Copyright Lawyers Sue Lawyer Who Helped Copyright Defendants

[Something Amyss]

I can understand to some degree. You have to pay for healthcare, so the price of 'accidents' has to come from someone's pocket, but when it gets to the extent were you can sue people for looking at you funny...

Well, have you ever had to pay for a shrink? That psychological damage he's causing you could cost you!

It's not just insurance, though. The "American Dream" relies heavily on a "jackpot" mentality, and lawsuits are one way to "strike a jackpot."

Not necessarily the smartest, most honest, or best way, but hardly surprising.

 

[Exort]

You guys realize that more than just pirates will come under fire if this guy loses, right? Do you guys like toonami streams (like toonamiaftermath), abridged serieses,and even emulation? Say goodbye to those if this guy loses. Every abridged series. No more DBZ abridged, no more abridgimon, no more yu-gi-oh abridged, no more abridged anything. Ok, the other side has the right to go after pirates, but we all know they go after so much more than that. Ever hear of someone getting sued over too much character likeness? That's probably also going to happen alot more.

First off how do you know they are really pirates? Only the copyright company "claims" they are pirate, it is not the first time somebody sue the wrong person, therefore the people that get sue ALWAYS should have the right to self defend. Sueing a lawyer for defending/helping his client is just plain dumb.

Look, I can claim you are a pirate and sue you, and who ever defend for you so you can't defned youself. You think that is right?

 

[el_kabong]

Wow. The U.S. Copyright Group is looking like a group full of douchebags, or at least the law firm representing them is.

To start off, I am fully against piracy of copyrighted material and the like. It's hard to convince people that these copyright laws aren't just in place for greedy corporations and mega-businesses looking to fleece America using content they've acquired from artists. You know what doesn't help that argument? The fact that copyrights lawyers going after net pirates act like petulant children who brandish the law at potential pirates (or, in this ludicrous case, people who would offer legal advice to said defendants) like it's a weapon. One of the main things these corporations and interest groups can do to curb piracy is approach the problem without opening with threat of legal action. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, as the old saying goes.

I would find it pretty hard to believe that this would stand up in any fashion in court. I'm not a lawyer or even a law student, but it seems to violate some constitutional rights. Mainly the 6th amendment and the Right to Fair Trial, which has precedence as being directly linked to the Right to Counsel (which is what the lawyer in this case was providing).

If it does turn out in the copyright lawyers favor (which is not even a chance, IMO), the first thing I'm going to do is sue a major corporation who's known to have outside legal experts for millions. Then, when the case is thrown out (it should be, as I would make up the grounds of the lawsuit), I will sue said major law firm for millions, citing the case mentioned in the forum as precedence. That should get my student loans paid off.

If I had to utilize this lawyer's service in defense against these copyright lawyers and found out about this case, I would change my legal strategy to include getting a mistrial to be declared on the grounds that the plaintiff (through associated lawyers) are actively trying to interfere with my right to a fair trial by denying me, and other possible defendants the right to counsel.

Again, I'm no law student or lawyer, but I bet they could take the basic premise and run with it until it evolved into a solid strategy.

 

[Please delete this account]

They are just mad because he is making them work for their money.

 

[poiuppx]

So (in ridiculous terms), lawyers are lawyering a lawyer for his effective lawyering?

I was just thinking that. I may be one of the most anti-pirate dudes on these forums, but near as I can figure, this guy is just making it easy and affordable for people to defend themselves legally and vigorously, which is the right of everyone when accused of a crime. Would that law were this quick, easy, and cheap for more people and more topics, the legal system might actually shape up a bit.

 

[Jarcin]

Is it bad that my first thought when hearing about the document was wondering if I could download it?

Seriously though (although the above statement was serious) this is a very...annoying trend in America. At times I want to go to law school, become a lawyer, become a judge, and then look these people in the eye and say "ok and....wait...wait what...are you serious....GTFO my court!"

 

[TechNoFear]

I am so glad I live in a country where my right to privacy is protected (even if I can only buy R18+ games on line, for less than half the price currently, thanks to the high Au$).

