Will Obama's DOJ Intervene To Help RIAA? 546
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Cloud, a Pennsylvania case in which the RIAA's statutory damages theory — seeking from 2,200 to 450,000 times the amount of actual damages — is being tested, the US Department of Justice has just filed papers indicating that it is considering intervening in the case to defend the constitutionality of such awards, and requesting an extension of time (PDF) in which to decide whether such intervention 'is appropriate.' This is an early test of whether President Obama will make good on his promises (a) not to allow industry insiders to participate in cases affecting the industry they represented (the 2nd and 3rd highest DOJ officials are RIAA lawyers) and (b) to look out for ordinary citizens rather than big corporations."
Get real (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:take your punishment like good kids (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, the Obama Administration's DOJ is considering filing an amicus brief supporting statutory damages even when they greatly exceed demonstrable actual damages. While that theory being struck down in the instant case might be bad for the RIAA and no one else immediately, if such a precedent were established, it would greatly limit the use of statutory damages in most of the places where they are used, which are often in places where the easily quantifiable portion of direct harms is very small, but the diffuse impact may be very large. This does not benefit only, or even primarily, big corporations, its very common in laws that principally benefit individuals against big corporations (like many consumer protection laws) and other powerful interests (civil actions under many civil rights laws).
Amicus briefs are often filed by parties whose interest in legal precedent that could be set is largely tangential to the interests of the parties in the case; if parties have a direct interest in the case, they probably ought to be intervenors, not amici.
Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? (Score:2, Interesting)
> Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?
80% of Slashdot bought into HopeyMcChange's schtick. It is going to be fun (in a tragic comedy sense) watching the disillusionment after a couple of years of increasingly violent denials that Yup, he is just a politician.... and while possessing great oratary skills not all that bright in the end.
But to put off that awakening watch the NewSpeak in the media as they try to explain away the fast breaking campaign promises. Bipartisan, open, new politics turned out to be inviting the opposition over to watch the Super Bowl while Nancy is writing the biggest pork bill in history behind closed doors and then passing it on a straight party line vote before anybody could read it. "Welfare check" has been redefined as a "tax cut" even though many of the people who will be getting checks already pay no taxes. And we aren't even at the one month point yet, this train wreck still has 47 months to go, wait until foreign policy disasters start piling up. Iran is likely to be the first, but several more are racing for the honor.
Are they even RIAA lawyers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes I know they worked for the RIAA before. But do they still do so?
If they don't also still work for the RIAA are we sure these lawyers actually even give a damn about the RIAA? Unless they have stocks and shares or whatever in the RIAA companies then what's in it for them if they no longer work for them?
It is possible that these lawyers were just doing it for the money and don't actually give a damn about the company they were working for.
Does anything have anything more damning than that they used to work for the RIAA? do they still? are they receiving money or incentives still from the RIAA?
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you not noticed or already blanked-out the fact that it was Obama's new administration that placed these RIAA lawyers in the DOJ in the first place? A Slashdot reminder of that fact was linked right in the article above.
You call it "optimism", but I call it "delusion".
I am going out on a limb (Score:3, Interesting)
the problem I see is that Bush while supported corporations seemed truly to protect the country and did what he thought best. So far all I see is Obama ceding authority and decisions to others. He seems adept at not taking action himself or taking responsibility. He is after face time and "credit" but credit without owning anything. The stimulus bill was handed over to Pelosi and Reid and he flew around campaigning with doom and gloom if it wasn't signed. Bush just stayed either out of sight or just said it was going to be done and did it.
Yeah you wasted your vote but don't feel bad. We didn't know jack shit about the guy other than he wasn't a Republican (I did not vote for either of these two so maybe I wasted my vote by not voting against him but no good conservative could vote for McCain like we could not vote for Obama).
Look, what little of his voting record existed should have told you his stance. We had two poor choices and after seeing the stimulus bill and the fear mongering used to push it I know we got it wrong. But hey, its America, there is only so much damage that can be done. Will we recover, certainly, will it be hard, yes. Yet we made this choice as a country and we as a country will bear it.
Who knows, he could suddenly wake up and realize that being President means living up to the hype and promise of his campaign. Its early. The stimulus bill was strike two (Geitner & related were strike one). Lets see where he goes from here. As they say, we can only go up - and I hope that is true.
an "ordinary citizen" can wrong a corporation (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because Party A is an "ordinary citizen" and Party B is a "big corporation" doesn't mean that Party A should be able to harm Party B with impunity.
