Obama DOJ Sides With RIAA 785
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Obama Administration's Department of Justice, with former RIAA lawyers occupying the 2nd and 3rd highest positions in the department, has shown its colors, intervening on behalf of the RIAA in the case against a Boston University graduate student, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, accused of file sharing when he was 17 years old. Its oversized, 39-page brief (PDF) relies upon a United States Supreme Court decision from 1919 which upheld a statutory damages award, in a case involving overpriced railway tickets, equal to 116 times the actual damages sustained, and a 2007 Circuit Court decision which held that the 1919 decision — rather than the Supreme Court's more recent decisions involving punitive damages — was applicable to an award against a Karaoke CD distributor for 44 times the actual damages. Of course none of the cited cases dealt with the ratios sought by the RIAA: 2,100 to 425,000 times the actual damages for an MP3 file. Interestingly, the Government brief asked the Judge not to rule on the issue at this time, but to wait until after a trial. Also interestingly, although the brief sought to rebut, one by one, each argument that had been made by the defendant in his brief, it totally ignored all of the authorities and arguments that had been made by the Free Software Foundation in its brief. Commentators had been fearing that the Obama/Biden administration would be tools of the RIAA; does this filing confirm those fears?"
Change we can believe in. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup.
It's government corruption. (Score:4, Informative)
Just as Plato predicted (Score:5, Interesting)
Now in a democracy, too, there are drones, but they are more numerous and more dangerous than in the oligarchy; there they are inert and unpractised, here they are full of life and animation; and the keener sort speak and act, while the others buzz about the bema and prevent their opponents from being heard.
And there is another class in democratic States, of respectable, thriving individuals, who can be squeezed when the drones have need of their possessions; there is moreover a third class, who are the labourers and the artisans, and they make up the mass of the people. When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob.
Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence. Then follow informations and convictions for treason. The people have some protector whom they nurse into greatness, and from this root the tree of tyranny springs. The nature of the change is indicated in the old fable of the temple of Zeus Lycaeus, which tells how he who tastes human flesh mixed up with the flesh of other victims will turn into a wolf.
Even so the protector, who tastes human blood, and slays some and exiles others with or without law, who hints at abolition of debts and division of lands, must either perish or become a wolf--that is, a tyrant. Perhaps he is driven out, but he soon comes back from exile; and then if his enemies cannot get rid of him by lawful means, they plot his assassination.
Thereupon the friend of the people makes his well-known request to them for a body-guard, which they readily grant, thinking only of his danger and not of their
own. Now let the rich man make to himself wings, for he will never run away again if he does not do so then. And the Great Protector, having crushed all his rivals, stands proudly erect in the chariot of State, a full-blown tyrant.
Plato, The Republic [extremepolitics.org]
Full explanation: How we'll move into tyranny [amerika.org]
Great empires like the USA are not conquered. They decay from within. We are corrupt because we have lost social consensus. To understand that, you will have to first realize that not all of the humanities are BS and that politics/philosophy is a discipline as structured as programming. Until you overcome that bias, it will all be Greek (heh heh) to you.
Re:It's government corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
Compared to everything else....take this lovely mafia family over here...or this fair and justly operated drug ring in south america....
All far less corrupt than the fairest of governments.
Re:It's government corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.
EXTREMELY corrupt? Compared to who?
Does it matter? Is it OK to be corrupt if some other government is more corrupt?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's government corruption. (Score:4, Insightful)
Corruption is not an on/off bit. It is a matter of degree.
So a public official who requires a $50 bribe is corrupt but one taking $25 is not?
I think you've got it backwards, there. A public official that accepts a $25 bribe is probably more corrupt than one that capitulates for $50 - "every man has his price", as they say. If your price is high enough, maybe no one can afford to buy you off.
Unfortunately, our politicians in Washington are relatively cheap. AIG got, what, $170 Billion dollars? Or there about? That's quite a return on a measly $208,000 [opensecrets.org] (although that only includes Obama and Chris Dodd).
Re:It's government corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
If said official can't be bribed for less than a million dollars, then that greatly reduces the mischief that can be done.
So wealthy corporations and private interests would be the only ones with enough money to to bribe. Exactly the way it is now. All you have done is raise the price.
Re:It's government corruption. (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't have to spend billions of dollars.
http://moosecove.com/propertyrights/taxes/eminentdomain-taxes-melist-usat-040401.shtml [moosecove.com]
The USA Today article below reveals the latest ugly trend in statist abuse against private property owners: government seizure of private homes and businesses through eminent domain for the purpose of generating higher property taxes on subsequent "redevelopment" of the property.
The planned displacement of over 5,000 residents - to be removed by physical force if they refuse to leave under the government's threat - from a middle class community in coastal Florida is one in a rash of cases in recent years in which municipal officials collude with large-scale developers to seize private property: The officials use government eminent domain powers to take private property and turn it over to their cronies, who in turn use the land for large scale development of their own. The naked extortion is rationalized as legally justified with the rhetoric of the "public good", nebulously claiming that the seizures will improve "the economy" and, more specifically, arguing that it meets the constitutional test of eminent domain for "public use" because it will raise more taxes.
USA Today reports that a viro, "Larry Morandi, the environmental program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures, says cities are using eminent domain to address financial problems. 'They are taking property they don't believe is generating enough tax revenue and turning it over to a developer who will generate more taxes,' he says."
---
And yes, we knew Obama sided with RIAA beforehand.
Voting for Obama was a complex decision.
a) booting out corrupt republicans
b) stopping their social agenda
c) stopping the next 20 to 25 years being a "pro corporation, hyper socially conservative" court
d) addressing racism
---
RIAA has overstepped, will continue to overstep, and ultimately to avoid them-- just don't buy their products.
