RIAA robs student of life-savings

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Whether or not its underhanded has nothing to do with whether or not its legal.

Sure, they're shafting a kid they caught on a technicality. But that doesn't mean they have to get everybody else either.

Jesus man! there is no technicality! he did nothing wrong in the first place. RIAA action was pratically blackmail

'Practically' blackmail?

It was Blatant and Outright Extortion, Chigago-Gangland-style! What next, concrete shoes?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

The Wall of Ignorance is strong in this one.

Axis Kast has always had a "repeat myself and ignore what you just said" debating style, but it seems to be getting worse.

Well Axis isn't worth our time then...

And yes, I'm implying exactly what you probly think I'm implying...

[TrailerParkJawa]

Whether or not its underhanded has nothing to do with whether or not its legal.

Sure, they're shafting a kid they caught on a technicality. But that doesn't mean they have to get everybody else either.

Jesus man! there is no technicality! he did nothing wrong in the first place. RIAA action was pratically blackmail

The RIAA lawsuit was similar to a SLAPP suit. ( Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ). Bascially its when a big company pounds little guys with lawsuits that have no merit to prevent said little guy from speaking out against the big company. Thats what these guys did to this kid. Pure and simple, they had no case, but it would cost him so much to fight it that he didnt have much choice.

[Darth Wong]

Thank the various bar associations of your country, folks. America has the worst tort liability laws in the world. In most civilized countries, a company can't do this because they will get slapped with the defendant's legal fees and perhaps a punitive fine on top of that. But in America, if you have money you can use the law as an offensive weapon.

[Stuart Mackey]

Thank the various bar associations of your country, folks. America has the worst tort liability laws in the world. In most civilized countries, a company can't do this because they will get slapped with the defendant's legal fees and perhaps a punitive fine on top of that. But in America, if you have money you can use the law as an offensive weapon.

When you see things like this, it makes one glad to live in a nation with the British tradition.

[Vympel]

WTF? I'm sorry- did I just hear Lord Wong correctly? My area is Australian law- obviously- you mean you don't have the loser paying legal costs if the court thinks it's appropriate? Outrageous!

[JodoForce]

You heard right and somebody else had already stated this in the first page.

[Crown]

Surely the US leagal system allows a counter-claim of legal fees to be made if the defendant is innocent? Or am I watching too much Judge Judy *chuckles*

[The Yosemite Bear]

RAII: What do you mean all of these over hyped bands are selling bupkis, well what music is still being traded over the internet.
RAII (Comp Geek): Student synthesis original works, and copy's of long dead composers
RAII: Well sue them too

Remind me to put my brother's first album (cut independantly while he was in college) out on the internet.....

He and his friends wrote, composed, arranged and recorded the whole damn thing on school property, and copyied it to CDRs, with their own dust jackets, on the CD cases, for a fraction of the price.

Technically a much bigger threat then Google ever will be.

[Keevan_Colton]

Kast, as strange as it sounds you seem to be getting dumber by the god damned minute you stupid motherfucker.
You dont need a real case to try and sue...only to WIN, but they picked a poor kid because he cant DEFEND himself against it....and prove that thier charge is total fucking bullshit....

So he had to pay them to stop picking on him and fuck off....do also note they didnt care that he only gave the money on the condition that he did not admit to any wrongdoing....its total fucking shit....though no more than you seem to keep spewing Kast.

[His Divine Shadow]

I haven't bought a fucking music CD in my life, thanks to this, I have even less a reason to start.

[Spyder]

I'm not sure exactly how it works but under New Zealand law when you get sued the first thing your lawyer does is issue a demand that if the case is dropped that the plantif pays the defendant's legal fees. That's what happens prior to the matter going to court. If the plantif refuses, the matter goes to court and the case gets thrown out then the judge will order the plantif to cover all legal expenses as demanded by the defending laywer.

Stuart will probably correct me shortly if I've got that wrong.

Telecom NZ (NZ's resident evil corporation) has been known to spend money on opponant's legal fees throughout the years.

[Sea Skimmer]

WTF? I'm sorry- did I just hear Lord Wong correctly? My area is Australian law- obviously- you mean you don't have the loser paying legal costs if the court thinks it's appropriate? Outrageous!

Actually that does happen a fair bit, but mostly with small cases for some reason.

[Durandal]

WTF? I'm sorry- did I just hear Lord Wong correctly? My area is Australian law- obviously- you mean you don't have the loser paying legal costs if the court thinks it's appropriate? Outrageous!

