 
CoxCable4
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone | so arent they imploding at a healthy rate anyways? | |
|
 | 
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA | Re: so Not fast enough. | |
|
| | |
| | | |
| | | | 
AbBaZaBbA
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Long Beach, CA
| Re: so what you guys are missing is that out of that many cases, SOMEONE will have tried to fight back. At least some of the people sued had to be lawyers... my guess is that if it looks like they are going to take it far engough, they basically make them sign a non-disclosure agreement and drop the case.
Remember, this isn't about making back money from piracy. it'a about terrorism. It's about scaring the public into purchasing their product. | |
|
| | | | | mr_cool
join:2003-10-14
USA | Re: so Yeah, I know one of my nebighors is a lawyer and settled for a lot less money. He did something where the music guys from CA would have to come here (Chicago) for the case.
Good for her fighting back | |
|
| | | | | madcowusa
join:2005-03-09
Port Orchard, WA
edit:
August 16th, @03:35PM
| Reminds me of a stat I read a while back. In the US 1 out every 400 ppl is a lawyer. In Europe its 1 lawyer per 1,000 people. So they could have sued 32.5 lawyers by now. | |
|
| | | | | | 
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| Re: so said by madcowusa  :In the US 1 out every 400 ppl is a lawyer. That's probably "1 out of every 400 people think they are a lawyer." But then again, 1 out of 12 stats are made up.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
|
| | | | | | | 
Tsume
My little Toby.
join:2004-02-23
Winter Park, FL | Re: so Haha, the logic there is great 
We all know for a fact who the real winners are here no matter what. Hint: Starts with an "L" and ends with a "awyers". | |
|
| | | | | 
cao1964
join:2000-08-09
Danville, PA
| >>Remember, this isn't about making back money from piracy. it'a about terrorism. It's about scaring the public into purchasing their product.
Well said. That is what its about. And any way who has the capital to go for the long run agains the RIAA. | |
|
| | | | 
Boricua65
Oye, chico
join:2002-01-26
Puerto Rico
| How are all these aspiring musicians marketing their product? The Internet has been a huge boon, because it allows cheap, direct distribution of music to -- and communication with -- fans. Practically every artist now has an official Web site, most offering free MP3 downloads, and they maintain e-mail lists to promote upcoming shows and releases. Beautiful article, SRFireside . The major record labels need to get their heads out of their arse. Apparently, they don't get what they are really and truly missing. | |
|
| | | |
| | NoOneButMe
join:2001-08-24
TX | the DMCA has in it a nice part that says if you fight and win you lose court costs fees... that DMCA was only made for the Sue Happy Corps .. thats why thay keep on doin it and will not stop | |
|
primal98
join:2004-08-27
| Iunno As much as I bid her the best in a fight vs RIAA.... I don't think a suburban mom has the money to actually fight them :/ RIAA has bajillions, and in this world you could have the best defence but the person with more money might be able to weazle out :/
~prime | |
|
| joshpo
join:2002-09-24
Philadelphia, PA
| Re: Iunno Eventually someone will fight them and the case will get thrown out and that will pave the way for every lawyer in the country to fight these junk suits. They are abusing the legal system and using our tax payer dollars to do it. I am not defending file sharing etc but racketeering and extortion of a divorced mother of 5 is not going to make Kazaa go away... | |
|
| |
|
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA
| I don't think that for her case to be successful she'll have to prove that no one in her household ever engaged in online file-sharing. Really all she has to prove is that their "evidence" is not sound enough to prove that she was engaged in it, beyond a reasonable doubt. Really I don't even think that will be terribly difficult provided the RIAA wasn't sitting outside her window video taping her downloading these songs (of course that would open a whole new back of trouble for the RIAA  )
Justin
--
My fiancé calls me the high-priest of Macdom. Wish Apple would open an Apple Store in Savannah so I'd have somewhere cool to work before Med-School. | |
|
| | 
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
|  Re: Iunno
said by jwsmiths4 :I don't think that for her case to be successful she'll have to prove that no one in her household ever engaged in online file-sharing. Really all she has to prove is that their "evidence" is not sound enough to prove that she was engaged in it, beyond a reasonable doubt. I think you have it confused with a criminal case. If this was a criminal case, then indeed she would presumed innocent until RIAA can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty. However, this is a civil case, and it's all a matter of whose evidence looks better to a judge or jury. So you are not off the hook that easy in civil court, if you are going to take on RIAA, you better come prepared.
