Conflict of interest? What?
March 29, 2011 3:42 PM Subscribe
Judge Beryl Howell has during her first week on the U.S. D.C. District Court laid down a radical verdict that making it easier for copyright holders to extort payments from people they suspect of copyright infringement.
There is understandably some doubt about the verdict because her previous employment as an RIAA lobbyist and Executive Managing Director and General Counsel at the pirate chasing outfit Stroz Friedberg.
This post was deleted for the following reason: can someone please redo this hot button post with a little less axe please? Otherwise don't bother, thanks. -- jessamyn
Judge Beryl Howell has during her first week on the U.S. D.C. District Court laid down a radical verdict that making it easier for copyright holders to extort payments from people they suspect of copyright infringement.
A link to the opinion or legal analysis as to why the opinion should be described as "radical" would be very much appreciated.
posted by gyc at 3:58 PM on March 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
A link to the opinion or legal analysis as to why the opinion should be described as "radical" would be very much appreciated.
posted by gyc at 3:58 PM on March 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
Conflict of interest? I don't think this woman is corrupt. Rather, she holds a set of values that I find abhorrent, that holds the interests of rightsholders paramount at the expense of Internet freedoms. Her views are extremely mainstream and are regularly spouted by powerful members of Congress and ratified by the White House -- Bush, Obama, whoever.
And yeah linking to two thin opinion pieces that 1) criticize the decision without really explaining it, and 2) focus on the judge's resume to the exclusion of the merits is not a Best Practice.
posted by grobstein at 4:02 PM on March 29, 2011
And yeah linking to two thin opinion pieces that 1) criticize the decision without really explaining it, and 2) focus on the judge's resume to the exclusion of the merits is not a Best Practice.
posted by grobstein at 4:02 PM on March 29, 2011
These two articles from Ars Technica give some background about the mass-defendant suits and the precedent that has been overturned.
posted by peeedro at 4:06 PM on March 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 4:06 PM on March 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
"...interests of rightsholders paramount at the expense of Internet freedoms."
Bit vague, "internet freedoms". Could mean a lot of things. Me, I like concrete definitions
If we're talking "say what you like with the same standards as print, radio, film or public demonstration", I'm on board with that. If we're talking, "the copy right belongs to someone else but since I can distribute the material for free, I somehow have the right to do so", well, we have a difference.
(Count me on the record for shorter copyright periods as well, by the way.)
Recuse sounds about right in this case, though I am willing to believe that she holds these views independent of her past pay check.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:36 PM on March 29, 2011
Bit vague, "internet freedoms". Could mean a lot of things. Me, I like concrete definitions
If we're talking "say what you like with the same standards as print, radio, film or public demonstration", I'm on board with that. If we're talking, "the copy right belongs to someone else but since I can distribute the material for free, I somehow have the right to do so", well, we have a difference.
(Count me on the record for shorter copyright periods as well, by the way.)
Recuse sounds about right in this case, though I am willing to believe that she holds these views independent of her past pay check.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:36 PM on March 29, 2011
"extort"? Not "collect"?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 4:38 PM on March 29, 2011
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 4:38 PM on March 29, 2011
Would someone with slightly more legal knowledge than the sort picked up from Judging Amy and Law and Order reruns kindly explain how it came to be that this person with the seeming conflict of interest, one week into her appointment, came to preside over this case? You don't get to pick your judge, right? It seems so damn fishy.
posted by Glinn at 4:44 PM on March 29, 2011
posted by Glinn at 4:44 PM on March 29, 2011
.... I am willing to believe that she holds these views independent of her past pay check.
posted by benito.strauss at 4:45 PM on March 29, 2011
I know you said recusal sounds right, but this is immaterial. Justice must be fair and seen to be fair.
posted by benito.strauss at 4:45 PM on March 29, 2011
Would everyone be OK with a former BP lawyer judging an oil spill case?
posted by mullingitover at 4:51 PM on March 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by mullingitover at 4:51 PM on March 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
Seems like pretty much every lawyer I've ever know has had strong feelings about "the appearance of impropriety."
Well, this certainly appears to be improper. Is it really? No clue. But it looks ugly as hell, and for that reason I question Judge Howell's judgement. I don't think you need to get into whether there's actual impropriety there; creating the appearance is an exercise in poor judgement itself.
Anything that might give the impression that the Federal judiciary is corrupt needs to be avoided, and any idiot ought to have known that presiding over a case which relates so closely to one's former employer isn't a great idea.
posted by Kadin2048 at 4:53 PM on March 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
Well, this certainly appears to be improper. Is it really? No clue. But it looks ugly as hell, and for that reason I question Judge Howell's judgement. I don't think you need to get into whether there's actual impropriety there; creating the appearance is an exercise in poor judgement itself.
Anything that might give the impression that the Federal judiciary is corrupt needs to be avoided, and any idiot ought to have known that presiding over a case which relates so closely to one's former employer isn't a great idea.
posted by Kadin2048 at 4:53 PM on March 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
More background (including a Scribd-hosted decision paper (thing)):
See also: How Judge Beryll Howell’s Decision Affects “John Doe” Defendants, a review of the decision by Texas lawyer Robert Cashman, who represents several defendants.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:54 PM on March 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
The objectors raised three concerns: First, that the mass-joining of multiple defendants violated federal rules of procedure. Second, that the plaintiffs had inadequately established jurisdiction, or why actions against defendants should be initiated in the DC court. And third, that the First Amendment protected the defendants' right to anonymity.You can read the 42-page decision in this unembedded Scribd document, or this Google Quickview version of the PDF hosted by torrentfreak.com (also: HTML view from the PDF on EFF.org).
On Tuesday, Judge Howell addresses these concerns by issuing a single 42-page decision pertaining to several cases under her purview.
See also: How Judge Beryll Howell’s Decision Affects “John Doe” Defendants, a review of the decision by Texas lawyer Robert Cashman, who represents several defendants.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:54 PM on March 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
Also: EFF's earlier comments, prior to this recent decision, with links to more information (like the fact that more than 100,000 people have been sued for sharing files in 2010).
posted by filthy light thief at 4:56 PM on March 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by filthy light thief at 4:56 PM on March 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
« Older rageguy.$ | Abode of Peace Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by chavenet at 3:52 PM on March 29, 2011 [1 favorite]