Copyright Lawyers Sue Lawyer Who Helped Copyright Defendants

Aug 25, 2009
4,611
0
0
I think the real question here is why people were downloading Far Cry. Seriously, they need mental help, and possibly compensation.

But on topic this is just funny. 'You can't tell people how to defend themselves, that's immoral!' Nice to know that of all the things changing in this world, lawyers aren't one of them.
 

ThreeWords

New member
Feb 27, 2009
5,179
0
0
The man is being sued for teaching people how to defend themselves in court? Isn't that like, the American ideal or something? Each man supporting himself and making his own way and stuff?
 

Asehujiko

New member
Feb 25, 2008
2,119
0
0
Therumancer said:
I don't get this one overall, fundementally what this guy did was charge for legal advice/consultation. He just put the information down on paper and sold that, rather than arranging a face to face meeting. Lawyers charge for legal advice and consultation all the time, it's what they do. I fail to see how a case could be made out of this at all, and I'm usually pretty good at looking at things from all kinds of wierd angles and perspectives.

The best precedent I could come up with is that they are argueing that he's acting as a representitive without being on record/comissioned as one. There are tons of problems with an arguement like that however.
They're suing him for loss of income because they can't sue random people for nothing and expect them to fork over money based on sheer intimidation anymore.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Sniper Team 4 said:
So...this man is getting sued because he's teaching people how to defend themselves in court? Do I have that right? What the hell? It's amazing we don't see more stories about lawyers getting gunned down in the street instead of Walmart employees.
I was going to bring up the picture of Phoenix wight and Edgeworth duking it out with suitcases and then say something witty under it, but when I went too look for it all I got was rule 34 and now I feel too sick to say anything.

OT: LOLOLOLOLOLOLAWYERS. Silly prosecutors, winning is for good lawyers.
 

dragontiers

The Temporally Displaced
Feb 26, 2009
497
0
0
Sniper Team 4 said:
So...this man is getting sued because he's teaching people how to defend themselves in court? Do I have that right? What the hell? It's amazing we don't see more stories about lawyers getting gunned down in the street instead of Walmart employees.
For those asking how it is legal to sue someone for this, it's simple. In America, you can sue anyone for anything, no matter how ridiculous. A judge has the option to throw it out, but you can still sue someone, possibly costing them thousands of dollars in legal fees, over something as silly as, say, singing Christmas Carols at Thanksgiving (not an actual legal example, just something off the top of my head). You just have to hope the judge who hears the case is sensible enough to tell them where to stick their lawsuit. Yes, our legal system does need an overhaul, but unfortunately it's the best we got.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Who the hell would download Far Cry the movie? I mean jesus christ on ice skates
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
AC10 said:
So can anyone tell me what, exactly, he did that was illegal?
Preventing a bunch of bloodsucking lawyers from making money, apparently.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
Commander Breetai said:
AC10 said:
So can anyone tell me what, exactly, he did that was illegal?
Preventing a bunch of bloodsucking lawyers from making money, apparently.
I'm just wondering exactly how in the hell they think they're going to win this.

Persecution's Argument: "HE WROTE A BOOK AND I DIDN'T LIKE IT!!!"

Judge "... Case Dismissed".
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
EightGaugeHippo said:
US law is either too confusing or just too 'tarded for me to understand.
I'm not a lawyer, but took Criminal Justice (with intent of going into forensics) a long time ago. Truthfully it's actually pretty simple at it's basic level. It's people who tend
to make it retarded as long chains of precedents are established.

The basic deal is that we have two seperate legal systems. Criminal cases which are a person against the goverment are handled differantly and have higher standards of proof and evidence than Civil Cases which involved differant courts and have much lower standards. The idea being that a person going up against the collective might of the US goverment needs more protection for things to be fair, than a person going up against another person or private group. In most cases this makes sense.

In Criminal Cases we have a standard of evidence where something must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", they key word being "reasonable" as there can be a doubt cast on anything. What this means is that the goverment has to prove a case to a virtual certainy, even someone who is "very likely" to have committed a crime is to be let free to avoid mistakes. Most countries do not have this level of protection, and this is one of the big reasons why you wind up seeing some rather high profile criminals being let free when it's obvious they committed the crime, all they have to do is introduce a reasonable doubt into the case. A prosecutor can have a perfect case, but if say the defendant pulls out an Alibi that the prosecutor can't disprove that case is meaningless. In the US it can't be say 90% likely
that someone did something we're aiming for that 99% so to speak.

