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.
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
Third Party (Score:5, Insightful)
"does this filing confirm those fears?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Change? (Score:4, Insightful)
Business as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
What did we expect?
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:Third Party (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Third Party (Score:1, 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 (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.
Interestingly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Peter said, essentially, that the music companies had lost the plot.
Nuff said
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:It's government corruption. (Score:2, Insightful)
The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.
EXTREMELY corrupt? Compared to who?
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
Animal farm anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:5, Insightful)
False dichotomies are lies.
Re:Ah, Slashdot (Score:1, Insightful)
Who here ignores torture? Who said this was the biggest issue?
This is not an insightful comment at all. It's a complete strawman argument. You can make Slashdot's comments look bad if you don't actually pay attention to what they say.
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.
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.
Re:Obama '08 (Score:3, Insightful)
Change you can believe in...
Actually, the first draft of this slogan was "Change you will believe in, sucker".
Re:Ah, Slashdot (Score:1, Insightful)
Straw man arguments are lies.
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.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:2, Insightful)
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."
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: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.
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.
Re:Third Party (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:Third Party (Score:2, Insightful)
so completely ignoring copyright and IP will help the worlds biggest creator of digital content how exactly?
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:Third Party (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 Titanic. Now the 3rd class passengers have 3 more of them.
Brought on by the very people he hired to "solve" it. He is surrounded by and has the ear of all the corporate thieves. That is one thing in which the Republicans and Democrats do not differ at all. Lobbyists, ex-lawyers and corporate crooks infest all the top echelons of both parties. Ending up whoring themselves to the highest bidder is just a logical outcome of the composition of the party power structures.
He is not just the tool of the RIAA, he is a tool of all lobbyists and corporate crooks that dictate things in Washington. That includes all the "defence industry" assholes who are directly responsible for (and who profit handsomely from) the merry "Wars on (fill in your bogeyman here)" USA has been waging for generations now.
RIAA is just a symptom not the cause. It is like the a rotten smell emanating from some pile of vile gunk. It simply tells you that the thing rather unhealthy to the core. But the stink has not caused the rot, it is the other way around.
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: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?
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: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?
Recession. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Libertarians have too much baggage. (Score:1, Insightful)
What, you think Libertarians are all about liberty?
Next, you'll be telling me you think Scientologists are all about science!
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: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: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: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.
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, Insightful)
They only won't win if no-one votes for them. That's sort of how elections work.
Re:It's government corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 not be in Washington for the next eight years. The GOP is behaving like a pack of drooling idiots, and it doesn't look like they are going to shape up and get back in the game anytime soon.
If a third party is going to be created in the next few years, it isn't going to be dissatisfied Democrats, its going to be conservatives that are pissed off at the neocon fuckups that are alienating the voters. This will splinter the conservative base, and help keep Obama in office until 2016.
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:Third Party (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Then you aren't looking at the big picture, the RIAA is a symptom of the problem thats caused this latest crisis, a culture of greed and entitlement coming from corporate America. A cartel of executives who think their position alone entitles them to large amounts of money and no care for what they do to the rest of society.
The kind of people who collect bonuses and six figure salaries while their company is being handed taxpayer money because their own decisions doomed their business.
These kind a of people are are whats killing America because they are more interested in sustaining a lifestyle most people find egregious at the expense of society at large, and care not if they've earned it or not.
Don't get me wrong, if they are earning their princely salary all well and good, if the company they run is making billions let them get millions in pay, but then when the company fails we know they still try and collect the same ridiculous amounts.
But the RIAA, like AIG (and other banks) are more interested in getting more money and don't stop to think if they are earning that money or not instead they look to use the money they have to try and squeeze more out of the rest of us one way or another.
Unless we take steps to smack down ALL the egregious behaviours coming from corporate America, no matter what part of it they are, They'll just continue to do the same shit.
Re:It's government corruption. (Score:1, 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?
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:5, Insightful)
There's no point voting for the major parties. They're going to win anyway.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:2, Insightful)
By voting for the liberty-seeking candidate of the likely to win choices.
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: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.
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:Libertarians have too much baggage. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that ends up being pretty close, though not on purpose. The problem is that there are fundamental inequalities in the world. A Libertarian position would be ideal if that were not the case, but as soon as you have one subset of the people (or corporations or unions or...) that have greater power and control due to their financial position, any legal system that does not protect those who are less fortunate/powerful from abuse by those people who are more fortunate/powerful is a system doomed to increasing that inequality until the two ends have nothing in common with each other, which almost inevitably leads to a revolutionary war, historically speaking.
That's why laws that attempt to create a fully free market economy end up wrecking the economy. The individual consumer is relatively powerless compared with a corporation, and without protection against monopolization, collusion, and other anticompetitive actions by those corporations, the consumer gets screwed, but is essentially powerless to create new competitors because of the inherent inequality in the money supply and the huge capital needed to create a competing business in all but the narrowest, most naturally local industries.
