Slashdot Log In
RIAA Victim Jammie Thomas Gets a New Lawyer
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed May 20, 2009 07:10 AM
from the whiz-kid dept.
from the whiz-kid dept.
newtley writes "Only days after Brian Toder, her previous legal representative, had decided discretion was the better part of valour, leaving her fend for herself against the RIAA, Jammie Thomas says another lawyer has come forward with an offer of pro bono help. He's K.A.D. Camara from Camara & Sibley in Houston, Texas, says Jammie. And, 'He's the youngest person in history to graduate from Harvard Law school with honors,' she points out. Nor will her retrial be delayed, as was expected. It'll now go forward in June 15, as slated. 'I'm so happy!' Jammie said."
Related Stories
[+]
Jammie Thomas May Face RIAA Trial Alone 143 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "With her trial coming up on June 15th, Jammie Thomas has received a motion by her lawyer to withdraw from the highly publicized case, Capitol Records v. Thomas. Ms. Thomas said in a written declaration (PDF) obtained from her by her lawyer that she was not opposed to the lawyer's withdrawal, and waived any hearing on the matter. The court papers submitted by the lawyer (PDF) also indicated that the RIAA was not opposed to the withdrawal — i.e. it graciously consented to Ms. Thomas having no legal representation — but was opposed to any continuance (i.e. the RIAA wants to make sure that Ms. Thomas does not have sufficient time to find other legal representation, or to prepare to handle the trial herself, or to enable new counsel to prepare to handle the trial). Nice of them."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Nesson & Camara Increase Attack Against RIAA 193 comments
eldavojohn writes "We talked about Charlie Nesson of Harvard Law School before, and it may not have been known to you, but he is backing former student and Jammie Thomas' new lawyer, K.A.D. Camara. Ars is reporting that Nesson is upping the charges against the RIAA. Not only is file-sharing fair use, but the $100,000,000 the RIAA has collected through fear is due back to those wrongly accused. He's also increasing the number of fronts he's fighting. On Camara's website, he indicates that in another case, Brittany English (pro bono), they 'are asking the courts to declare that statutory damages like these — 150,000:1 — are unconstitutional and that the RIAA's campaign to extract settlements from individuals by the threat of such unconstitutional damages is itself unlawful, enjoin the RIAA's unlawful campaign, and order the RIAA to return the $100M+ that it obtained as a result of its unlawful campaign.'"
[+]
Court Asked To Strike All MediaSentry Evidence 204 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Capitol v. Thomas, the RIAA's Minnesota case scheduled for trial on June 15th, the defendant's new attorneys have filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence procured by MediaSentry, on the ground that it was obtained in violation of state and federal criminal statutes. The defendant's brief (PDF) accuses MediaSentry of violations of the Minnesota Private Detectives Act, the federal Pen Register and Trap and Trace Devices Act, and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. The motion is scheduled to be argued on June 10th."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Camara Goes On Offense Against the RIAA 316 comments
whisper_jeff writes "Ars has an excellent write up outlining how Kiwi Camara (Jammie Thomas-Rasset's new lawyer) is following the 'Best Defense is a Good Offense' philosophy and going on the attack against the RIAA. Not content to just defend his client, he is laying siege against the RIAA's entire campaign and beginning the work of dismantling it from the bottom up, starting with the question of whether they actually do own the copyrights that were allegedly infringed. And, if you're thinking this is good for everyone who's been harassed by the RIAA, you'd be right — Camara, along with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, plans to file a class-action suit seeking to force the RIAA to return all the (ill-gotten) money they've earned from their litigation campaign."
We first discussed the efforts of Nesson and Camara to thwart the RIAA last month.
[+]
Your Rights Online: $1.9 Million Award In Thomas Case Raises Constitutional Questions 439 comments
Techdirt points out that the EFF is examining the constitutionality of the recent $1.9 million verdict awarded in favor of the RIAA against Jammie Thomas. While on the surface it may seem that this excessive award should be easy to overturn since grossly excessive punitive damage awards are considered to violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court seems to have been ignoring precedent and upholding copyright's importance at any cost. "Given the size of the statutory damages award, Ms. Thomas-Rasset's legal team will likely be seriously considering a constitutional challenge to the verdict. A large and disproportionate damage award like this raises at least two potential constitutional concerns. First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that 'grossly excessive' punitive damage awards (e.g., $2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as 'new') violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution. In evaluating whether an award 'grossly excessive,' courts evaluate three criteria: 1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions, 2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award, and 3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations. Does a $1.92 million award for sharing 24 songs cross the line into 'grossly excessive?' And do these Due Process limitations apply differently to statutory damages than to punitive damages? These are questions that the court will have to decide if the issue is raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset's attorneys."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Young lawyer != good lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm happy for Jammie that she got a new, free lawyer. But haven't we learned already that free isn't always a good thing?! If I was going up against the RIAA I would like someone with large amounts of experience, who knows all the tricks of the trade, and who knows how the RIAA fights.
Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (Score:5, Funny)
That depends, is this lawyer free as in speech or free as in beer?
Parent
Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (Score:5, Funny)
That depends, is this lawyer free as in speech or free as in beer?
Let me rephrase that: can we fork him?
Parent
Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
From his Wikipedia article:
"A gifted child, he wrote a medical paper on alternative treatments for rheumatoid arthritis at age eleven,[1] which was published in the Hawai'i Journal of Medicine.[2] At sixteen, having skipped high school, Camara earned a Bachelor of Science in computer science from Hawaii Pacific University.[2] He completed the program in two years and was singularly recognized by the university for outstanding academic performance."
Yes, he's just 25 and perhaps could have more experience. But anyhow he seems a pretty smart guy. And note that he is the senior partner in his own law firm.
Parent
Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
"Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill"
-- Attributed to John Barrymore
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he had to start his own law firm because no-one would hire him. Having his own firm isn't exactly an indication of anything other than he has the money to pay for an office and a phone line.
Maybe he wrote his own Wikipedia article too, it's far from the first time that happened. Anyway, I hardly think Wikipedia is the best place to start looking for info on someone who could get you a long prison sentence if they screw up. It's probably t
Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
This just snells like he is trying to take advantage of the situation to get some free exposure (In my opinion of course). That is not always in the best interest of the accused.
He is taking the side opposite of corporate fatcats, people who could potentially employ him for large sums of money. If he's doing this for the dough, he's not very smart.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He is taking the side opposite of corporate fatcats, people who could potentially employ him for large sums of money. If he's doing this for the dough, he's not very smart.
You can piss off the corporate fat cats; if you beat them senseless in court, then they will immediately see the merits of hiring you. If they see a need for you, they'll hire you in a second. With that said, 99.9% of the "fat cats" have lawyers on retainer and/or their very own legal staff.
Also, this guy is apparently quite intelligent. Maybe he is actually smart enough to know there's more to life than money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any lawyer that passes the bar can start their own small firm and be a senior partner init. That doesn't mean that they have lots of money, or even lots of clients.
Non-PC shorthand (Score:5, Insightful)
Many blacks refer to each other and themselves as niggers.
Non-whites can actually (usually) get away with using the term. Whites can't, but that's because whites are, by definition, racist.
Not all black people think this way, but the word nigger is not necessarily racist. At least this guy is willing to post his raw brain dumps with a warning instead of a whitewash. Maybe he has prejudices, maybe he was just writing as fast as he could during the lecture.
FWIW, I've found that people who recognize their own prejudices generally are less prejudiced in their behavior than people who don't.
Parent
Re:Non-PC shorthand (Score:5, Insightful)
When blacks use the word "nigger" it implies a common bond, a shared experience of hardship as a result of slavery
Oh give me a fucking break. In my experience, most of the blacks who use the word nigger are spoiled teenagers and 20-somethings of the "me" generation who know absolutely nothing about hardship or history. Most of the older folks who actually grew up during the civil rights movement rarely use the word and don't look kindly upon those that do.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They do it out of their reverance of the black street culture, not in spite of it. In many informal interactions between blacks and non-blacks, it is acceptable for non-blacks to use the word "nigga" but NOT the word "nigger".
Oh bullshit. Kids, regardless of race, say "nigga" because they think they sound cool when they say it. When the hell do kids say ANYTHING out reverence?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is an excellent question, considering that more than half of the people I have met who are TRULY African-American were of Caucasian descent. I don't see any particular reason to call a 5th or 6th generation immigrant to America African-American other than to be Politically Correct. I am third generation myself, but I consider myself to be an American and would never ask someone to call me Czechoslovakian-American
Re:Non-PC shorthand (Score:4, Interesting)
As a 3th generation Irish American I agree.
I am also lacking in white guilt. None of my ansestors ever oppresed them. MY ancestors were being oppresed by the British after Lincoln freed the slaves in this country. Did any of them come over and free my people? Nope.
I know the score. I also know I would rather be a black person cut off from welfare and who has NO education AND a drug adiction problem than to be born in the lower caste in India. Or a pesant farmer in China.
Despite the fact there are some people who are outright racist in America. Some who are a bit edgy about Minorities. There are plenty of oprotunties and plenty of people who don't care what you look like. The internet helps with this. I work from home and no one knows my sex or age or skin color or religon.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the convention. Refer to them as black, but only if their appearance or ethnicity is pertinent to the discussion at hand. It's not hard.
