The video sucked, yes, but the music (at least the first half) did not. The song was Genesis by the French group Justice. Perhaps with your refined tastes you believe that it was "horrible music copying Daft Punk," but Justice's music is nearly universally praised by music critics. In fact, I would argue that the Justice album Cross is more a consistent and better listen than anything Daft Punk ever put together.

As an attorney myself, I feel the need to address some misconceptions.

1. This was not a class action, it was simply two individual cases.
2. The article is woefully sparse on details regarding the settlement. I do not practice in Pennsylvania, but I can assure you that the Rules of Professional Conduct in that state do not allow attorneys to take a nearly 70% fee. Most states will only allow a maximum fee of 35% or so. In a contingency fee practice, the client is always responsible for his or her own costs, unless the client fee agreement specifically states otherwise. Under the agreement, these costs are advanced by the attorney, but the client is ultimately responsible for repayment. In this case, it seems unlikely that the attorney could have accumulated $350k in costs, but regardless, any money above that 35% (more likely 33%) ceiling is going to repay money the attorney already spent out of his or her own pocket. These costs do not include the attorney's salary, her staff's salary, office rent, etc, they only include direct costs related to the case, such as legal research fees, travel expenses, filing fees, and expert fees.
3. An attorney DOES have repercussions if she issues casual advice to a potential client. The attorney/client relationship begins before any agreement is signed between the parties. Details, even from an initial meeting and even if the attorney is not ultimately hired to represent the client, are protected by attorney/client privilege and the attorney can land herself in hot water if she breaches this privilege.

Something to remember here is that an individual can always represent him or herself in court, so long as the individual is competent. That being said, hiring an experienced attorney will inevitably lead to a better outcome, very likely offsetting any costs. Unfortunately, our legal system is far too complex to navigate effectively without years of education and experience.

Just to keep up my reputation as an anal law person, I have one slight correction. The Rule Against Perpetuities invalidates future interests that do not vest within 21 years of the death of the last identifiable LIFE IN BEING at the time the interest was created. Thus, it's not necessarily measured by the life of the creator, but could be measured (and likely would be) by the life of a beneficiary, making it possible for the interest to potentially reach across multiple generations. Fun fact: In my home state of Washington, the Rule Against Perpetuities does not come into effect until 150 years after the instrument is created.

Nice try. The Castle doctrine is only applicable to unlawful intruders into one's house, not to someone walking down the street, as in the scenario we were discussing. Even so, it requires a particular set of circumstances before it can be invoked, thus making it a privilege. You do not understand the basic legal concept of a right versus a privilege. I suggest you start by reading up on Hohlfeldian correlatives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Newcomb_Hohfeld#Hohfeldian_analysis Good luck to you.

I was not going to jump into this, but for the love of God people, please learn something about the law. Self defense is NOT a "right," it is a privilege. A right is something the holder bears at all times, to which someone else owes a duty to recognize. A privilege, however, is only invoked if certain preconditions are met, such as the requirement that one must hold a driver's license to be able to use the public roads. To be able to argue the affirmative defense of self defense, you must meet a certain set of circumstances that typically look something like this: (1) Actual belief that one faced IMMINENT bodily harm, (2) the belief that one faced imminent harm was objectively reasonable, (3) actual belief that the degree of force one used was necessary for the purpose of defending one's self, and (4) the belief that the appropriate degree of force used was objectively reasonable. This means that it is CRUCIAL that the force used in defense was both proportional and IN REACTION to imminent (as in immediately impending) bodily harm. This goes directly to the heart of the issue of carrying a handgun in ANTICIPATION of a deadly attack. What society risks by embracing a mentality that it is one's "right" to use lethal force on the streets is the potential creation of a paranoid army of gun wielding vigilantes who have a misconstrued conception of the law and who will escalate minor confrontations to a deadly level. Please turn off the evening news once in a while and do a little research. Violent unprovoked attacks are extremely rare. It is ludicrous to walk down the streets, wielding a gun in preparation for a criminal to jump out from around a corner with a gun of his or her own. A more likely scenario might be a petty thief perpetrating a pickpocket. At that point do you have the RIGHT to take out your gun and shoot the thief? You likely do not, because it was not objectively reasonable to use deadly force in such a scenario. For your mental, personal, and legal well-being, please just start living your lives not in a state of paranoia, but in a state of cautioned reason.