Court Appoints Pro Bono Counsel For RIAA Defendant 123
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In what could be a turning point in the RIAA's litigation campaign, a Michigan judge has decided to appoint pro bono counsel to represent college student Brittany Kruger, who is being sued by the RIAA in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Kruger. As this article points out, 'if other judges follow suit, things will change dramatically.' That is because the RIAA's entire litigation campaign is based upon economic inequality of the litigants: almost none of those sued by the RIAA can afford legal representation, and the RIAA has a huge economic incentive to fight cases to the death, while the defendants have no economic incentive greater than the 'settlement' amount, which they often pay even when entirely innocent. If the courts follow the lead of District Judge Timothy P. Greeley [PDF], and appoint pro bono legal counsel, the RIAA will no longer be able to achieve the easy pickings default judgments and 'settlements' it's routinely obtained in the past."
Faulty assumption? (Score:5, Insightful)
This assumes the appointed pro-bono counsel is competent and interested in the welfare of his/her client, which may or may not be the case.
sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I shouldn't feel this way, but I just don't care any more. The RIAA has worn me out. I hate all music now. I never want to buy any of their crap again.
I'll just eat the magical fruit and toot myself to death.
Re:Faulty assumption? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Faulty assumption? (Score:5, Insightful)
This assumes the appointed pro-bono counsel is competent and interested in the welfare of his/her client, which may or may not be the case.
Assuming they are competent, all I can say is that It's about time.
Excellent news (Score:5, Insightful)
its great news, but doesn't fix the problem.
I guess now all the RIAA will do is shift their efforts to people that earn too much to get Pro Bono, but still dont earn enough to be able to defend themselves against being hounded with litigation. In fact this is probably most of us.
Re:check http://riaaradar.com too (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Faulty assumption? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pro bono is not the same thing as public defender.
Public defenders are for criminal cases--this is civil.
There are lawyers in big firms who take on cases for the public good. These lawyers have an enhanced sense of social responsibility. Pro bono is short for "pro bono publico" (for the benefit of the public).
The pro bono lawyer will probably be skilled and ethical and not simply out to make a name for himself/herself. The defendant won't get absurd theatricals and stupid gamesmanship, but will get decent fair representation.
That alone should be a pain for the RIAA.
Re:Faulty assumption? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sigh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Congratulations, you invented legal insurance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Expenses_Insurance [wikipedia.org] Want a cookie?
Re:Faulty assumption? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your statement is not correct. I know of many lawyers who take pro bono cases because they think that it is the right thing to do.
Re:Excellent news (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone who makes a decent middle-class salary may not have the means to add legal counsel to the list of bills. Just because someone makes a decent amount of money does not mean that they have discretionary income to throw around.
Almost nobody can afford to expend hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees, which is what the RIAA makes sure a contested case will cost.
Re:Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
what if we actually paid for music?
Just an idea