Clearly you and I both have an interest in the existence of a convention. We're just not entitled to a vote on what that convention is. With few exceptions, any white person
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's wrong with saying "He's about 6' tall, slightly chubby, black, and wears glasses."? Given context, there is nothing to offend.
If you were going to describe him simply with "He's black.", and he isn't the only black person in your place of work, then you're at risk of causing offence; and at risk of being labelled racist.
When I was growing up, almost everyone was white, so using the term "darkie" was acceptable. These days, not so much. Even though it was conceived as a friendly term, and people took
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How about referring to the guy in the office next to yours by his name.
Yes, because that always works.
Me: "My buddy from work is gonna meet us at the Star Trek move; he'll probably get there before me. "
Friend: "That's cool, I'll give him his ticket. What's he look like?"
Me: "um... his name is Ken?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
B: Sends photo/video of Ken.
B: That's Ken.
In the future you might only have to "think" to send the message. Almost like telepathy. You might even have artificial "photographic memory", so you can recall and send.
Of course the folks in the RIAA, MPAA and Big Media would probably want DRM installed, and that would not be so good.
The tech will be here soon. I hope the laws get better.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sniggering right now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're "concerned" that you can't call black people whatever you want,
That's not what he said or implied. I think he's a bit confused, granted, about the history of meanings the slang word in question has compounded onto its original meaning (i.e. cognate with "negro", and lacking in any pejorative intent). That the word gained those meanings early on in its history is precisely what upsets people when it's used. That that set of meanings has passed us by in most parts of the world, and has been reclaimed by those it labelled is why it's not as loaded now as it was.
I grew up
Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
In his first year at Harvard, Camara was involved a racial controversy that would gain attention from the national media. Like many students, Camara posted his course outlines to a popular student-run website. Camara's, however, referred to blacks as nigs. For example, to summarize Shelley v. Kraemer, he wrote "Nigs buy land with no nig covenant; Q: Enforceable?"[7] The notes were prefaced with a disclaimer that they may contain racially offensive shorthand.[7]
The case was about a line in the covenant on the piece of property a black man purchased. In it, it said that "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" could not own the property. Camara was very aware of his wording in his notes, and used "nigs" as shorthand.
The word obviously carries the same impact as the law's phraseology, is quick to write down, and functions as a memory-jogger for the full, real quote. His notes were no more offensive than the actual law--they were just not politically correct.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What, precisely, constitutes a bigger problem than exploitation? Granted, there may be more important cases of exploitation than RIAA suing defenseless people. Sometimes, you have to just pick your fights, because you can't fight all the battles. Apparently, this guy thinks he has an angle on this particular fight, so he's going to try to make a difference. There isn't much point in him going after, say, pirates in Somalia, after all. Or maybe the rapists and killers in other parts of Africa. He can't
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> The 10s I think will be the information revolution decade.
The 10s will be the decade where we see the struggle and balance between the incredible power of all-seeing technology used for both fascist control of every aspect of our lives and for the freedom to exchange knowledge and associate in ways never before possible.
I hope the good guys win, because George Orwell only had the slightest idea what would be possible with todays technology.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder why he's "wasting" his time fighting bullies like RIAA in court instead of doing something really useful by trying to solve humanity's biggest problems.
He's seems pretty smart. Perhaps he has identified the RIAA as the biggest threat to humanity?
Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Getting 'free' stuff from Kazaa and sharing it back was definitely not in her best interest in past.
I wonder if, once he heard details from her, he will too bail out. His free services look like visibility stunt where he expects to win based on RIAAs tendency to sue innocent people. Only thing he can chew on and pull a win is the fact that MediaSentry evidence is not valid for court.
Re: (Score:2)
Only thing he can chew on and pull a win is the fact that MediaSentry evidence is not valid for court.
Maybe he has chosen this as the case that will make his name, and is planning to take it to the supremes [usatoday.com].
I'm just speculating wildly; surely it can't be that the RIAA just pisses him off?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the more famous similarly fought cases was two individuals against the might of McDonald's (http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/) - this makes informative reading.
