RIAA and BSA's Lawyers Taking Top Justice Posts 377
An anonymous reader writes "Following the appointment of RIAA's champion Donald Verrilli as associate deputy attorney general, here's a complete roundup of all the RIAA and BSA-linked lawyers comfortably seated at top posts at the Department of Justice by the new government. Not strange, since US VP Joe Biden is well known for pushing the copyright warmongers' agenda in Washington. Just in case you don't know, Verrilli is the nice man who sued the pants off Jammie Thomas."
change (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, at least this is change I can believe in. As in, it's certainly not hard to believe.
Damn.
Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
So the lawyers brought these lawsuits not the RIAA. I didn't realize Donald Verrilli brought these lawsuits to protect his copyrights. I don't blame the lawyers for this anymore than I would blame the soldiers for fighting Bush's war.
Obama IS changing things around... (Score:1, Insightful)
yes, as per his campaign agenda he *is* changing things in DC.
He's putting Hollywood's interest ahead of people's. After electing Hollywood frontman as the country's vice president what else would you expect !
Pattern recognition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
But you need to look at the lawyers behavior in doing their job.
Look for NewYorkCountryLawyer to reply in this thread. He put's it better then I do.
Re:change (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that many people in American (or the world for that matter) thought that 'change you can believe in' meant exactly what you imply that it seems to mean. I think the only real change we got was the name plate on the desk in the oval office.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:1, Insightful)
With two lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
as President and Vice President, what do you expect? Perhaps all of that Hollywood support from actors and musicians bought something from Obama and Biden.....
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right that its the RIAA not the lawyer, but it still marks him an opportunistic worm that has no scruples.
Re:change (Score:1, Insightful)
Really? Have you not been paying attention?
In the last month or so, much had changed.
The US's focus on science is back, forcing a religion on people via the government is gone, foreign policy changes have already started getting us into better light globally, a renewed focus on alternate energies..and not just on a specific ideology regarding alternate energies, but a focus on a broad swath of alternative energies.
I don't by in to any Cult of personality, but I can look at what's going on.
So I, for one, am pretty happy at the changes so far. You can bet the farm that if he does something I don't like I will call him out on it.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
These lawyers have a vested interest in keeping this war going as long as possible.
The soldiers of Bush's war probably want to go home and see their family.
Re:change (Score:5, Insightful)
forcing a religion on people via the government is gone
The problem isn't the forcing of "religion" on the people, it's the forcing of any belief system. That is far from gone, you're just aligned with this presidents beliefs so you don't feel the sting. Others who were aligned with the last president do feel that they are having beliefs forced on them.
I'm not really for or against the man yet as I haven't seen any real results beyond a feel good cult mentality sweeping the nation but I do like the stopping of torture so I'm hopeful. All that said, you're still being fed and likely always will be one mans belief system rather than an adherence to a small set of immutable principles that govern all equally, which was the original goal of this little experiment we call America. Government has become far to profitable for that to return any time soon so prepare to have your beliefs determined for you and disagreement shouted down from both sides.
So, what you're saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
There may be some good come of this (Score:5, Insightful)
With those who've sold their souls in those positions, maybe they'll make things so bad that the public sits up and takes notice and demands reform to our seriously dysfunctional copyright laws.
So I, for one, welcome our new plutocratic overlords. At least, I think I do...
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:change (Score:3, Insightful)
In the last month or so, much had changed.
The US's focus on science is back,
How about that manned space program?
forcing a religion on people via the government is gone
Only to be replaced by forcing secular religion on people via the government, again.
foreign policy changes have already started getting us into better light globally,
Because I'm happy to kowtow to the Republic of Ruritania and give a shit what France thinks of my domestic policy.
a renewed focus on alternate energies
No argument.
and not just on a specific ideology regarding alternate energies, but a focus on a broad swath of alternative energies.
I suppose you have better ideas. Let's have your research, or at least your speculations.
Every president will do good things and bad things. GW did some terrible things with our freedom, and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives. Socialized medicine? What next, momma gub'mint thinking for me? My opinion remains that a president is there to interface to the rest of the world, not run my life (why else would we have the 10th amendment?)
