Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Victim Jammie Thomas Gets a New Lawyer

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the whiz-kid dept.

The Courts 241

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."

cancel ×

241 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Typo? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28023843)

just noticed her name is "Jammie" and not "Jamie"...

RIAA "Victim"? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024323)

How is this bitch a "victim"? She stole 10s of dollars worth of music from billionaires. Damn injun.

Young lawyer != good lawyer (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28023859)

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 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28023887)

haven't we learned already that free isn't always a good thing?!

That depends, is this lawyer free as in speech or free as in beer?

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (4, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024527)

That depends, is this lawyer free as in speech or free as in beer?

Let me rephrase that: can we fork him?

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (5, Informative)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#28023903)

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.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28023975)

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]

And he's a racist fuck. Fantastic.

Non-PC shorthand (5, Insightful)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024073)

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.

Re:Non-PC shorthand (-1, Troll)

Roxton (73137) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024221)

Non-whites can actually (usually) get away with using the term. Whites can't, but that's because whites are don't have any particular interest or stake in the semantics that govern the identification of black people.

Fixed that for you. Jackass.

Re:Non-PC shorthand (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024353)

whites are don't have any particular interest or stake in the semantics that govern the identification of black people.

They are don't? Shucks, wilbur.

Fixed that for you. Jackass.

Not really. Dumbfuck.

Actually, whites DO have a particular interest and stake in the semantics that "govern" the identification of "black" people. (I would use the phrase "Semantics involved in the", but whatever.) See, we all live here together. So, I'm concerned about the issue. Also, I would like to be able to use the word "Niggard".

Re:Non-PC shorthand (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024463)

Fucking idiot. Of course whites have a stake in what to call those who aren't of pure Caucasian decent. How do I describe the guy in the office next to mine who happens to be of African decent? Is he black? Some people get offended. Is he African American? Others get offended. At least with some terms I know I'm going to offend everyone. Please, just give me a simple easy term to describe people who aren't as white as the driven snow if I'm unsure of where they are from. I don't care how that term is created just created the bloody term.

Plus with the rise of stupid terms such as 'reverse' racism it really does give credence that if you are white you can't be discriminated against. If an inferior non-white job applicant gets hired over a white applicant, that is affirmative action. If an inferior white job applicant gets hired over a non-white applicant, that is racism. I've seen it cut both ways and it is still disgusting no mater the color being discriminated against.

Re:Non-PC shorthand (2, Insightful)

danking (1201931) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024529)

How about referring to the guy in the office next to yours by his name.

Re:Non-PC shorthand (1)

AlecC (512609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024939)

Because you are trying to describe his appearance so someone who knows his name but not his face will recognise him.

Re:Non-PC shorthand (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024585)

Heck, if a superior white male applicant between 25 and 35 gets hired over anything that doesn't fit that description, some people call foul already.

That is not only racist but also sexist and a whole damn lot of other '-ist's as well. Somehow, nobody gives a damn about it.

Re:Non-PC shorthand (-1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024285)

because whites are, by definition, racist.
Hey asshole. First, Pot, meet kettle.
Second, why would you consider whites to be racists BY WHAT DEFINITION? Yours?

Re:Non-PC shorthand (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024403)

Whoosh!

Re:Non-PC shorthand (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024501)

Whoosh!

You might even say... it was wind-bourne!

Re:Non-PC shorthand (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024319)

whites are, by definition, racist

That's a joke, right? Being racist against whites is funny, not serious, right?

Re:Non-PC shorthand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024407)

whites are, by definition, racist

That's a joke, right? Being racist against whites is funny, not serious, right?

To progressives, whites are evil by default; especially white men. To a progressive, a black calling a white a "cracka-ass bitch" is perfectly fine, but a white referring to a black as anything other than "African American" is hate speech. Progressive mindset: only whites can be racist, only men can be sexist. Everyone is a victim of the evil white man.

Re:Non-PC shorthand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024773)

More Whoosh!

Re:Non-PC shorthand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024349)

That's a double standard if I ever saw one.

I grew up in an all white community and only rarely encountered someone of other ethic backgrounds on occasion before I went to college.
I've had friends and acquaintances of several races since then.

