Agreed. That's why I noted the ethics rules are for the "obviousness impaired." We have to take ethics CLE units as well, which my dad notes are silly -- you can't *teach* an adult ethics. They got it or they don't.
Oh, it's an ethical duty ... for obviousness-impaired lawyers.
The CA Rule: B&PC 6068(m) and CRPC 3-500 are essentially the same as MR 1.4(a). Each requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the representation and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
* * *
ABA Model Rule 1.4: Communication
(a) A lawyer shall:
(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules;
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished;
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and
(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Have you ever heard of lawyers telling their own clients that they don't want the client to have records of lawsuits filed by that client "in case something happened"?
Damn that pesky ethical duty to advise your client of significant developments ...
Mike thinks people should have free speech and not be subject to the whims of an outdated, desparate industry trying to hang on to a legacy business model!
Wow. Notwithstanding the spelling, an actual statement of generally true fact.
I have dealt with the NYT over claimed copyright issues regarding its content. What I surmise as a result is:
The NYT Legal Dept. is focused on 1) Protecting the NYT brand and content, without any thought whatsoever to the big picture; and 2) justifying the legal department's own existence, which includes sending at-times meritless threat letters.
They also have shown a penchant for black/white thinking; refusal to negotiate or consider circumstances; and for making absolute threats of suit, but rarely actually pulling the trigger and suing.
"I'm not sure how anyone could claim that the mere use of Wget constitutes a form of hacking ..."
Because if the telcos did not claim the reporters hacked the information, then they are tacitly admitting they posted the personal info of 100+k people openly online. And that's a pretty big oops.
1. Minecraft is a violent video game. You must kill mobs to survive.
2. My best friend likes a high-res Minecraft texture pack and is hell bent on killing mobs. I stick with a 64x res pack and hide from mobs in a hole at night.
3. He sometimes gets drunk and wants to start a fight. I do not.
Therefore, using hi-res texture packs on the violent game of Minecraft has been shown to make people more violent than those who use lower res, video-card-heat-friendly texture packs.
I thought I recognized the name at the outset ... Yup, he's the guy who registered stetson.com and an parked a picture of his dog "Stetson" there. Impetus for the cybersquatting act.
He was a big deal in law school 1999. We owe him a debt of gratitude in sort of the same way we owe the rapist Mr. Miranda.
IANALP but I understand that if the sole question is who owns the copyright in a work (rather than infringement issues), then that does not confer Federal jurisdiction. Pretty much everything else related to copyright is exclusively fed.
For many, many people, the incentive to create is not because of money, but because they can't not create.
This is the part that I think needs to be stressed to death. Most people who create do so because they have to; getting paid for it is a great perc when you can get it.
The idea of copyright as incentive to create is bullshit, and the people who say that are clearly not persons who feel the compulsion that creators do.
I'm so thrilled to have lived long enough that high quality video, animation, and recording studios can be had by us commoners with little overhead, and generate pro product. (When I started, a 2-oscillator 5-voice analog synth was $5k, in 70s bucks. Yikes!)
...objecting makes good legal sense, all the more so when you know the only way you'll get the client out of this is through a technicality, not the facts.
I can see the thinking of Gibbs' counsel here.
1) If we don't object, then the objection is waived
2) Objections belong to counsel, not the party/subject of motion, so it shouldn't reflect badly on Gibbs [!] (sure, the Court has to rule on every objection, but...)
3) We're doing our job (true... but which includes discretion)
4) Dude, Gibbs is already in the doghouse here. What's the worst that could happen?
This does have potential for abuse, but it also requires some hoop-jumping before one can serve via social media. And...
There's a hierarchy of service. 1) personal service -- usually you have to try three times before attempting 2) substituted service, in which you serve someone of apparent authority at the defendants' abode, etc. If that doesn't work, then we get to things like 3) service by publication. That's where you post notice in a paper nobody has ever heard of, including the defendant. So the defendant likely doesn't know he's been served.
Being served by publication, then defaulted for not knowing about it, is bad. So in that light, if the defendant is truly unaware that the papers are coming (which does happen), service by social media would seem a better option. Plaintiffs generally want the defendants to know they are being sued. Too many ways for a defendant to get out of it otherwise.
One would hope that the Courts would first ensure that the process server has exhausted a few sub-service attempts before jumping straight to the social media world. That's judicial latitude stuff, though, unless written into the statue.
So I get it -- both sides. Again, one of those things that could be a good thing, if it's done right; a nightmare if not.
On the post: Prenda's Former Porn Client Comes Forward About His Fears Of Working With Prenda
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Prenda's Former Porn Client Comes Forward About His Fears Of Working With Prenda
Re: Re:
The CA Rule: B&PC 6068(m) and CRPC 3-500 are essentially the same as MR 1.4(a). Each requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the representation and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
* * *
ABA Model Rule 1.4: Communication
(a) A lawyer shall:
(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules;
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished;
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and
(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
On the post: Prenda's Former Porn Client Comes Forward About His Fears Of Working With Prenda
Damn that pesky ethical duty to advise your client of significant developments ...
