$80,000 Per Song Could ‘Backfire,’ Says K.A.D. Camara
As we mentioned this morning, K.A.D. (Kiwi) Camara was on the wrong side of the news cycle yesterday.
A federal jury ruled that his client, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, violated copyrights on 24 songs she downloaded, and hit her with a whopping $1.92 million judgment — which works out to $80,000 per downloaded song.
Camara has achieved notoriety for being the youngest person to graduate from Harvard Law School, and for miscalculating how people would react to the abbreviation “nig” when used as a synonym for African-Americans.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset retained Camara’s law firm, Camara & Sibley, for her second jury trial against the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
When we spoke to Camara last month, he explained why Thomas-Rasset made a wise choice:
“We’re generalists who handle the most complex, unique, one-off matters,” explained Camara. “If you take a complex matter to a big firm, you’ll be routed to twenty different hyperspecialists. You’ll end up settling for partial advice — ‘Do this, but we haven’t considered this aspect’ — or you’ll end up paying huge fees, because you’re getting specialized advice from twenty different people who don’t work well as a team.”Camara & Sibley’s model is different, according to Kiwi: “The idea here is that you get generalists who learn the intricacies of your one-off, unique case. You don’t want a hyperspecialist. You just want a good lawyer.”
But the second trial went even more poorly for Thomas-Rasset than the first one.
Kiwi responds after the jump.
Camara expressed surprise about the verdict to the AP:
Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn’t believe Thomas-Rasset’s denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.
According to Ars Technica, Camara was “angry” about the verdict:
Kiwi Camara, Thomas-Rasset’s lead attorney, spoke briefly after the trial. He told reporters that when he first heard the $80,000 per song damage award, he was “angry about it” and said he had been convinced that any liability finding would have been for the minimum amount of $750 per song.
Our commenters echoed the angry theme. One commenter went so far as to say:
Camara should be ashamed of himself. If you graduate Harvard as a teenager, you have nothing in common with normal people or jurors. The jury hated this guy. From what I read, he was arrogant, talked down to the jurors, interrupted the lawyers and witnesses, and pissed off the judge.
But when we spoke to Kiwi Camara, he said he wasn’t angry and seemed to be looking at the bright side of the situation:
“Angry” is just a misquote. I think I said shocked.We got along very well with Judge Davis. We of course tried the case aggressively. That’s what we do.
I think the description comes from my many objections during testimony of Mr. Leak, their first witness. I objected a lot and many of my objections were sustained.
I think a verdict this high may backfire against the RIAA. It makes clear that there’s a problem with the statute. And there are many grounds for appeal in Jammie’s case.
Camara wouldn’t say whether Thomas-Rasset would be appealing this ruling, or whether she’d be retaining Camara going forward. Of course, getting future legal fees out of Thomas-Rasset might be like getting “blood from a turnip.”
As for Thomas-Rasset, she appeared shaken by the verdict but didn’t blame the jury. “They did their job,” she said, “I’m not going to hold it against them.” She added, though, that the recording industry would never collect the money. “Good luck trying to get it from me… it’s like squeezing blood from a turnip.”
We’ll see if there is an appeal.
Meanwhile, the lesson is that one should not mess with the RIAA.
Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case [AP]
Thomas verdict: willful infringement, $1.92 million penalty [Ars Technica]
Earlier: Kiwi Camara: He’s Baack
(117) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Kiwi is a hairy fruit
I hope these RIAA bloodsuckers are happy. I bet they were high fiving the shit out of each other after the verdict.
LOL at that picture of him
A two-man reality show called "The Kiwi & Marcus Hour" would be a hit.
I think the lesson is to get a specialist instead of a generalist for copyright cases and other cases that might require a little more legal insight that you could gain from learning the law right before trial.
K.A.D. Camara = epic fail.
Litigation is for adults, please return to BIGLAW document review.
I feel very conflicted. I hate the gut maggots at the RIAA with all of my heart, but I hate that little kiwi Kiwi with all of my mind.