Here's how I see things at this point:
If you can be called something by a stranger and you treat it better than you would if a friend said it just because of the race of the person saying it, YOU are the one with a problem.

That's like saying: 'You and Rob are my best friends but you're white so you can't call me by my nickname that Rob and my acquaintances call me by.'

I haven't done anything to merit mistreatment. Most people shouting about discrimination are people that haven't been part of it or are non-minority groups that are disturbed at the government assistance minority groups are receiving due to perceptions that the current generation hasn't had anything that needs 'compensating for' happen to them due to other groups.

So, in short, we're all just people and if you just treat everyone that way, things are much smoother than all this profiling crap.

As for the _topic at hand_, I'm happy that Jammie Thomas has a new lawyer. The RIAA has far stepped beyond its bounds and something is needed to help define that line of how far they can go. This new lawyer is young but extremely intelligent. I'm thinking he's got something clever in mind as he knows what's going on with the RIAA and stepped in anyway.

Re:Non-PC shorthand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024651)

When blacks use the word "nigger" it implies a common bond, a shared experience of hardship as a result of slavery. A white person cannot legitamately share those experiences and that connection, and so can't use the word in that sense.

Think about the (much less offensive) word "yankee". It was originally a slur, adopted for comaradery by the slurred. If a British person had used the word in 177* they would have a hard time claiming that "it's ok because the colonials use it all the time". No dice - you don't share the common experience and understanding so you can't use the word in that sense. At least not without been presumptious or offensive.

Re:Non-PC shorthand (2, Funny)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024837)

Wow, 50 Cent was a slave at one point?

You really do learn something new every day...

Re:Non-PC shorthand (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024971)

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.

Re:Non-PC shorthand (1)

moxley (895517) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024981)

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

You have solved me biggest day to day issue!

I have been getting my ass beaten severely on a practically daily basis when walking through north Philly listing to hip hop on my ipod, singing along as loudly as I can!

Now I understand, it's because I was saying that word and I'm white!!!

The solution is clear.

Now, if I can only find enough shoe polish....

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024315)

Calling someone nigger is not racist. Implying that niggers are less capable as humans while referring to blacks as niggers is. You'd think people whom like to use certain words would put a little more effort into finding the true meaning of those words, but no.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

Forbman (794277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024451)

"We're all niggers in the eye of The Man"

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (4, Insightful)

TarrVetus (597895) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024555)

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.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28023981)

And note that he is the senior partner in his own law firm.

Which basically means shit-all besides that he (1) is a lawyer and (2) has a friend who is a lawyer.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

capt.Hij (318203) | more than 5 years ago | (#28023983)

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.

Did you expect him to be a junior partner in his own law firm? The fact that he has his own firm just means he has a lot of money. 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.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (5, Insightful)

oneirophrenos (1500619) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024061)

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.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024143)

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:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024873)

Maybe he is actually smart enough to know there's more to life than money.

The only problem with that is that you need money to buy all of the stuff that goes along with "more" ;)

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (2, Insightful)

Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- (624050) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024149)

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.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024591)

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (4, Insightful)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024085)

"Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill"
      -- Attributed to John Barrymore

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

Jonas Buyl (1425319) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024137)

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.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024267)

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 win those fights, no matter how noble the cause might be.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

Jonas Buyl (1425319) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024311)

Have you read the Wiki article of the post I was replying to? His talents go far beyond being a good lawyer. He graduated Bachelor of Science at his sixteenth. He's obviously a genius, in my opinion he's wasting his talents on matters that will be unimportant in 20 years time, yet he could be providing significant help to science.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024553)

Have you read the Wiki article of the post I was replying to? His talents go far beyond being a good lawyer. He graduated Bachelor of Science at his sixteenth. He's obviously a genius, in my opinion he's wasting his talents on matters that will be unimportant in 20 years time, yet he could be providing significant help to science.

With all due respect to science and the pure pursuit of knowledge, a damn lot of it doesn't have any major impact on the world now or in 20 years time. Significant changes to copyright will have a definitive impact on hundreds of millions of people and may impact our society for many years to come. Consistent polls now show that the Pirate Party will get a mandate in the European Parliament for Sweden. Could you imagine that 10 years ago? The 90s was the web browsing decade. The 00s the file sharing decade. The 10s I think will be the information revolution decade. I think it's more than a worthy cause. Though lawyering in general, meh...