In civil cases the standard goes to "A preponderance of evidence" which basically means whomever can make a better case. The guy who gets 51% wins the case. In some civil cases the standard is "clear and convincing testimony" which basically means evidence isn't nessicarly going to be present or relevent, and comes down to whose lawyer makes a more persuasive arguement, however that gets complicated.

The problem with the US legal system is how we handle precedent, basically when a judge or jury makes a ruling on something it becomes part of our living body of law.

To use a criminal example, the BASIC details of "Mapp Vs. Ohio" is a big one for this involved a case where a bunch of cops looking for a missing fugitive went to the house of Mrs. Mapp looking for the guy with a warrent. They went into the house and searched and couldn't find the guy, but they DID find pornography. Understand that pornography by it's very nature is illegal in the US, most of what is called "porn" is not pornography in a legal sense. There is a very specific standard for getting something declared "porn" and made illegal, it has to be obscene and without any redeeming merit. This being a key element in things like the current Supreme Court case involving video games (which I won't get into, or how it applies). At any rate they used this porn (probably kiddy porn or something they knew was banned) to try and cajole her into spilling the beans on this escapee. She didn't comply and was arrested. In court she complained that they shouldn't have been able to search her house the way they did, since there was no reason for them to toss her place and find her porn stash looking for a fugitive. In this case the Judge agreed with her.

That's a simplistic version, and it's been a while, so I could have the details wrong in places, the bottom line though is that as a result of that ruling the standards for search and seizure in the US changed, and the scope of warrents was carefully limited. For example a policeman with a warrent to find a fugitive can't open a breadbox, and if he does and finds drugs or an illegal weapon it's not admissible (and incidently can't be used to pressure the people in the residence). Later interpetations of Mapp Vs. Ohio lead to further rulings which themselves spawned more precedent, ad infinium. The end result being that our right to "Protection From Unreasonable Search and Seizure", one of our base laws, works far differantly than the intent of the founding fathers and the examples they left behind.

In both civil and criminal cases, arguements oftentimes come down to people argueing precdent vs. precedent to make a case for who is right in a legal sense.

I can't figure out the logic behind this paticular suit, but there are requirements that attorneys have to be on record in most places. You can't in general have a secret attorney nobody knows about for a number of reasons. As amusing as the idea of masked prosecutors, and secret superhero attorneys are in various wierd kinds of fiction, that kind of thing isn't allowed in the US. It's pushing any definition I know of because legal advice is differant from representation, but I suppose some wierd precedent could be used to argue that the paperwork counts as representation when that lawyer isn't on record as representing the clients.
 
Jan 23, 2009
2,334
0
0
Therumancer said:
EightGaugeHippo said:
US law is either too confusing or just too 'tarded for me to understand.
I'm not a lawyer, but took Criminal Justice (with intent of going into forensics) a long time ago. Truthfully it's actually pretty simple at it's basic level. It's people who tend
to make it retarded as long chains of precedents are established.

The basic deal is that we have two seperate legal systems. Criminal cases which are a person against the goverment are handled differantly and have higher standards of proof and evidence than Civil Cases which involved differant courts and have much lower standards. The idea being that a person going up against the collective might of the US goverment needs more protection for things to be fair, than a person going up against another person or private group. In most cases this makes sense.

In Criminal Cases we have a standard of evidence where something must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", they key word being "reasonable" as there can be a doubt cast on anything. What this means is that the goverment has to prove a case to a virtual certainy, even someone who is "very likely" to have committed a crime is to be let free to avoid mistakes. Most countries do not have this level of protection, and this is one of the big reasons why you wind up seeing some rather high profile criminals being let free when it's obvious they committed the crime, all they have to do is introduce a reasonable doubt into the case. A prosecutor can have a perfect case, but if say the defendant pulls out an Alibi that the prosecutor can't disprove that case is meaningless. In the US it can't be say 90% likely
that someone did something we're aiming for that 99% so to speak.

