know what pisses me off about that letter?  the fact that they informed your ISP.  your ISP could, conceivably, take action against you for TOS violations.  at a minimum, they are now on notice that you post such things and they may be scrutinizing your account.

had it been me, i probably would have written something to the effect of, “unless the file is removed within 7 days of this letter, we will have no choice but to inform your ISP and to proceed with any legal recourse at our disposal.”

i have a client who was doing work for a certain CarDealership as a sub-contractor.  the general contractor did not pay $44k of the bill, so we put a lien on the property.  the client wanted us to send a courtesy copy to CarCompany USA, the corp headquarters.  we decided, though, that by doing that, it could be perceived as my client tortiously interfering with the business relations of the CarDealership and CarCompany.  to me, it sounds like a similar thing…

Yeah I had a similar thought, only less legally accurate.  :)

Playboy sent a cease & desist directly to my provider and didn’t even bother telling me, so at least Keeley’s lawyers did me the courtesy.  They even thanked me for my prompt action when I sent them confirmation it had been removed.

Polite British blokes, if a little heavy on the tattletale side.  :)

URGENT

Our good friend Harley needs help.  I’m going to link to his post on Right-Thinking.

I’m going to post this in the comments of the most recent post at Drum’s as well.  The story he links includes a picture.  You never know who you can reach with a blog.  Everyone give your best thoughts and prayers.

dakrat, good on you for alerting me...I just made a post drawing attention.  You’re right, you just never know who a blog might reach.

Would a link to the torrent be legal? I mean, if you aren’t hosting it yourself, and you don’t even have the torrent data, just a pointer to where it can be located, is that still permissible?

(I’m not asking for myself, you understand, just for the record.)

drum: i don’t know if you were asking me specifically, but i’ll give you a worthless answer nonetheless… the answer is i’m not sure because my field of law is land use/zoning/environmental ;)

i have no experience with intellectual property law. 

based upon instincts alone, i would say that i may not put a link to a torrent, but i may say “hey, did you know that a torrent of this i savailable on nonhyperlinked.com?” or something to that effect ;)

the answer is i’m not sure because my field of law is land use/zoning/environmental

Really? I might have need of one of those from time to time. Are you an attorney (as opposed to a lawyer) paralegal or government worker? Are you licensed in California, by any chance?

i am an attorney (which is one and the same with a lawyer :)… but no, only NY and CT.  i’m always happy, however, to answer general questions with the caveat that i can’t give CA legal advice yadda yadda yadda ;)

There is more than just a semantic difference between attorney (one who acts as an agent in business or legal matters) and lawyer (one who uses the law as a tool - same root as ”sawyer”).

One does not need to have a law degree to be called an attorney (aka “attorney de facto”), but does need one to be called an “attorney at law” (”de jure”).

The practical difference is that a lawyer argues cases in court, while an attorney does mostly paperwork or offers legal advice in complicated issues, such as oil and gas (popular in West Texas), land use/zoning ;-) , constitutional, family law/adoptions, etc.

Not that an attorney doesn’t file court papers or make the uncommon appearance in court, it’s just that they don’t make their living that way.

(Sorry, I just prefer to use accurate terminology.)

Due props for the law degree, though. :-)

[added after the fact:  OMG THE GIRL CAN BABBLE WHEN SHE’S BORED - sorry ;)]

that is bizarre, because no one i know in the legal world makes that distinction (in a courtroom or otherwise).  i’ve never seen a business card, for example, that would say, “SoAndSo, Lawyer.” they all say, “SoAndSo, Attorney at Law”

mind you, i’m certainly not saying you’re technically wrong, but i wouldn’t fit squarely into either category.  i both litigate and counsel on issues involving land use, zoning and the environment (including constitutional claims, particularly under the 1st, 5th, and 14th amendments)

for example, while probably ~50% of what i do would be categorized as litigation, by the very nature of the type of land use/environmental litigation we do (based upon a particular NY procedural statute for summary proceedings), i’d say a good 80% of the litigation i do is decided on paper, not in court (at least at the lower court level.  appeals 99.99999% of the time require an oral argument)

the other ~50% of my practice in particular is under the umbrella of administrative law:  site plan, special permit, variances, interpretations, etc. before municipal administrative boards (planning boards, zoning boards of appeal (which are technically quasi-judicial)) and zoning petitions before the legislative boards.

my firm is what’s called a “boutique” firm, because we specialize in a particular niche.  we often describe ourselves a “soup to nuts land firm,” meaning, for example, we have some clients for whom we would (1) offer counsel and representation in connection with their purchase of a property; (2) represent them before the administrative boards to get whatever approvals are necessary while offering whatever counsel is necessary in such occasions, all while creating a defensible record in the event that (3) litigation is necessary either against the municipality to challenge a denial, or on the same side as the municipality defending approvals; then (4) counseling them in connection with the sale of the property.

just in the “more info than you ever wanted to here” category, we represent developers, opposition groups, and municipalities, so we pride ourselves in the fact that we know how to challenge and defend on all fronts.  in other words, yes.  we are whores ;) but that goes with the J.D. ;)

thanks for the props :) i knew i wanted to practice law since i was in 3rd grade, knew i wanted environmental law since i was in 8th grade, so getting my J.D. and certificate in environmental law was practically my lifelong dream :)

you can tell you got me curious ;)

from wiki for “lawyer”:

In the United States of America, the term [lawyer] generally refers to attorneys who may practice law.

wiki for “attorney at law”:

An attorney at law (also known simply as an attorney or lawyer) in the United States is a person licensed to practice law by the highest court of a state or other jurisdiction. Alternative terms include attorney-at-law and attorney and counselor (or counsellor) at law.

