RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship 181
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's top litigation lawyer, who has been personally leading the RIAA's litigation campaign for the past several years, Richard Gabriel, will be leaving his law practice after getting a job as a state court judge for a 2-year term in Colorado. What this will mean to the RIAA's litigation machine is anyone's guess. Mr. Gabriel has personally argued all of the RIAA's main cases, including Elektra v. Barker, Atlantic v. Howell, Atlantic v. Brennan, Capitol v. Foster, Atlantic v. Andersen, UMG v. Lindor, and London-Sire v. Doe 1, and personally tried the Capitol v. Thomas case, the only RIAA case that has ever gone to trial. He was working directly under the supervision of the RIAA's mysterious 'representative' Matthew Oppenheim."
What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom (Score:5, Funny)
Sharks never attack lawyers - professional courtesy.
Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom (Score:2, Interesting)
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Let them listen to CAKE! [cakemusic.com]"
Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom (Score:5, Funny)
What do you call all of the world's lawyers chained to the bottom of the sea? Solution!
Thank you, Thank you! Try the steak!
OT: Sig reply (Score:2)
I got him, not you! God! what a karma whore!
Grim Reaper
can't stop myself... must type lawyer joke (Score:3, Funny)
A: Shoot the lawyer twice.
Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom (Score:2)
Throw him a rock.
New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases (Score:5, Insightful)
So that every defendant moves to have him recuse himself from the proceeding.
Re: (Score:2)
And then his case will be opened up for easy appeals, as the conflict of interest is very clear.
Rock, meet Paper.
Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, he may have left after sniffing the wind and seeing that other judges are starting to find the RIAA's tactics to be questionable at best... and likely wants to be well clear of the RIAA if/when it finally (okay, hopefully) implodes.
Finally, even if he did hear any of these cases, he's have two fears constantly on his mind: Appeals, and the possibility that not recusing himself from an case involving his former employer would likely land him in hotter water than by simply recusing himself in the first place.
Just idle thoughts - standard disclaimers pply, etc. :)
Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases (Score:5, Informative)
Also, he was elected for a term, which indicates elections are ahead. While most judges are pretty much re-elected ad-infinitum without so much as a "ho-hum" from the electorate, all it would take is a couple of well-placed commercials and ads touting his prior experiences and current performance (if negative), and he's toast. I don;t think the RIAA would have too much interest in bailing him out, so he'd be pretty much on his own.
Then again, who knows? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases (Score:5, Interesting)
Frighteningly enough, so do most politicians...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He *might* serve five years, then go back to the riaa for giant buckos.
---
Damned weed, three pokes and I figured Iraq might turn into another Vietnam.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you belong to a profession that exists because [computer software is] too complicated for normal people to understand, how can you possibly be expected to act in their interests when creating new [computer software]?
That's easy - if the new computer software is too complex? People won't use it, won't buy it, and you'll be stuck with a lot of unused inventory and a bankrupt business - even if you had a monopoly before (see also the current mass defections from Microsoft, to OSX and Linux)
Government is not a free market. It has no competition... so you're stuck with either actually working with the system to change it (en masse) or fomenting revolt.
Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that he is friends with Ritter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He left to be a judge, period.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases (Score:5, Funny)
So yeah, they'll be filing all their cases in his district.
Re: (Score:2)
I am suing you on behalf of the Writers Guild.
Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases (Score:5, Informative)
awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:awesome (Score:5, Informative)
1. It was primarily for the money, lots and lots of money.
2. It made him feel important; he was pretending to be a lawyer. (Never mind that most of the cases were "ex parte" cases and "default" cases, in which there was no opponent at all, and that in the remaining ones, most of the people couldn't afford a lawyer. So he was always "litigating" against either no one, or someone who had no lawyer, or in a few cases against an unpaid or underpaid lawyer. See, e.g. the eloquent opinion of Judge Otero in Elektra v. O'Brien [blogspot.com] in which the Judge, talking specifically about Mr. Gabriel's "cases", decried the fact that "the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants.") I.e., Mr. Gabriel is a man who has been making his living the past 2 1/2 years suing children, the disabled, the homeless, displaced persons, the elderly, people living on Welfare and Social Security, and other defenseless individuals, and taking money from innocent people simply because they couldn't afford the cost of defending a federal lawsuit.