Yes, we do. The problem is that if the poor kid loses, he's in the hole for a lot more than $12,000, in addition to the fees for his own defense.

[Vympel]

Yes, we do. The problem is that if the poor kid loses, he's in the hole for a lot more than $12,000, in addition to the fees for his own defense.

He should sue his lawyers for negligence. They had no case- he should've told RIAA to bring it on.

[Alyeska]

WTF? I'm sorry- did I just hear Lord Wong correctly? My area is Australian law- obviously- you mean you don't have the loser paying legal costs if the court thinks it's appropriate? Outrageous!

Indeed. We do not have looser pays. People argue that it would prevent the "little guy" from sueing big companies because they would be slapped with million dollar fees. What it doesn't take into account is that big companies can use the current system to ground the "little guy" to dust.

[Iceberg]

The RIAA made a huge mistake. People aren't going to see a pirate getting his just desserts - they're going to see a huge, massively corrupt and dying organization, clinging to its last shreds of life, trying to drain the blood out of an innocent bystander whose only crime was being in the RIAA's way when they wanted a scapegoat.

Down with RIAA. Free music.

[RedImperator]

There is a real risk that "loser pays" would scare individuals with legitimate cases against big companies into not suing. However, the problem of tort abuse has gotten so out of hand in this country that may be a price we have to pay--the lawsuit mentality made too many assholes rich for no good reason. It's not fair, but neither is anything else in life.

Tort reform would put a lot of personal injury practices out of business. For non-Americans, let me explain how this works: daytime television in most cities is filled with advertisements for lawyers who promise to represent clients for free and collect nothing if they don't win. These lawyers almost exclusively take cases from people who have been injured--or potentially injured--in some manner, mostly auto accidents, medical malpractice, or slip-and-fall accidents in public places. They usually don't work unless they can sue someone with deep pockets, usually a corporation. The way it commonly works is the same as it worked in this case: because defending yourself in court costs so much, and any plaintiff's attorney reasonably versed in public relations can turn a court case like that into a public-relations fiasco for the corporation involved (thanks, in part, to thrity years of anti-business rhetoric from the left, I might add), the defendants settle out of court, usually for far less than the plaintiff would have recieved had he recieved a jury award, but with no risk of losing the case and getting no money at all. Note that it doesn't matter how strong the plaintiff's case is, or if the plaintiff has a case at all. The money required to buy off most of these people and their lawyers is a pittance to the companies involved, and they don't even pay it--they have liability insurance for that--while a court case may cost millions to litigate and if they manage to get stuck with a stupid and mush-hearted enough jury, they could find themselves walloped with an absurdly huge decision against them (see recent $1 billion+ awards for individual smokers in suits against tobacco companies, which is why we need punitive damage caps too in addition to loser pays). Why do the lawyers represent clients for free? Because they're entitled to a hefty percentage of whatever settlement or award they get. This type of practice is called personal injury law, but they're more commonly referred to as "ambulance chasers", from the popular comic image of an accident victim being hauled away from the scene in the back of an ambulance while these types of lawyers chase after it holding offers of representation.

Loser pays adds a wildcard to the equation--if the company refuses to settle and the jury is unsympathetic (or worse, a judge throws the case out for lack of merit) the plaintiff could suddenly find himself liable for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in legal fees for the other side. How many plaintiffs are going file a baseless lawsuit if they could personally be responsible for that kind of money, and how many lawyers are going to risk their own financial hides by offering to pay the other side's fees if their client loses? Very quickly personal injury law would, theoretically, become limited to cases with actual legal merit. Without punitive damage caps many companies may still be inclined to settle rather that fight, and there will always be a public relations issue.

However, in a situation such as this RIAA case, this kid wouldn't have had to turn over his life savings--he could have quickly found a lawyer willing to represent him for free in exchange for having his fees paid by the RIAA itself after the trial (many out of work personal injury lawyers could, in fact, go into business as roving defense attorneys). The RIAA might still have sued--the money they'd have to pay if they lost would be trivial, and they could still frighten the kid with promises that if they won, he'd be responsible for millions--but the defendant could have taken it to court reasonably sure he was not going to be made destitute for life just for defending himself from a baseless charge.