(emphasis added)

although an “attorney in fact” is an agent, and cannot practice law, that distinction is always made (i have never heard someone designated as an attorney-in-fact call him/herself an “attorney"), whereas the assumption is if someone holds themselves out to be an “attorney,” s/he is an attorney-at-law

Well, I’m currently trying to develop my own company at this point, and once I get it to the point where it doesn’t need my day-to-day supervision, I intend to get a law degree, specializing in Constitutional Law.

And those semantic distinctions are not the ones that the dictionary uses. I’m not sure I would trust wiki to tell me what color the sky is supposed to be. LOL

From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

at·tor·ney (ə-tûr’nē)
n.  pl. at·tor·neys Abbr. Att. or Atty.
A person legally appointed by another to act as his or her agent in the transaction of business, specifically one qualified and licensed to act for plaintiffs and defendants in legal proceedings.

law·yer (lô’yər)
n.  One whose profession is to give legal advice and assistance to clients and represent them in court or in other legal matters.

I’m just saying… :-)

the flaw there, though, is that someone’s profession could be to give legal advice, but they must be appointed by another to act on his or her behalf!  thus, the terms are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

i think i’ll settle on the Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.), which essentially calls it a draw between the words’ “most general” meanings and “most common usage” ;)

Attorney. In the most general sense this term denotes an agent or substitute, or one who is appointed and authorized to act in the place or stead of another.  An agent, or one acting on behalf of another.  Sherts v. Fulton Nat. Bank of Lancaster, 342 Pa. 337, 21 A.2d 18.  In its most common usage, however, unless a contrary meaning is clearly intended, this term means “attorney at law”, “lawyer” or “counselor at law”.

Lawyer. A person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel, or solicitor; a person licensed to practice law.  Any person who prosecutes or defends causes in courts of record or other judicial tribunals of the United States, or of any of the states, or whose business it is to give legal advice or assistance in relation to any cause or matter whatever.  See also Attorney; House counsel.

i suppose in the most strict reading of the words, we have a “square is a rectangle, rectangle isn’t a square” type of situation; while a lawyer is an attorney, and attorney may not be a lawyer (because one could be an attorney-in-fact, etc.). 

like i said, i’m willing to call it a draw ;)

as for usage, however, once you go into the profession, i would be quite surprised if you were to find anyone who made such a distinction.  it is entirely unheard of at least in my jurisdiction.

as for obtaining a legal degree, despite the abuse the profession as a whole is subjected to, it is quite fulfilling!  good luck with that, and if you need any input/advice/etc., i’m always happy to help, since i absolutely LOVE my career ;)

thus, the terms are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Dear lady, I never claimed they were. I just understand that the distinction does exist.

like i said, i’m willing to call it a draw ;)

As am I, with thanks for the assistance in linguistic nuance.

i’m always happy to help, since i absolutely LOVE my career ;)

That’s always a bonus, isn’t it? :-)

Did you get to specialize while in Law School or were there the basics that every law student is forced to take, whether it would apply to their eventual career or not? (Such as needing to know Criminal Rules of Evidence to become a gas and oil lawyer?)

As for me, I’ve only done the pro se stuff, but I think I have a pretty good track record so far, with five wins and zero losses in (Small Claims) Court - including one where the opposing party wasn’t even allowed to offer a defense, because we had her dead to rights. (Our landlord was in violation of both our written lease and California’s Landlord/Tenant statutes - black letter law, and I had dug out the relevant cites and precedents from the local Law Library.)

Did you get to specialize while in Law School or were there the basics that every law student is forced to take, whether it would apply to their eventual career or not? (Such as needing to know Criminal Rules of Evidence to become a gas and oil lawyer?)

the answer is “both”

AFAIK, in every accredited law school, the first year is basically decided for you with a core set of classes.  after that you can start taking electives, and “specializing.” my school happened to have 3 subject areas where you can actually get a separate certificate if you met a set criteria (number of credits, particular required classes in that subject)… a law school equiv of “majoring” in a topic.  i have a certificate in environmental law.  this is not something most law schools have, but it’s not entirely uncommon.

whatever your jurisdiction, the bar exam WILL have a wide range of subjects, so the school requires those core classes (and the multi-state portion of the bar exam also concentrates on the core subjects)

although there are some topics you’ll end up never using (my school required tax law, and it’s not even on the bar anymore), you sometimes may find you’re dipping into a subject matter you thought was irrelevant (e.g., crim pro in a zoning violation case)