Mom Fighting RIAA Moves Ahead, Sans Lawyer
from the somebody-call-Matlock dept
The story of the woman fighting the RIAA has taken another turn with the news that she'll be representing herself in the matter from now on. It's hard to figure out exactly what's going on here, with a blog post by her former lawyer saying she couldn't afford pretrial discovery, and that it's clear the RIAA's case is "frivolous", so she shouldn't go to extraordinary means to pay for a defense. This comes a week or so after the judge refused to dismiss the RIAA's suit, and with it the defendant's lawyer's hopes of quickly and cheaply winning the case. When the lawyer first took the case, he talked about charging reduced fees, and how the motion to dismiss was expected to work, adding "We will fight to the end. Anyone who knows me knows that I don't take on something unless I am prepared to fight to the end. Also, anyone who knows me knows that the one thing I can't stand is a bully. The RIAA will give up long before we do, because sooner or later it will dawn upon them that their attorneys are taking them for a ride." He also mentioned he expected the RIAA would eventually have to foot the legal bill in the case. But now, since this early attempt to get the case dismissed without going to trial failed, apparently the cost is too high. What was already an uphill battle has become even steeper for the woman, and the RIAA must be thrilled. It's this sort of thing they bank on: getting people into situations where the "best" solution is just to settle, rather than actually go to court and have to argue -- gasp -- the merits of their case.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
EFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EFF
No, lawyers are not required to do X number of cases with no fees during their career. WTF is that??!!? That's like telling a doctor they should perform X number of surgeries for free because, well, ... they make a lot of money! yeah! right-on!
You're a 'tard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EFF
Gee, what a thoughtful response.
(Some law firms want to appear as helping the community so they ask the lawyers to not bill some efforts.)
She IS be able to defend herself in court - a few years ago a woman was representing herself in court. Will she be successful? Hard to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EFF
well, yeah, that is essentially what happens
>> You're a 'tard.
stop being such an asshole. There was no call for that, dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EFF
Welcome to the club. I got pissed off when a musition I was 'collecting' issued a new CD and I figured out is wasn't all that new. Then the Little Feat CD developed 'silver rot' - I decided "why buy?" and have turned my back on the bastards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EFF
Moving on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever Hear Of Pro Bono?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever Hear Of Pro Bono?
That's not the attorney's fee (which probably could have been pro bono), but actual cash that must be fronted to proceed with the appeal.
There are two fundamental issues here:
1) Copyright and patent laws are a mistake. The founders knew that. The cotton gin was invented in England, and they prohibited its export, in an attempt to keep it solely for themselves. A man who worked at the factory memorized the entire design, moved to the colonies, and put the British cotton gins out of business. If you're ahead of your competition, a copyright or patent just gives you an incentive NOT to stay ahead.
2) We need to force the losers in civil suits to pay the winners' court costs (as the British do). That would make the risks much higher for organizations like the RIAA, that are using the system to wear out their opponents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever Hear Of Pro Bono?
It makes you look like an idiot to state things as fact which are completely made up by yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some lawyer will take it on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Defense Fund
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mom Fighting RIAA Moves Ahead
Perhaps this lady will give her judgement to a fondation, and/or donation for a good cause. If so, an attorney could represent her for it, and clame notiriety too.
What, do I live in a dream world.
btw.. Have you heard about the attorney and the .... (j/K)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretty normal Posture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it
As for why it seems that the burden of proof isn't on the RIAA ... well, you've got me. Let me know if you ever figure THAT one out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it
RIAA takes some "tums".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it
It's a point that's still up for debate, but it seems like the courts are leaning towards saying no, it's not copyright infringement just to put stuff in a shared folder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rock On!!!
Love,
Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]