minutes so you can slack off?

          I usually over-estimate how long something is going to take... And then pad that estimate... But not because I want to slack off. If you tell someone their server will be down for 2 hours they expect to be up and working in 121 minutes. If anything goes wrong and slows down that process you're going to have some unhappy people on your hands. If, however, you tell them it'll tak

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          You can say that about many professions, from mechanics to plumbers to technical supporters to software engineers.

          Any profession that has special knowledge their customer can't even possibly have unless he's a professional in the field as well is prone to abusing this power.

          It's true, but what makes lawyers different from mechanics or plumbers is the level of that power. A plumber can set you up for an extra couple of hundred bucks. A lawyer can set you up for an extra couple of hundred thousand, and some jailtime too. Hence abuse of that power should be treated much more seriously.

      • Re:lawyers. (Score:4, Funny)

        by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @01:21PM (#28281983)
        I remember when I first started reading /. (well before I signed up for an account) I would often seen IANAL. I didn't pick up on what it was for the longest time, I just figured it was people really into anal, either that or Apple's latest piece of hardware. Remember, when the iAnal 3G comes out to get the one with 32GB of capacity.
    • by Endo13 (1000782)

      It sounds like they're all out of bubblegum.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Runaway1956 (1322357)

      Having a client's best interest at heart is a good thing, so don't get me wrong with the following.

      More important that the client's interest, is society's interest. If the issue were ONLY whether Jammie had to pay for some songs, I'd say "Big deal - no story here." If the issue ended with whether it might affect whether I can download music as a result of this case, again, I'd say "Big deal - I can do without."

      The REAL issues here, involve a concerted effort by RIAA and it's lookalikes to perform social e

  • by gparent (1242548) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @11:49AM (#28280501)
    Refuses to film copyrighted content!
  • by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @11:52AM (#28280541)
    ... and a lawsuit they can't just back out of when they realize they're not going to win. It's two great tastes brought together into a cocktail of bitter irony for the RIAA!
  • Kiwi? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @11:58AM (#28280641)

    That is a hell of a name for a lawyer.

    "Meet Kiwi Camara. He's a high-powered defense attorney by day... and she's a pole-riding stripper by night! What will happen when these two lives collide? Find out this Fall on Barely Legal, only on Fox!"

  • Hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by apodyopsis (1048476) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @12:02PM (#28280707)

    I wish them the very best of luck - thats a very powerful business lobby with a lot of politicians in pocket that they are going after.

    Still, its very clear why he chose to represent her - the publicity on this high profile case could make him and give his career a hell of a head start.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Still, its very clear why he chose to represent her - the publicity on this high profile case could make him and give his career a hell of a head start.

      Good point. Also, please recall her previous lawyer allowed fees to climb to $150,000 and then pulled the lawyering services when Jammie couldn't pay-up. But then that lawyer didn't seem to have the wisdom to construct Jammie's case as well as her current lawyer either.

  • by T Murphy (1054674) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @12:07PM (#28280793) Journal
    We would all like to see the RIAA lose on all points brought up here, but how strong are these arguments, and are there known ways the RIAA could dodge them?
  • Wow!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @12:07PM (#28280799) Homepage

    If the RIAA were forced to give all the money they collected BACK, the RIAA would simply close up shop permanently, probably filing some sort of bankruptcy or some such action to prevent their actually having to pay anything back.

    And what would that mean with regards to the MPAA or BSA? They both, quite often, use similar tactics and means of evidence collection.

    This will undoubtedly stir up a hornets nest on a scale we have never seen before. If this guy actually manages to win his cases and motions, it will likely result in new laws being introduced that would effectively make the RIAA's activities legal... that is unless some people are there to stop it which isn't likely considering the way laws like the DMCA are passed... subversively and practically secretly.