If these copyright muppets tried to get my name from my ISP they would be told to take their complaint to the proper authorities (the police).

My ISP will not violate my right to privacy, unless it is proven that I have committed a criminal offence (not just because some third party accuses me of some minor infringement).

Why do US ISP's not protect their customers right to privacy?

 

[Exile714]

I think a lot of you haven't read the court docs and aren't attorneys. It doesn't help that the article doesn't explain the case, but there is a lot of misinformation here.

The lawyer isn't being sued, he's being recommended for ethical sanctions. A big difference here is that the law firm suing the lawyer won't get money if the court imposes sanctions.

The ethical rules the lawyer is accused of breaking are 1) filing frivolous lawsuits and 2) filing a lawsuit without attaching his name to the case. Both rely on the court determining that he is actually representing the defendants by offering advice in the form of a set of forms.

If a lawyer argues a case which has no merit, or in other words is completely without a chance of succeeding, then the lawyer is subject to sanctions. Contrary to popular belief, the US court system does not let a lawyer sue for anything and everything. The lawyer is offering these documents to help people use the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. Such a defense may or may not be frivolous depending on 1) where the client lives and 2) where the court is. If a lawyer were to file such a document on behalf of a client where personal jurisdiction is impossible to contest, that lawyer would be subject to sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Since this lawyer provides the documents without verifying whether personal jurisdiction can be contested, he may be liable for the frivolous filings of those whom he is advising by giving the documents. On the other hand, if providing documents is not considered advice, then he is off the hook for their frivolous defenses.

This is a complex issue and almost impossible to explain in a post like this, but if you're still interested you can read the court filings here: http://torrentfreak.com/hurt-locker-sue-lawyer-who-helped-bittorrent-defendants-101124/.

 

[Broken Orange]

Wheels within wheels, man, wheels within wheels.

It seems like people will sue for anything. But you shouldn't be selling things that aren't your own.

 

[Zannah]

snip

Here's a guy who is offering affordable legal protection against a group of professional blackmailers. Frankly, if there is any legal basis for this outrageous nonsense, that just makes it worse

 

[Jake Martinez]

Our ability to sue anybody and everybody for anything and everything has gotten far out of hand. Can they really do anything against him? I certainly hope not.

No it hasn't.

The idea of putting "limits" on what people can sue for seems really brilliant until you realize that you're not the only person who has an opinion on this matter.

Boy wouldn't it be great if people couldn't sue for medical malpractice. I bet doctors and insurance companies would love that. I mean, really, the things people sue for are so trivial and inane...

This lawsuit is stupid. These guys will lose and are effectively publicizing something that costs them money. Just sit back and laugh at them for being idiots instead of demanding that the government put restrictions on them, yourself, and me, over their idiotic behavior.

 

[Sephiwind]

I would like to point out to these douche bags that they probably are breaking some sort of law if they actualy do double the settlement amount for people who put up a decent legal defence with this package.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Not really surprising.Most copyright cases I hear of demand thousands of dollars even when it is the company that releases the song.To be honest,the C-circle people just want money.

 

[Azrael the Cat]

I'm in the Australian system, not the US, but before we get on with the predictable lawyer hate here, keep in mind that the guy getting sued for helping people out is a lawyer himself. And he was doing a really really decent thing by helping people get access to the justice system - you know, what being a lawyer is supposed to be all about.

I spent years working for a centre that was funded to help destitute and seriously mentally ill folks by giving them legal advice (usually after they'd been medicated enough to be fit to stand trial) and providing representation (sometimes insanity defences - not often, as you basically have to have zero personal responsibility for your actions for the defence to apply - mostly just mitigation on the grounds of reduced capacity, and sometimes straight out not guilty on the facts - it's easy to get falsely charged with a crime if you're blatantly insane and in the area at the time of te crime). During that time I met many other lawyers working on similar projects, often for a pittance - well, more than they'd make as a social worker doing similar work, but way less than if they did commercial practice or even public prosecution.