Re:change (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibly the worst will be removing all parental rights [wikipedia.org].
Speaking of the 10th amendment, why have 7 [tickerforum.org] state legislatures introduced declarations of sovereignty in the last few weeks?
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a key difference here, mate:
Commander: Go to Iraq, soldier!
Soldier: No sir, I don't want to.
Commander: Then get out of the military.
RIAA: Hi lawyer, would you like to sue people for us?
Lawyer: No, I only accept legitimate cases.
RIAA: Okay then.
Lawyers can turn down cases and keep their job.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that people who sign up for the armed services make a years long commitment to serving and defending their country. That meas that even if they don't agree with the current mission they made a commitment follow legal orders to the best of their abilities.
The RIAA lawyers, on the other hand, signed up to make money. They were asked to do something that 95% of people out there would identify as ethically wrong (or at least questionable) and yet they didn't walk away. They have a choice in the matter, and they made the choice to continue frivolous lawsuits against people who are often clearly not guilty of anything.
Putting these people in charge of criminal law is just going to lead to situations where people are arrested for something they didn't do, but when the police realize that they just start digging into the persons past so that something can stick, even if nothing should. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, we've seen numerous stories on /. where these situations arise, off the top of my head would be the guy with the amateur chem lab in his basement.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the soldier analogy is terrible. Soldiers get arrested for going AWOL. There are a few options to get out of service on a moral basis, but I imagine they're difficult to pull off (interesting approach taken by this guy [wri-irg.org]). There also also repercussions for doing so. Lawyers just turn a client down and don't get paid.
Re:Not a bad move IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
All art, as all science and engineering, is built on the achievements of those who came before. Engineers have it easy, as patents only last 20 years and I'm told are often easy to get around.
Copyrights are forever when compared to an artist's life. I cannot legally build on any work produced in the last hundred years.
This AP story illustrates the folly of our system. [yahoo.com]
There is a comparison of the two works, and it's obvious (to me as a content creator anyway) that the Fairey image is fair use.
As to your incredibly ignorant remark, it is exactly like the guy who said "Looks like the days of drunken bums is over" when they passed prohibition. Copyright law is getting worse and worse, and people are responding by ignoring it, just as they ignored laws against alcohol. It WILL reach a breaking point.
I should not have to pay for a digital copy of Jimi hendrix' work. The man is dead and has been for decades. It should be in the public domain as the Founding Fathers wished and as is written in the US Constitution.
Re:Change you can believe in (Score:3, Insightful)
-Rough translation from a crotchety old caveman
Re:With two lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, things are really going to change (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only is the RIAA now apparently synonymous with the Justice Department, but we STILL have renditions and we still have a President that believes he has the authority to spy on us (and by extension of the same logic essentially ignore any law or any provision of the Constitution by the same argument).
It was unacceptable when GWB did it, and it is STILL unacceptable and it is still the responsibility of the citizens of the US to put a stop to it.
But hey, Barak Obama is a great guy, we don't need civil liberties.
Fools.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
ROFLMAO (Score:2, Insightful)
Talk is cheap, actions haven't followed all the hype.
Lets see, Iran is now openly declaring we have to respect their nuclear right. North Korea is again launching test rockets towards Japan.
Yeah, looks like newly found world wide respect.
Throw in, the French laughing at our bail out ideas... I have seen the manure recently (read: two nominees toasted, two more that should have been, and the labor one is on her way out already) but I haven't seen the flowers or unicorns. Instead of substance we get interviews with him about his substance use (read: tobacco)
Science at the forefront? Looks like to me that building water slides in Louisiana is more important (read the stimulus bill he so solidly supports). What science? Must be the 50 plus million to the arts. Go read it http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/hr1_engrossed.pdf [huffingtonpost.com] (warning it is like only page and half of the 600 page bill)
Don't know where you've been but nothing has changed except for how fast the back peddling has become or where it comes from. If this is change I am not sure it is what we really wanted.