They can be reversed when they put enough grannies, dead people, and 17 year olds in prison. Every time Obama's team sides with them, he will waste a bit more of his political capital. Perhaps at some point he will wake up.
Re:It's government corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's government corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's government corruption. (Score:5, Informative)
Corruption no, compromise yes. The fledgling country needed to get all the states to go along with the Constitution to have a chance at succeeding so they made compromises that were appropriate for the times. Do not judge the decisions of the 1700's by today's standards. Consider the times.
Slavery was an accepted tradition in much of the world, from east to west. Read the history of the numbers of Africans transported as slaves around the world. Many were sent to China, but where are their descendants today? Or the fact that slavery existing in parts of South America until nearly the 20th century. The fact that the northerners got slaves recognized as three-fifths of a person at all was a compromise. Slavery only officially existed in the United States for around 75 years, from the signing of the Constitution until the Emancipation Proclamation. And yet we continue to see news reports of slavery being actively practiced in parts of Africa and Asia.
The electoral college exists for a very simple reason, to ensure all states have a say in electing the President. If we did not have the electoral college and only used majority popular vote, then candidates would only need to convince the residents of the largest states/cities. The rest of the country would be ignored.
By having Senators appointed instead of elected, the Senate was not susceptible to populist sentiment. Consider how impeachment works -- the House presses charges but the Senate is the jury. Whether you agreed with the bogus impeachment trial of Clinton or not, it showed one thing: impeachment of a popular president is now a thing of the past, regardless of his/her actions. A Senate that reads polls to see what people think before sitting on a jury will never impeach a popular official. Read the writings of the founders, they envisioned Congress to be made up of citizen-statesmen who would server a short time then go back home to their business and farms. Though there were federalists at the time, most did not envision politics as a lifetime career. Add to that the fact that originally the VP was the second most popular candidate in the election, where today the candidates pick someone most people wouldn't actually want as president, folks would not want to see today's VPs taking over as President.
And as for the Bill of Rights, no where does it specify gender or race. At the time of the signing, it may have been perceived to only apply to white males, but it is not codified that way. The Constitution was conceived of and written by white males, simply because at that time in the history of the US, that is who ran things. There are a couple of uses of the masculine pronouns him and himself but most refer to people or person. Considering the banning of the use of gender pronouns in official documents in the EU just happened this week, I'd say this wasn't an attempt by the writers to mean only men were covered, it is just the writings of the times.
It always frustrates me to read and hear people make comments about actions or activities that took place hundreds of years ago using the standards and moralities of today. Looking at the world at the time of the Constitution, the fact that there even is a Bill of Rights and that the Constitution was written as a limitation on the rights of the government, not the governed, is amazing.
So instead of continuing to bash aspects of something written over 200 years ago, that have provided more opportunities and freedoms than anything else from that time period, why don't you attack those that are trying to destroy it and take away those hard won freedoms?
Re:Compared to being honest. (Score:5, Funny)
Just ask yourself: "What would Jesus do?" If you're atheist then instead ask, "What would the voters think?" everytime you need to make a decision. That's how you avoid corruption as a politician or public servant.
Re:Compared to being honest. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, as an athiest, I think that if more people considered "What would Jesus do?", the world would probably be a better place in general.
--Jeremy
Re:Cheney and Bush: 1,000,000 killed. Lula: 0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your comment is a typical case of ignorance. (Score:5, Informative)
But most people don't know about this. Why? Because it's painful to learn, I guess.
Although you certainly have some good flamebait attempt at the beginning, you do make a point at the end.
The reason the majority of people outside the USA are not aware (or don't care) of the USA corruption is because they are very busy living their lives coping with their governments corruption.
Also, as you didn't say (but that is the point you made), the reason USA corruption is *very*important, is because it affects several countries OUTSIDE the USA.
However, GP has some wisdom in his comment. My wife parents live in the North of Mexico, where due to the fear state imposed by and other paramiliar groups, they can't live a normal life. [wikipedia.org]
The issue is that they get 'used' to it, and now you hear them saying things like "as long as you obey the rules and do not go out after it is dark, and keep a lo profile, everything is OK".
Now, the sad thing with corruption is that people in the government is *well* aware of who are these people and mostly where do they live (for example, where my Wife's parents live, there is a guy who is a renown entrepreneur but is also known to have links with drug cartels. However, police (haha, police, they are deeper in the shit) do not get him for interrogation because they know if they push, someone higher in the government will punish them (at least) or they will get "levanton" (kidnapped in the middle of the day), "tabliza" (to be hit by wooden sticks) or just disappear.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Change we can believe in. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes the DOJ intervening to argue that some law of the US is not unconstitutional! I feel for you man, I really do. I'm so upset about this I nearly choked on my wheaties. C'mon NewYorkCountryLawyer, you know DOJ will usually argue the constitutionality of existing law of the US when it is challenged in a Federal Court. Don't be so disingenuous! You're upsetting the non-lawyers. I know you have an axe to grind, and I don't disagree with you. But talk about playing to the gallery!
There was no requirement for them to step in here, or to say anything. If they wanted to intervene, they could have stepped in and said:
-the Court should strive to avoid the constitutional question by refraining from deciding it unless and until statutory damages are awarded (they did say that);
-statutory damages are indeed subject to a Due Process test based on excessiveness (they did say that);
-the Supreme Court's last pronouncement on the subject was a 90 year old decision against a railroad corporation, but the Supreme Court in State Farm and Gore have applied a more stringent standard to punitive damage awards, and recent case law suggests the Supreme Court when it next visits the issue may apply the State Farm/Gore test, and
-we express no opinion as to what would be an appropriate multiple under the facts of this particular case, since the factual record has not been developed.
