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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 66 former SEC employees filed 168 letters with the SEC secretary in 2008 and the first nine months of 2009 disclosing clients or new employers they planned to represent before the agency
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.
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"
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.
I concur about the title being linkbaity but the piece gives a fair and balanced background on the judge with good links to reporting on the state of these P2P cases. No conflict here, though, only an appearance issue (and federal judges have enormous discretion on recusal except in cases of an actual conflict).
For what it is worth, this judge does have an impressive background and is eminently qualified to serve on the federal bench.
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.
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.