And after communicating with him on practically a daily basis for the past 2 1/2 years.... I don't think he feels the slightest bit of shame over it.
I guess that about says it all.
Well Ray (Score:5, Funny)
Re:awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it is people like this RIAA lawyer who give the legal profession such a bad reputation among the general public whereas honest and upright lawyers, like our friend NewYorkCountryLawyer, receive much of the ill will associated with that negative reputation and very little recognition for the good work that they do. I for one would like to take this opportunity to thank NewYorkCountryLawyer for the excellent work that he has done in compiling the various briefs, decisions, along with his own original commentary and arguments, and other related materials on his blog to assist in the defense of the ordinary working folks who are being crushed by the RIAA and their unscrupulous attorneys.
Some of the defendants may have sinned yes, but was their crime (assuming that they are convicted and that is not a certainty) really so great as to merit the complete destruction of their lives and their utter financial ruin? It is really too bad that the RIAA has chosen to take the lowest of the low roads with their lawsuit campaign, but hopefully with interested people like NewYorkCountryLawyer and Slashdot staying on top of things we can eventually compel the RIAA and their members to quit harassing the public in lieu of actually having a business plan.
Re:awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Troll? How about humour?
NYCL is giving people hope by doing a great job. That is why he is respected here on /.
'perfectly good reputation of lawyers' == sarcasm. I'm surprised at the number of people who don't understand sarcasm.
Can we have moderators who actually understand what they are reading, please?
Re:awesome (Score:4, Funny)
I know. It's that 99% of lawyers that give the rest a bad name.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's some new guy they hired, who doesn't know that I'm 60, that I've met Mr. Gabriel a number of times and communicate with him many times a week, and that I understand Mr. Gabriel's job a lot better than Mr. Gabriel does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:awesome (Score:4, Informative)
A lawyer cannot throw a case just because he doesn't like his client. There are penalties for that, including those handed down from the bar and possible civil remedies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's always the possibility that he never believed in the RIAA's bullshit and just did it all out of greed, but someone with such loose morals isn't the kind of person you'd want behind the bench. It seems to be a lose-lose situation for the people of Colorado.
Or he could just think that, regardless of the RIAA's tactics, downloading copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder is the wrong thing to do....
/. regarding the permissibility of piracy.... I'm not saying that I never download anything, but 99% of the content I do download is not for sale in my continent and the company who owns the works has refu
For some reason, and it shouldn't amaze me by now (but it still does,) but I still get shocked by the level of groupthink that goes on @
Re: (Score:2)
downloading copyrighted materials is 100% legal in all scenarios. Forget your wrong or right, this is an issue that is going through courts a lot lately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA may be fighting hard against but as example downloading a cd you own is not illegal regardless of permission of copyright holders. Fair Us
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
THIS JUST IN... (Score:5, Insightful)
"RIAA announces they'll be filing all future litigation in Colorado!!!"
Appointed by Gov Ritter (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And how many people here are from Colorado and know either people in the press or in the opposing candidate's campaign team at the next election? It just takes one to run the story about how Governor Ritter appointed a judge who made his name persecuting children and single parents for minor offences to swing a close election.
It's time we started remembering what the I in IT stands for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not an American, so please accept my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.
I don't agree that the RIAA are tainted. Their tactics certainly are and they should be prevented from repeating them. But they have a job to do. There is illegal sharing of copyrighted material taking place and it is their job to protect their interests. Those who simply advocate the sharing should be made legal have, in my view, placed their heads up their arses.
