Judge Tells RIAA To Stop 'Bankrupting' Litigants 332
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Boston judge who has consolidated all of the RIAA's Massachusetts cases into a single case over which she has been presiding for the past 5 years delivered something of a rebuke to the RIAA's lawyers, we have learned. At a conference this past June, the transcript of which (PDF) has just been released, Judge Nancy Gertner said to them that they 'have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers ... to understand that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it ...' She also acknowledged that 'there is a huge imbalance in these cases. The record companies are represented by large law firms with substantial resources,' while it is futile for self-represented defendants to resist. The judge did not seem to acknowledge any responsibility on her part, however, for having created the 'imbalance,' and also stated that the law is 'overwhelmingly on the side of the record companies,' even though she seems to recognize that for the past 5 years she has been hearing only one side of the legal story."
Re:It's too bad (Score:3, Funny)
I'm thinking of...the old TV show Dinasaurs
Oh, so you're the one.
the most ineffective ask, ever? (Score:4, Funny)
it's terribly critical that you stop it
Leaving aside the incompetence of the statement, does a (mere) judge think that what he/she says will make any difference to the RIAA. After all, they're engaged in a *war* against all these heinous criminals. (ok, irony mode OFF)
Re:With friends like her .... (Score:5, Funny)
This so reminds me of the tobacco cases that, once won, the wining lawyers turned around and sued the very people they represented because they wanted a bigger share of the blood money..
Somehow the Judge chiding RIAA weasels seems like a morality lesson from the Sopranos...
Background (Score:5, Funny)
The judge did not seem to acknowledge any responsibility on her part, however, for having created the 'imbalance', and also stated that the law is 'overwhelmingly on the side of the record companies', even though she seems to recognize that for the past 5 years she has been hearing only one side of the legal story."
I'm going to need a little bit more explanation that isn't in TFA. The judge has been presiding over a trial for 5 years in which only one side is allowed to speak? Is this the result of some RIAA-lobbyist induced law that says the other side doesn't get a say, or for some reason did the judge declare the other side didn't get to talk in this case? Are the next five years of the court case going to be "Now the RIAA doesn't get to talk, defendants only."?
Re:It's too bad (Score:5, Funny)
I'm still trying to figure out how to tell if a file I want to download is one its creator wants me to have, or one that may get me sued and bankrupted.
Simple, every legit MPAA movie I've ever acquired has had a copyright notice at the start. So if doesn't have one, it must be free to share.. right?
With replies like this .... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:gay nigger judge (Score:2, Funny)
Since when does /. allow posting from jail. Get these fucking racists off of here.
Racism isn't illegal, and, as Nancy Gertner is not black, he's probably just a random jerk trying to disrupt communication.
Re:Why should copyright-breakers have it easier? (Score:3, Funny)
Dear Sir/Madam,
We here at the Australian Recording Studios Enterprise Homes And Technology Section (ARSEHATS) are hereby serving you notice that on this day (Wednesday 29th of October, 9:44am) you did willingly and knowingly distribute content online to which the copyright belongs to our organization. An except of this copyright material has been reproduced below for your convenience;
As you can see, this is clearly copyright infringement. Due to the Winnings Rightly Obtained Now Guidelines law (WRONG law 2008) which you yourself recommended this very day, we have been awarded a default settlement of $150,000 AUD (~$110,000 USD) per character of your infringement- this totals to $450,000 AUD (~$330,000 USD).
Due to the nature of the WRONG law, your guilt in this matter has been pre-determined and, naturally, there is no avenue of appeal for this verdict. As you are well aware, such a thing would clog our court system with unnecessary attempts by criminal pirates to weasel their way out of heinous crimes- instead, it's far better to just get what we want by default without having to prove it in a court of law, unlike everyone else on the planet.
You have 48 hours to reply.
Sincerely,
ARSEHATS.
Re:It's too bad (Score:2, Funny)
Nobody downloads them. Logical fail.
Ah, but how many times did nobody download them?
10,000 times, that's how many.
Re:With friends like her .... (Score:3, Funny)
um, why "coder"? why not "lesbian cyborg" or "zombie jesus"?
i mean, if we're going to ignore the GP's point and play mad libs instead, then at least be a little more creative about it.
Re:gay nigger judge (Score:3, Funny)
Who knows ? 'Nancy' might even be a woman ! But then, this is the internet.
Re:Judge did not create the situation... (Score:3, Funny)
So you're saying breaking the law is equivalent to wearing short dresses and makeup?