If and when there is an award of statutory damages, which is challenged at that time on due process grounds, we respectfully request the right to be heard at that time on that issue in the event the Government believes the award does pass constitutional muster.
Re:Change we can believe in. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Change we can believe in. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Change we can believe in. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahhh, Ron Paul believes the same things as the Founders believed, like individual liberty and a constitutionally-limited government, and the Founders were a bunch of nuts. /end sarcasm
Re:Change we can believe in. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Change we can believe in. (Score:5, Informative)
Bzzzz. Democrat now vice-president Joe Biden received more donations from Delaware credit corporations than any other congressman. Democrats are lackeys of the corporations just the same as the Republicans.
If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR THIS (Score:4, Insightful)
It has been well known the republicrats and democans are the tools of the MAFIAA(Music And Film Industry Association of America) and Omaba is no different. The libertarians have long known Obama is for as much change as Bush and Clinton, none. Both major parties are for corporate wealth and will use legislation to back said corporate wealth.
-bob
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:5, Insightful)
False dichotomies are lies.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:5, Insightful)
The statement "There will never be a point in voting Libertarian." Is false and most likely flamebait.
I vote for the person that closest represents my value system and promises to do the things I would like to see done while they are in the White House. REGARDLESS of the fact that they may lose. Voting for either Republican or Democrat because "no one else will win" is not only morally bankrupt it is foolish.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no point voting the two major parties, they're owned by interests, not by the people.
BTW, Jesse Ventura won the governor's race as an independent so not only is your logic false, it only serves the status quo.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:5, Funny)
People thought if they could distract him with politics he might stop acting.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:5, Insightful)
False - though you may not gain executive power, you still can win voices that can be heard and votes in the house and the senate.
--
How can you get rid of corruption if people rather vote for who they think will win rather than what they believe in?
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:5, Informative)
To take a lesson from history, the American Progressive Party never won a presidential election, but took enough votes from the Rep/Dem parties that both parties began to adopt elements of the Progressive platform.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:5, Insightful)
They only won't win if no-one votes for them. That's sort of how elections work.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:4, Insightful)
They won't win the presidential election- not now.
But they might if we can put a few in the state legislatures, then the house, and then the senate.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. States first, then their federal reps. Congress has always had more power, anyway. That's where we want our alternate-party candidates. A federal legislature that consisted of more-or-less equal parts Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, and Independent would do a lot better at representing the public interest.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no point voting for the major parties. They're going to win anyway.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a problem... at the national level. What needs to happen is people need to stop focusing on Washington and focus on their own back yard. Vote out local/state Reps/Dems; Weaken their community from the ground up.
You can't stop this in one fell swoop come an election year.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:5, Insightful)
There will never be a point in voting Libertarian.
1) The candidate won't win.
2) You'll only peel votes from a Republican.
3) Some of them are scarier than the devils we know.
There is always a point in voting for the person you would actually like to see in office.
1) I don't vote to be on the winning team. I vote for who i want to see in the position. Independents will never be able to win if you keep voting against people instead of for people.
2) This one is ridiculous. If you are voting for the Libertarian, you clearly dont want the republican in office, so how are you peeling a vote from the republican? If i dont want any of the people running in office, i dont vote for any of them. The lesser of two evils is still fucking evil.
3) I dont vote for scary libertarians.
i do not hold a political party affiliation. I'm not advocating voting libertarian. I'm advocating voting for anyone, regardless of party, that you think would be good in the position.
Re:Libertarians have too much baggage. (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing about libertarians is that they are VERY PRO IP, and very pro ownership. In fact, considering that I am libertarian and a card carrying member of the Swiss Libertarian party many would not like what libertarians represent...
Re:Libertarians have too much baggage. (Score:5, Interesting)
If I ever met Ron Paul in person, this is something I would like to ask him about. Even though Libertarians are pro-property (copyrights and patents are in the Constitution iirc), he at the same time is very much against corporate welfare (voted against bailouts) and corporate fascism. So this new fangled IP (intellectual property) may not be so cut and dried.
I have a feeling he would have voted against all the copyright extensions and patents back in the day were not so bad when they protected implementations vs. now which is "intellectual property" vs. methods, thoughts, whatever, etc.
While I have sympathies to the pirate bay, a lot of it is just people demanding free shit which is a form of welfare if instituted on a public level. I enjoy using google books to find books and think fair use should extend to that although I don't demand the entire book for free.
One should remember while libertarians uphold private property rights, there is a real and distinct difference between private property vs intellectual property.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What? In politics maybe, but not the libertarians [lewrockwell.com] I know [mises.org].
Private property is the solution to limited resources, and modern intellectual property is not limited in any sense.
Re:Libertarians have too much baggage. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Libertarians have too much baggage. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a difference between being pro IP and being pro RIAA. A true pro IP stance would ibvolve the DOJ getting involved when independent artists with no money get their crap stolen by a big magazine or the like. The current setup of IP law favors only those with big money, and the DOJ is helping those who can already help themselves, instead of small fish.
Where is the DOJ action over Ebaum's World stealing things from Newegg artists? This is pure industry subsidy, not any attempt to enforce copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Usually in politics, the words "in theory" mean "in my delusional world".
Despite what you think the libertarians ought to be, a majority of them are on record as pro-patent and this is the mainline stance of the party. Of course they throw in a line about how they are "concerned" about abuse of the system but never a concrete suggestion for reform (just like every other politician). For some reason, slashdotters believe the libertarians but not the others. Must be an underdog effect.
I've never gotten a good
Re:Libertarians have too much baggage. (Score:5, Insightful)
The way some of you are discussing this leads me to believe you have very rigid beliefs about what makes one libertarian; rigidity that I don't see associated with other parties/political theories.