NY to 250k!!!!!
Apparently the RIAA would've settled this pre-trial for 3 to 5 grand. If I'm the RIAA, I tell defendant I'll waive my claim against her in exchange for the right to pursue her legal malpractice claim against this bozo.
Sounds like it worked out well for everyone: Kiwi finally got an education, a thief got caught, the RIAA grabbed the kind of headline that could have a theft deterring effect and I am amused.
I wish him luck. He's off on his own. He's got balls - unlike all of you biglaw slaves.
"Of course, getting future legal fees out of Thomas-Rasset might be like getting 'blood from a turnip.'"
Elie -- Camara took this case on a pro bono basis. I think that's a key fact that ATL should have noted. There are not a lot of lawyers (or even Big Law Firms) that would do an entire trial (and not an easy one) pro bono.
You Kiwi bashers should listen to him argue. He has a link to an argument posted from him profile on his website. Pretty damn good.
This has to be the lawyer of the day. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527463,00.html
5 - agreed. I'm a former IP litigator and there were some cases where I thought the lawyer on the other side, being a general practitioner, didn't understand the potential damages well enough to advise their client to settle - while an IP specialist would have, and saved their clients lots of money.
At first blush I wonder if this guy wanted to fight a high-profile case and thus was acting in his own, not his client's, best interests? If so, unethical and worse (can't call it negligent if it's wilful...).
While I dislike illegal downloading, I also think the RIAA is stupid in many instances (like, almost every one I've read about...) and disagree with the quantum of damages. The statutory damages have been set by Congress, though, so complain to them not the RIAA about that aspect.
Awwww Hans Brix. You kir me, Hans Brix.
Next up: RIAA v. the public library.
Pro bono in this case means you get what you pay for.
Now, it's possible that this client is just extremely stupid and didn't remotely comprehend how much trouble she was in...but doing this song and dance twice when you could have settled for $5K...
Any attorney that actually advised this course of action should be disbarred.
11 - Yes there are you F*CKING ASSTEETH. I know over 1000 lawyers that would take a case like this to get their names in the paper. Especially egomaniacal racists looking for publicity for their fledgling firm.
Plus, you damn well know that Elie knows he took the case for free.
No more anonymous posting on this website for K.A.D.'s summer associate from Texas Southern law school.
AND 12 - No more posting for you KAD's mom.
Kiwi: "'Angry' is just a misquote. I think I said shocked."
I think he said "angry."
I know he said "nigs."
And he just got the everliving shit kicked out of him by real lawyers, despicable as their client is.
Kad Camara = Twink Twinkerson
10= Kiwi's schizophrenia
Kid, I told you once--you need this thing more than I do. Just put the pointy end into that gaping mouth of yours and pull the trigger. Go on.
5, 15 -- they didn't lose the case because the lawyers didn't understand copyright law. (to the contrary, if you look at their submissions, they made some pretty good & technical arguments). It looks like they lost because the jury didn't believe the defendant/thought she was lying.
13 - I sent a couple links to ATL with fuller versions of that story and also think that he HAS to be the lawyer of the day. Come on. He passed out in his neighbor's trash can, for fuck sake!
What this woman did is like spitting on a cop when he catches you speeding. What she got was the beat down she deserved for wasting the court and the jury's time. Honestly, she's lucky that the FBI seems to have more or less given up on prosecuting criminal copyright infringement.
I understand people who think it's great to steal music, even if I don't agree with them. But what I really, really hate is that people try to justify it on any basis other than "I could get away with it."
And yes, the length of the copyright term has gotten ridiculous. But I don't see people pirating old copies of Steam Boat Willy -- I see them pirating the new stuff.
18 -- grow up. And learn to express your opinions without ad hominem attacks and cursing.
-11.
@24 - No one, I mean no one, in this universe would take the time to find and read the sumissions in the middle of the workday only a few hours after this was posted other than someone in Kiwi's employ or family (or Kiwi). You are making him look even more foolish with your 'anonymous' commenting. Stop.
