$125,000 in fines for D&D pirates? Help me do the math...

[SiderisAnon]

One side being willing to spend $8000 in legal fees and the other side being some college student or insurance adjuster who games on the weekend is not quite like a mugging, but it's not much like a polite conversation, either.

I find it ironic/disturbing/darkly humorous that companies like to talk about about IP "theft," but at the end of the day, the lawsuit is the weapon of choice.

On your first point, what would you suggest? That in order to have a law suit, both parties must limit their choice in lawyers based on whoever has the least amount of money? Would you make people too poor to afford a good attorney immune from lawsuit? That makes no sense, and would break down our civil legal system entirely.

On your second point, the lawsuit is not "the weapon of choice", it is the ONLY weapon they have. Yes, they can send a cease and desist letter or other such communications, but those only have power because they are backed by the lawsuit. It's not like companies can legally hire leg breakers to go out and stop you from doing what you're doing. In order to stop you if you don't agree to stop, they have to sue you. That's it. That's all they have.

Of course, if what you're doing is criminal in nature, they can provide proof to the authorities and have criminal charges brought, but that does not protect the company's assets or rights. For that, they still need a lawsuit.

 

[pawsplay]

On your first point, what would you suggest? That in order to have a law suit, both parties must limit their choice in lawyers based on whoever has the least amount of money? Would you make people too poor to afford a good attorney immune from lawsuit? That makes no sense, and would break down our civil legal system entirely.

I suggest that civil action has become a tool of the powerful to avoid the requirements of legal justice. I suggest that if ordinary citizens are going to be subjected to high dollar legislation with some regularity, then the civil court system has become a runaround to the right to an attorney. I suggest that many companies would rather not see high noon at the Supreme Court and have the power and influence to shape policy, one case at a time, through civil action and settlements.

I suggest that such actions, if not actually illegal, are often unjust.

 

[ggroy]

I suggest that civil action has become a tool of the powerful to avoid the requirements of legal justice. I suggest that if ordinary citizens are going to be subjected to high dollar legislation with some regularity, then the civil court system has become a runaround to the right to an attorney. I suggest that many companies would rather not see high noon at the Supreme Court and have the power and influence to shape policy, one case at a time, through civil action and settlements.

I suggest that such actions, if not actually illegal, are often unjust.

This works both ways.

Some people will sue somebody with deep pockets (whether an individual, corporation, government, etc ...), hoping to get a large "windfall" settlement. It's probably better than winning the lottery.

 

[ggroy]

Some "ambulance chaser" type attorneys are even willing to work for a percentage of the final "windfall" settlement, as compensation for their legal representation and work (instead of directly billing their clients per hour).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In civil litigation, it is true, you don't have the right to having the state provide you with an attorney.

That is because you're not being brought to trial by the state, but by another civil party.

IME, most people can find an attorney, even the poor, if they look. Every state bar asks that their members provide pro bono and discounted services, and most of them have a branch that collects donations from attorneys (usually as part of their annual tax & dues forms) and other sources to fund legal services for the lower strata of society. Many law schools and other institutions have law clinics. You can even find employees of the state- DAs, Public Defenders, and even Judges acting as attorneys for the poor as long as it doesn't raise a conflict of interest.

My opinion? If you can't find an attorney willing to take your case, take that as a warning sign. I'm not saying that you're guilty, just that you may be in a very untenable position in the eyes of the law.

But its not all doom & gloom.

Remember, if you're a potential defendant, the statute of limitations is your friend.

 

[pawsplay]

This works both ways.

Some people will sue somebody with deep pockets (whether an individual, corporation, government, etc ...), hoping to get a large "windfall" settlement. It's probably better than winning the lottery.

Yup. A litigious culture is basically not good for anybody.

 

[ggroy]

Yup. A litigious culture is basically not good for anybody.

Except for trial lawyers.

 

[pawsplay]

Except for trial lawyers.

Are they happy people? Anyway, even trial lawyers get sued.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This works both ways.

Some people will sue somebody with deep pockets (whether an individual, corporation, government, etc ...), hoping to get a large "windfall" settlement. It's probably better than winning the lottery.

The "nuisance suit" is the most common variant- you sue someone for just enough money for it to be worth their while to settle.

Heck, if the lawsuit alleges facts that are covered by insurance, the insurance company may force the sued party to settle, guilty or not.

You see a lot of this in the medical field. Its a rare doctor who hasn't faced at least one.

Some "ambulance chaser" type attorneys are even willing to work for a percentage of the final "windfall" settlement, as compensation for their legal representation and work (instead of directly billing their clients per hour).

"Percentage of the award" clauses are pretty common in a LOT of different areas of the law. Its actually another way that someone without a lot of money can have access to the court system. Typically, such clauses are all-or-nothing, so the client has virtually no out-of-pocket expenses.

The key, though, is that the lawyer has to win to collect: your client loses, and you get bupkis.

 

[ggroy]

But its not all doom & gloom.

Remember, if you're a potential defendant, the statute of limitations is your friend.

Some acts do not have a "statute of limitations".