Do all democrats believe one thing? Do all democrats truly represent democracy well?
Do all republicans truly believe in a true republic? Shit, Lincoln was a republican, compare his politics to that of the GOP of today...
And the guy that brings up Ron Paul makes my point, because Ron Paul wasn't a libertarian candidate; he's a republican (even though he holds a lot of core libertarian values).
Basically, in this day and age in America the party a candidate associates his/herself with doesn't mean that much, in that it certainly doesn't mean that that person holds to an encyclopedic manifesto of party beliefs and positions - it's not like it used to be....people seem to have this idea of libertarianism that is rigid and sounds like an encyclopedic definition, (EG a definition of theory, but not of practice) - that any candidate who is a libertarian either wants to put everything up for sale or is crazy and can't win - I think that many people hold libertarian values, and from the years I have spent on Slashdot I would say that a large number of the people who comment here have a strong libertarian bent (not necessarily the libertarian party, but libertarian as in beleiving strongly in personal freedom).
My feeling (especially in these times) is that with any school of thought, you should take what you want, what you believe - and leave the rest...Of course, the media and the government don't seem to like this, because they want people to be easily pigeonholed and thus easily manipulated....
About right now I find it hard to believe that the US would not be better off had someone other than Obama or McCain been elected - I'm not saying any candidate is perfect, but certainly had Ron Paul won we would have someone who isn't in the pocket of big business and big money/industry and someone who does more than provide lip service to respecting the constitution.
As has been said many times before, until we get away from these two big money political parties there isn't going to be any real change; and not only that, things seem to progressively be getting worse for just about everyone.
Re:Libertarians have too much baggage. (Score:5, Funny)
From reading Slashdot, I have deduced that Libertarians are like Republicans, only without the empathy and concern for their fellow man.
Well shoot from reading Slashdot, one could deduce that women are like cars but without mufflers.
nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
You won't get an expanded menu until you tell the restaurant owner you aren't buying either the chicken and rice or rice and chicken and stick to it. If you just keep buying one of the two exactly the same selections on the menu, he isn't going to change, no matter how much you ask or beg for a third or fourth or fifth choice.
With voting, you can do this. You have to crack 1% to get to 2%, then crack 2 to get to 3 and so on. We've had examples in the past where third party candidates hit close to 10%, and when that level hit and the high level corrupt goons in the R and D parties got scared, and with the help of the compliant media demonizing or outright ignoring those alternatives and hijacked congress keeping the voting regs tilted in favor of the same two parties, it dropped back down. And the media IS complicit, they only "allow" the two major parties in the so called national debates. The league of women voters dropped sponsorship of the debates over that stance and being forced to acquiesce to some other shenanigans like scripting in advance, they refused to participate any longer and called it a "fraud on the american people". The big corporate media should have had the integrity and balls to do exactly the same at the exact same time, but being mostly controlled tools and way more a propaganda arm of the establishment than being independent journalists, they didn't.
In other words, I categorically reject the notion that casting the ONE vote you have for who you really want is a waste. Maintaining that criminal gang duopoly by spending your one vote-and that is all you have realistically- on it is the only true waste (that or not voting at all) if you really don't want that criminal duopoly to remain in power. I know I have a clear conscious, been voting third or alternate party for decades now, and I can say I don't vote for the status quo of corruption and malfeasance in government as "business as usual".
If you vote for one of those back room and media picked for you political sock puppets. no matter what your reason if it is anything except really wanting that particular doofus...that's it, that is who you voted for and you are affirming their continuance of corruption and malfeasance. It doesn't matter what you think in the back of your mind, what matters is that you personally gave them a signal that what they are doing is perfectly fine. If you don't want to do that, then don't, and it is that simple.
The more people who are not made artificially afraid of that the better. I refuse to be intimidated by this threat of "wasting your vote", because I've been around long enough to clearly see the only major difference with those two criminal gangs is which of your pockets they want to pick first, and which of our born with rights they put at the head of the list to infringe on. I just slap refuse to vote in the affirmative for either of those bogus alleged choices.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really depressing that so many people are this stupid. Every argument against voting third party eventually boils down to "third parties can't win" which completely misses the point.
If you're voting against what you really want just so you can brag that you voted for the winner, then you're doing it wrong. Do us all a favor and stay home next election day.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:5, Informative)
Support instant runoff voting, or at least first-round/runoff voting for federal offices. Proportional representation to determine House delegations wouldn't hurt either, IMHO.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:5, Insightful)
while it may look like a choice of rice and chicken versus chicken and rice, until you can get the menu to expand you pick one of the two or you don't eat.
What can someone do to expand this menu other than vote third party and volunteer for a third party campaign?
Revolution.
Re:Me and what army? (Score:5, Interesting)
So yeah, we would have a pretty good chance. Especially with widespread public support. If there was enough support, it might even be wholly bloodless.
Third Party (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Third Party (Score:5, Insightful)
Third party would not be different (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution lies in those overseeing the public good being beyond the influence of big business. Get rid of the revolving door.
Sadly, it's exactly this type of behaviour that Obama said he was going to stop.
Re:Third party would not be different (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright would be the same thing. Either companies are allowed to include DRM and it is legal to break the DRM and copyright is loosened. Or companies are not allowed to include DRM but copyright law would be strengthened from its original (not today, but when it was first made) idea. In the current situation, DRM is allowed and it is illegal to break and strong, lengthy copyrights. The public loses today.
Re:Third Party (Score:5, Insightful)
He made changes with Guantanamo.
He's made changes in the tax system - albeit not enough for my tastes.
He's dealing with one of the worst economies in decades.