Re:change (Score:2, Insightful)
I just heard about the CRC. That is a crazy scary prospect. Basically, let the government teach and raise and instruct (read: brainwash) your child. Great, any child can argue about a parental decision and it can be "overturned" if a GOVERNMENT WORKER agrees? Hmmm. Government worker. Basically, if my seven year old doesn't agree with my decision that he can't eat all the cookies, and a government worker agrees with him, I am forced to let him?
This isn't about the rights of a child, this is about the "rights" of the government to do what they want. And it's been going on for years and years in the public education district.
And the GP as some excellent points as well, especially the part about having the US's reputation be better. I'm not going to excuse any BAD behavior, but since when have all nations loved the US? What exactly are we trying to "regain" here, and at what cost? I don't want the US diplomacy scene to be like Obama's campaign scene... kissing up to a bunch of groups, saying what they want to hear, etc., in order to have a good (fabricated, based on rhetoric) image.
Example: For being so "change"-ish from the typical political scene, from other democrats, etc., he appointed his opponent (Clinton), he has appointed many key democrats, la la la ... basically NOTHING has changed except the name went from Republican to Democrat. And I'm not sure, ideologically, I like the Democrat better...
Repayment? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:change (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that Obama was all things to all people. He was worse then Ron Paul who you could at least look at his speeches and see where he stood. Obama's speeches and history of actions typically were vague and open enough that this wasn't possible and he didn't fizzle out like Ron Paul did.
Anyways, I do find it funny because these issues are important issues to people on this site. Rewarding RIAAs laywers and appointing oppressive lawyers like the BSA to federal judgeship is something that effects geeks on this site more then funding abortions with tax dollars and the other issues he has supposedly changed.
The test of Obama's presidency, at least for a lot of us here, is going to be "does his cons outweigh his pros". And currently it looks like the answer is no. Change and hope was Obama's message- it appears the message wasn't clear enough for many to expect shit like this. It may have very well been a vote changer if it where.
Re:change (Score:5, Insightful)
If the folk throwing a shit storm were the folk supporting Obama before, I'd agree. But everytime I hear shit, it's from someone who from the start was attacking Obama. I'm sure there were plenty of people out there who let themselves be blinded in their expectations, but most of them are NOT the people bitching and making snide remarks. It's the people who decided that the rest of us supported Obama not on our opinion of his ability to lead but because we somehow were 'culted' into believing he was the next coming of Christ that are bitching.
It's the ultimate straw man arguement. "Ha ha! Where is your messiah now!", when most of us went in clear eyed knowing that he wasing going to match our world view 100%.
I can tell you one thing though, he's a damn sight better a match at seeing the world the way I dothan the previous guy or the guys he was running up against (Dem or Rep).
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because lawyers don't work in corporations, they work in firms. And these people are all senior partners.
Re:change (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you retarded? Seriously? Because I don't want to waste my time typing if you're physically incapable of understanding concepts above a 3rd grade level.
Only to be replaced by forcing secular religion on people via the government, again.
Secular == Absence of religion. Absence of religion is not a religion. Atheism arguably is, but secularism is not. It does not have rituals, beliefs, and it does not deal with the metaphysical. It simply states that religion should exist separately from government, which is the principle our country was founded on. It's aim is that people have OMG rational reasons for passing laws instead of "last night my dog farted and it sounded exactly like 'gay marriage is an abomination.' I can only assume God was speaking through my dog's asshole, and we must now follow His will".
foreign policy changes have already started getting us into better light globally,
Because I'm happy to kowtow to the Republic of Ruritania
Not saying "fuck you" to our neighbors every day, for no reason, would be a better description of our new foreign policy. Try doing that to your neighbor and see what happens. If nothing, repeat with every neighbor on your block. We don't live in a bubble -- what other people think matters because, at the very least, we rely on them to respect our property and boundaries. We can't just kill everyone who is not us, either on a local or global stage. And not just because it's immoral; we physically can't do it, and we would get our asses handed to us if we tried. Try to remember back to when we were just some pissants on a "new world" who were so sick of getting told what to do by some foreign asshole Monarch that we decided to kill all of their representatives and supporters in a Revolutionary War. Let's not be those assholes.
and give a shit what France thinks of my domestic policy.