NewYorkCountryLawyer, for all the good work he is doing, seems to include verbiage like this in almost every post that makes it to the front page. Over and over... the industry is suing "ordinary folks"... they should stop suing "ordinary folks"... evil big corporation vs. noble, innocent ordinary folks...
I happen to be in the camp that the historical reasons for copyright are no longer extant and that massive reform should be done. But this verbiage disturbs me.
Our legal system should provide facilities for party A to address grievances with party B, whether B is big and A is small, or vice versa. It shouldn't be the goal (as the verbiage seems to suggest) that the legal system should be rigged to favor the smaller party in a dispute.
Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem isn't the two-party system. That is a symptom. We as a nation have allowed the federal government to assume more and more of our states' powers in return for pledges to "fix" various societal ills. We have all forgotten the intention of the founders/framers to protect us from an overreaching federal bureaucracy, either through laziness or lack of education.
I would much rather have my state and federal taxes reversed, i.e., pay thousands to my state but only hundreds to the fed, that way my money would work for me and those near me, rather than to help subsidize loads crap 3000 miles away. It would also take some of the power out of the US Congress and make state senators and representatives more important.
Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (Score:2, Interesting)
(NaturalNews) Nine state legislatures have either passed or introduced bills intended to reaffirm their state's sovereignty as laid out in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution. Another twenty states are expected to introduce similar measures this year. While the ramifications of these resolutions are still uncertain, one thing is clear. People are sick and tired of the federal government's usurpation of power not granted to it by the Constitution. They have had enough of fear based economic terrorism and underhanded promotion of policies and procedures that bypass public scrutiny and the will of the people.
From http://www.naturalnews.com/025638.html [naturalnews.com]
Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess that depends on which freedoms you'd rather lose. If you'd rather lose your 2nd and 4th amendment freedoms then Obama/Biden is your team. If you'd rather lose your 1st and 4th amendment freedoms then McCain/Palin should have gotten your vote. If you'd rather not lose any freedoms then I hope you found someone else to vote for.
I'm a gun owning, cryptography loving, card carrying member of the ACLU. I'm against "assault weapon" bans, and feel that the 2nd amendment should only extend to nuclear/biological/chemical weapons (with reasonable limitations to keep weapons out of the hands of the clinically insane). I have been teargassed and pepper sprayed for protesting outside of a "free speech zone". I've been searched without probable cause while citing Terry v. Ohio [wikipedia.org] - a case which ruled that cops can pat you down for weapons, but not search you further. If you bothered to read what I had written, you'd also see that I voted third party (Libertarian, in this case, even though I think Barr is a dick).
Who supported the FISA bill and wants to pass a dubious assault weapons ban? Interesting way to look at the constitution.
FISA was a huge disappointment. I was seriously considering voting for a Democrat for the first time until that vote was cast, it made me swing back to third party instantly. I never said that I'm all about Obama, just that I believe his administration is an improvement over McCain/Palin. As an example, just look at the nomination of Dr. Chu - do you really believe that a McCain administration would have made such a wise choice?
Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (Score:3, Interesting)
Libertarians who are willing to compromise their core principles are just Republicans, just as Greens who do so are Democrats.
Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (Score:5, Interesting)
He's made some very good pledges about openness and anti-corruption measures, so now's the time for him to live up to them.
It may or may not be a token gesture, but it certainly makes me smile to read the White House's new Copyright Policy [whitehouse.gov]:
Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis (Score:4, Interesting)
ACK! ACK ACK ACK!
Living in Clearwater (and having the St. Pete Times as my newspaper), I assure you that they are NOT neutral in any sense of the word.
In addition to their editorial page being constantly slanted left, they regularly spin their new stories in the same way.
I have been following the politifact.com site since I found it weeks ago. In fact, I subscribe to the RSS feed here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/feeds/updates/ [politifact.com]
My main problem with this site in particular is that they count broken promises as "in progress" or "compromise", and they add new promises all the time. This doesn't just track promises made during the campaign: if he says (as president) he'll do something next week, and then he does it, it counts as a "Promise Kept". This ensures that their numbers always skew to the "Promise Kept" side.
That said, I find the site entertaining, if irritating. I just hate the idea that anyone things it's "Fair" or "Neutral".
Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I am sure that it did not hurt Halliburton to have Cheney as Vice President, your argument is defective because Halliburton has been getting no-bid contracts for a very long time, including plenty of lucrative no-bid contracts under the Clinton administration. If Halliburton's contracting largesse is the result of malfeasance, then you will have to paint both Democrats and Republicans with that brush, as they both freely participated in that behavior in their respective administrations.
In fairness to Halliburton, one of the reasons they get these types of no-bid contracts from dozens of governments around the world is that there are very, very few companies that actually do what they are doing for these governments on the scale they do it, and Halliburton has specialized in filling that particular demand. Realistically, for some of the contracts that Halliburton gets there are no legitimate competitors and everyone knows it, making a bidding process a bit of waste, particularly if the matter is urgent. On the upside, there are now a couple different other companies trying to move in on Halliburton's business.
I have never understood the obsession with painting Halliburton as the ultimate Republican evil instead of a much more accurate shade of gray that both Democrat and Republican administrations shovel money to that sometimes gets these contracts because there really is no reasonable alternative under the constraints. We can't fix the world if we are in denial about the reality of it, and Halliburton is just another big government contractor like numerous others that was well positioned for the kind of contracting work that resulted from the nominal War on Terror.
Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? (Score:3, Interesting)
> Of course the idea of borrowing several billion dollars to give people a tax cut is also quite absurd..
No, it's worse. We are in a crisis which everybody agrees is a credit crunch, credit isn't available and it is causing pain everywhere. So what is their answer? Borrow a Trillion dollars and give it to every democratic wish list item ever floated. The problem was the housing bubble (chiefly caused by Democrats, even Bill Clinton fessed up on that one) blew out and scuttled the banks who had written all the bad paper the government insisted they write. So we blow through a Trillion dollars on nothing likely to stimulate the economy AND do nothing do help either housing or banking in this Porkulus bill. Nope, housing will be taken up in yet ANOTHER half trillion (will be another trillion after the bacon grease lubricates the skids enough to pass) and after the tax cheat finally gets a plan to blow through the remainder of the TARP money Congress is already getting ready to pour yet more money into nationalizing the banks. This bill was just paying off The One's political debts.
> This is of course what the republican agenda is all sore about right now as they want more tax cuts.
Not just any old tax cuts. We want to stimulate the economy. We want tax cuts that will get the biggest bang for the buck, and if we are lucky/wise they would be revenue positive. Bush's tax cuts were, Reagan's were, Kennedy's were. The Laffer Curve[1] is real and we are way on the wrong side of it, we could cut many taxes quite a bit before we moved to the side where cutting tax rates cuts revenue. What we need now is a massive but targeted tax cut to generate enough new wealth that we can paper over the banking fiasco. The government can't create wealth, it can either take it from some and give it to others, while destroying a fair chunk in the conversion, or borrow it and cause new problems in the credit markets.
[1] Only a fool would argue with the basic logic of the Laffer Curve. The only puny argument would be that we are on the good side of it, but history rebuts that so completely even The One didn't attempt it. Nope, he said that even if raising taxes REDUCES revenue it is the right policy because of his perverted notions of 'fairness.' Translate what he said as "Wealth envy is a cornerstone of the Democrat Party and I will not disappoint the base on that one."
Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (Score:3, Interesting)
Libertarians who are willing to compromise their core principles are just Republicans, just as Greens who do so are Democrats.
No, they are both just realists.
Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (Score:2, Interesting)
Young people tend to be more easily influenced by their friends and popular beliefs (which are not those of the people in the pres. bubble).
Got any evidence to support that assertation? Didn't think so.
McCain had a history of doing what he wanted, and not so much what others wanted of him. He proposed all kinds of legislation that was against _both_ parties' desires, and were generally not supportive of corporate influence (thus the unpopularity). That is what got him the title of maverick, and what lost him the election.
Actually, what lost him the election was moving far to the right of his original positions in order to appeal to the far right in the Republican party. In other words, he was willing to "do what others wanted of him."
That's not to say he'd have been the right choice or Obama was the the wrong one, but is to point out that dismissing him out of hand as a senile old man is rather... stupid.
You won't even stand behind your original point? Then why post this drivel? To make yourself sound smart? My friend, you've done quite the opposite!
Re:I commend you for admitting it (Score:2, Interesting)
I would like to add that what I see in in republicans, or rather conservatives, being against abortion is not so much about [not] killing babies but rather about having a sense of personal responsibility. "Life" could be the ultimate responsibility of sexual activity and could serve as the ultimate deterrent to pre-marital sex. As long as there is abortion there is little at stake.
