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?"
They didn't need to take a position (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"does this filing confirm those fears?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. Not only that but it is a harbinger that will eventually show where the Obama campaign probably got their campaign money from.
Big media company associations, and big banks.
Who'll be big-time beneficiaries of their judicial efforts, stimulus packages, and ultimately new laws think new super-DMCA but 1000 fold worse.
i.e. Mandatory DRM. Repeal of the safe-harbor protections of the DMCA. More liability for services like youtube, and ISPs who fail to filter copyrighted content.
Criminal liability for authors of P2P software like bittorrent.
The years ahead will probably not be very fun for technologists or the public.
Was this the change we were promised? (Score:4, Interesting)
But, this type of ruling/defense by the administration, along with other things are really starting to bother me.
There are several that are bothersome. The moving of the census to be controlled by the executive branch. This is scary enough, in that it should be more independent....and above political needs. I see on the news that possibly ACORN is being tapped to 'help' with the census. I'd think the controversy over the potential voting fraud they were associated with, would sideline them on this effort. Slanting the census will have FAR reaching influence over many, many issues and money for years to come.
Obama was promising that he'd try to cut down earmarks..."line by line" I think was his quote. Yet, that Omnibus bill was loaded with what, like 8K of them?
The move to help people in housing problems....where they are allowing judges to overturn, revamp the condition of valid contractual agreements, that is dangerous, with far reaching implications for valid contract law in the US.
While it is understandable that people are pissed over the AIG bonuses...the acts passed by the house which try to retroactively and specically target these, again, is scary and I'd think unconstitutional. If these payouts were from valid contracts signed in the past, I don't see any clear way they could be overturned...and going after them retroactively by taxes...wow. I'm hoping the senate and especially Obama himself votes this down. It sets a bad precedent, and could really start to hurt US businesses. If valid contracts can be messed with like this....who wants to do business when you can't count on the terms being enforced?
The latest proposals...to not only mandate what execs of bailout companies can make..but also implications coming out that they want to actually set limits on what healthy, non=bailout companies can pay....that acares me. Sounds very much the opposite of capitalism. It may be a populist view in terms of the current economy, but, wow....THAT would be a change.
I want him to succeed in getting the country back in step....so we can all go back to trying to make a living without the interference of the government. That is the US way....at least ideally. Some of these policies coming out, seem to be a change to something the US is not....and never has been.
I ask honestly...for not just those that voted for O, but, those that were adamant supporters...are these things truly what you were expecting for 'change'? Do you support all of this which seems to change what the basics of the US business is all about? I don't mean the corruption and waste...but, the basic principals that seem to be in jeopardy?
Re:They didn't need to take a position (Score:5, Interesting)
There was no reason for the administration to intervene at all in this case. There was no legal requirement for them to take a position in the case.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. If they were going to intervene, they should have said "It is correct that the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act is subject to a due process test. We take no position on whether the test enunciated in the 1919 Williams decision, or the more recent State Farm/Gore test, should determine the statute's constitutionality. We submit that the Court should defer ruling on the defense at this early stage of the case, and should await the outcome of the trial, in order to avoid any unnecessary determination of any constitutional question, and to allow any such determination to be made upon a full record, rather than in the abstract."
Other Motivation (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm certainly not surprised to see a Democratic administration support the entertainment industry, but in this case they probably have other motivation as well. An unfavorable ruling here could be generalized to the awarding of amounts unrelated to actual damages for any reason. Since it is often the government that collects such awards...
Re:Third Party (Score:5, Interesting)
It is easy to critize... So what should he have done? And by this I don't mean cut taxes as a general concept. I want details...
I want details of what he should have done, and how it would have helped the economy...
It's going to get worse... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Payback time. (Score:5, Interesting)
votes were supplied by people. the VERY people this shitfaces are suing.
democrat party still depends on those people's donations for upcoming congress elections. he was just sending a call to volunteers. if an online campaign is launched to raise awareness about this stunt, theyll get served.
and they deserve it.
