Camara Goes On Offense Against the RIAA 316
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.
A$$ kickin' time (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
A taste of their own medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Wow!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Two sides (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Look that gift horse in the mouth, Jammie (Score:5, Insightful)
What does it matter what his motivations are, so long as it results in a loss for the RIAA?
BTW, boycott the major labels, listen to indie music. By boycott I mean don't just not buy, don't even download or listen. Funny how the RIAA never mentions the almost decade long boycott as a reason for decreased sales...
Dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:lawyers. (Score:5, 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. 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?
Re:Dangerous (Score:2, Insightful)
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 ?
Re:More exciting than the play offs (Score:2, Insightful)
You know when you play any of the Madden games?
Imagine a bunch of guys going out into an actual field and doing that IRL.
Crazy, I know. But apparently it's fairly popular.
Re:Not best chocie of defendent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:lawyers. (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:Not best chocie of defendent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A$$ kickin' time (Score:3, Insightful)
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 engineering, on a global scale, with no benefit to society. In effect, the *IAA's want to sit in our living rooms, and watch for every instance of each of us using or enjoying any content to which they can lay any possible claim. And, with every instance, they want to charge us.
Time honored law has been challenged and even overturned in decisions that favor the "rights holders". Those same "rights holders" are spending billions world wide to expand the definitions of those rights, completely redefining what a copyright is.
Imagine a world in which your kindergarden daughter skips a rope in your yard with a half dozen freinds, singing a currently popular song. You check your online banking, to find that you've been charged a dollar or ten dollars for the use of copyrighted material.
Preposterous, you say? Look to the UK, the nation with more surveillance of it's population than any nation on earth. Look at current UK law, which makes it illegal for a mechanic or a restaurant to play a radio which might be heard by it's customers, unless a special fee is paid to the extortionist "rights enforcement" agencies.
The real question here is, what do rights holders hold? Do they hold all of us hostage? Do they own us?
This particular case means little, in and of itself. The important issue, is how the case applies to everyone, throughout the world.
Re:A$$ kickin' time (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the internet didn't really change anything.
At the core of this are still very old principles and the original form of the relevant law.
The internet only makes the infringement more visible. It didn't even really increase it that much.
It may have made it easier. That's hard to say. The postman still pushes around more digital media.
You shouldn't underestimate the power of sneakernet.
The old law has been bent out of shape and as become badly unbalanced.
The basic questions remain: when does a work enter the public domain and what
do you do with the individuals that can't wait as long as Big Media wants.
The song played to the jury to gain sympathy for the RIAA in the one case
that has gone to trial was old enough that no one should be persecuted for
copying it.
Sorry Neil & Steve, those old works rightfully belong to the ages now.
Re:Wow!!! (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?
Re:Dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Look that gift horse in the mouth, Jammie (Score:5, Insightful)
The term "indie" has somehow become a genre, and not an actual signifier of "independent". This is also true for Hollywood, most "indie" films are produced by major studios, and the signifier basically means "emulating Juno" now. Indie in music basically means watered down punk rock, or "sounds kind of like Radiohead", or "pop for people over 15". Actually, it might be one of the most useless genre tags after "alternative".
There are TONS of decent independent labels out there. John Zorn's Tzadik, Mike Patton's Ipecac, Mimicry, Drag City, Relapse, etc... Odd thing, most of the music put of by the aforementioned labels would never actually be called "indie", even if they are independent artists.
Re:Needs experienced analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
More importantly, the indications are that he's fighting them on technicalities, not actual principles. So that'll cost him more in the end.
I think this essentially raises the bar for what's economical for the RIAA to go after. If they want to sue someone, they have to prove that they actually own the copyright, and that the material shared is the material copyrighted. This makes it difficult to sue someone for sharing files that have no economic value.
Yes, it's a technicality; however, the American court system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Without it, anyone could grab a list of IPs on a torrent, claim copyright, and then sue.