@23 - No one, I mean no one, in this universe would take the time to find and read the sumissions in the middle of the workday only a few hours after this was posted other than someone in Kiwi's employ or family (or Kiwi). You are making him look even more foolish with your 'anonymous' commenting. Stop.
23 - Get off Kiwi's jock. They don't seem to have understood copyright law because he's talking about "problems with the statute" and "expecting it would have been more like $750/count." These are childish positions.
There are no problems with the statute. It's brutal on the damages, but it's explicit.
This kid's got a set of rocks on him to be taking this kind of case on a pro bono basis.
I listened to his oral argument. Pretty damn good.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/08/08-50100_2-3-2009.wma
There is no doubt that he is more of a real litigator than any litigation associate in biglaw. If you haven't done your own trial by year 4 or 5, you're a sellout, and you're hurting your career by staying at your firm.
Looks Asian, smart. That would never happen in Texas.
I am Kiwi's 2 inch penis.
30- no he does not. He took the case 3 weeks before trial after all the heavy work had been done. He also had a Harvard law professor help him.
30 -- agree. balls of steel.
sup nigs
31- one of Kiwi's $20 an hour clerks from South Texas law School
11, 26 - OK, Assteeth, will do. - 18
The most important advice a copyright attorney can ever give to a consumer re: corporate IP:
1. Don't do it.
2. Settle.
Mystal is so progressive, so ahead of the curve:
"Study: Chubby people live longest"
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c7aaeb7940626693fa418a1eab2291f6.81&show_article=1
Dunno, seems like the real lesson is here don't let a child do a MAN'S job. COME ON!
37,
No, I'm just taking a study break from BarBri.
Listen to the oral argument.
31
Balls of steel indeed. I mean, Kiwi's got an armadillo in his trousers . . . . It's really quite frightening.
31 = Kiwi.
11 - Shut up. We all know Kiwi only took this case in order to get his name and baby-firm in the papers. He succeeded in doing that but failed in adequately representing his client. However, in Kiwi's defense, the client probably wouldn't have settled under any circumstance. But don't be stupid and try to portray Kiwi as some sort of hero... he's not.
11 - Uh oh. Another ad hominem attack! eek!
ha. hahahahaha.
ANOTHER tax-dodger appointed by the Obambam Admin. She didn't feel like paying taxes in 2005 or 2006.
Why do liberals think they are above the law?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us/19marshall.html?_r=2&ref=us
How did this guy pass C&F? Did he apologize for racism?
ANOTHER tax-dodger appointed by the Obambam Admin. She didn't feel like paying taxes in 2005 or 2006.
Why do liberals think they are above the law?
www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us/19marshall.html
probably shouldnt have addressed the jury by saying "sup nigs"
Kiwi is racist and offense me. Please moderate him.
Clearly the RIAA found a Chinc in his armor.
That jury must have really hated Kiwi and his client. That means Kiwi did a bad job.
29 - I'm fairly sure they can read the copyright statute just as well as you can. I'm sure the "problems with the statute" they are talking about are likely constitutional problems (i.e. 150,000:1 or 80:000:1 ratio). And that sounds like a legitimate argument for the COA (whether it is a winning one, is a different question). But by all means, go ahead and keep telling yourself that you're the only one who understands copyright law.
Is that a picture of Laurie Lin of LEWW?
Yeah, 48 and 50, how dare she allow the government to KEEP $37,259 of her own money (which isn't even a crime). Did you even read the whole article?
Yeah, 48 and 50, how dare she allow the government to KEEP $37,259 of her own money (which isn't even a crime)? Did you even read the whole article?
The fact that he cited how many of his objections were sustained in his own defense shows how miserable of an attorney he must be. That's basically the first rule you learn in trial ad: The law no longer matters, the Jury does--and as such, use your objections wisely.
Get real. Finding a "constitutional problem" with a long-existing and unquestioned statute is exactly the sort of arrogance that plagues law students and young associates.