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:Change? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Libertarians have too much baggage. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:nuts (Score:3, Insightful)
Parent tends to think that the media is controlled by the government.
Try "vice versa" and your much closer to the truth.
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:Change we can believe in. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Third Party (Score:1, Insightful)
Dialogue with Iran. I'm sure this will pay off well for the entire world. Because as Americans, we know that Iran hasnt done anything bad for the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD to ignore them (include a majority of middle eastern states). It was President Bushes fault. He had a time machine and went back in time and caused Iran to do the evil shit it does. Because thats what the media says, so it must be true.
He closed Gauntanamo to the applause of his Socialist European allies... who now wont take any of those scum bags in. Why? Because they know how bad 99% of them really are, and they dont want that in their back yard. Isnt it great to bow down to international pressure... who are really just pandering to their own constituents on topics THEY KNOW the US is right on? The proof is in the pudding.
Bush won the war in Iraq before he left office. The media just forgot to tell everyone. Barry will tout himself as the savior, but in the end of the day, there will be a Democratic nation in the middle east besides Isreal, and it will be because of Bush, and not Obama.
BTW for you fucktards who are going to put all the blame on Bush, it was Islamic fundamentalists and Iranian trained death squads that did 99% of the damage in Iraq, not US forces. Of course, its "hate speech" to call out Islamists, and unfair to pick on Iran. Good thing Barry is trying to make friends with both. Just like Bill Clintock did, and look how well that worked out.
Also for the record, Bush helped push democratic reform in Pakistan (I know, memories are short, Musharraf took over Pakistan under Clintons watch).
And if you havent been watching the news, Barry has been trying to get all sorts of interesting figures into political office, and has been pretty unsuccessful. Talk about cronyism? Take a look who he has had rubber stamped through into the Defense/Intelligence agencies (besides keeping Gates and General "Betrayus" as you liberal fucks like to call him... I guess you all call him by his right name now that the annointed one has blessed him).
Anyway. -1 Troll.
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: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:Third Party (Score:1, Insightful)
So the older that people get and the more in need of medical help/attention, the *less* help you're going to give them?!
I can't wait to hear your ideas on homeland security! The more likely targets will get less security than the less likely targets! Border guards should be kept as far away from the border as possible!
Re:It's government corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:2, Insightful)
I would rather help vote someone into office that I don't hate, than vote for my first choice and see the candidate whom I dislike the most receive the popular vote.
You can vote for the underdog if you want, but if you do, you might just get burned.
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:Libertarians have too much baggage. (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing about libertarians is that Ron Paul sucks.
From reading Slashdot, I have deduced that Libertarians are like Republicans, only without the empathy and concern for their fellow man.
Really? I'm concerned with my fellow man's liberty and freedom. I think Democrats and Republicans are concerned about their fellow man's money and property.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as we practice one-man-one-vote the system will swing to a two-party system.
Somehow every other western democracy has a one-citizen-one-vote policy, and most of them did not swing to a two-party system.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:3, Insightful)
Show me a libertarian who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and I'll vote for him.
Substitute any third party for 'libertarian' above and your statement makes just as little sense.
What's the point of voting for someone who is going to win anyway? Might as well just stay home. Of course, the two major parties would have you believe that if you don't vote for a major party candidate, you're just "wasting your vote" -- which is utter bullshit. You're only wasting your vote if you vote for someone who doesn't support the policies you believe in. Yeah, your guy may not get elected, but at least you did your bit -- and if enough other people feel the same way you do (including rejecting the nonense about "wasting votes"), then your guy might actually make it.
Or at least put a big enough dent in the major parties' vote numbers to make them reconsider their policies.
Compared to being honest. (Score:1, Insightful)
EXTREMELY corrupt? Compared to who?
It's not compared to who. It's compared to being honest and caring toward the citizens.
Are you really thinking, "Oh other governments are corrupt too, so it's okay if the U.S. government is corrupt?"
Re:Was this the change we were promised? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Compared to being honest. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not compared to who. It's compared to being honest and caring toward the citizens.
Sure, it is. Corruption, caring, honesty, are not binary on/off states. They are a matter of degree. When someone labels a country as having "EXTREME" corruption, that is by its nature a comparative statement. It means that that country is a remote outlier on the spectrum of corruption, notable for its high corruption. That implication simply isn't true for the US.
The reason this matters is that fighting corruption requires citizens who actually can see what's going on. People who delude themselves into an extreme viewpoint without considering the facts are near useless except in really egregious cases where the degree of corruption is clear to even them.
Are you really thinking, "Oh other governments are corrupt too, so it's okay if the U.S. government is corrupt?"
I attempted to explain myself so I hope you no longer have this misconception.
Re:Ah, Slashdot (Score:1, Insightful)
FRAMING MAI OPPONENTZ ARGUMENT IN ALL-CAPZ AND LOLCATS GRAMMAR IS BESTEST WAY TO WON ARGUMENT!?