It looks like we're finally getting out of Iraq and maybe things in Afghanistan will improve too.
Maybe he is a tool of the RIAA. I don't know, but considering the other shit happening in this World, the RIAA and their actions are not exactly high on people's list.
I'm all for third parties myself - I voted for Barr - but I think Obama is getting much of his changes through. It's just not the "working in the system peaceful revolution" that I think many folks expected.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Third Party (Score:5, Insightful)
A) Recording the song, today though, with a small investment anyone can record songs that sound about as good as professionally done songs.
B) Giving the song air time. Today, radio is a dead medium. Sure, it reaches some people, but internet radio, music video games (Guitar Hero, Rock Band, Tap Tap, etc), online promotions, YouTube, etc will reach a larger number of people, and all those do not require a record label.
C) Giving the album store space. Today, most music sales are digital, its not too hard to put a song on iTunes, Amazon MP3, etc. And while a record label will certainly help getting you into a physical store, that is not the only way.
Today, all the functions of a record label can be done by the band and a few others. There is no need to make sure the record companies survive, only the artists. Because the record companies do not help the artist, why keep them?
Re:Third Party (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the RIAA is basically irrelevant in this day and age. There is no need to make sure that the record labels continue. Record labels do not add anything to culture, or to the economy, artists do. The record labels do more harm than good to the artists. Back before the internet, it was important to be signed on to a record label for a few reasons. A) Recording the song, today though, with a small investment anyone can record songs that sound about as good as professionally done songs. B) Giving the song air time. Today, radio is a dead medium. Sure, it reaches some people, but internet radio, music video games (Guitar Hero, Rock Band, Tap Tap, etc), online promotions, YouTube, etc will reach a larger number of people, and all those do not require a record label. C) Giving the album store space. Today, most music sales are digital, its not too hard to put a song on iTunes, Amazon MP3, etc. And while a record label will certainly help getting you into a physical store, that is not the only way. Today, all the functions of a record label can be done by the band and a few others. There is no need to make sure the record companies survive, only the artists. Because the record companies do not help the artist, why keep them?
Exactly. Which is why they have embarked on this vicious litigation campaign. It's a pathetic way for the failed executives of the 'Big 4' record companies to deflect attention from their failure, and it's an even more pathetic way to try to gain control over the internet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He has put out the word that he wants a dialogue with Iran.
And hasn't started one.
He made changes with Guantanamo.
And shipped the prisoners there to another prison in Afghanistan while refusing to change the Bush policy on denying the right to trial for prisoners.
He's made changes in the tax system - albeit not enough for my tastes.
We'll see how that plays out.
He's dealing with one of the worst economies in decades.
The same way that Bush did, so far.
It looks like we're finally getting out of Iraq and maybe things in Afghanistan will improve too.
This has yet to be seen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not difficult to play a "reasonable" person with 8 years of utter insanity in the background. I note that "talking" does not equate with "handling well" though.
Cosmetic ones. As far as the whole mess is concerned, changing names and moving the "unspeakables" around changes little of consequence.
Yes, he did rearrange the chairs on the Titani
No going to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the immense dissatisfaction that the american public has with the Obama presidency will spark off a independent party revolution, and both major parties will be shut out in the next round of elections. Either that, or a bunch of nerds on the Internet will just get pissed off over a relatively minor ruling on IP law.
Even if the voting laws magically changed overnight, Obama is going to have to screw up pretty badly to
Re:Third Party (Score:5, Interesting)
It is easy to critize... So what should he have done? And by this I don't mean cut taxes as a general concept. I want details...
I want details of what he should have done, and how it would have helped the economy...
"does this filing confirm those fears?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"does this filing confirm those fears?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. Not only that but it is a harbinger that will eventually show where the Obama campaign probably got their campaign money from.
Big media company associations, and big banks.
Who'll be big-time beneficiaries of their judicial efforts, stimulus packages, and ultimately new laws think new super-DMCA but 1000 fold worse.
i.e. Mandatory DRM. Repeal of the safe-harbor protections of the DMCA. More liability for services like youtube, and ISPs who fail to filter copyrighted content.
Criminal liability for authors of P2P software like bittorrent.
The years ahead will probably not be very fun for technologists or the public.
Interestingly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Peter said, essentially, that the music companies had lost the plot.
Nuff said
Change? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Change? (Score:5, Insightful)
How exactly is chiming in on the RIAA lawsuit worse than anything that bush did in his eight miserable years in office?
It's not worse; it's identical.
Doing the exact same thing as your predecessor is "not change". And fighting for big corporations' rights to squeeze people for statutory damage awards that are 2100 to 425,000 times the size of the actual damages, is not helping to rebuild the middle class.
Re:Change? (Score:4, Interesting)
this is not a change for the worse because it's not a change at all
Correct. This is precisely the same thing the Bush Administration would have filed. Which saddens me deeply, since we are all painfully aware of what the Bush Administration accomplished. The only redeeming virtue of this brief is that it is illogical and weak, portending that the RIAA will lose on this issue when push comes to shove.
Business as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
What did we expect?
Re:Business as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA can't win in the courts, with advertising, or education of the young. Lobbyists haven't been able to get new laws passed. So the CEOs get their guys into the DOJ. What did we expect?
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
- Ronald Reagan
Re:Business as usual (Score:4, Interesting)
Republicans and oil, Dems and Big Content (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that the dems are in power, you're surprised that they are doing everything to secure the media's interests? Really?
Raise your hand if you were surprised by this posting.
Re:Republicans and oil, Dems and Big Content (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that the dems are in power, you're surprised that they are doing everything to secure the media's interests? Really?