    • When people say "the RIAA" they usually mean "the record company in question at the direction of the RIAA." The lawsuits that have been filed have not been filed by the RIAA nor have the checks been written to "the RIAA" - they are filed by the member companies (EMI, Sony, Universal, and Warner being the four biggest) [wikipedia.org]. Thus, there won't be any "close up shop to avoid paying the money back."
      • Re:Wow!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @01:07PM (#28281741) Homepage

        And here I thought the following was true:

        http://digg.com/tech_news/RIAA_Keeps_Settlement_Money_Artists_May_Sue [digg.com]

        http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth [boycott-riaa.com]

        http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/02/riaa_what_settlement_money.html [nymag.com] ...and there are more on this topic. And while it's unquestionably true that these articles are talking about the settlements from fileshare software companies and not settlements from individuals, I see no cause to believe that the money collected is passed on to the labels (or the artists) at all. Do you have any indication that the RIAA actually passes the money they collect on to the labels? You are aware of the RIAA collection web site yes? (https://www.p2plawsuits.com/) People have been known to use that site when paying their settlements. A single point of transaction for all settlements ostensibly run by the RIAA.

        I can't claim to have absolute knowledge of the fact, but it would appear that the RIAA does indeed pocket the money taken ostensibly to fund additional litigation and other legal activities.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The lawsuits that have been filed have not been filed by the RIAA

        Wrong.

        nor have the checks been written to "the RIAA"

        And wrong.

        Care to try for a third incorrect statement?

    • If the RIAA were forced to give all the money they collected BACK, the RIAA would simply close up shop permanently, probably filing some sort of bankruptcy or some such action to prevent their actually having to pay anything back.

      This raises a question - do we actually have a tally of the damages so far? That is to say, do we know how much money the RIAA has taken in as a result of settlements, litigation, and shenanigans? Would the loss of these revenues (for lack of a better term) represent a big enough p

    • If the RIAA were forced to give all the money they collected BACK, the RIAA would simply close up shop permanently, probably filing some sort of bankruptcy or some such action to prevent their actually having to pay anything back.

      The statement by the RIAA that they've lost money on this (see http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/riaa-responds.ars [arstechnica.com] ) means that most of the money has probably moved out of RIAA and into the hands of the lawyers and MediaSentry. One would hope that there would be some grounds to go after not just RIAA, but also their lawyers and MediaSentry, possibly under RICO-like recovery. But IANAL, and maybe a lawyer can comment on if it's possible to recover the $$ from the lawyers if RIAA goes bankrupt

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by erroneus (253617)

        Yes, but when you sue someone for ill-gotten gains, you don't sue for "Net Gains" but for "Gross Gains." Their expenses and payroll are irrelevant.

    • If the RIAA were forced to give all the money they collected BACK, the RIAA would simply close up shop permanently, probably filing some sort of bankruptcy or some such action to prevent their actually having to pay anything back.

      I don't think they've collected enough from piracy judgements to sneeze at, let alone pay for their legal expenses, investigations, PR campaigns, and all the other anti-piracy measures they have taken.

  • by yerktoader (413167) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @12:09PM (#28280827) Homepage
    There's more happening, and not all of it is necessarily going to work. [slashdot.org] I hope Thomas comes out on top, but I wonder how some of these tactics will affect the case overall.
  • by snarfies (115214) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @12:09PM (#28280829) Homepage

    Camaraaaaaaaaaa! Camaraaaaaaaaaaaaa!
    Camara is really neat,
    Camara the RIAA won't beat,
    We've been eating Kiwi, Camara!

  • Two sides (Score:5, Insightful)

    by davmoo (63521) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @12:09PM (#28280833)

    This case brings me very mixed feelings. On the one hand, the RIAA (and to a lessor extent, the MPAA) needs to have its ass seriously kicked.

    But on the other hand, I wish this was a case where the defendant wasn't so obviously guilty of what the RIAA claimed in the first trial. It sucks that this isn't one of the cases where the RIAA went after a senior citizen who doesn't even know hot to turn on a computer. Its a good thing that the RIAA is so evil and stupid, because otherwise I'd find it much harder to root for her side.

