Jammie Thomas May Face RIAA Trial Alone 143
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."
Bad case (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not terribly convinced Jammie Thomas is a great case to fight the RIAA with;
Have I misunderstood the paperwork? reading between the lines it appears her lawyer is withdrawing and he is concerned that he has information contradictory to the line of argument his client wants put forward, and as an officer of the court, money matters aside, he feels he cannot go on.
Re:When your lawyer withdraws, you're probably gui (Score:3, Insightful)
Only bad lawyers walk away from a guilty party just because of their guilt. Hell that's what corp. lawyers could paid in the millions for.
More than likely a financial, reputation, personal, or conflicting issue.
where's the support from slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When your lawyer withdraws, you're probably gui (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trying to be a troll, and I happen to dislike (and disagree with) the RIAA and their tactics as much as anyone else here. But....
I suspect you are a troll, but...
1. He is leaving because he hasn't been paid.
2. I have never expressed any opinion about the underlying case; I am not familiar with the facts of this particular case.
Re:When your lawyer withdraws, you're probably gui (Score:5, Insightful)
So which is it?
Re:When your lawyer withdraws, you're probably gui (Score:2, Insightful)
or maybe she is guilty as hell, her lawyer knows it, and didn't want to fight a battle he would inevitably lose badly?
But no, as she is being prosecuted by the record companies, she MUST be innocent right?
Amazing though it sounds, a lot of people DO pirate music, some of them get caught, and a very few of them are stupid enough to try and feign innocence in that situation.
So this is justice in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this the kind of justice we can expect in America? Having your life financially ruined by astronomical damages for copying songs?! How can any sane judge with any sense of justice even allow this to continue?
We all knew stories about backward country with religious zealot wielding harsh laws punishing poor oppressed victim for seemingly trivial offense, but this kind of cases are telling you the America is not that much different, it is just that corporates+money have replaced the religious zealots+dogma.
Re:where's the support from slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe because no one particular feels like supporting someone who, apparently, is
"guilty as charged".
The facts of this case are very hard to dispute. If you read the comments of the jury, the outcome of the case is not in doubt.
I think people are far more likely to support someone who might, actually, not be guilty, or is having their rights trounced upon.
Re:When your lawyer withdraws, you're probably gui (Score:4, Insightful)
MediaSentry is an unlicensed investigator. As such, any evidence they gained is inadmissable.
Lawyers are like arms dealers (Score:2, Insightful)
They play both sides, and cut their losses and run if things get sour.
Our NYCL makes out to be a good guy (and I'm sure he is personally), but don't get confused by the fact that he's defending "our side" of the battle against the RIAA. He won't do anything that isn't in his business interests either. Ethics don't come into it for lawyers.
So yes, this is the state of "justice" in America. It's a business.
(Worth noting that Europe is somewhat unique in the world in this area. While EU justice is far from perfect, the word "justice" does actually mean something *strong*, and your ability to pay has very little bearing on the process. It's one of the aspects of Europe that has survived with high integrity, amid generally falling standards.)
Re:When your lawyer withdraws, you're probably gui (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading the Toder memorandum, it seems that Ja[m]mie's lawyer isn't getting paid.
That's what it's all about. Most lawyers, like most other people, don't like to work if they're not getting paid for it (unless that's what they agreed to do, which he didn't). Lawyers like anyone else have families to support and bills to be paid.
Donation site (Score:5, Insightful)
Why doesn't Ms. Thomas set up a legal fund donation page via PayPal, for example? I'd contribute some funds to this cause. It deserves attention.
Has she sought legal aid? Or the support of the ACLU, EFF or a law school? Her time is running short. This is an unfortunate situation because the likelihood of setting an important precedent very favourable to the RIAA is quite high, now.
Re:When your lawyer withdraws, you're probably gui (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lawyers are like arms dealers (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't personally know Mr. Beckerman, but based on what I've I'd say that ethics enters into nearly everything he does.
Re:where's the support from slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
4. Does she provide a verifiable accounting of the money received? Once her coffers overflow, good for her, but then my money might be better spent on another worthy cause.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree with the way things are working out for Thomas, but don't dare say this lawyer hasn't incurred a very real loss.
Public defenders (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So this is justice in America (Score:3, Insightful)
So don't copy songs if you cannot afford the damages. Copying songs is not necessary to one's life.
That's a separate issue. Even if nobody ever violated this law, the damages allowable under the law are still utterly ridiculous. Bad law is bad law, and bad law needs to be changed.
Re:So this is justice in America (Score:5, Insightful)
I will.
The way it's supposed to work (in the US, anyway) is that when someone creates a work, it's owned by society. However, understanding that people need to eat, they're given an exclusive right to distribute what they create for a *limited* time, the idea being that it will encourage them to keep creating new works, but that the work will revert back to society where it will enrich the cultural pool. Problem is, the whole concept of "limited time" is now one of a mere technicality, as copyright terms extend well beyond the length of the author's lifetime. Apparently, as long as Congress doesn't define the term of copyright as "forever", it's not considered to be at odds with the intent of the Constitution. This is ridiculous.
Distributing a tune recorded by Britney Spears should probably be considered copyright infringement. All of her "work" is recent, and she probably should expect to have at least a few more years of copyright to profit from. Distributing a tune recorded by the Beatles most definitely should not. In the 45 or so years since their songs were recorded, not only have they recouped their production costs, but all four members became fabulously wealthy as a result. There is/was no further need to provide the financial incentive to create for them (especially since half are dead now), and continuing to grant copyright on their works has now become a very real theft (in the literal sense) from society.
Re:Lawyers are like arms dealers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So this is justice in America (Score:3, Insightful)
Which may well have the opposite effect. Whereas if the copyright term were for a moderate period of time (5-10 years) they would actually have a reason to continue to produce new works.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So this is justice in America (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you intending to argue that listening to music that was produced by someone else (at a cost to the producer) is an inherent natural right of human beings and therefore downloading it (without compensation to the producer) constitutes no moral or ethical injustice?
Yes. That basically sums up my opinion.
Real injustice is to restrict the poor from experiencing all the culture ever produced even though it is both technically and economically (the poor can afford to pay for the copying himself by using file sharing) possible. Of course, we don't want the creators to not get paid anything for their work, but keeping a pay per copy system is simply unproductive in a world where we can make copies so easily. It is nothing more than destructive luddite behavior.
If you're a programmer, have any juicy source code for me to look at?
You can take a look at a couple of the plugins written for the SRS program of anki. I have written this program [godiscussions.com] that help you to memorize go games. But I really don't feel like spending time uploading the source code to it right now unless there is some real demand for it. There is also this program [bredband.net] (includes sourcecode) which I use to track tv episodes I have watched. It is a really outdated version so don't expect it to work for updating against the internet. But I did provide the source code so you can work it from there. I simply just picked something that was easily on my home page account.
As for source code produced for companies I work for. I won't share that here. Not because I care personally. I would gladly share it. But I could get in some real trouble for it, and while I do believe in civil disobedience, you have to weigh risk and reward.
Also, I don't really see the point of this exercise. File sharing is about copying information that has already been put out to the public and without wasting time or resources from the original creator. That is basically the opposite of me publishing never before published code (the second link) and spending time doing so.