[RedImperator]

The RIAA made a huge mistake. People aren't going to see a pirate getting his just desserts - they're going to see a huge, massively corrupt and dying organization, clinging to its last shreds of life, trying to drain the blood out of an innocent bystander whose only crime was being in the RIAA's way when they wanted a scapegoat.

Down with RIAA. Free music.

The RIAA is already so unpopular that they no longer concern themselves with public relations. If robbing this kid scares off others who might do the same thing, or better yet, scares your average run-of-the-mill kid downloading files of Kazaa, it's a net gain for them.

As for free music, let's get one thing straight here: artists still deserve to be compensated for their work, either by getting paid for CDs, getting paid to perform a gig at a bar or a club, getting paid to perform a concert, or getting paid for individual MP3 files. The issue here is with record companies who have been gouging consumers and artists alike for years and are trying to use the law to block technological change and restrict civil rights to protect their own profits--the equivilant of blacksmiths and buggy-whip manufacturers lobbying for laws to force automobile drivers to pull over to the side of the road and dismantle their vehicle if a horse approaches.

[JodoForce]

If the RIAA had absolutely no case, why does the student even need to hire a lawyer? Just go up to court by himself and any semi-coherent defense can beat the RIAA!

The two McLibel guys did it. He should have an even easier case, why didn't he at least try? Surely it doesn't cost anything to go up to court by yourself?

http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/index.html

[RedImperator]

If the RIAA had absolutely no case, why does the student even need to hire a lawyer? Just go up to court by himself and any semi-coherent defense can beat the RIAA!

The two McLibel guys did it. He should have an even easier case, why didn't he at least try? Surely it doesn't cost anything to go up to court by yourself?

http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/index.html

A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client, as they say. He'd be taking an enormous risk, and his case ISN'T as clear cut as the McLibel case. Libel law is an area that's been so thorougly examined and studied over the years that a layman with a decent understanding of the law COULD get the case thrown out by a judge without an attorney, and any judge worth his salary is expected to know libel law well enough to throw out a case so clear cut a well-educated layman could see it was bunk--and with all that, this guy was a damned fool for representing himself.

In the case of file sharing, there's practically zero case law, and what case law there is, largely from the Napster case, looks bad for a defendant in a case like this. There's few or no laws on the books and the judges have no precedent to go by. What's worse, many of them don't understand the technology at all and are prone to thinking of electronic data transfer the same way they think of the physical transfer of matter in everyday life, in which case the RIAA's arguments might look like they make sense. 20 years from now, when judges and lawmakers will have grown up with technology, this kid probably COULD have represented himself and won, but to do so now, with no law or precedent to back him up, no guarantee a judge would understand his arguments, and against seasoned lawyers who would use every legal trick in the book against him, would be begging to be fined $100,000 for each time an MP3 moved over that network.

[JodoForce]

You're right of course--a settlement IS supposed to be less expensive than a court defeat. Still...

[RedImperator]

You're right of course--a settlement IS supposed to be less expensive than a court defeat. Still...

Yeah, it's pure shit. If I were a lawyer, I would have picked up this kid's case pro bono. Unfortunately, I'm not, and nobody else seemed to want to do it.

[Iceberg]

The RIAA made a huge mistake. People aren't going to see a pirate getting his just desserts - they're going to see a huge, massively corrupt and dying organization, clinging to its last shreds of life, trying to drain the blood out of an innocent bystander whose only crime was being in the RIAA's way when they wanted a scapegoat.

Down with RIAA. Free music.

The RIAA is already so unpopular that they no longer concern themselves with public relations. If robbing this kid scares off others who might do the same thing, or better yet, scares your average run-of-the-mill kid downloading files of Kazaa, it's a net gain for them.

As for free music, let's get one thing straight here: artists still deserve to be compensated for their work, either by getting paid for CDs, getting paid to perform a gig at a bar or a club, getting paid to perform a concert, or getting paid for individual MP3 files. The issue here is with record companies who have been gouging consumers and artists alike for years and are trying to use the law to block technological change and restrict civil rights to protect their own profits--the equivilant of blacksmiths and buggy-whip manufacturers lobbying for laws to force automobile drivers to pull over to the side of the road and dismantle their vehicle if a horse approaches.

I meant "free music" in the sense of "free music from the grip of the RIAA," not in the sense of "music for free."

[RedImperator]

I meant "free music" in the sense of "free music from the grip of the RIAA," not in the sense of "music for free."

Ah, sorry. I mistook your transitive verb for an adjective. And I'm in the Writer's Guild, I should know better.