Not that I prescribe to such a system but I can appreciate the argument.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I commend you for admitting it (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone who lived inside the city limits of Cleveland when 'Dennis the Menace' told off CEI and thus set the stage for Cleveland's default, I can categorically classify him as an idiot. The 'competition' that was 'provided' by Munincipal Light was a few cents cheaper than CEI's rates, but it pissed CEI off bigtime because they were forced by law to supply Muni Light with all their electricity below cost. Don't think the guys in the back rooms didn't keep that in mind when reassessing Cleveland's bond rating. 'Kicking CEI's ass' won him votes in the next election, but it did nothing to fix the streets.
Too much of a coincidence.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:OT - NYCL's page (Score:3, Interesting)
To NYCL: Thank you for putting a relevant ad on your page (the one to the independent download shop). That was the first internet ad I've intentionally clicked on in years. We should be so lucky that all sites would do that.
Funny you should say that because just a couple of days ago I decided to take down the Google AdSense ads, which are supposed be directly relevant to my site's content but just aren't, and to start concentrating on ads that are consistent with the subject matter of the blog. Also, I came to the conclusion that the ads for independent music downloads are the most important thing I can feature, since the more independent music that is bought, the sooner the RIAA will go down. Meanwhile, I have the classified ads, which are hosted on a different page, if they just want to help me out by buying stuff through my links.
Thank you very much for the input.
Re:What discretion do they have in this matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
isn't the government obligated to defend any laws that are being called unconstitutional?
No.
Or if they have discretion in the matter, what discretion are they allowed?
Virtually unlimited discretion. They can refrain if they think the statute may indeed be unconstitutional, or if they just don't like it, or if they think they shouldn't intervene in a private dispute, or if they just think they have better things to do with their limited resources than gang up with the RIAA against some college student.
Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, to conservatives, Obama was a 3, and McCain was a 7. To liberals, McCain was a 3 and Obama was a 7.
Except that it wasn't quite like that. McCain was a 3 and Obama was a 1. That was from some issues oriented poll I took at the start of the primaries that rated candidates based on 10 statements on 10 different subjects.
The only thing I agreed with Obama on was getting the US military the hell out of war and he's backtracked on that.
This is going to be worse than Bush who actually ran on a decent platform, only to do a total 180 once he got elected. An example of a promise gone bad: I wanted the US out of the World Court, because it's just plain bad law, not to give the US military the go-ahead to torture prisoners. You Obamites will go through the same thing.
President Reagan did some wonderful things while in office, but he was also responsible for expanding the War on Some Drugs and creating Civil Forfeiture. Impeached ex-President Clinton had a bad first two years, but after he got side-tracked by the first opposition Republican House & Senate in half a century, and then later by his appetite for sex, actually settled down and had a fairly decent administration, as things go in the US.
Gridlock is Good. Maybe the best system would be an anti-parliamentary system where the head of state is chosen from one of the opposition parties.
It's wonderful to see Obama sticking to his campaign promises. Jamming through a 1000+ partisan "emergency" spending bill that no one was given time to read (and signed almost half a week later) is certainly Change We Need.
Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd have to disagree with your premise. I've been called a "far right wing whackjob", and McCain Palin simply didn't jive.
Bush in 2000 ran on a platform of smaller government, humble foreign policy, reducing spending and taxes. He ended up increasing budgetted spending more than any president in history, adjusting for inflation, and increasing debt mroe than any president in history adjusting for inflation, and increasing the size of government (he doubled the size of the department of education).
McCain and Palin gave lip service to conservative ideals, but never gave any indication that they actually planned to follow through. By contrast, Obama was obviously progressive, was heavily in support of an Keynesian stimulus, and reversing some of the more blatant regressive actions of the Bush administration. Part of the "change" was transparency, not saying one thing and doing another.
The choice was between the socialists who would spend lots but hate ethnic groups and homosexuals, and the socialists who would spend somewhat less and don't hate ethic groups and homosexuals. As a far-right whackjob, my choice would immediately be Obama, because I don't hate ethnic groups and homosexuals, and I'd prefer going with the party history shows will spend less(Remember history? Conservatives used to look to it for answers.), since there was no real conservative party on the bill, just the big socialists who hate minorities and the lesser socialists who don't.