    • Re:Two sides (Score:5, Interesting)

      by oneirophrenos (1500619) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @12:30PM (#28281145)

      It sucks that this isn't one of the cases where the RIAA went after a senior citizen who doesn't even know hot to turn on a computer. Its a good thing that the RIAA is so evil and stupid, because otherwise I'd find it much harder to root for her side.

      Well that would be kind of dishonest, wouldn't it? Your average file-sharing culprit isn't an innocent old grandpa, but a young adult who downloads movies and music for his/her own use, full well knowing it's illicit. If we're going to defend file sharing, let's be honest and call things for what they are, and not try to embellish the truth or cherry pick facts. The RIAA may resort to reality distortion, but that doesn't mean we should.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by aaandre (526056)

        Agreed. What is also important is exposing the fact that RIAA does not really protect artists' profit but has built litigation into their business model instead with the intention to maximize their own profit. And as they are doing litigation as a business practice, they are doing everything possible to make it a streamlined, efficient, automated process by going around the laws binding the current judicial system.

        And let's not forget that the judicial system costs a lot of taxpayer money. One entity puttin

    • Re:Two sides (Score:5, Interesting)

      by wytcld (179112) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @12:43PM (#28281363) Homepage

      She's "obviously guilty" only if file-sharing is not fair use. And she's "obviously guilty" only if the RIAA truly owns those copyrights. If the copyrights were, in effect, extorted from the artists, falsely filed, then the RIAA is representing an industry who's claim of ownership is fraudulent.

      This does not, by the way, under current US law, cheat the artists. You by default own copyright in your creative work, even without filing. Clearing the bogus recording industry copyrights off the federal register would, under our law, enable the true artists to file copyrights to their work in their own names. This would then open the opportunity for the true artists to recovery money properly owed them, from whoever has been commercially distributing their music - whether record companies or commercial online enterprises.

      That would be a great boon for musicians. If file sharing is not fair use, but the copyrights properly belong to the creative artists rather than the recording companies, then it would be up to the artists to form a cooperative to claim money from file sharers. However, in this case it may well turn out that (1) file sharers are more willing to pay directly to the artists they love, and (2) artists are more willing to be generous to the fans who love them.

      This ends up good all the way around. The file sharers, in defending themselves from the RIAA, can make the greatest gift back to the artists themselves - the true ownership of their own works.

  • by omar.sahal (687649) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @12:20PM (#28280993) Homepage Journal
    Actually I would like to see Open Source/ Creative Commons type licences covering intellectual and creative works. With a good dash of community pooling of resources to sue any big corporation that infringes the above IP.
    The situation we have now of large companies using the law to lock down markets would change. If they they feel they are being controlled and constrained by laws they initiated, the law will change.
    • by mcgrew (92797) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @01:38PM (#28282205) Homepage Journal

      Actually I would like to see Open Source/ Creative Commons type licences covering intellectual and creative works.

      They are. Cory Doctorow's books, as well as many other writer's books, are. There are a lot of indie musicians using those licenses as well.

      You can read any of Doctorow's books online, or download them in any number of e-reader formats from his site. Funny how being online and free (as in both speech and beer) didn't stop him from making the NYT best seller list. If your stuff's good enough to pay for, people will pay for it even if they CAN get it for free.

  • Dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kenp2002 (545495) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @12:22PM (#28281017) Homepage Journal

    This stunt is dangerous. This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny.

    Remember he could lose and set more case precident in favor of the RIAA. This guy is gambling and the stakes are incredibly high.

    I am not amused at this, it's risking everyone rights and the future of fair use, by putting the case in his hands. He has noting to lose in this, he'll get his 15 minutes of fame either way. If he wins, great a blow to intellectual tyranny. If he loses, the law suit lottery flood gates are blown wide open.

    Going on the offense against an industry who is backed by both parties, who have pretty much hand picked damn near ever appeals judge out there, sounds like about the dumbest idea since the Sword-Chucks from 8 bit theatre.

    I'm not a fan of gambling with people's freedom.