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (2, Interesting)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024923)

> 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:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

N1AK (864906) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024597)

He's obviously a genius, in my opinion he's wasting his talents on matters that will be unimportant in 20 years time, yet he could be providing significant help to science.

Firstly, it is perfectly possible he is doing this in part because if he wins or even gets the RIAA to stop it is a great early achievement.

Secondly, although I have little interest in this case prosecutions brought about by the RIAA often include some very dubious behaviour. If he continues to fight cases against major business interests who have used out of court settlements like a protection racket, abuse the ignorance of Jurors and Judiciaries by providing 'evidence' so technically complex that they can't see it is flawed and apply for damages based on a formula that is barely understood let alone tested then it's no waste.

It's no fair to judge this action in isolation, if he just uses it to get famous then it'll be a shame. However, if he uses this case as the foundation for further actions to limit the impingement of rights by companies and potentially government then it is time well spent.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024313)

instead of doing something really useful by trying to solve humanity's biggest problems.

He's a Lawyer all he needs to do that is a gun and 1 bullet

=

I used to have a signature but I got board

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (2, Funny)

TimeTraveler1884 (832874) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024493)

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 (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024147)

And note that he is the senior partner in his own law firm.

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 the last place to look actually.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024565)

And note that he is the senior partner in his own law firm.

Taken by itself, that's really nothing exceptional. There are lots of lawyers who are senior partners at their own firm, primarily because they are the only lawyer at their law firm.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024737)

He sounds like fucking MacGuyver. What next, will Story Musgrave join the team as legal advisor/mission specialist/white-water shark tamer?

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (5, Insightful)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 5 years ago | (#28023907)

Well, I am no lawyer nor do I claim to have an extensive understanding of the legal system or law, but I'm willing to guess that free lawyer > no lawyer.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28023929)

Expensive doesn't equal better.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (5, Insightful)

thomasinx (643997) | more than 5 years ago | (#28023967)

Well, the advantage of a free lawyer in this case is that the record company can't just drag on proceedings to rack up expenses until she drops out. (A viable tactic in many lawsuits)

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.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024113)

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.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024215)

Well, the advantage of a free lawyer in this case is that the record company can't just drag on proceedings to rack up expenses until she drops out. (A viable tactic in many lawsuits)

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...

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

supajerm (1415313) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024509)

...but she wont have to rack up another $100,000+ in lawyer fees atleast. I believe this is the best chance she's got right now (not only because he's the only one to step forward and help for free). 1)He seems to be a bright with a quick learning curve 2)Probably as a better understanding of the technology he's getting involved seeings he has a C.S. background as apposed to her previous lawyer. 3)(most important of all)I'm sure he realizes this could really make his firm HUGE if he comes up with a win. So yes, free work, but a BIGGGG upside to dedicating all of his time to the case. [Youngest lawyer to send the RIAA back trembling?? ..we can only hope]

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

Machtyn (759119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024927)

The problem with the RIAA dragging out the case is that there are still court costs and filing fees that need to be paid. Is the attorney or the defendant going to cover this? In either case, the RIAA could still drag this out and cost the opposition "too much" money.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28023969)

The U.S. Gubmint proves that everyday!

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024273)

What the hell is a gubmint?

gubmint, n. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024963)

Anonymous Coward may have tried to be cute:

What the hell is a gubmint?

A dialect pronunciation of "government", in the sense of an organization that makes and administers the law of the land.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

john_roy (1538777) | more than 5 years ago | (#28023977)

But haven't we learned already that free isn't always a good thing?!

I think the guy isn't free as "it's so cheap that's is free". It's "pro bono" free, witch is usually a good thing.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (3, Insightful)

rabbot81 (1557023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28023997)

If I was going up against the RIAA I would like someone willing to stick his or her neck out for me.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024063)

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:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024249)

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:Young lawyer != good lawyer (2, Insightful)

bothemeson (1416261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024083)

Not necessarily true; I won all my criminal court cases (breaking into US and UK military facilities in the UK) - with only 'A'-level law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Level_(UK)) and a bit of luck (which is essential when it comes to law).

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 people have an abundance from the start.