On the other hand, if I happen to be on a jury on RIAA vs. someone case, my vote goes against RIAA no matter what evidence they present.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... | |
|
| | |
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA
| Re: Iunno True, I was thinking though that the RIAA still has to accuse them of stealing specific information so it really is just a matter of making the RIAAs claims seem weaker than they already are. It isn't a crime to use KaZaa (legally at least) so it still becomes a matter of just down-playing their evidence.
--
My fiancé calls me the high-priest of Macdom. Wish Apple would open an Apple Store in Savannah so I'd have somewhere cool to work before Med-School. | |
|
| | 
IT Guy
Your God Smells Funny
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
 ·Comcast
| I thought these lawsuits were civil. If that's true then the burden of proof is far less restricting. All RIAA would need to show for proof is by a preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt, which would make it more difficult for a defendant to succeed. I highly doubt she's been charged criminally.
--
My time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on a splinter. --Beck | |
|
| | |
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA
| Re: Iunno No these aren't criminal cases (yet, thank God). I still thought that the RIAA had a lot more to prove in that they must show that they have direct evidence that the defendants had in fact downloaded the files they are being charged with downloading. I mean it would be easy for the RIAA to just list everyone in the world as being guilty of using file-sharing networks at one time or another, but in these cases I think they have to show that such and such person downloaded this file and we can prove that by.... type of reasoning.
Sorry I'm probably way off but regardless the RIAA still sucks for the way in which they treat this. I mean sure its wrong to illegally download music and I don't do that anymore. But if you want to stop the younger people from doing it you need to make affordable legal online music selection available. Why should I have to buy the whole Trapt CD when I only want 3 songs off it. iTunes is a great start but now they're under pressure to raise their song prices and we still can't get every song label to allow distribution via iTunes so its still not the perfect solution.
WAKE UP RIAA/MPAA
--
My fiancé calls me the high-priest of Macdom. Wish Apple would open an Apple Store in Savannah so I'd have somewhere cool to work before Med-School. | |
|
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Iunno Yes, in a civil case, the curden is on the claimant. The defendant still has to answer the complaint, but in a case like this, I doubt much will need to be done by the defendant.
I have a feeling, in this case, the "my wireless access point" was the culprit. This does break away from my normal feeling that you should secure your AP, however, the case is against the person for the action of the downloads.
One other thing, though the courts are there to hear cases, judges and some court districts get pissy about certain cases. If they start to see a bunch of these RIAA cases entering their courts, judges and magestrates are probably likely to start ruling against the RIAA or force people into arbitration as a message to these yo-yos to knock off the petty cases and/or take it to congress, or even other routes. I say this in example of another area I am familiar with. Abusive debt collectors. There was a time where these cases flew through court rooms and debt collectors were pounded and paid alot of money to debtors because of their abusive actions. However, because there were so many, you are now seeing courts changing their ways and they are now no longer giving out big judgements. They are still ruling in favor of the debtor, but the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow isn't there any more. This is to try and curb the suites and have this type of case handled outside the courts. I think judges will get tired of hearing these cases, if they start making it to court, and make it so that it's not favorable for the suites to be filed.
Just my opinion. | |
|
| | | |
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| She's not being sued for downloading, she is being sued for uploading (sharing). They have a list of songs that were shared from the IP that her ISP claims she was using at the time. That is their direct evidence.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
|
| | | | 
Just The Facts
@bls.com
| The RIAA and MPAA have NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER FILED A CASE OVER DOWNLOADING music or movies. They are filing against people offering/serving/allowing downloads. They have all the evidence neccessary to prove the transaction. It is the RIAA that is downloading the copyrighted material. They have the IP of the account serving the material, a time/date stamp of the transfer (to the RIAA), and the complete file. The only thing they can't prove is the actual person who allowed the serving. They do have the account owner and they are legally responsible for want is on/served from their computer so it is usually a slam dunk.
| |
|
| | | | | Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC
| Re: Iunno While they may have the complete file, they didn't download any of the file from the person being sued. They're matching the hash from a verified source and then just look to see if you have a file with the same hash.
For P2P networks that don't hash files, they're just looking at the name of the file being shared.