57/58:
The point was she screwed up on her taxes by not paying them for two years. Yes, she was entitled to a refund. But that doesn't excuse not putting in your paperwork like the rest of us do.
Take that in conjunction with other appointees screwing up (admittedly in worse ways), and it is an unfortunate theme.
45 -- Ok, I'll bite. Sure, publicity is a factor for all lawyers. Do you think Big Firms take pro bono cases just out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course, not -- they want the good publicity and recognition from their local bar associations, AmLaw rankings, etc. And you know what? As long as the clients benefit from their representation, more power to them.
Same here. As to your claim that these lawyers "failed to adequately represent" their client, I disagree. They obviously put on an aggressive defense, but lost. They probably didn't sleep much for about a month, drafting pre-trial motions, preparing for trial, and actually trying the case. This case sounds like it was an uphill battle to begin with -- she obviously downloaded the damn mp3's, and there's a statute making that illegal & imposing severe damages.
Even the best trial lawyers can't win all jury trials (even David Boies has his share of loses). All they can do is make sure their client gets the best defense/representation they can put on. And had you ever tried a case, you would know that.
--11.
Wow, listen to his oral argument. Unreal skills, clearly an HLS grad
Who think Kiwi violated Batson when doing his peremptory challenges during voir dire? (Meaning using your peremptory challenges to get rid of jurors based on race).
Maybe I'm missing the boat here, but the primary goal of the trial lawyer is to convince a whatever 12 people are put in front of him to side with his client. It makes no difference how persuasive we as lawyers think Camara was, or how technically creative he was with the application of Copyright law.
The jurors can decide the case as they see fit, which may include using their gut, emotions, personal sense of morality, logic, fairness, the rule of law or simply because they like one attorney better than the other.
The verdict shows that the jury did not like Camara or his client.
His oral argument is very good, he holds his own against the Williams & Connolly partner.
55, if the purpose of statutory damages (or liquidated damages in the case of a contract) is that it's too difficult to measure actual damages, shouldn't the statutory/liquidated damages still have to be reasonable? They are not supposed to be overly punitive.
34-
so he had help? who cares? the case was still his, not the professor's, and he's a young attorney. it's a ballsy move. oh, and jumping into a case three weeks before trial isn't easy.
how many of you biglaw wusses have ever even been before a judge? jury? you'd probably be too scared to even cross examine a witness without having 7 hours of deposition testimony. quit hatin and give the dude some props. he's not even 30 and he's seen more action that you ever will. by the time he is 30, he'll be laughing you and your clients all the way to the bank.
-former T-10 and biglaw . . .
agree with 66. he makes a good argument given that the facts are against him. also holds his own against the bench.
69: yeah, yeah, yeah. you're right, though. but the typo at the end is lame. i wish i had the balls to set up my own shop and take a big case like this, monster verdict or not.
67 - The statutory damages option in copyright has an additional purpose of deterrence. Hence the difference in maximum damages between "innocent" and "willful" infringement.
Has anyone considered this?
Did Kiwi Camara advise his client that she should take the settlement offer made to her? He better get that in writing.
If he didn't, do you think she might wake up one morning and decide that she didn't get the right advice?
Was this case more about Kiwi Camara's ego or his client? Who knows?
The only thing that is very clear is that Kiwi Camara can put whatever spin he wants on it. He lost this case worse than anyone could have ever imagined. He was terrible, and the verdict doesn't leave any room for discussion about that.
67 -- I think any time you challenge (an otherwise valid) federal statute on constitutional grounds it is an inherently tough sell. I think there's a viable argument here that, as you note, a $150K penalty (or $80K) for a single violation is indeed overly punitive & not reasonable/proportionate to any measure of real damages. You could argue that this is especially so because the actual value of each recording/mp3 is easily ascertainable -- just go to iTunes, where you can buy any of these songs for $.99. That said, I think it's still a very tough sell.
And to all those who say he has BALLS of STEEL. . .