On the post: GMacGuffin's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: Filmmaker Behind The Pirate Bay Documentary Says Bogus DMCA Takedowns Take Away His Free Speech
Re:
Wow. Notwithstanding the spelling, an actual statement of generally true fact.
On the post: Prenda Lawyer Says Georgia Court Should Ignore Judge Wright's Order Because... Look! Hackers!
Chewbacca Defense
On the post: New York Times Tells Startup It Can't Even Mention The NY Times
NYT Legal Dept. MO / Perverse Incentives
The NYT Legal Dept. is focused on 1) Protecting the NYT brand and content, without any thought whatsoever to the big picture; and 2) justifying the legal department's own existence, which includes sending at-times meritless threat letters.
They also have shown a penchant for black/white thinking; refusal to negotiate or consider circumstances; and for making absolute threats of suit, but rarely actually pulling the trigger and suing.
On the post: Reporters Find Exposed Personal Data Via Google, Threatened With CFAA Charges
Pure Half-Assed CYA ...
Because if the telcos did not claim the reporters hacked the information, then they are tacitly admitting they posted the personal info of 100+k people openly online. And that's a pretty big oops.
On the post: Quack Professor Releases Dumbest Violent Video Game Theory Ever
Minecraft as empirical evidence of validity ...
2. My best friend likes a high-res Minecraft texture pack and is hell bent on killing mobs. I stick with a 64x res pack and hide from mobs in a hole at night.
3. He sometimes gets drunk and wants to start a fight. I do not.
Therefore, using hi-res texture packs on the violent game of Minecraft has been shown to make people more violent than those who use lower res, video-card-heat-friendly texture packs.
Proven.
On the post: Bus Company Threatens Redditor With Lawsuit, Meets Ken White, Runs Away
Thank you Mr. Toeppen
He was a big deal in law school 1999. We owe him a debt of gratitude in sort of the same way we owe the rapist Mr. Miranda.
On the post: Kardashians Allegedly Arguing Copyright Gives Them Rights To Get Their Father's Diary
On the post: Rackspace Sues Famed Patent Troll For Breach Of Contract
Judge's law clerk must have needed to break in a new thesaurus .
On the post: Leaked! MPAA Talking Points On Copyright Reform: Copyright Is Awesome For Everyone!
Must Create...
This is the part that I think needs to be stressed to death. Most people who create do so because they have to; getting paid for it is a great perc when you can get it.
The idea of copyright as incentive to create is bullshit, and the people who say that are clearly not persons who feel the compulsion that creators do.
I'm so thrilled to have lived long enough that high quality video, animation, and recording studios can be had by us commoners with little overhead, and generate pro product. (When I started, a 2-oscillator 5-voice analog synth was $5k, in 70s bucks. Yikes!)
The future rocks! (MPAA, not so much.)
On the post: Disappointing: Tim Berners-Lee Defends DRM In HTML 5
Re: Re:
I agree the doors aren't shuttered at AdobeFlash, but its future? Moribund it seems.
On the post: Disappointing: Tim Berners-Lee Defends DRM In HTML 5
Except for the fact that fewer platforms will support Flash, e.g., iOS, Android Jelly Bean + ...
On the post: Verizon Steps In On Prenda Case; Says Brett Gibbs Never Informed Them Of Judge's Order Killing Subpoenas
Re:
It ain't 1:30 yet...
On the post: Verizon Steps In On Prenda Case; Says Brett Gibbs Never Informed Them Of Judge's Order Killing Subpoenas
Re:
On the post: Prenda's Brett Gibbs Objects To Pretty Much Everything, Including Use Of Hansmeier Deposition
Re: Re: Makes sense ...
Dang that's a good point. Hahahaha too.
On the post: Prenda's Brett Gibbs Objects To Pretty Much Everything, Including Use Of Hansmeier Deposition
Makes sense ...
1) If we don't object, then the objection is waived
2) Objections belong to counsel, not the party/subject of motion, so it shouldn't reflect badly on Gibbs [!] (sure, the Court has to rule on every objection, but...)
3) We're doing our job (true... but which includes discretion)
4) Dude, Gibbs is already in the doghouse here. What's the worst that could happen?
On the post: Texas Legislator Introduces Bill That Would Allow Legal Papers To Be Served To People's Social Media Accounts
On the other hand...
There's a hierarchy of service. 1) personal service -- usually you have to try three times before attempting 2) substituted service, in which you serve someone of apparent authority at the defendants' abode, etc. If that doesn't work, then we get to things like 3) service by publication. That's where you post notice in a paper nobody has ever heard of, including the defendant. So the defendant likely doesn't know he's been served.
Being served by publication, then defaulted for not knowing about it, is bad. So in that light, if the defendant is truly unaware that the papers are coming (which does happen), service by social media would seem a better option. Plaintiffs generally want the defendants to know they are being sued. Too many ways for a defendant to get out of it otherwise.
One would hope that the Courts would first ensure that the process server has exhausted a few sub-service attempts before jumping straight to the social media world. That's judicial latitude stuff, though, unless written into the statue.
So I get it -- both sides. Again, one of those things that could be a good thing, if it's done right; a nightmare if not.
Next >>