This came up last year when a woman in California tried to argue that since they didn't download the file from her, she technically was not distributing copyright material (only offering to distribute). I never heard what happened with that case, so she must have settled. | |
|
| | | | | |
Just The Facts
@bls.com
| Re: Iunno said by Cyron :While they may have the complete file, they didn't download any of the file from the person being sued. They're matching the hash from a verified source and then just look to see if you have a file with the same hash. For P2P networks that don't hash files, they're just looking at the name of the file being shared. Not any more. They actually download the file as proof. She probably settled because she was going to lose that argument. | |
|
| | | | | taar
join:2000-11-21
·Charter Pipeline
| said by Just The Facts:
The RIAA and MPAA have NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER FILED A CASE OVER DOWNLOADING music or movies. They are filing against people offering/serving/allowing downloads. They have all the evidence neccessary to prove the transaction. It is the RIAA that is downloading the copyrighted material. They have the IP of the account serving the material, a time/date stamp of the transfer (to the RIAA), and the complete file. The only thing they can't prove is the actual person who allowed the serving. They do have the account owner and they are legally responsible for want is on/served from their computer so it is usually a slam dunk.
But if i remember correctly, there is no way to completely stop sharing with these file sharing programs. You can limit your upload to 1K with readily available software but there is still a trickle from your computer going out. Therefore, potentially, everyone can be sued because uploads cannot be stopped. Someone correct me if i am wrong. | |
|
| | | | | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Iunno You can stop uploading by moving the files from the default download folder of the program into something else. Most P2P programs give you the option of picking which drives, folders, files you want shared to the world. The program also creates its own folder to store the files you downloaded. While you can tell the program not to share any of your own files or folders it will always share what you download. So all you need to do is move the files from that download folder.
It's a little chore, but if you want to just download and not share anything that's the way to do it. | |
|
| | | | | | | taar
join:2000-11-21
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Iunno said by SRFireside :You can stop uploading by moving the files from the default download folder of the program into something else. Most P2P programs give you the option of picking which drives, folders, files you want shared to the world. The program also creates its own folder to store the files you downloaded. While you can tell the program not to share any of your own files or folders it will always share what you download. So all you need to do is move the files from that download folder. It's a little chore, but if you want to just download and not share anything that's the way to do it. So technically i am correct. No matter what files you move around, you have no choice but to, at the very least, share what you are currently downloading. Therefore, since all downloaders are also temporary uploaders, RIAA could sue everyone. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: Iunno Not if you move the files you just downloaded off that folder. If they are not in that folder they are not automatically shared. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | taar
join:2000-11-21
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Iunno said by SRFireside :Not if you move the files you just downloaded off that folder. If they are not in that folder they are not automatically shared. Ok. I am not trying to argue or prove you wrong. I am just trying to understand this thing better. You cant move the currently downloading file while its downloading. Therefore, you have no choice but to upload and share. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Iunno Now I see where you're coming from. Sorry about that. I'm not sure what P2P programs allow uploading of a file being downloaded besides Bit Torrents. I'm guessing your chances of getting caught would be rare in these instances since the window of exposure is only as long as it takes to download the file. | |
|
| | | |
IT Guy
Your God Smells Funny
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
·Comcast
| RIAA still has to prove, in some fashion, that the person they are accusing are in fact responsible. Where the difference occurs between criminal and civil burden of proof is how the evidence is weighed. With criminal cases, the State must prove guilt 100% for a conviction (decided by jury for the most part). With civil, the plaintiff only needs to persuade the judge by 51% for a conviction (judgement against the defendant would be more appropriate). The burden is still on the plaintiff, but the rules are more relaxed as far as evidence is concerned.
As far as fiberguy's observation of debt collectors, if the debtor has filed for bankruptcy and upon notification of filing of any creditor or collection agency, any attempt to contact the debtor will result in a fine of ~ $500. (in my state anyway).
--
My time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on a splinter. --Beck | |
|
| | | | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| said by jwsmiths4 : I still thought that the RIAA had a lot more to prove in that they must show that they have direct evidence that the defendants had in fact downloaded the files they are being charged with downloading. In civil court, the burden of proof is on the Defendant; not the prosecution! The Defendant has to prove that they did NOT do or cause what they are being accused of. The RIAA or any other person or agency doesn't really have to prove anything. In Civil Court the standards of evidence are very much different from Criminal Court.
While it is a little blunt; but in Civil Court it is basically GUILTY until proved NOT GUILTY. | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| said by primal98 :As much as I bid her the best in a fight vs RIAA.... I don't think a suburban mom has the money to actually fight them :/ RIAA has bajillions, and in this world you could have the best defence but the person with more money might be able to weazle out :/ ~prime suburban white plains, ny=too much money to know what to do with it all. shes most likely loaded and can afford one of them fancy lawyers.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Re: Iunno said by Kearnstd :]suburban white plains, ny=too much money to know what to do with it all. shes most likely loaded and can afford one of them fancy lawyers.