Actually, Obama implemented policies to make lobbying, especially by insiders, harder. That includes big media. He also made claims that he would be sure to prevent people from favoring industries where they had just been hired from, or where they had the potential to be hired to (for example people can't leave the executive branch and then immediately become a lobbyist to the executive branch). This is interesting, because unlike most other changes Obama promised, this one was within his executive power. This makes it a good test of his intention since it is not something he has to rely upon and make compromises with Congress in order to accomplish.
When he appointed these RIAA lawyers they were among a half dozen that made me cringe. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt for a short time as I did with the FOIA issue. Effective lawyers often come with baggage, although I'd rather he appointed some ACLU heavyweights. Now, I'll give him some time to become aware of the issue and take action to rein in his subordinates or replace them. I don't expect that will happen, in all honesty, but I am reserving judgement.
Raise your hand if you were surprised by this posting.
I was not surprised. I was slightly disappointed. Still, once these appointments were made, this was a near certainty. The measure will be how it is handled from here. Does he let them continue as they have been? Does Obama become aware of this issue and if so, does he do something about it? That will be the real test of if he is sincere and effective or if he is going to bend to the wishes of powerful lobbyists.
Re:Republicans and oil, Dems and Big Content (Score:5, Insightful)
Effective lawyers often come with baggage, although I'd rather he appointed some ACLU heavyweights.
On the other hand, if you look at the nature of the corporations they previously served, these individuals' ethics were already in question. That should have been enough to disqualify them. Baggage is one thing, but these people have a history of twisting the law around their middle fingers, disrespecting the Court system, and unnecessarily damaging a lot of people in the process. Had they been honorable men they would have put a stop to it, or resigned. That they did not is a clear indication that they are not honorable, and have in no way earned their current positions.
Furthermore, looking at the cases in which they're choosing to intervene (given that there are certainly more substantive cases they could spend our money upon) I'm taking the view that their "baggage" is actively influencing their present behavior. How else could that be, given that after starting their new jobs they immediately began carrying on the RIAA's program? Is that even legal? Seems to me an investigation is in order: I, for one, would like to know for whom they really work. If it's not us they should be fired on the spot.
I'll bet the champagne was flowing freely at RIAA headquarters when Obama's appointments were announced.
They didn't need to take a position (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They didn't need to take a position (Score:5, Interesting)
There was no reason for the administration to intervene at all in this case. There was no legal requirement for them to take a position in the case.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. If they were going to intervene, they should have said "It is correct that the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act is subject to a due process test. We take no position on whether the test enunciated in the 1919 Williams decision, or the more recent State Farm/Gore test, should determine the statute's constitutionality. We submit that the Court should defer ruling on the defense at this early stage of the case, and should await the outcome of the trial, in order to avoid any unnecessary determination of any constitutional question, and to allow any such determination to be made upon a full record, rather than in the abstract."
Re:They didn't need to take a position (Score:5, Insightful)
Either way this isn't a good thing, but it may be premature to conclude that this indicates any particular bias towards towards the RIAA.
I agree with you there. As was noted the last time this was brought up, their brief really isn't about the RIAA or file-sharing so much as the constitutionality of the statutory damages part of the Copyright Act.
On the other hand, that way of looking at the Eight Amendment is so sketch. It basically amounts to saying, "We (the Government) can't exact ridiculously high fines from you, but we can write a law that allows other to do so, with our consent and enforcement."
Yep! (Score:5, Funny)
Was this the change we were promised? (Score:4, Interesting)
But, this type of ruling/defense by the administration, along with other things are really starting to bother me.
There are several that are bothersome. The moving of the census to be controlled by the executive branch. This is scary enough, in that it should be more independent....and above political needs. I see on the news that possibly ACORN is being tapped to 'help' with the census. I'd think the controversy over the potential voting fraud they were associated with, would sideline them on this effort. Slanting the census will have FAR reaching influence over many, many issues and money for years to come.
Obama was promising that he'd try to cut down earmarks..."line by line" I think was his quote. Yet, that Omnibus bill was loaded with what, like 8K of them?
The move to help people in housing problems....where they are allowing judges to overturn, revamp the condition of valid contractual agreements, that is dangerous, with far reaching implications for valid contract law in the US.
While it is understandable that people are pissed over the AIG bonuses...the acts passed by the house which try to retroactively and specically target these, again, is scary and I'd think unconstitutional. If these payouts were from valid contracts signed in the past, I don't see any clear way they could be overturned...and going after them retroactively by taxes...wow. I'm hoping the senate and especially Obama himself votes this down. It sets a bad precedent, and could really start to hurt US businesses. If valid contracts can be messed with like this....who wants to do business when you can't count on the terms being enforced?
The latest proposals...to not only mandate what execs of bailout companies can make..but also implications coming out that they want to actually set limits on what healthy, non=bailout companies can pay....that acares me. Sounds very much the opposite of capitalism. It may be a populist view in terms of the current economy, but, wow....THAT would be a change.
I want him to succeed in getting the country back in step....so we can all go back to trying to make a living without the interference of the government. That is the US way....at least ideally. Some of these policies coming out, seem to be a change to something the US is not....and never has been.
I ask honestly...for not just those that voted for O, but, those that were adamant supporters...are these things truly what you were expecting for 'change'? Do you support all of this which seems to change what the basics of the US business is all about? I don't mean the corruption and waste...but, the basic principals that seem to be in jeopardy?
Re:Was this the change we were promised? (Score:4, Insightful)
Animal farm anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only fix is campaign finance reform (Score:5, Insightful)
The fix is that candidates should only be permitted to accept campaign funds from people who are allowed to vote for them.