Now I don't expect my point of view to receive wide acclaim here on /., but take a look at NYCL's post earlier on. He doesn't 'hate' Gabriel for what he has done, in fact if I read it correctly he respects him as a fellow professional. But he does question Gabriel's understanding of his own job. That's fine and is a reasonable attitude to take. Others have explained why Gabriel might have been duty bound to accept the cases in the first place but I, for one, am glad that the legal profession has many such individuals. Otherwise, who would defend the person accused of murder, who would look after the interests of the poor and homeless, and who would defend those accused of illegal file sharing? They all need lawyers.
The object of your displeasure ought to be the legal system that allows the RIAA to use the tactics that they do (although I think we all sense that this is changing for the better), but not the lawyer who uses the system within the current rules to win his case. I would want any lawyer that I employed to try his hardest to win on my behalf - providing that he did not do something illegal by doing so. If your response is that people cannot afford to fight the big money then that, again, is the system that needs changing, not the fact that some people have more money than others. Change the system so that the poorest can get access to the best legal minds. Make sure that all evidence is collected legally, presented accurately, and judged fairly. That is what NYCL seems to be so good at doing.
Of course we all feel dismayed when the system is gamed, and the RIAA do seem to have had some success at gaming it over recent years. But change the system - or find a better way of preventing illegal file sharing so that there is no need for the RIAA to have to go to court to try to protect their interests.
Why do I have the feeling that some will misunderstand what I have written and they are bashing at their keyboards seconds after I have pressed the 'Submit' button.....?
Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't imagine what you were reading of mine that could have made you believe I felt otherwise. This [slashdot.org] what I said about him. What part of that do you think shows "respect"? Then when someone said I shouldn't attack Mr. Gabriel just because he was my adversary, I responded with this [slashdot.org], saying that the reason I hate him has nothing to do with his being an adversary or taking positions contrary to mine.
Re: (Score:2)
In which case I humbly apologise. I obviously misconstrued the following:
Some of the best friends I have are people I met as spirited adversaries in contentious, lengthy, hard fought, litigations. If you think I have anything against Mr. Gabriel because he was "upholding the rule of law" or advancing "a legitimate gripe" or because he was on the "wrong" side of legal issues.... you don't know me at all.
I am wrong and I apologise, and I also appear to have missed your earlier comment when looking at /. from a different computer. All my fault, and no other excuses to offer.
Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter (Score:4, Informative)
Since this bill is regarding the legal system directly, it was through the House Judiciary Committee, which is split - like all committees - between Democrats and Republicans. Yes, the Democrats on the committee shouldn't have passed that. But let's see about the other side, hmm?
First, we see that passing the HJC was unanimous [arstechnica.com], so both sides passed it.
We see that the ranking Republican is Lamar Smith, who has sought to expand the DCMA [wikipedia.org]
The next most influential Republican is none other than Republican Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. For those of you without long-term recall, Rep. Sensenbrenner was the genius who introduced the PATRIOT ACT and authored Real ID [wikipedia.org]
Another member, Tom Feeney, has been written about in Wired for his attempts at touch screen tampering [wikipedia.org]
So yeah. It's the Dems behind this bill that are the bad guys.
State court, not federal court (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
there are still privacy concerns that come up (Score:4, Insightful)
Matters of individual and family welfare were supposed to be handled at the bottom level as much as possible. Somehow, the need to monitor the Kluless Klutz Klan and its ikl from above has been an inroad to stretching the normal lines of control. But people who see chances for personal "advantage" in those long lines of control are naturally going to push to extend them further, so it's only natural that matters of personal privacy end up getting handled under "federal" law now.
So maybe there aren't any privacy concerns that will come up in state court, and this will be a good place to keep the guy where he can't do further damage.
Somehow, I'm not optimistic.
(Yes, I am of the opinion that the primary evil in giving IP a legal existence is that it finishes off the erosion of privacy. RMS's essays on the relationship seemed extreme when he wrote them, but the reality of the threat is becoming quite obvious now.)