Depends on what part of White Plains you are talking about. No information is given as to exactly where in White Plains she is but there are areas I wouldn't walk around in, even in the daytime. Now if by "Suburban White Plains" they mean a place like Harrison or Rye Brook, then that would be a different story. --
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| Goldman
join:2002-06-21
Maumelle, AR | They'll make an example out of her and try to crucify her for fighting back. Hopefully she will get some help and win, but I think she will end up paying a massive amount in the long run. | |
|
| |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: Iunno What will actually happen is the RIAA will drop the case and it will be swept under the rug like the other 9,000 suits we haven't heard from. Remember folks this sort of story is happening all the time. It's just we never hear about the outcome. | |
|
yzerman
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Grand Rapids, MI
| It's not about right or wrong.. It works just like the (we got evidence you purchased a device that can be used to hack DTV) DTV exploiting lawsuits work..
You can either drop $1500-3000 and walk away from any sort of record on your name..
or you can fight it, stress out, spend a lot of time on your defense and court time, pay 10x more money for your lawyer to go to court if the record companies decide to push it that far and then IF you loose you pay big additional $$$
RIAA lawsuits isn't about making money.. its about striking fear into people and putting a small dent in their pocketbooks?
Do you really think people care about stealing music until they get that scary letter and a court date? Or do you think its when they or their parents who don't have a lot of money have to re-mortgage their house or dip into the small savings they might have to pay the RIAA a small fee to drop all of that trouble? | |
|
| EAP
join:2000-01-15
Lafayette Hill, PA
| Re: It's not about right or wrong.. Don't hire a lawyer -- defend yourself.
It's not that hard -- and courts bend over backwards to help a "pro se" litigant.
It even makes it harder on the other side to have a non-lawyer to deal with. They actually have to communicate directly with the defendant then.
If I got sued, I would represent myself. | |
|
| | mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Mishawaka, IN | Re: It's not about right or wrong.. I believe the old saying goes: A person who defends himself has a fool for a client.
That being said, I would fight these charges to the bitter end, no matter what the cost. It's the principle of the matter. | |
|
| | | EAP
join:2000-01-15
Lafayette Hill, PA
| Re: It's not about right or wrong.. Maybe -- but I got sued for major dollars in Federal Court after my dad's insurance business went bust. A few years earlier I had worked there helping out my dad.
I had nothing to do with what happened when the business went under.
I defended myself (I am a lawyer though) -- and successfully had the suit dismissed as to me (actually they abandoned it as to me). I then brought an action against them for suing me -- and settled with them for $8,000.00 (the total jurisdictional amount -- since I sued in small claims court, as it was easier and faster).
If I had hired a lawyer, it would have cost at least $30,000 to defend me.
Instead I harassed them endlessly, till they just realized it wasn't worth it. I then pocketed $8,000.00. | |
|
| 
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| Maybe make a few public statements to provoke the RIAA into serving you.
They are probably selecting their cases, going for the largest alleged thefts that where they have the strongest proof. They are probably also avoiding going after those who they think could mount a strong defense, lawyers, judges, cops, paralegals, and *perhaps* the wealthy and the educated.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) | |
|
|
cao1964
join:2000-08-09
Danville, PA
| Do you really think people care about stealing music until they get that scary letter and a court date? Or do you think its when they or their parents who don't have a lot of money have to re-mortgage their house or dip into the small savings they might have to pay the RIAA a small fee to drop all of that trouble?
Well said its not like these people have any real capital, if they did, they would not waste their time not buying the dam thing, hey I give a friend of mine as an example, his dad puts 50 dollars a month in Apple Itune Wallet or what ever its called, hey taking out the garbage is very profitable, haha, actually he tells me his dad just takes it out of his taxes at the end of year, some deductions, not sure how it works, either way, he has money to spend. I am not sure if he really gets it every month or his dad just keeps it up to make sure he can get his fix, either way, he does not care, I mean his dad, they have $$$ MUCHo money. As for me, can't say I am that lucky, but at least I can get an album or two if I really want it and no questions asked. | |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Not surprising A giant media organization with millions upon millions of dollars being sent to their teams of lawyers says that you broke the law. If you fight it in court and lose, you face hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. Even if you win, you'll still be spending hours upon hours of your own time and cash you might not have on hand for your own layer. Or you could accept the ~$4,500 settlement offer and make the whole thing go away.
