

RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases - grellas
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-becomes-federal-judge-rules-on-file-sharing-cases.ars

======
Osiris
In some cases I could see how it would be beneficial for the judge to have a
solid understanding, and previous experience with, the subject matter in order
to be able to make more informed decisions. Some bad decisions are certain
made now by judges that don't understand the complexities or technical nature
of some cases.

One of the benefits of the common law system is that courts can use previous
rulings as a basis to maintain consistency in enforcing the law.

It's unfortunate that until there are well established precedents that a the
result of a complaint is a bit of "luck of the draw". One file sharer could
end up with a huge judgment while another gets the case thrown out, depending
on a judge's understanding, or lack-thereof, of the nature of the offense.

~~~
originalgeek
Clearly this judge should have recused herself simply to avoid even the
appearance of impropriety. Any judge with even a sliver of integrity would
have done so.

~~~
GrandMasterBirt
I am in full support of a judge that deeply understands the issues at hand.
However there is a clear conflict of interest here.

The law is supposed to be impartial. I am all for judges sympathetic to the
cause, but I don't want that either. The law must treat both parties big and
small equally, and assume that even if its the RIAA that they may have merit
in their claims, and vice versa.

So in conclusion, its a tough call here. I would hope this gets much more
media attention and either her COI is exposed and she is forced to step down
OR she is taken off these sort of cases and her knowledge is put to use
elsewhere.

------
patrickgzill
There were/are 2 judges on the CFTC panel, which deals with commodity and
futures trading.

Wendy Gramm (wife of Phil Gramm) approved a judge with the understanding he
would never rule in a complainant's favor.

Source? The other judge: [http://www.scribd.com/doc/39746954/Judge-Painter-
Notice-and-...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/39746954/Judge-Painter-Notice-and-
Order-dcpdf-1)

~~~
GrandMasterBirt
Scary... Go forth internets and spread the word!

------
hsmyers
An interesting metric; how many years back would it be before the judge would
have instantly recused herself from ruling on any case involving file-sharing?

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
I'm guessing the answer is zero.

Cases involving the RIAA might be a different matter but it's unlikely that
there would be any blanket assumption of that sort for any file sharing case.

The thing to remember here is what people, particularly people in the law, are
paid to do and what they believe are very different things. It's possible,
even likely, that she has no strong opinions on file sharing one way or the
other, that she was just doing a job and that she's entirely capable of taking
a clear and unbiased view of things.

------
Natsu
I recall that there are several high-ranking RIAA lawyers in the justice
department, too.

~~~
blasdel
Plenty of former criminal defense attorneys too.

However will we rid ourselves of their outrageous _pro-murder agenda_?

~~~
18pfsmt
Not that I believe the idea that defense lawyers are pro-murder in the first
place, but sharing files and murder are hardly equivalent. Further, I don't
think it makes sense to conflate criminal and civil law, and because it is
civil, the burden of proof is lower. Sharing is natural and victimless, and
while I guess there would be little (if any) debate over whether murder is
wrong, I would guess there could be great debate over whether file sharing is
wrong.

~~~
tptacek
In your zeal to make it clear that file sharing isn't a crime like murder, you
managed to utterly miss his point.

~~~
sigzero
Which was what exactly? I ask because I am light on this subject and haven't a
clue.

~~~
tptacek
Everyone has potential biases, and there are practical biases for judges that
are more significant than "took a paycheck from the RIAA", and we accept them
routinely.

~~~
Natsu
While it's true that there are many such biases, judges are required to excuse
themselves whenever there's the _appearance of impropriety_.

The article discusses why, as a technical matter, this judge can choose to
hear such cases, but the mere fact that we're discussing this or that there
are news articles concerning it, creates an actual appearance of impropriety.

But we'll see how things go. It is possible, after all, that they're not so
biased as they appear.

------
benreesman
I encourage our community to assess the costs of file-sharing in the context
of the benefits afforded by a liberal stance on technical mischief. I prefer
to have rtm as a phd rather than as an inmate.

~~~
tptacek
Does rtm trade files, or are you suggesting that owning up the Internet with a
worm should be decriminalized?

------
blasdel
grellas, I'm surprised you would submit this — when I clicked on it I figured
I'd find a comment from you in this thread agreeing with the linkbait's
eventually acknowledged punchline: "problems of perception, if nothing else"

~~~
mustpax
_Perception of bias_ is sufficient reason judges to recuse themselves. The
article is claiming that the perception of bias is indisputable and an actual
conflict of interest, considering she benefitted financially as a lobbyist,
might exist as well. That sentence is not an acknowledgment linkbait at all.

[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/0608/p02s01-usju.h...](http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/0608/p02s01-usju.html)

------
fdhgzr
Firstly, I would like to point out that I am anti mass-p2p lawsuits. They
abuse the law, the courts and the system. It is a shakedown scheme, pure and
simple. Due process is abused to such an absurd extent. Never mind the strain
these lawsuits are putting on ISP's for ip lookups, -so much so that multiple
ISP have come out and sided against these frivolous lawsuits.

All that being said, the issue here is not what the right decision is, but
rather how Howel a former RIAA lobbyist and lawmaker could possibly make an
unbiased decision.

Frankly, regardless of your stance on the p2p subject, her even being
appointed to such a position leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. If I were
in her shoes, I would recognize the ethical dilemma and sit that one out. But
to add insult to injury she has chosen to ignore the hand full of precedents
set by multiple judges around the country to disallow such abuses inherent in
these mass joint filings.

Ironically, numerous people have argues that her past knowledge of law would
make her a better judge. So she knows the laws, many of which she helped
write; when and where did she learn a damn thing about technology, -I don't
know like the fact these law firms are paying for cheap inaccurate methods for
infringement detection so they can pad their lawsuits with still more innocent
person to shake down. Guilty until proven innocent because the plaintiff told
me so.

------
binspace
Our legal system is broken.