    Yeah I said it. Mod me whatever, but this scares the hell out of me... IANALBMWIAPL and she's pretty spooked too.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Yeah, we should just cower and hide~

      • by kenp2002 (545495)

        "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win" - Sun Tzu

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by fprintf (82740)

      IANALBMWIAPL

      I am not a lawyer but my wife is a paralegal?
      I am not a lawyer but my wife is a property lawyer?
      I am not a lawyer but my wife is a patent lawyer?
      I am not a lawyer but my wife is a ?

    • by rastilin (752802)

      A valid point, however anyone had the opportunity to do something like this before and not one person took up the challenge. Not one of those highly experienced lawyers could be bothered or was willing to take the risk; so as he is the first to step up to the plate, he can take the swing.

      • by kenp2002 (545495)

        I'd rather have seen a colation of about 12 lawyers get together first and think this through... Even Babe Ruth played on a team of more then 2.

    • by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_20 ... minus herbivore> on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @01:03PM (#28281675)

      This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny.

      This "Rookie" is teamed up with a Harvard law professor who's called the "Billion Dollar Charlie" [encyclopedia.com] and has a 1998 movie, "A Civil Action [imdb.com]", about a case of his about a toxic polluter.

      Falcon

    • Remember when they used to have those parades of military hardware in Red Square? They didn't just do that to whip up domestic national pride. The parades were also an instrument of foreign policy. They reminded the West that it didn't really want a shooting war with the Soviet Union. The Soviets didn't want a shooting war with the West either. Everyone made sure everyone else knew that that was on the decision tree somewhere.

      Litigation seems to be a little like that. Lawyers always prefer to settle, b

    • by wfstanle (1188751)

      Very good point. Although we are hurting now, isn't it better to wait for when an appeal has a better chance of giving us a favorable outcome? It would be disastrous if a case went all the way to SCOTUS and fair use was struck down? I don't know how the present justices stand on fair use policies but lately they don't seem to be for the little guy. Isn't it better to wait for a more favorable time?

    • Re:Dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <ray.beckermanlegal@com> on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @03:13PM (#28283563) Homepage Journal

      This stunt is dangerous. This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny. Remember he could lose and set more case precident in favor of the RIAA. This guy is gambling and the stakes are incredibly high. I am not amused at this, it's risking everyone rights and the future of fair use, by putting the case in his hands. He has noting to lose in this, he'll get his 15 minutes of fame either way. If he wins, great a blow to intellectual tyranny. If he loses, the law suit lottery flood gates are blown wide open. Going on the offense against an industry who is backed by both parties, who have pretty much hand picked damn near ever appeals judge out there, sounds like about the dumbest idea since the Sword-Chucks from 8 bit theatre. I'm not a fan of gambling with people's freedom. Yeah I said it. Mod me whatever, but this scares the hell out of me... IANALBMWIAPL and she's pretty spooked too.

      I wouldn't worry about it. This firm has shown that they are (a) enthusiastic, (b) tech-savvy, (c) smart, (d) principled, and (e) hard working. Sure they're young, but that's okay. Win, lose, or draw, only good can come out of their being in the case and giving the RIAA a run for its money. I wish every case was litigated with this much dedication and "attitude". The RIAA's lawyers are so accustomed to having a walk through the park on almost every case, that they are probably in shock at the moment.

    • Re:Dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)

      by maidix (803080) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @03:42PM (#28283979)
      Your argument sounds vaguely reminiscent of the "we shouldn't even try to oppose anything he wants, because we might fail, and THEN what?!?!" argument that the Democrats used for 8 years to support, enable, and empower every single one of George W. Bush's policies. OK, so if we shouldn't use the legal system to oppose the RIAA, how should we do it? What method of opposing this insanity is so guaranteed in its success that we *shouldn't* be afraid of losing in the attempt? I say, make the attempt. Otherwise, you see... the RIAA has won, and the story is already over. I find that most objectionable. It's one thing to try, and fail... it's another thing to enable the people working against you, just so that you can wind up on the "winning" side.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    In his first year at Harvard, Camara was involved in a racial controversy that would gain attention from the national media. Like many students, Camara posted his course outlines to a popular student-run website. Camara's, however, referred to blacks as nigs. For example, to summarize Shelley v. Kraemer, he wrote "Nigs buy land with no nig covenant; Q: Enforceable?"[7] The notes were prefaced with a disclaimer that they may contain racially offensive shorthand.[7]