It's not about whether or not France dictates our domestic policy, it's whether they're making good points regardless of who they are. Ignoring good advise because of the source is something kids do with their parents. When adults do it, we generally acknowledge that they're fucktards and will probably end up killing themselves because their european neighbor advised them not to piss on high power lines.
We already HAVE socialized medicine, it's just the least efficient form imaginable. We PAY for people to go to the ER, our insurance rates go up because of it, and our tax dollars are spent helping to cover hospital's losses. Every other industrialized nation has formal single-payer healthcare, and while some do better than others, they almost all do better than the US. This FUD about the government telling you what doctors to see, and when, is just that; FUD. Your HMO/PPO is already that bad (and if it's not, congratulations.. the rest of us aren't so lucky and we can't fucking pick because it's tied to our employer, or we're self employed entrepreneurs (you know.. "Americans") and we can't get ANY health insurance.)
Seriously, step out of whatever isolationist safe-room you live in, breathe some air that hasn't been cycled through your Chemical/Biological/Radioactive protective filters, and take note of the fact that our country isn't great just because we say it is. For a perfect analogy, look at our auto industry. It's basically a mirror of the US compared to the rest of the world. Our cars are of shitty quality, they're horribly inefficient, nobody wants to buy them, and the entire industry is teetering on collapse. Everybody else has improved their designs, created faster, quieter, more comfortable, and more efficient vehicles. The same can be said of our societies as a whole. We've left ours floundering in a deadlock between those who want the status quo, those who want progress, and what we get is something worse than either. We need to compete with the rest of the world, and to do that we need the things EVERY other industrialized nation provides its citizens, including healthcare, a decent grade school education, paid college education, and creating something to export other than entertainment would probably be a good bonus as well.
Re:Only they are to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no glory in fighting and killing is wrong, period.
If someone is bent on killing you and the only means you have to defend yourself is with deadly force, is it wrong to exercise that force? Or would you stand on your morals and be slaughtered like an animal?
Your lofty rhetoric doesn't stand up to real-world scenarios, I'm afraid.
Re:With two lawyers (Score:1, Insightful)
Not an engineer by any measuring stick I know of.
So being a nuclear engineer isn't being an engineer in your book? What's next? Is oral sex not really sex?
Oh, sorry...right party, wrong president.
Don't blame me... (Score:2, Insightful)
...I didn't vote for him.
I guess the 'Change' Obama promised is either only 'change' left in my pocket after paying for all that crap San Fran Nan and the looney left are pushing or the 'change' from a Republic to a Socialist dictatorship.
Re:With two lawyers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OIW (Score:4, Insightful)
The scary part is that we have more to lose from the government then we do from the BSA and RIAA. This is sort of scary when you consider the type of firepower the government is stocking up on. I mean people who have taken single mothers and blind grandmas to court and dragged them around quite capably. Now we can rest assured that knowing that the government now has people skilled in this area. It sort of balances the power out that has been lopsided towards the people for the last 230 plus years.
Now that's change we can believe in. HOPE and all that shit.
Re:Not a bad move IMHO (Score:4, Insightful)
Patently false, you cannot legally build on someones work without paying for the privilege.
It isn't a privelege, it is a RIGHT spelled out in Article 2 Section 8. Copyrights are only there to "promote the useful arts". What I write or paint or record does NOT belong to me, it belongs to humanity. It is supposed to go into the public domain after a "limited time". All I own is a "limited time" monopoly on its distribution, nothing more.
Besides the longer I can keep some hip hop freakin' idiot from corrupting my work the better as far as I'm concerned..
An archetect might say the same thing, but I have the right to do anything I want to a property I own. And we ALL own ALL intelectual "property". If you don't want some "hip hop freakin' idiot from corrupting" your work, don't do it to begin with.
Art isn't really where the innovations come from anyway
Despite the fact that your statement there has no bearing on the argument, I should remind you that archetecture IS art. You could not build a skyscraper in 1800.
if you think that copyright is stopping progress you are in the wrong business
Copyright itself is a very useful structure when properly implimented, and does indeed promote the arts. When it is poorly implimented, as it is now, it is a hindrance to progress.