And what's more, the lawyers working for the public good weren't - on the whole - less qualified or capable than the guys earning the megabucks. They were every bit as good, and whenever we could take the big folk on even grounds (i.e. without a massive funding disadvantage - say if we could get a good barrister to argue pro bono) we'd kick their ass plenty of times.

Some folks just want to help people, and others want to screw them. The good thing about law is that you can take the former path and whilst you won't necessarily get rich, you'll be secure and well-payed compared to other 'do-gooder' jobs like social work or nursing.

 

[Grygor]

Now there is a hell of a lot more detail than I'm going into here, but, that's the rundown of personal jurisdiction. And no offense intended to you, Grygor, you did give an excellent rundown of standing, but not personal jurisdiction.

None taken - I made a terminology goof, and I should be called on it.

What's really sad though is that I knew beforehand what personal jurisdiction was, but I apparently had a brain fart and confused it with standing.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

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?

Almost. USCG is one of those "companies" that make money by "speculative invoicing". Which basically means sending messages saying "We can convince a judge that you pirated XYZ, Pay us $5000 or we'll have a court destroy your life." to random people, guilty or not. So then you either pay them or spend 10 times as much on court fees getting the charges dropped.

So they're blackmailing people at random(figures range from 20% to 3% amount of pirates total, let alone people who specifically downloaded the content named in the letter) and they're suing somebody who's educating people on how to prove their innocence with a $20 book instead of $200000 in lawyer fees.

Exscuse me while I go vomit into a creek at how horrible this is.

 

[Starke]

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?

Almost. USCG is one of those "companies" that make money by "speculative invoicing". Which basically means sending messages saying "We can convince a judge that you pirated XYZ, Pay us $5000 or we'll have a court destroy your life." to random people, guilty or not. So then you either pay them or spend 10 times as much on court fees getting the charges dropped.

So they're blackmailing people at random(figures range from 20% to 3% amount of pirates total, let alone people who specifically downloaded the content named in the letter) and they're suing somebody who's educating people on how to prove their innocence with a $20 book instead of $200000 in lawyer fees.

Exscuse me while I go vomit into a creek at how horrible this is.

It's a little less insane than that, though not by much. It's pretty easy to find an attorney that will take a case on a contingency fee, and then turn around and nail the company with all their court costs. That said, even on a contingency system the defendant will burn through a couple grand defending themselves before the judge orders the company to pay them that back.

It's also not a self help book, just a couple forms that the purchaser can fill out and file.

 

[Racecarlock]

You guys realize that more than just pirates will come under fire if this guy loses, right? Do you guys like toonami streams (like toonamiaftermath), abridged serieses,and even emulation? Say goodbye to those if this guy loses. Every abridged series. No more DBZ abridged, no more abridgimon, no more yu-gi-oh abridged, no more abridged anything. Ok, the other side has the right to go after pirates, but we all know they go after so much more than that. Ever hear of someone getting sued over too much character likeness? That's probably also going to happen alot more.

First off how do you know they are really pirates? Only the copyright company "claims" they are pirate, it is not the first time somebody sue the wrong person, therefore the people that get sue ALWAYS should have the right to self defend. Sueing a lawyer for defending/helping his client is just plain dumb.

Look, I can claim you are a pirate and sue you, and who ever defend for you so you can't defned youself. You think that is right?

I must admit I dropped the ball and didn't read EVERY post in here and didn't know they were blaming random and most of the time innocent people for the piracy, so I drop that argument. However, my doom theory stands and I agree with you about self defense and suing a lawyer being stupid.

Edit: I'm serious here guys. If this lawyer who stood up for people in their time of need somehow magically loses this case, copyright arguments will flare up against TV show streams and abridged series(es) again. No more team four star and little kuriboh on youtube. Of course, that's only assuming he loses this case, which isn't very likely.

 

[Starke]

There's one tiny flaw with your plan. You'd be dealing with actual attorneys who were representing their client. This guy isn't the attorney of record in these cases.