Grow up.
It doesn't take balls of steel to agree to try a case 3 weeks before it is about to begin. It takes hubris. Big difference.
$2 million later, now the client and Kiwi Camara know what happens when you play dress up in your favorite trial lawyer suit.
What's with all the rage about how "poorly" Kiwi did at trial? Didn't this woman's former counsel move to be substituted out? It seems like the racist did a decent job given the late stage that he took the case. He's better than some of the halfwits I see in court--and given his age, he's a whole lot better.
13,
This wouldn't even be news in Indiana -- guess the rough weather sent him to a trash can after the roofies.
61 – you are an unfortunate partisan hack. Why does it surprise you that people screw up their tax returns? The error rate for paper tax returns is 20%. Computer software dramatically decreases it, lowering the rate to 1%. However, the error rate last year for tax returns prepared by volunteers, who are ostensibly experts in the field, was 31%. The prior year the error rate for tax returns prepared by volunteers was 44% (damn near half!). With a ridiculously difficult tax code, why does it surprise you when people are confused as to what they need to claim, what they can deduct, and when they need to file?
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax." - Albert Einstein
pro bono or not, smells like teen malpractice
74 - copyrights are violated by copying and/or distributing. Yes, she could have bought the songs for 1 dollar each (assuming that iTunes was up and running at the time, which is doubtful). But there is no way of telling how many people she distributed those songs to. And innocent infringement is inapplicable to this case because the CDs contain copyright notices. So she's being punished (as 72 points out) for her willful infringement.
And people should really stop defending Kiwi. Her previous lawyer cost her only 220K, so if Kiwi is such hot shit, then that other guy must have been Clarence Darrow reincarnated.
What is with all the support shown for this grandstanding, racist, solipsistic d-bag?! There must be a lot of HLS students posting, it seems as if you and the Kiwis and Telfeyans are all of a kind.
When is this little d-bag going to be locked up so he can stop embarrassing our profession?!
50- Did you read the article you linked to? It said she passed up on about $38,000 in refunds by not filing. Doesn't really seem like this meets the definition of a tax doger to me.
Some lawyers can talk to juries, some can't.
In addition, experience counts in this area. You just don't have the experience to try a case near your potential in until you have 25 or so under your belt.
Nor is there a necessary correlation with freakish precocious intellect, LSAT scores, class ranking and the ability to persuade jury to see it your way and/or to evaluate potential outcomes.
A friend of mine (who now teaches) was one of the most persuasive trial lawyers I ever met, wining all but 3 of just over 100 jury trials before he decided to teach. He had to take the bar exam 3 times.
The LAST person I would trust to jury try potential downside $1.8 million cases against me is a person who accelerated through HS, college and LS at such a rate that he never had the chance to form a normal personality—and along with it any semblance of common sense or sensibility. (As evinced by the nig flap.)
Elie, I hear from my crimson buddies that you hated this guy in school and were one of the ones leading the charge against him because of his statements. Want to set the record straight?
Nothing like buying insane Copyright laws. I suppose when 80K per song doesn't work, they'll pay to get criminal penalties for losing a civil case. Shouldn't happen, but neither should 80K. Talk about constitutionality issues.
Where in the heck did it become ok to consider life + 70 years to be a reasonable amount of time for a copyright? Particularly when considering music, Software and other items? We need some serious copyright reform, though I doubt enough people will care to actually try to fight the money battle.
60 - long-existing and unquestioned? Are you Fing kidding? Yeah, maybe it was unquestioned when used against COMMERCIAL infringers but that isn't exactly the same as prosecuting some rando who used napster.
86, you sound like a brat who thinks applying old law to modern technology is unfair. The copyright statute makes no allowance whatsoever for identity of the relative parties. Never has. Any allowance would seem to be contained in the damages election provision - I would probably want to sue a movie studio for actual damages and profits if they infringed my book. Mass piracy can be sued per-count.