If I were in that situation, I'd like to say that I'd fight against the charges because I was innocent. Except that I probably wouldn't fight it. Not because I wouldn't have been innocent, but because I wouldn't have the time or money to fight it. It would wind up being cheaper for me in the long run to pay the RIAA to go away.
This is why I oppose the RIAA's efforts. I think that they have every right to go against people who are violating their copyrights. However, I think that the state of affairs right now provides no protection against someone being wrongly charged. This means that the RIAA can charge anyone they want, railroad those people into settlements, and then add more onto their "pirates sued" press releases. Something needs to be changed in the system to protect against this happening (while still allowing the RIAA to go against the real pirates).
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
|
| |
| 
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| To settle is *almost* an admission of guilt. Perhaps this Mother of 5 feels that she is innocent and wants to set the record straight.
Some people actually care about their reputation.
--
Do you own/manage a barn with lesson horses? Go here! »www.otsysinc.com/EquiSense.htm | |
|
| |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Re: Not surprising Actually, from what I've heard, part of the settlement is that you admit that you pirated the songs (whether you actually did or not) and you can't talk to the press (or anyone) about your experiences. Meanwhile, the RIAA can go around saying whatever they want. Unfortunately, when faced with a team of lawyers with a big-money company behind them, the threat of millions of dollars in fines, and years in court, most people would opt for the "quick and dirty" $4,500 settlement regardless of their actual guilt. In this way, the innocent will settle along with the guilty.
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
|
s8nlovesme
join:2003-12-26
Waukesha, WI
| dumb lawyer He is surprised that no one fights back? Its because even if you win, you lose (money). Then you have to pray you get legal costs or a class action is filed. This is kind of like what direct tv does. Sues people with no real proof, then you fight back and win, yet you lose a ton of money fighting. | |
|
getaclueyouFOOL
| YAWN... Go ahead, make my day! If you're a Pirate and you think you can win in court, let's see how smart you are when you get whacked $10,000 PER title/copy and a prison sentence. You can talk all the shit you want, but there ain't a court in the World gonna let you steal copyright protected works.
But go ahead, take your case to court and see for yourself - fool! | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
|
| 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Where are the free ACLU lawyers or EFF lawyers said by TK Junk Mail :The ACLU and the EFF have tons of lawyers on staff and as volunteers for all kinds of court cases. They both make a big noise about the **AA abusing people. Why haven't they volunteered to defend these people for free? Really, I'd like to know. Anyone have any theories? Because, even if they did offer to cover all costs - court fees, lawyer fees, time lost from work/lost job due to missed time, etc., they'd have to find someone willing to allow them to help. Frankly, there just aren't a lot of people out there that can afford the time or want the stress associated with going to a full trial.
What I'm waiting for is the RIAA to screw up and send a letter to a retired tort lawyer - particularly if said lawyer never engaged in file sharing. That will be when it gets fun.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
| broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Where are the free ACLU lawyers or EFF lawyers? I think eventually, if this case or one like it, can get a mountain of press, the ACLU and the EFF will step in and offer help, but they will not if A) they are unaware of the individuals situation and B) they can't get a mountain of cheap publicity out of it. However, if the mainstream news media were to pick this case up as a torch, the ACLU would funnel thousands into the trial as a PR move. | |
|
| Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
edit:
August 16th, @11:03AM
| Re: Where are the free ACLU lawyers or EFF lawyers ACLU doesn't care about you unless you're a minority or your case is really, really weird (read: get them all over the news).
I had an instance where an illegal search was done on my property for a case not involving me. I can't afford an attorney (well, I couldn't at the time anyways). The ACLU wasn't the least bit interested in it though, because I'm young and white and the case wasn't terribly exciting in their eyes, so therefore they weren't interested.
And the EFF doesn't care unless it's something involving either open source or sticking it to a large software company or ISP, because that's all their agenda really is.
Both are jokes. | |
|
| | markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Where are the free ACLU lawyers or EFF lawyers The ACLU is to busy fighting real cases, like defending the NAMBA..if you know what that is your gonna wish ACLU would die in a fire. I give you hint its about men liking little boys..sickos.
ACLU is pretty retarded organization now, f |
|
Nobody Fights the RIAA
·
Where are the free ACLU lawyers or EFF lawyers?