Other Motivation (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm certainly not surprised to see a Democratic administration support the entertainment industry, but in this case they probably have other motivation as well. An unfavorable ruling here could be generalized to the awarding of amounts unrelated to actual damages for any reason. Since it is often the government that collects such awards...
Follow the money (Score:5, Insightful)
The "Entertainment" industry has "contributed" massive sums to the Democrat party for many years. Did anyone think that there would be no reciprocity? Corporations and wealthy individuals do not make political contributions because they are ideologically motivated. They do it because there will be a return on the investment. Well, here it is.
We're better off McCain/Palin (Score:5, Insightful)
Commentators had been fearing that the Obama/Biden administration would be tools of the RIAA; does this filing confirm those fears?"
There is a implication there that the alternative McCain/Palin administration wouldn't have been tools of the RIAA. Whoever is in government is a tool of big industry. Its the fundamental natural of capitalist democracy.
!surprise (Score:5, Funny)
In Obama America, hopes changes You!
Let the ideology valves be opened (Score:3, Funny)
Need Decentralization (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, while much of the DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
The only recourse we have is the courts. Let's hope that is sufficient.
More of the same (Score:3, Interesting)
This intervening is just part of a laundry list of documents regarding the case. If someone finds something specific about this phase of the trial, please chime in. Below is a copy and paste job of the original complaints. The guy is apparently up against fines up to $1 million dollars, so wouldn't it make sense to just settle and get back to school? That is what my parents would of said, and they would have paid (begrudgingly) up to $10k if there was anything near a 5% probability of me having to pay $1,000,000, the downtime from school, legal expenses, social problems, etc.
Unless this guy, a Professor of law at Harvard Law School, and his family are all actually delusional enough to believe he is not expected to have to pay such a $1,000,000 fine to share music with his teenage friends. You know, the same stuff that you and I did as kids because we had more time than money and we really liked the latest music or even some of that older music that we heard on the radio.
Why don't they just legalize music? Or at least decriminalize it.
-hackstraw
This case, like many others now before the Court, is one for
copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. Â 106. The Plaintiffs are
some of the nation's largest record companies. The Defendants in
these consolidated cases are individual computer users -- mainly
college students -- who, the Plaintiffs claim, used "peer-to-
peer" file-sharing software to download and disseminate music
without paying for it, infringing the Plaintiffs' copyrights.
Many of the Defendants have defaulted or settled, largely without
the benefit of counsel, subject to damages awards between $3,000
and $10,000.
Joel Tenenbaum ("Tenenbaum") is one of the few defendants
represented by counsel, Professor Charles Nesson of Harvard Law
School and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. He has
chosen to challenge the action through a Motion to Amend
Counterclaims (document # 686), his Opposition to the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims (document # 676), and a Motion to
Join the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA")
(document # 693), all of which will be heard on January 22, 2009.
Whether those counterclaims survive or not, he will proceed to a
jury trial in this Court currently scheduled for March 30, 2009.
While Tenenbaumâ(TM)s Motion to Permit Audio-Visual Coverage by CVN
(document # 718) is directed to all proceedings going forward,
this Order addresses only the proceeding on January 22, 2009,
where legal arguments on the motions above will be heard.
In many ways, this case is about the so-called Internet
Generation -- the generation that has grown up with computer
technology in general, and the internet in particular, as
commonplace. It is reportedly a generation that does not read
newspapers or watch the evening news, but gets its information
largely, if not almost exclusively, over the internet. See
generally Martha Irvine, Generation Raised Internet Comes of Age,
MSNBC.com, Dec. 13, 2004, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6645963/ [msn.com].
Consistent with the nature of these file-sharing cases, and the
identity of so many of the Defendants, this case is one that has
already garnered substantial attention on the internet.
I'm Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
it totally ignored all of the authorities and arguments that had been made by the Free Software Foundation in its brief
Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I confess I haven't dug through the briefs. Leaving aside the question of why the White House is involved in this at all, this line confuses me.
First, if the WH's brief concedes that statutory damages are subject to excessive damage review, I don't know why they would address the FSF's argument further in that regard.
Secondly, if the administration cited SCOTUS and Circuit Court rulings, why would they need to address law review articles and District Court rulings? I'm under the impression that the higher courts trump the lower ones. I'd suggest, again with little knowledge of the matter, that the FSF failed by using weak citations. In an argument on Constitutional grounds, I have trouble seeing where the lower court rulings and journal articles should have more weight than a higher court ruling on a general case, even if the subject matter is more directly related.
Any insight into this from someone who's read the briefs and, ideally, studied some law would be appreciated.
Returning to the matter of the White House's involvement at all... guk. This seems to me to be, simply, beneath the White House. There's no reason I can see why they should feel they have an official interest in the matter. This should frankly be true when it comes to any Constitutional law decision of the courts; their job is to obey the big C as the courts interpret it, not to attempt to influence this. I've long held that the executive branch should show no interest in legal - especially Constitutional - interpretation beyond enforcing, obeying, and occasionally clarifying it.
Re:I'm Confused (Score:5, Informative)
Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I confess I haven't dug through the briefs. Leaving aside the question of why the White House is involved in this at all, this line confuses me. First, if the WH's brief concedes that statutory damages are subject to excessive damage review, I don't know why they would address the FSF's argument further in that regard.
Because the authorities cited by the FSF referred to the "State Farm/Gore" test; the Government took the position that the "Williams" test, and not the "State Farm/Gore" test is applicable.
Secondly, if the administration cited SCOTUS and Circuit Court rulings, why would they need to address law review articles and District Court rulings? I'm under the impression that the higher courts trump the lower ones. I'd suggest, again with little knowledge of the matter, that the FSF failed by using weak citations. In an argument on Constitutional grounds, I have trouble seeing where the lower court rulings and journal articles should have more weight than a higher court ruling on a general case, even if the subject matter is more directly related.