Experience isn't always used (no end of people cannot gain one whit from even their own - let alone other peoples'), I reckon that wisdom is experience multiplied by intellect - if you haven't got the intellect, then no amount of experience will do you any good.

Good luck to them both.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024331)

OT: Ugh, I read the story and got all excited, I read the leaflet and groaned. What an amateurish pile of crap. They obviously don't have any talented graphic artists at greenpeace. And they have it in seven languages, but none of them are US english, where we eat the most McD's. (They use plurals with singular company names, which might be correct in England, but which we sensibly avoid here in the states, and which will make the half-apt reader of US-EN think you're a retard. I can't possibly hand these out in the USA.) Too bad they didn't provide a source document, so that I could correct the errors (on this side of the pond, they are errors.)

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024195)

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 existence by RIAA and freinds? I like the idea, and I hope if that is true, he can find a few dozen freinds like him.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024201)

There have been PLENTY of experienced lawyers out there working against RIAA with mixed reviews. At this time, I agree with her; Take the best and brightest and pray that he figures out a different and interesting way out of all this. In the end, we need more cases to be won against RIAA so that this stops.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (2, Insightful)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024779)

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.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024369)

Funny thing is this just ISNT news in Minnesota... The only updates I hear on the matter are from /. and I read our newspapers religiously.

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024425)

That's why you need the Cirroc, the Unfrozen Caveman Laywer. He's old as dirt itself, and he's damn good. The one thing he does know is sharing music files is not a crime...

Re:Young lawyer != good lawyer (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024623)

But haven't we learned already that free isn't always a good thing?

Quite. They will be trying to collect for her on behalf of all the poor penniless lawyers. People need to learn that pro-bono work threatens their livelihood, the economy and the whole of world civilisation.

That didn't take long (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28023987)

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.

Re:That didn't take long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024333)

Ya, I wonder if the knows about NewYorkCountryLawyer's blog and such. Lots of information on these cases and all the ongoing work, precedents, and other issues.

Bias... (4, Insightful)

pHus10n (1443071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024023)

Look, I hate the RIAA as much as anyone else on this forum, but did we honestly need to resort to that type of summary in order to grab readers? "leaving her fend for herself" -- The lawyer that left was helpful for quite sometime, but has to feed himself (and family?) as well. You're throwing this guy away like he's part of the prosecution or something. He needs to make money like anyone, and she obviously can't pay those kinds of fees. Time for another crusader to shoulder some of the burden.

How about NOT stealing your music? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024049)

Yeah, I know, this will be downmodded by the whiny snotnoses living in their parent's basements.

But what is wrong with BUYING your music rather than stealing it?

Re:How about NOT stealing your music? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024065)

It costs money.

What's your point though? I don't think that anyone has suggested Ms. Thomas was stealing music, or even downloading it without permission.

Re:How about NOT stealing your music? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024269)

"I don't think that anyone has suggested Ms. Thomas was stealing music, or even downloading it without permission."

Well for starters, the jury MORE than suggested it. Even commenters on previous stories admitted that she more than likely did it, based on all the available information.

Re:How about NOT stealing your music? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024367)

Well for starters, the jury MORE than suggested it. Even commenters on previous stories admitted that she more than likely did it, based on all the available information.

How much of the available information was gathered by MediaSentry, and therefore is supposedly not admissible?

Re:How about NOT stealing your music? (2, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024405)

Well for starters, the jury MORE than suggested it.

Nope. They were quite clear that she was making them available. Whether she downloaded them or ripped them from her own CDs didn't factor into their considerations.

Re:How about NOT stealing your music? (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024123)

Stealing my music? How do I steal something I already own?

Re:How about NOT stealing your music? (1)

csartanis (863147) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024293)

It's not stealing.

Re:How about NOT stealing your music? (3, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024297)

With a name like "Anonymous Coward", you look down on whiny snotnoses? Stop whining anonymously, you - you - you COWARD!!

Re:How about NOT stealing your music? (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024347)

Jammie Thomas is a parent herself. Also, nobody has actually proven she has stolen anything. Innocent until proven guilty, you know?

I'm aware basic judicial procedures and fair trials have lost popularity in the US in recent years, but as long as the RIAA doesn't accuse her of terrorism (they just might), she deserves to be assumed innocent.

