My name is "Defendant Radzikowski"

[JPL]

Mods, please lock this thread before this kid says something to make his situation worse.

Damador, here's the only free legal advice this lawyer is going to offer:

1. In U.S. courts, the fact that someone is under 18 does not make their testimony inadmissible.

2. Assume that every word about this you post on the Internet is going to be entered into evidence.

3. Stop posting about this on the Internet and go talk to a lawyer who knows a little about U.S. copyright law. Don't stop making phone calls until you find one who will give you a free informal consultation (if that's all you can afford).

 

[roguerouge]

He's 27. He's not a kid.

 

[Chaos Disciple]

they sued me for acts of 3 unknown ppl that made yet unknown damage by downloading yet unknown pdfs ....

according to one of the attachements - they demand over 75 k $ for "yet unknown" proofs ....

I recommend you contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

 

[JPL]

For everyone who says don't talk, please remember that there is no gag order and that publicly talking is allowed. There have been plenty of cases where trial in the court of public opinion has been more powerful than trial by the courts. The RIAA has problems in part because the grandmas and 12 year olds have come out and spoken publicly. The RIAA has droped several suits because the publicity of sueing an 80 year old grandmother is not worth it.

The fact that some nerds on Enworld might think that a fellow nerd should be allowed to hand around PDFs freely is not news to anyone at Hasbro. The defendant is neither a 12 year old nor a grandma. He may in fact be the average Joe Gamer, and therefore just the guy you sue to make an example to other Joe Gamers.

While it is a possibility that Internet rants are going to trigger a surge of nerd rage and WotC will drop the case in shame, it is a near-certainty that Habro's lawyers will run a simple Google search to see if defendant has said anything about this online.

Even if they don't, he will be asked during written discovery if he has made any statements about the underlying occurrences. So either he can lie about it or he can disclose the statements. And the more he posts, the more likely he'll say something that creates trouble down the line.

Get off the web, man, and get a lawyer.

 

[Gorrstagg]

I'm terribly curious, based on what he mentioned, (Please don't respond Damaran).

If he loaned the file out to someone to use, ala loaning your book to a friend. And say he did it via a flashdrive, with the files on there, ala a bookbag full of books. And he didn't keep any copies beyond say a legally allowed archival copy.

But when he loaned out his "Books" via pdf to said friends, and he didn't keep a copy? And then someone used that stuff?

Is he still liable if say it were uploaded by some unknown third party.

Heck remove the idea of an archival copy and assume he just used a flashdrive essentially as portable book.

How can he be responsible for this situation? From a legal stand point. Especially if he's doing it for a non-profit club.

(Please Damaran don't respond in here. Talk to a lawyer.)

 

[Stoat]

I see some advice to this guy to not talk on public because it will hurt its interests regarding what they expect the other side to do assuming they will act by standard procedure .

Off the top of my head, I can think of four reasons why no party to a pending civil lawsuit should discuss the details of the case in public.

1. Any party's public statement is admissible in court. In an attempt to justify or explain himself, a defendant could inadvertently admit liability. Ex. "Yes, I hit the plaintiff in the head with a bottle, but only because I was drunk and he was cheating at cards."

2. A party might inadvertently reveal his legal strategy to the other side. It is a fact of life that there is some element of gamesmanship to litigation. A litigant probably does not always want their opponent to know how they plan to proceed in the lawsuit.

3. Every time a party speaks, he risks contradicting himself. Even if the person is telling the truth, any contradiction could be interpreted as a lie by the Judge or Jury.

4. Some cases can be amicably resolved through a settlement. Statistically, most cases settle. Settlement is often more advantageous that proceeding to trial. A party who speaks improvidently or out of emotion may anger the other side, hurting the chances of a favorable settlement.

Please note: I AM NOT PROVIDING ANYBODY WITH ANY KIND OF LEGAL ADVICE. I am just offering a few off-the-cuff, common sense observations. Anyone faced with a lawsuit should hire their own attorney. Only a fool would take legal advice from the internet.

 

[JPL]

He's 27. He's not a kid.

Kids whine when they get into trouble. Grownups shut up and get a lawyer.

 

[Piratecat]

Whether his actions are good or bad, I think we can do without the insults.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

WotC is out of their mind if they believe that a civil suit in the United States is going to get any traction within Poland.

Just my two cents.

 

[pedr]

Yes... the comments of lawyers in this thread rightly concerned that the OP should seek legal advice and stop posting about this are perfectly appropriate... but if the OP is unconcerned by this law-suit, never intending to come anywhere near the jurisdiction of the US federal courts, it's perhaps less pressing advice than it would be if the OP were in the USA.