Not US law, I know, but 'the tricks of the trade' aren't that different from 'cunning' and some
Re: (Score:2)
Age and experience has it's place. Generally, I will opt for that experienced older guy. But, here we are dealing with technologies that a lot of older people didn't grow up with. We are dealing with cultural values that didn't exist when some of the older people were growing up. Assuming this young guy to be tech savvy, he may be the best thing to happen to Jammie. I wonder why, exactly, he is taking the case. Maybe he is about to start a crusade against the oppressive laws being brought into existen
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (Score:4, Interesting)
This should be very interesting. K.A.D. Camara is not only a very bright young lawyer, he also has credentials in computer science and would probably be accepted by the Court as an expert witness on the technology (except for the conflict of roles). Not that he would do that. Just that he could do that. There is no question that he is going to be more knowledgeable about the technology than any other lawyer or judge involved in the RIAA cases. If Camara wants to rapidly establish himself as THE expert on IT law, this pro bono work is an excellent start. The RIAA lawyers should be afraid. Very afraid. For whatever his reason might be, they are now facing a crusader who knows the landscape better than they do.
Also, unlike the first trial, this time he will have an expert witness, thanks to the grant Jammie received from the Free Software Foundation enabling her to hire an expert. See Expert Witness Report of Prof. Yongdae Kim [blogspot.com].
Parent
Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I'm worried about the lack of preparation time that the new lawyer has. He has to familiarize himself with all of the previous casework, as well as come up with a defensible position. (All in his free time too...)
I guess we'll see how it turns out pretty quickly.
Parent
Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
I speculate that he already has a plan, and is familiar with the case. If you're paying attention to sci-tech or legal news you can't miss extensive, continuing coverage of the RIAA farce.
When an industry has to stoop to suing its customers, you know it's on the way out.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
while the lawyer may be pro-bono... doesn't she still have to meet other court costs for filings etc.? The RIAA can still exhaust their resources by flooding them with motions and other tomfoolery...
That didn't take long (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like he has a bone to pick. This guy's smack dab in the middle of the age range most concerned about and most knowledgeable about the issues at hand. He's obviously smart. The RIAA has been flailing left and right, so there's even hope.
Bias... (Score:2, Insightful)
Pro bono doesn't mean out of charity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. If you represent a client pro bono, that means that client won't be paying your fees. If you qualify for the various exceptions to the US rule that parties bear the cost of litigation, you can still take advantage of fee-shifting rules.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From the lawyer's website: (Score:5, Informative)
"With Professor Charles Nesson of the Harvard Law School, we are defending Brittany English, a junior and cheerleader at Case Western Reserve University in a prosecution brought by the recording industry under the Copyright Act for allegedly illegal music downloading and sharing. Brittany is counter-suing the Recording Industry Association of America, its members, and the individuals who organized its litigation campaign.
Armed with the threat of $150,000 in statutory damages per illegal download (a $1.5M judgment in a small, 10-song case, where the actual damages are about $10, the price of 10 songs on iTunes), the recording industry has obtained more than $100M in settlements from individuals like Brittany. We are asking the courts to declare that statutory damages like these â" 150,000:1 â" are unconstitutional and that the RIAAâ(TM)s campaign to extract settlements from individuals by the threat of such unconstitutional damages is itself unlawful, enjoin the RIAAâ(TM)s unlawful campaign, and order the RIAA to return the $100M+ that it obtained as a result of its unlawful campaign."
gentlemen... (Score:5, Funny)
Pro Bono (Score:5, Funny)
I, too, am pro Bono.
But those glasses? Come on...
Liberté,égalité (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in the UK the majority suddenly seem to have woken up to what their "elected representatives" have done in their name, and unexpected people we know are pretty cross about it. In the US, the RIAA affair is, quite literally, a slide into Fascism - a state in which corporations enjoy special privileges and are part of the Government. Here is a 25 year old lawyer actually saying this on his website, that the behaviour of the RIAA is unConstitutional. Either he's hoping to be bought off after the case (cynical) or he has ambitions for a career in politics (much less cynical).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about NOT stealing your music? (Score:4, Funny)
With a name like "Anonymous Coward", you look down on whiny snotnoses? Stop whining anonymously, you - you - you COWARD!!
Parent
Re:How about NOT stealing your music? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the parasite music companies engage in price fixing, payola and racketeering in order to steal our money. They profiteer off artists by the same corrupt methods. Because they lobby the government they get away with it. They steal from us as much as humanly possible. It's the kind of relationship THEY created. Now that they are getting the short end of the stick and the universe is balancing out they are crying like a bunch of little babies. Screw them let them starve if they all go out of business the world will be a better place.
Ask how much of the money the RIAA has won they shared with the artists.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is what makes the RIAA so outrageous.
They want to have a wet-dream of pay by the minute for you RENTING your own stuff, and transfer fees for putting it on your devices.
This is, by definition, rent seeking.
Hey, I just noticed something...The RIAA doesn't have much real competition does it?
What if the RIAA had to fight with a rival for its dough?
RIAA "Victim"? (Score:5, Funny)
How is this bitch a "victim"? She stole 10s of dollars worth of music from billionaires. Damn injun.
Parent