What you are really making is a technological argument: No one thought that anyone could commit piracy on this scale while still being a normal person as opposed to a black marketeer.
Your odds of convincing the Supreme Court (and it is the Supreme Court; no Circuit, 9th included, is going to gut and recast the Copyright Act) to read something of that complexity in to what is otherwise a very clear rights-based statute are between slim and none. Re-read Chevron.
Camara is a great example of book smarts....but that's it. He is 100% wrong.
1. His case needed a specialist copyright attorney.
2. The top trial attorney at my firm has lost 1 civil case trial in 20 years. As others have commented, he says the single most important thing is the trial attorney's connection to the jury. As a child prodigy he is not going to have that!
63, 66 & 70 = Kiwi
86 clearly never took admin law or read Chevron, 87.
Give it a rest people. As cool as some of you think it is that Kiwi took this case, all the compliments of his performance in ATL comments don't change that fact that he failed to persuade the only people that mattered- the jurors.
EPIC FAIL by the boy-lawyer.
This Kiwi clown charges 40% of any verdict, and the client pays fees on top of that.
Yup, sounds like a real hero. There's a whole lot of trial attorneys with a bunch more experience that aren't brave enough to take that much of their clients' awards.
"Balls of steel" would have been taking the case and agreeing to pay damages if she lost.
jumping in 3 weeks before trial was publicity-hounding.
A kid went up against seasoned trial attorneys and got his ass handed to him. Not only did he lose, he lost huge. No surprise there.
Who cares how his recorded argument sounded? The only thing that matters is the jury, and they obviously thought he sucked.
80K "may backfire?"
Yeah, you got 'em right where you want 'em now, kid.
"This Kiwi clown charges 40% of any verdict, and the client pays fees on top of that.
Yup, sounds like a real hero. There's a whole lot of trial attorneys with a bunch more experience that aren't brave enough to take that much of their clients' awards."
Huh? I mean, don't get me wrong I'm not defending this Kiwi dipshit - that stupid picture that appears every time he's mentioned on this blog and his stupid name both justify hating him. But 40% + costs advanced is pretty much standard among civil attorneys who work on contingency cases, unless a settlement can be reached before litigation. Never heard a client to complain either. Who are these trial attorneys you're referring to?
Early ripe, early rot?
Naw, the guy should be locked in a room somehere doing genious stuff for his firm while nomal joe's who can relate to a juy front for him in court.
Or he should be rainmaking with the nerd CEO's of genious startups.
But unless youy have a jury of 12 former members of the HS computer club--FORGET-ABOUT-IT.
Just the gy's smart ass pic pisses me off.....
79 = genius
The lesson is NOT that one shouldn't mess with the RIAA - the lesson is that the RIAA are extortionist assholes who are going to use this jury decision to intimidate future defendants into settling for thousands of dollars per song.
The solution - BOYCOTT THE RIAA.
This means:
(1) Buy your music second-hand or from indie labels only, and
(2) Support your favorite artists by seeing them in concert when they come to town instead of by buying their CD - most of that money actually goes to the artist instead of the label.
Kiwi must have a penchant for taking loser cases, because the oral argument being referred to as showing his great skills (comments by Kiwi, I believe) is in a real turkey of a case. Class action alleging that because one KPMG partner improperly worked in Texas without a Texas license, that KPMG should have lost their license, and therefore ALL customers of KPMG for a 15 year period were defrauded?? Can you say "bogus"?
Deserved to get thrown out by the district court, and will no doubt be affirmed by the circuit court.
Sorry, not impressed by his MAD skills, either in the RIAA case (epic fail) or in the KPMG case (epic fail).
Not happy to see that the RIAA won. But happy as hell to see Mr. Inflated Ego take one on the chin. Brilliant legal arguments work well in appellate litigation and pretrial motions. But any respectable trial attorney--civil or criminal--will tell you that the first, and most important, part of a jury trial is getting the jury to like you.