The answer is none to simple (Score:3, Insightful)
See, the way I see it, your response is perfectly understandable, but it fails to make sense when you take a more holistic view of things.
One cannot effectively defend oneself unless one is PREPARED to defend oneself. That might at first glance seem to be merely a sensible thing to do, be prepared (hey I was even a Boy Scout once, lol).
The problem is that being prepared consists of being armed. Once you arm yourself, you ARE by definition now a threat to everyone else. Thus they must arm themselves. Thus even the mildest form of defensive thinking leads directly to an arms race or the conditions for an arms race.
More than that, it leads to a kind of thinking which inevitably involves the logic of power, and the rule of power is the rule of force. Inter armis legis non. No law can exist between armed parties willing to defend their interests by force except force. Either the force of the other party, or the force of some third party.
So peace fails, even amongst well meaning peoples, because first they subscribe to the doctrine of self defense. Second they must arm themselves, 3rd their armed state precipitates a need for all other parties to be armed, and then no authority can exist which is not armed force. Finally that armed force will sooner or later be used. Thus the doctrine of self defense, innocent as it seems on the surface, is the seed which ultimately leads to war and violence.
Even when violence does not proceed directly from the logic of power, it creates a corrupting effect on the thinking of the armed individuals. First they reason that collective security is better than individual security and the full panoply of the armed state comes into existence. People in large numbers acting in a mass in the armed state do not subscribe to any of the recognized moral principles of normal society to any high degree. This is a situation always extremely hazardous to peace.
Finally the corruption goes even deeper in the sense that to arm oneself is in essence a threat, and thus each person in this armed society is essentially at a fundamental level saying to all of the others "I reserve the option to get my way by force." Granted that most people will not want to exercise that option, but it always exists and it has an inhibiting effect on people's willingness to reach a real and genuine accommodation with one another based on mutual agreement and shared benefit.
Thus my position is that the doctrine of self defense is actually antithetical to the best interests of all individuals in the real world. Not in some moralistic philosophical sense, but actually in the real world as it is.
Re:change (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is a quote
"The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child.
And how does the state decide what is in the best interests of the child? A lot of the social workers I've heard of (a personal friend who got a visit one time, and I would consider her to be an excellent mother) are pretty gung ho and get a lot of leeway to simply remove children preemptively, only returning them after a lengthy fight.
The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.
So, aside from the obvious protections, this document does a poor job defining any limits. It ends up being State Vs Parents Vs the Child. A three-way fight.
Re:The answer is none to simple (Score:1, Insightful)
tag these "messiah" please (Score:3, Insightful)
It's perfect.
Prior to him getting into office, Slashdot was full of Obama worshippers. They really thought he was going to be a president for nerds. Suckers!
BTW, since this post surely hits too close to home for many, please keep an eye on the moderation.
Re:Not a bad move IMHO (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the artist's lifespan should have anything to do with it. All music, movies, books, etc that were created when I was young and Hendrix was alive should be in the public domain by now whether their artists are dead or not.
Patents only last 20 years, why should copyright be any different? I think 20 years is a perfectly reasonable time frame. With a few exceptions (Asimov's Foundation being the most notable I can think of), if you haven't made a profit off it in 20 years you're not likely to in the future. Hasn't Blade Runner made its costs back by now.
Re:Change you can believe in (Score:3, Insightful)
"Using a computer does not preclude understanding basic mathematics."
Yes it does, IF, most especially, you have never learned to do basic math in the first place. A calculator can only give you examples, it will not teach you effective methods of performing arithmetic.
Further (as I have noticed personally), if you constantly use a calculator, your math skills DO get rusty, from lack of practice.
Your example of non-linear dynamics is fine as far as it goes, but it does not apply to simpler mathematics. Learning to do it manually (or in your head with practice) is an important step... and in fact if you do know the basics well, you will be able to use your calculator or computer much more effectively.
Computer programming is -- in every way -- nothing more than applied mathematics. Even natural-language processing by computer is, at its deepest level, nothing more than math.
Trying to optimize the loops and control structures in my programs would be pointless if I did not have a grasp of the "big O", which requires foreknowledge of geometry and even calculus.