    Upon discovering the outline, a classmate alerted other students and professors.[7] Camara issued an apology and the outlines were promptly removed, whereupon a third student using the pseudonym "gcrocodile" e-mailed the classmate who discovered the outline expressing disappointment that they were no longer available and an intention to use the word nigger more often.[8]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Camara [wikipedia.org]

    He sounds like trouble in a box!

    • by scubamage (727538)
      Why do you hate free speech? These were shorthand notes - I've seen much worse written in the scrawlings of medical doctors when I do work at hospitals.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by amicusNYCL (1538833)

      He sounds like trouble in a box!

      He does? Did you only read that one paragraph in the wikipedia article? Here's another part:

      Camara was born in Manila, Philippines [in 1984]. A year later, his family moved to Cleveland, Ohio before settling in Honolulu, Hawaii, where Camara attended the Punahou School.[1] He wrote a medical paper on alternative treatments for rheumatoid arthritis at age eleven,[1] which was published in the Hawai'i Journal of Medicine.[2] At sixteen, having skipped high school, Camara earned a Bachelor of Science in computer science from Hawaii Pacific University.[2] He completed the program in two years and was singularly recognized by the university for outstanding academic performance.[2] The Philippines awarded him their Jose Rizal Certificate of Achievement while he was in college and later, in 2005, recognized him with a Presidential Commendation.[3]

      Yeah man, watch out for that guy, you see him coming and you better go the other way.

  • The RIAA can easily drop the one case and hold up the class action suit in court for years. Even if that suit does go in favor of the RIAA's victims they can still appeal and hold it up a few more years. And in the meantime they have plenty of other tools at their disposal: re-education campaigns, new legislation to file lawsuits under, working with ISP monopolies, to name a few. Just sayin'... don't go recycling those tin foil hats yet.
  • goddammit. this was a long time coming.

  • If the RIAA can go after people based on their IP address, why can't law enforcement press charges based on a DNA profile they find at a crime scene? The latter is doubtless more useful as a means of identifying the perpetrator, and that would presumably prevent the statute of limitations from running out. I'm not proposing this would be just, but I don't think that would stop the law from doing it without a court case. Is this something that's done, and I never heard about it?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mdmkolbe (944892)

      RIAA only needs preponderence of evidence because it is civil. Law enforcement needs beyond reasonable doubt because its criminal.

  • IANAL (Score:5, Funny)

    by jockeys (753885) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @12:42PM (#28281337) Journal
    but neither is Jack Thompson!

    Sorry, I'd been waiting a while for an excuse to say that in a slightly relevant way.
  • I know in most cases where class action suits are filed, the attorneys filing and operating the case get a rather sizeable chunk of the take. If/when this class action is filed and won, does Kiwi intend to take from the rich to give to the poor or will he take a sizeable chunk for himself?

    • by number11 (129686)

      I know in most cases where class action suits are filed, the attorneys filing and operating the case get a rather sizeable chunk of the take. If/when this class action is filed and won, does Kiwi intend to take from the rich to give to the poor or will he take a sizeable chunk for himself?

      In most class action suits, if it fails the attorneys get to eat the entire cost as well as their own time. So I'd say they're entitled to some return. Now, one would hope the victims would get a good chunk back (one wou

  • They don't have a prayer. The legal system is this country is so bent it's going to snap in half. :(

  • By the way, I submitted a proposed article [slashdot.org] a few days ago -- which is still in the Firehose -- about the Judge denying the RIAA's motion to bar Jammie from objecting to the defects in their copyright registration documents. I guess the article is being rejected, although it was voted up to "orange" in the Firehose, so you might want to check it out.

Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly

Working...