People ought to stop this nonsense of calling Camara "racist." He was open, honest, and apologetic about his unfortunate use of the word "nig" in his outline, which he uploaded to the student outline bank in an effort to share his work with other students. Yet he was attacked by liberals who tried to ruin his career (see the excellent book, I think by a guy named Thomas, "The People v. Harvard Law School").
By contrast, Adora Asonye, a more recent student who happens to be African-American, apparently drew NO PENALTY AT ALL for her apparent role in perpetuating a racial "hate speech" hoax during her 1L year, which has been extensively documented on a blog here:
http://harvardlawracehoax.wordpress.com/
Assuming, as seems likely based on the blog content that Asonye was the hoaxer (Asonye did an undergrad thesis on violent rap lyrics of the sort which were used for the hoax), it's unclear whether the several other students who pressed for investigation of this supposed "hate speech" incident were also behind the hoax, or were instead unwitting pawns of Asonye.
The point is that what Camara did was nothing compared to this premeditated hoax, yet the hoaxer(s) paid no price at all. A double standard at work here?
$80,000 per song does seem a tad "unreasonable" (duh!).
No doubt this judgment would be overturned. It would be quite absurd for a court to administer such high damages for downloading songs, especially when so many people commit such acts. The court would be like a mini-lottery ticket for the plaintiffs.
It is arguable that the judgment would shock the masses and deter such behavior, though. On the other hand, unreasonable judgments like these would truly burden and financially ruin people like the defendant, which is "unhealthy" because it would do more good to have people not in financial ruins, since that would encourage them to work and pay taxes. Thus, this judgment should be overturned.
Anyone want to smell my fingers?
The kid needs to work with some jury consultants before he embarrasses himself again. Persuading a jury is not the same as impressing law school nerds.
The guy will NEVER WIN A JURY TRIAL. He was awful. Has this guy ever won a jury trial? I doubt it.
But there is no doubting this: KIWI CAMARA IS NOW MORE FAMOUS FOR BEING THE WORST TRIAL LAWYER IN AMERICAN THAN HE IS FOR HIS RACIST LANGUAGE WHILE WE WERE AT HLS.
102--
Nice policy arguments! Let me guess: You read "Getting to Maybe" at some point in your life?
KIWI CAMARA!!??
That's a fruity name.
Kiwi Camara's Top 10 Jury Skills
10. A huge hit with teenage graduates of Harvard Law School.
9. An expert on Batson challenges.
8. Not afraid to lose more of his client's money than anyone thought possible.
7. Arrogant, rude, and insulting--what's not to like?
6. Works pro bono, the only kind of lawyer his clients can afford after he's done with them.
5. Likes to show the common folk how much smarter he is.
4. Friends with Charles Nesson, the pulse of America.
3. Took a really useful bankruptcy class once.
2. Knows how to appeal his losses.
1. He's incredibly sexy.
(15 again)
39 - thanks for making me, quite literally, laugh out loud.
85 - I agree copyright terms are generally much too long and statutory damages at least in non-commercial contexts are too high. Add it to the list of things Congress should change...
However, I also agree with what another poster noted, people aren't generally downloading e.g. "Steamboat Willie", they're downloading movies and songs that are brand new or in some cases not yet legitimately released (e.g. Wolverine). Even under a copyright regimes with a much shorter period of protection, this would all still be infringement.
I have sympathy for e.g. the hypothetical poor person who can't afford food and steals it. I also have sympathy for the hypothetical poor person who can't afford to buy music (while nonetheless being able to afford a computer and Internet service...) and maybe someday I'll meet such a person, right after I meet a leprechaun or other mythical creature.
Most of the people who argue with me about how downloading movies and music is okay are gainfully employed, in some cases very much so (e.g. lawyers who are still employed), and self-serving justifications aside it all comes down to their not wanting to pay for an inexpensive item that's totally unnecessary and which can be legitimately heard for free on radio or MTV or whatever.