I do agree with you that computers are essential, but I am not sure we agree on where the line should be drawn between "you must know how to do this yourself or you will not graduate" and "get out your calculator".
RIAA's Lawyers != RIAA (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's not confuse who exactly is evil here. The RIAA is. The RIAA people who started and didn't stop the litigation campaign. The lawyers were just paid cogs in the RIAA yourmoney machine. Lawyers argue for whomever pays their fees. I'm sure these highly skilled, if morally fickle barristers are willing to bend all their talents to championing their new bosses' causes! :)
arms make people polite (Score:3, Insightful)
At a shooting range or gun-related event, people are really nice to each other. They don't get in fights.
At the international level, notice how there has never been war between a pair of countries with nuclear weapons.
Re:change (Score:3, Insightful)
I know a lot of people who would have voted for the green party or libertarian instead of Obama but they did vote for him for those reasons. That would fit your definition of attacking Obama from the start but they did vote for him. I'm voted against him however so I have no personal attachment and probably fall into the placard you are describing. However, they are the ones who are upset and appear outrages, I'm just cynical and being a prick about it.
Well, sort of. But most of the railings I see is where people are commenting on the "change and hope message". That is something they were roped into believing for whatever reasons. I think the Messiah thing is over played too. He attempted to appear like a greek god not the second coming although there were people who acted as if he was.
I can agree with that. I don't agree with Obama's outlook though. I don't see it as being different enough to warrant all the attention. It's more of a clintontonian type view (yea, I just made that up) which led us into the path that resulted with the last leader. For instance, I agree that Club Gitmo should be closed because it's a symbol of things that should not be but I don't agree that the members should be brought into the US and put in the US court systems. I also think the global warming is a scam, it may be a scientific reality but it has been politicized and hijacks for ulterior motives that have little or nothing to do with the science. Just a few months ago over 600 scientists who contributed to the IPCC stood up and walked out of a meeting stating that their work is being misrepresented and that it doesn't say what the IPCC is claiming it does.
I also don't like the false hope that seems to be going around. Obama ordered the EPA to review if it could allow California to set stricter standards on automakers. But this is somehow being promoted as a reversal of their previous position. Perhaps the previous policy has a sound footing and nothing will change. Especially when all car manufacturers are losing money and having troubles at the moment. Then there is the entire review of the science of the bush administration which is claimed to be supporting science again. However, he is canning NASA missions which is to be expected seeing how the democrats have a history of cutting NASA funding the most (the 1993 funding cut where the democrats controlled both houses of congress and the administration was more then the 3 cuts before and 4 cuts after combined). Then you have to look at the global warming science where it's being pushed by a zealot who admitted to exaggerating things because he believed the ends justified the means.
In short, most of what he has done is minor compared to what he presented himself as and they haven't really panned out yet but people are acting like he started the earth rotating in the opposite direction. People have elevated this person to some position he doesn't deserve to be in and sooner or later, their high will crash and most won't think much more of him then they did Bush.
Re:Biden is why I had a hard time voting for Obama (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:change (Score:3, Insightful)
Laws the prohibit murder force a belief system that opposes flat-out Laissez-Fair Darwinian survival of the fittest. Should laws prohibiting murder be stricken, since they force a belief system on the population?
How about laws prohibiting rape? Those enforce the belief system that satisfying mens' libidos and/or desire for violence aren't the highest good. Should we abolish those laws?
Or how about laws in general, which run contrary to anarchists' belief system. Show all laws be stricken?
Re:change (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait... Didn't we just spend the last 8 years being lectured daily on how dissent is patriotic?
Double standards are so confusing sometimes.
Payback time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:tag these "messiah" please (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, I'm a big Obama fan, but I never once believed he'd be an improvement on copyright. There are no friends in Congress on that issue. On the one hand, you have Democrats with strong ties to Hollywood. On the other hand, you have Republicans who are just pro-big business in general, and IP is one of America's biggest export industries. No one gives a crap about the average citizen on this issue.
Re:change (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we spent the last 8 years being lectured daily on how dissent is most certainly *not* patriotic; and is even likely to be treasonous.