Re:How about NOT stealing your music? (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024473)

the thing wrong with buying is that it is not free.

Re:How about NOT stealing your music? (4, Insightful)

Atrox666 (957601) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024883)

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.

Pro bono doesn't mean out of charity (5, Insightful)

Jonas Buyl (1425319) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024077)

Pro bono basically means the lawyer is free. This doesn't mean the lawyer doesn't get anything out of the deal though. If I were a young, smart, talented lawyer like him I would try and get some experience and boost my career with a hard high-profile case like this too. Even if it means I don't get a penny out of it right now, the reward will be large in the long run.

Re:Pro bono doesn't mean out of charity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024275)

It's a copyright case. Supposedly, the winning party gets their lawyer costs; so if he wins, he can file for his fees.

Re:Pro bono doesn't mean out of charity (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024417)

It's a copyright case. Supposedly, the winning party gets their lawyer costs; so if he wins, he can file for his fees.

But if it was pro bono, wouldn't that be $0?

Re:Pro bono doesn't mean out of charity (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024469)

No. IIRC, pro bono is a shortened form of pro bono publico, or "For the good of the public". It's a public good for those who are being persecuted in court to have a lawyer, even if they can't afford to pay for a lawyer.

Also, it's generally considered part of being a "professional" to engage in pro bono activities.

Re:Pro bono doesn't mean out of charity (2, Informative)

GreatAntibob (1549139) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024607)

But if it was pro bono, wouldn't that be $0?

Not quite. The lawyer still incurs costs. His own staff has to be paid (by the lawyer, of course). There's a lot of paperwork = copying costs, filing costs, etc. And he's theoretically losing other business by doing this, so there's lost opportunity cost

Pro bono means $0 to his client. It doesn't mean he incurs no costs himself. And if he can work a way for somebody else to pay these costs, more power to him.

Re:Pro bono doesn't mean out of charity (2, Informative)

KiahZero (610862) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024803)

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:Pro bono doesn't mean out of charity (1)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024567)

Pro bono basically means the lawyer is free. This doesn't mean the lawyer doesn't get anything out of the deal though. If I were a young, smart, talented lawyer like him I would try and get some experience and boost my career with a hard high-profile case like this too. Even if it means I don't get a penny out of it right now, the reward will be large in the long run.

Pro Bono doesn't necessarily mean the lawyer is free. It might also mean that the lawyer will only get paid if he wins the case... often when it's like that, it means he'll take a cut of the settlement. I've seen lawyers take cases in exchange for something exorbitant, like 25% of the final settlement. Works out well, really... if they win a $10m settlement, they get paid $2.5m. Not bad for a couple of months' work.

Re:Pro bono doesn't mean out of charity (2, Insightful)

jackbird (721605) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024815)

That's taking a case on contingency, not pro bono.

Re:Pro bono doesn't mean out of charity (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024987)

And how many $10m settlements have you seen lately? Most contingency work do not end up with multi millor $$ settlements.

Re:Pro bono doesn't mean out of charity (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024901)

If I were a young, smart, talented lawyer like him I would try and get some experience and boost my career with a hard high-profile case like this too

What makes you think this is a high-profile case in any circle besides slashdot?

Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024111)

Should have just called for /b/lackup

Re:Sigh... (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024161)

Not sure how much help pictures of lolcats and pedobear will be....

From the lawyer's website: (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024459)

"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... (5, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024515)

may i introduce my new lawyer...crafted from pure win. you will refer to him as "Mr. Busdriver man," because today he's taking you to school.

Pro Bono (5, Funny)

itschy (992394) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024519)

I, too, am pro Bono.

But those glasses? Come on...

Liberté,égalité (2, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#28024617)

I couldn't get the third one in. But, and this is not trolling, something is very wrong in the US legal system when an overbearing plaintiff can arbitrarily claim enormous damages and rachet up a case to the point that the defendant cannot afford to contest it. The old French revolutionary slogan meant "equality before the Law".

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).

Slogan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28024731)

It is "Liberté, égalité, fraternité", which translates to "Freedom, equality, party like a frat boy!" Or that last one might translate to "brotherhood"; can't be sure about those French...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>