Timing is everything (Score:5, Informative)
Thank you for telling me (Score:2)
"Jumps Ship" (Score:5, Funny)
I totally knew they were pirates all along!
Brave Sir Robin (Score:2, Funny)
CO Voters: Reject Richard Gabriel in Nov. 2010! (Score:5, Informative)
The voters of the state of Colorado will have the opportunity to boot Richard Gabriel from the bench in the 2010 general election. Should they fail to do so, their next shot will be in 2018.
Colorado citizens now have two years to organize to unseat this particular justice should they find fault with the company he's kept and tactics he's used in his years of loyal service to the RIAA.
Judicial retention elections are almost always ignored but there's ample time to prepare for this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Colorado. I will be voting to remove him from the bench in 2010. I'll probably also tell everyone I know to do th
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's irresponsible, but if I have the option between making an uninformed decision and not making one at all, I'll usually choose the latter.
It's not irresponsible at all, in fact, it's the most responsible course of action to take. If you don't have enough information to choose, don't choose!
This is a huge problem in Australia, where citizens are FORCED to vote (you are fined if you don't). A VERY great number of people are totally apathetic about politics, and so simply pick the name they heard most recently in a positive light. These same people, if they weren't forced to vote, would stay at home on voting day and have a BBQ. Then, eve
Re: (Score:2)
Of course everyone I know was well-informed going in to the last election simply becuase of where the country was being lead.
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably true, but it's not what they tell people immigrating to Australia... they tell you that as an Australian citizen, you MUST vote. (I'm speaking from experience here - for some moronic reason, I decided to become an Australian citizen around 2002 or so. I don't even live there anymore now.)
As for not chasing fines... well, they chased me pretty doggedly when I completely failed to notice a STATE election going on... I can imagine they'd chase a bit harder for a Federal one.
Also, the last el
Leading title? (Score:2)
Umm... can't you... (Score:2)
Not possible in the US?
Institutional psychopat (Score:2)
As a judge, he'll be able to cause even more misery. Be afraid.
Judge?! (Score:2)
This man of dubious character and questionable ethics is being promoted to Judge?! I'd rather he stay with the RIAA where there's still a possibility of sanctions. He'll do far more damage to hapless victims as Judge than any private litigator.
Who is he friends with that got him this promotion? The Governor himself or was he recommended? And shouldn't we attempt to bring this mans ethics, judgment and morals to public light and try and stop this? This would be like promoting Jeffery Dalmer to head a
Misleading Headline (Score:2)
Wait... this guy does incompetent law work - and (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least I hope that's time....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No mention of the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Are you implying the Democrats had anything to say about it? Somehow, I don't think the Democrats and the Republicans are much different on the issue. If you want some indication, look at the PAC money from various lobby groups.
Here is a help with a direct link to the Lobby money from the recording industry.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=C2600 [opensecrets.org]
When you see a Republican in this mess, it makes news. When you see a Democrat, it's buisiness as usual. Be sure to look behind the curtain. Bookmark the homepage.
http://www.opensecrets.org/ [opensecrets.org]
and the Alphabetical listing;
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/alphalist.php [opensecrets.org]
See how your favorite canidate is doing and who supports them.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php [opensecrets.org]
Here is the good one. How is the canidates doing in regard to how the movie, TV, and Recording industry is supporting your canidate. It sure looks they don't care for McCain.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=B02 [opensecrets.org]
With over 3 million each to the Dem canidate and only just over half a million to McCain, you can tell who they want. Follow the money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Favors and influence. With no campaign support (little) they will have very little pull.
"Hey McCain, we need you to not veto bill XXXXX"
"RIAA, take a flying leap. You gave 6X the money to Democratic competitors in the campaign"
They are not going to have much pull with this one, unless they dangle re-election money. If they do, they need to start early.
I'm with you, I think McCain is going to win. There are enough Democrats that either
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)