Oops, should have been (14 again)...[grin]
It takes balls and guts to go out on your own, start your own law firm, and handle cases for yourself. It takes more balls and guts than I and most commenters here currently have. However, I and most commenters here have yet to cost their client $2 million.
Someone who has cost their client $2 million (on what should have been a petty case) is taking on responsibility that he should be avoiding until he has developed greater skill, judgment, and maturity.
It's not a big deal that Camara lost this case. By all rights and purposes, though, it should have resulted in a small fine. It was a small infraction and it's not as though the RIAA's crusade has been a popular cause.
If the jury delivers a judgment like this, they're sending a message that they really, really, really, really didn't like you.
It's not the most responsible thing for a jury to do (they shouldn't let this sort of thing affect their work), but it is a sign your courtroom skills need a considerable amount of improvement.
99 -- Good point. Listened to the oral argument also. While Camara did okay, the case itself (which he filed, apparently) is a clear loser. Close to frivolous.
107 -- Hilarious.
Oh, Kiwi. I graduated from HLS at virtually the same age as he did (he was days shy of 20 at graduation, and I was three months past 20), a couple years later. (This should out me to some of the folks who were at HLS at the time.) Where he's chosen to trumpet his age every chance he gets, I've chosen not to talk about it too much.
It's challenging to be in law school that young. I don't think it's too different academically - the folks in my entering class ranged from 17 (me) to 47 (one of my sectionmates), and I think we all faced the same challenges in the classroom. It's outside the classroom that it's difficult to be 17 and in law school. Your "life experience" peers are high school seniors and college freshmen, but you have to conduct yourself with the maturity of a mid-20s adult. You have to be financially responsible from the get-go (I had taken on six figures worth of student loans by 19, sans co-signer). You probably have no friends your own age, and you have to adjust to the fact that your friends are simply at a different stage in their lives, particularly as you've probably fallen behind a bit socially while focusing on academics - e.g., I was first-dating and first-kissing where my law school classmates were getting engaged/married and talking about first children. You have to interview with law firms and clerkship judges and project the poise and maturity of a 25 year old. It's tough stuff. Perhaps more than anyone else reading this thread, I can relate to the challenge of being a teenager in professional school and appreciate that Kiwi's probably dealt with more social challenges than most.
But those challenges are doable. Doable WITHOUT throwing your law school into a race scandal and jeopardizing your post-LS employment opportunities. It's possible to graduate HLS at 19-20 and to choose cases and advise clients with maturity. It's even possible not to think you're the hottest thing since sliced bread because you did well on law school exams at a young age. It's possible to bring some humility to the entire matter: to understand that, as an unusually young lawyer, you have an especially steep learning curve both personally and professionally -- that ultimately, your worth as a lawyer will have little to do with your age at law school graduation.
I'm grateful to HLS for giving me the chance to attend at a young age (particularly grateful to the Admissions Office for being willing to take a chance on another 17 year old 1L mere months after Kiwi plunged the school into a race scandal.) I am concerned that Kiwi continues to trumpet his age. He has chosen to be high-profile about his age while exhibiting poor professional judgment in his choice of cases and legal strategy, just as he once exhibited extraordinarily poor judgment in publicly airing his racism. When people think "kid lawyer," they picture him. He's done those of us who are his peers (the youngest law school graduates) no favors. I cringe every time I see others comment that he serves as evidence that exceptionally young lawyers are arrogant, immature, or lack any sort of personal/professional judgment. Unfortunately, this recent, spectacularly bad loss gives the general public no reason to think otherwise.
Shelley v. Kraemer - Nigs buy land with no nig covenant; Q: Enforceable?
yeah, what a douche tool.
What makes Camara think he could be a litigator? More importantly, what makes Camara think he could take this to trial?
Graduating from Harvard young may mean you are smart, but it also probably means you have zero people skills.
102-
Great arguments, except for the finger thing.
115 - what is your basis for commenting on the "people" skills of young HLS grads, other than Kiwi himself? I think his absence of "people skills" is simply his own failing, not a characteristic of all young law school grads.
- 112