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.
Re:A taste of their own medicine (Score:0, Interesting)
The last few months I have been doing some research [slashdot.org] into the trolling [slashdot.org] phenomenon on slashdot.org. In order to do this as thorough [slashdot.org]ly as possible, I have written both normal and troll [slashdot.org] posts, 1st posts, etc., both logged in and anonymously, and I have found these rather shocking results:
Feel free to use this information to your advantage. I thank you for your time.
Needs experienced analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
Camara Goes On Offense Against the RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Kiwi Camara is a race troll (Score:2, Interesting)
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!
Re:Two sides (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Two sides (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Two sides (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
I think this is exactly right. Defending the innocent grandma is noble and the RIAA gets egg on their face, but it doesn't change anything other than (potentially) making the RIAA a little more gun shy about making accusations (and even that doesn't seem to be happening). What we really want is to highlight how out of line the RIAA is and to open the debate about how file sharing changes everything. Obviously people aren't going to be scared into not sharing; the cat is, as they say, out of the bag. So, what next?
Re:Hmm. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Wow!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Look that gift horse in the mouth, Jammie (Score:4, Interesting)
Get off my lawn.
Re:Two sides (Score:3, Interesting)
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 putting a lot of load on said system costs us a lot of dollars which is one more way RIAA robs the public domain.
Re:lawyers. (Score:4, Interesting)
It sometimes is, especially when dealing with tax law and the like.
I've been let off with warnings on speeding tickets because I didn't know that the speed limit of the area I was traveling in differed from the standards.
I've also, on more than one occasion, messed up on my taxes, for example taking deductions I thought I was entitled to but wasn't, and when the IRS caught it, I just had to re-file. The most recent time resulted in an in-person visit from an IRS agent. (Last year, dealing with a problem with my 2002 returns).
(While scary at first - "Oh my gods, there's an IRS Agent at my door!" - everything turned out well.
We got along great, too - turns out IRS agents are all a bunch of nerds. One explained to me that it works best to "think of it as a game, with lots of math and complex rules that at least once a year." "So, big Avalon Hill fans, then?" Yep. The office is a giant cube farm, and there was a Robo-Rally game set up in the break room.)
Re:Hmm. (Score:1, Interesting)
While I'm intrigued by the tactics being used by Mr Camara, I think it's yet to be seen if it's a "wise" choice or not.
Re:Two sides (Score:2, Interesting)
Well said
I admire anyone who stands up and says "I believe that fundamentally it should be ok for me to just take copyrighted content"*
That takes balls, because it means you open yourself up to arrest and a serious fine, if not worse.
And that is exactly what people do who actually believe in something. I've put my own ass on the line and risked arrest for political issues in the past.
I don't see ANYONE doing this over the copyright issue. Everyone talks a tough fight behind a keyboard, but they also talk a lot about using anonymous services and masking their identity. Hardly the work of crusaders trying to change the law.
Even TPB claim its not them who are breaking any laws. if they actually believed in 'the cause' they would admit they are breaking the, and say they do so to get it changed.
Could it maybe be that getting free music is *not* worth a criminal record after all?
*I still completely dispute the premise that its ok to do this, and think people who espouse it are naive at best, but I can admire people who are naive and wrong, if they at least stand for something.
Re:Two sides (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate to burst your bubble, but nobody forces ANY musician to sign a recording contract, any mroe than someone like me is forced to sign a publishing deal with EA or Activision.
People freely make choices of how best to sell the proceeds of their work.
I don't hear any artists complain that they were forced to sign anything.
Getting noticed in the music industry is VERY hard. People sign with record companies because they can get you noticed. Most full time musicians are not also full-time marketing and PR experts.
Re:Dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)
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.