In civil cases the standard goes to "A preponderance of evidence" which basically means whomever can make a better case. The guy who gets 51% wins the case. In some civil cases the standard is "clear and convincing testimony" which basically means evidence isn't nessicarly going to be present or relevent, and comes down to whose lawyer makes a more persuasive arguement, however that gets complicated.

The problem with the US legal system is how we handle precedent, basically when a judge or jury makes a ruling on something it becomes part of our living body of law.

To use a criminal example, the BASIC details of "Mapp Vs. Ohio" is a big one for this involved a case where a bunch of cops looking for a missing fugitive went to the house of Mrs. Mapp looking for the guy with a warrent. They went into the house and searched and couldn't find the guy, but they DID find pornography. Understand that pornography by it's very nature is illegal in the US, most of what is called "porn" is not pornography in a legal sense. There is a very specific standard for getting something declared "porn" and made illegal, it has to be obscene and without any redeeming merit. This being a key element in things like the current Supreme Court case involving video games (which I won't get into, or how it applies). At any rate they used this porn (probably kiddy porn or something they knew was banned) to try and cajole her into spilling the beans on this escapee. She didn't comply and was arrested. In court she complained that they shouldn't have been able to search her house the way they did, since there was no reason for them to toss her place and find her porn stash looking for a fugitive. In this case the Judge agreed with her.

That's a simplistic version, and it's been a while, so I could have the details wrong in places, the bottom line though is that as a result of that ruling the standards for search and seizure in the US changed, and the scope of warrents was carefully limited. For example a policeman with a warrent to find a fugitive can't open a breadbox, and if he does and finds drugs or an illegal weapon it's not admissible (and incidently can't be used to pressure the people in the residence). Later interpetations of Mapp Vs. Ohio lead to further rulings which themselves spawned more precedent, ad infinium. The end result being that our right to "Protection From Unreasonable Search and Seizure", one of our base laws, works far differantly than the intent of the founding fathers and the examples they left behind.

In both civil and criminal cases, arguements oftentimes come down to people argueing precdent vs. precedent to make a case for who is right in a legal sense.

I can't figure out the logic behind this paticular suit, but there are requirements that attorneys have to be on record in most places. You can't in general have a secret attorney nobody knows about for a number of reasons. As amusing as the idea of masked prosecutors, and secret superhero attorneys are in various wierd kinds of fiction, that kind of thing isn't allowed in the US. It's pushing any definition I know of because legal advice is differant from representation, but I suppose some wierd precedent could be used to argue that the paperwork counts as representation when that lawyer isn't on record as representing the clients.
Thanks for that explanation, I was pretty much lost and confused until I saw your post.
 

Twad

New member
Nov 19, 2009
1,254
0
0
RobCoxxy said:
So (in ridiculous terms), lawyers are lawyering a lawyer for his effective lawyering?
It seems its a "crime" to inform people of their rights in one affordable and accesible package, because it means the other lawyers cant take advantage of their ignorance hence making them lose lots of potential money. After all, justice naturally favors whoevers has the most money, right?

That lawyer made one great move to help people with his kit.
THe legal system is one heck of a complicated thing and self-defense is pretty much impossible (you need to make a HELL LOT of research to stand a chance), even in Canada.

Maybe if more lawyers were doing this the system would actually do its job and provide justice for all.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
TMAN10112 said:
okay, let me get this straight.

A lawyer who is selling self-help documents (which show people how to defend themselves in court, rather than hiring a expensive attorney), is being sued by a group of lawyers who are angry that the people who took advantage of his advice don't need to pay them thousands of dollars for something they can now do themselves.

....am I getting this right?
Not quite. It looks like the copyright lawyers forgot about personal jurisidction when they filed, and are now getting their teeth kicked in and are, understandilby unhappy about that.
 

godofallu

New member
Jun 8, 2010
1,663
0
0
You can try to sue over basically anything, but that really doesn't mean you can win.

You have the right to take things that you consider important to court, but you still have a ruling.

In this case they will lose the case, but they probably just want to scare the guy and waste some of his time.