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Slashdot understands sarcasm!
Ad hominems are pretty cool too!
Re:Change? (Score:1, Insightful)
No, it's not.
Moreover, it's the same old crap, really. I'd consider the role of the people who did this as a conflict of interest. Previous to the role they now hold, they were in the employ of the RIAA.
WHY are they being allowed to even remark on this subject, especially in the light of the fact that they didn't have to do a damn thing in the first place?
Re:I get hurt (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but if not, you've just asserted that the original poster is rightfully your slave.
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:Cheney and Bush: 1,000,000 killed. Lula: 0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:3, Insightful)
democrats LOVE when libertarians get all up in arms over the presidency, because the facts are, they steal more republican votes than they do democrat votes.
That's because to a libertarian, Republicans are 90% evil and Democrats are 95% evil.
Re:Who is a "tool" of whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you believe that music distribution, artistic variety, consumer cost and access is "flourishing" because of a handful of low level civil lawsuits brought about by a handful of 50 year old corporations, and not *in spite* of them, then you're so far off this planet that I doubt this post will reach you in my lifetime. I'll give you a bit of help on the recent goings on of this world, as you're obviously not part of it. About 8 years ago this thing called the "Internet" became pretty much ubiquitous in peoples homes. A delivery mechanism that allowed people, average everyday 'typical' people, access to a mass distribution network without going hat in hand to old, lumbering very controlling corporations. The same corporations that apparently you idolise and falsely attribute the recent 'flourishing' activities too (how far off this planet are you again?). The same corporate entities that controlled mass media distribution for 50+ years before the Internet was born. Oh where was this renaissance (for lack of a better word) of which you speak in *those* 50 years? Oh not enough "IP" laws...right...
Your post is so full of hubris and delusion that when I came to the piece about "the typical person" I nearly fell of this fine chair I'm sitting in. Where you - an obvious idealogical radical so full of himself that it oozes out onto the page, thinks you can describe anything of the "typical person". Here's a hint, radical 'intellectuals' such as yourself know nothing of the "typical person" by definition. I'll help you though, the average person knows *nothing* about these civil lawsuits and cares no more for copyright law now than they did 20 years ago when making mix tapes and copying tapes and LPs and CDs to tape and giving them to friends was thing to do. To the 'typical person' copyright law is a grey area that that they don't really care about, twenty years ago, thirty years ago AND NOW. Now you claim that people are more aware than ever, but file sharing is more open and more accessible and more popular than ever! So the average man on the street certainly doesn't give a damn about your pathetic radical "IP" ideology now does he? If he knowingly disregards it. Your own argument invalidates itself.
Finally, what a disgusting attempt to try and reposition the entities and corporations and ideology that's been *desperately* trying to stifle and control this new renaissance for the last 8 years as the entities that actually brought it about. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.
(Yes I know, 'psudeo-intellectual' radicals have no shame, nor a firm grasp on reality as is displayed in all its glory in your post).
Severe denial (Score:3, Insightful)
"The government is killing people? The government is helping banks steal taxpayer money? Oh sure, that's okay, as long as they don't bother me."
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:I get hurt (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardly. He's not demanding you do a thing. You, on the other hand, are demanding he be "as productive as possible". It's pretty clear who is the slave and who is the slavedriver there. BTW, WTF are you doing wasting time on Slashdot? Get back to being productive!
mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's government corruption. (Score:3, Insightful)
There was a very interesting study I read comparing corruption in the US during its economic rise to the corruption in African governments during their current economic failures.
They found that the level of corruption (as measured by some international standard) was not significantly different between the two, but that the scope of what that corrupt government could do was significantly different.
The US government prior to World War I took up less than 9% of the country's GDP. In most African countries, that number is greater than 50%. The more government touches the more dangerous its corruption becomes.
Re:Cheney and Bush: 1,000,000 killed. Lula: 0 (Score:3, Insightful)
Typical American attitude at the moment. "Woe me, my country is going to implode and it's the most corrupt and worst place on the planet!" Fucking Americans, try living in some of these other places before whining about how bad your own place is.
Leaders raise the bar. Followers run only fast enough to not be last. If that "fucking typical American attitude" is what it takes to demand better from the government that represents them, so be it. Should the only defence for corruption be that it's acceptable elsewhere?
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:3, Insightful)
You responded in exact kind saying, if you don't like our "whining", why don't you leave; but, as you noted it is also his/her right to voice an opinion.
Regardless of who's right in the entire matter, (I'm no fan of the RIAA either) not only was this hypocritical, but you had to throw in several epithets as well (fascist,redneck, dipshit..). Angry much?
Or did you really expect "change", perhaps?
In matters of Intellectual Property, (as well as the idiotic "War on Drugs"), I'm afraid Democrats are no more progressive than Republicans.