Because their authority was a wildly distinguishable case that is 90 years old, and because a great deal of recent jurisprudence has emanated from the US Supreme Court on how much is too much in the punitive damages sphere, and a number of recent authorities have stated that this US Supreme Court jurisprudence is applicable to statutory damages.
Any insight into this from someone who's read the briefs and, ideally, studied some law would be appreciated. Returning to the matter of the White House's involvement at all... guk. This seems to me to be, simply, beneath the White House. There's no reason I can see why they should feel they have an official interest in the matter. This should frankly be true when it comes to any Constitutional law decision of the courts; their job is to obey the big C as the courts interpret it, not to attempt to influence this. I've long held that the executive branch should show no interest in legal - especially Constitutional - interpretation beyond enforcing, obeying, and occasionally clarifying it.
I agree; I think this was a disgraceful display.
big fucking surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
3 months ago, those 2 and 3 DOJ lackeys worked for the very organization on which behalf they're intervening.
If the administration were serious about that whole lobbying conflict of interest line they touted in the beginning, the DOJ would quietly side-step this one.
They're not, showing that the whole entertainment lobby is untrustworthy.
I've said it before, but this proves it, those appointments were just plain stupid. Whomever Obama chose to vett those picks was not aware of the truth, damn truth, or actual truth in that matter.
That they were qualified to work those posts may be true, but the appointments having the integrity and loyalty to serve is just truthy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Change you can believe in...
Actually, the first draft of this slogan was "Change you will believe in, sucker".
Re:Payback time. (Score:5, Interesting)
votes were supplied by people. the VERY people this shitfaces are suing.
democrat party still depends on those people's donations for upcoming congress elections. he was just sending a call to volunteers. if an online campaign is launched to raise awareness about this stunt, theyll get served.
and they deserve it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't want to be racist or anything, but I think that he'll be America's first and last black president. Do I think that because he's black? No. I think that because I think he sucks.
This one even got modded up. Think about that. Obama's DoJ claiming that copyright statues are constitutional means no black man should ever be elected again.
George writes a song and gets sued (Score:3, Interesting)
As a businessman I believe Open Source Software reduces cost so an individual with a new idea can Quickly and for Under 2K get his message out.
That is, if new ideas even exist. Say someone named George writes a song, records it, and sells copies. If George's song is a hit, some big-name songwriter named Ron sues George, alleging that George's song was a copy of Ron's song and asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars. George says he didn't mean to copy anything, but the judge says it doesn't matter because George had heard Ron's song years ago. This actually happened, and Ron won [ucla.edu]. It turns out that there are only a limited number of possible mel
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The RIAA intervention by the DOJ would not usually get my panties in a twist, but I think it is taking us in the wrong direction. It was the greed, arrogance, and unreasonable actions by wall street executives that got us into the current financial mess. The RIAA is no different and in my humble opinion, Obama's support for their arrogance and bullying is sending a clear message that he is duplicitous. Either you are against this of behaviour or you are for it. You can't be both.
I agree that the position taken by the brief is inconsistent with the thrust of Mr. Obama's campaign promises.
Re:It won't mattter anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
You are part of this revolution. Do not accede to the will of those who seek to control you.
I damned well am not part of your revolution. I've sold words for money before, and I'll do so again. I'd happily sue the pants offa someone for redistributing my work for free, if I can catch 'em.
I object to the criminalization of a civil offense, the RIAA's invasions of privacy, extortion, barratry, and general thuggish behavior, the current and past administrations' acceptance of soft money bribery in exchange for political support to the industry, and jerks like you who think free downloads are jam today and jam tomorrow. I have a problem with what's rapidly becoming perpetual copyright, as well, but I agree with the principle of copyright.
Technology has the potential to put a stop to much of the leeching practiced by publication and distribution houses and middlemen, which is a good thing. But if it's done at the expense of those who create - writers, painters, musicians, game designers, and even editors - as you advocate, then you become the leech.
Undermining the rule of law (Score:4, Interesting)
Continued undermining of the social contract is a serious problem. Social collapse often happens when people no longer find the current regime in their interest, and simply stop supporting it. Every time the social contract is violated, as it is in the case of copyright, as it is with the bailouts of the financial sector, people turn away. I don't think the risk is that they will revolt, but that if there is a credible challenge to the existing system they will simply fail to act to preserve it. Most revolutions are the work not of the masses, but of a relatively small group. They are able to succeed when the population lacks the conviction to oppose them. Thus many Romans welcomed in the barbarians. Hitler was allowed to become chancellor even though most Germans did not support him. A minority in the American colonies was able to foment revolution. The Communists became a credible threat in China when the Nationalists failed to act effectively against the Japanese. And so on.
When the change happens, it is a phase change, not a gradual transformation. A dynamic system like a society follows a pattern. It never exactly repeats itself, it is in constant flux, yet it can be bounded. Most perturbations are not sufficient to break the pattern - but when they are, the system leaves the pattern, and stabilizes around a new pattern. Just as an economy can handle a lot of stress and maintain high employment, but with enough of a shock it can stabilize in a new depression pattern of low employment.
This is my relatively uniformed opinion - I haven't read enough in this area - so it may be tainted by superficial pop intellectualism. But it does worry me. Persisting with law that is neither supported not observed by the majority of the population serves to undermine the rule of law. Continued evidence of the deep corruption of the system wears away at support for it. The process may seem quiet, but it does have consequences.
Mind you, the Russian scholar you cite is operating in fantasy land. He thinks the American midwest will join Canada and Alaska will be annexed by Ruassia. I'm Canadian, and I can tell you that's just plain nuts.