Re:Third Party (Score:3, Interesting)
More of the same (Score:3, Interesting)
This intervening is just part of a laundry list of documents regarding the case. If someone finds something specific about this phase of the trial, please chime in. Below is a copy and paste job of the original complaints. The guy is apparently up against fines up to $1 million dollars, so wouldn't it make sense to just settle and get back to school? That is what my parents would of said, and they would have paid (begrudgingly) up to $10k if there was anything near a 5% probability of me having to pay $1,000,000, the downtime from school, legal expenses, social problems, etc.
Unless this guy, a Professor of law at Harvard Law School, and his family are all actually delusional enough to believe he is not expected to have to pay such a $1,000,000 fine to share music with his teenage friends. You know, the same stuff that you and I did as kids because we had more time than money and we really liked the latest music or even some of that older music that we heard on the radio.
Why don't they just legalize music? Or at least decriminalize it.
-hackstraw
This case, like many others now before the Court, is one for
copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. Â 106. The Plaintiffs are
some of the nation's largest record companies. The Defendants in
these consolidated cases are individual computer users -- mainly
college students -- who, the Plaintiffs claim, used "peer-to-
peer" file-sharing software to download and disseminate music
without paying for it, infringing the Plaintiffs' copyrights.
Many of the Defendants have defaulted or settled, largely without
the benefit of counsel, subject to damages awards between $3,000
and $10,000.
Joel Tenenbaum ("Tenenbaum") is one of the few defendants
represented by counsel, Professor Charles Nesson of Harvard Law
School and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. He has
chosen to challenge the action through a Motion to Amend
Counterclaims (document # 686), his Opposition to the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims (document # 676), and a Motion to
Join the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA")
(document # 693), all of which will be heard on January 22, 2009.
Whether those counterclaims survive or not, he will proceed to a
jury trial in this Court currently scheduled for March 30, 2009.
While Tenenbaumâ(TM)s Motion to Permit Audio-Visual Coverage by CVN
(document # 718) is directed to all proceedings going forward,
this Order addresses only the proceeding on January 22, 2009,
where legal arguments on the motions above will be heard.
In many ways, this case is about the so-called Internet
Generation -- the generation that has grown up with computer
technology in general, and the internet in particular, as
commonplace. It is reportedly a generation that does not read
newspapers or watch the evening news, but gets its information
largely, if not almost exclusively, over the internet. See
generally Martha Irvine, Generation Raised Internet Comes of Age,
MSNBC.com, Dec. 13, 2004, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6645963/ [msn.com].
Consistent with the nature of these file-sharing cases, and the
identity of so many of the Defendants, this case is one that has
already garnered substantial attention on the internet.
George writes a song and gets sued (Score:3, Interesting)
As a businessman I believe Open Source Software reduces cost so an individual with a new idea can Quickly and for Under 2K get his message out.
That is, if new ideas even exist. Say someone named George writes a song, records it, and sells copies. If George's song is a hit, some big-name songwriter named Ron sues George, alleging that George's song was a copy of Ron's song and asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars. George says he didn't mean to copy anything, but the judge says it doesn't matter because George had heard Ron's song years ago. This actually happened, and Ron won [ucla.edu]. It turns out that there are only a limited number of possible melodies of any given length in a given musical scale, and judges compare only a few notes and contours of any two melodies to determine if they are "substantially similar". Under these conditions, how can anybody be sure that he actually has a new idea?
Re:Was this the change we were promised? (Score:2, Interesting)
But, this type of ruling/defense by the administration, along with other things are really starting to bother me.
Actually, this ruling is just the opposite of the other actions the Obama administration has taken. It's been a real mixed bag. He's appointed some questionable people, but implemented policies against just this sort of interference. We'll have to wait and see how this one pans out.
The moving of the census to be controlled by the executive branch. This is scary enough, in that it should be more independent....and above political needs. I see on the news that possibly ACORN is being tapped to 'help' with the census. I'd think the controversy over the potential voting fraud they were associated with, would sideline them on this effort.
The Census Bureau has been part of the (executive) Department of the Interior since 1902. Obama just made the head a larger post. I don't think the census has much affect upon the presidential race, since who lives where in states or even the number of people has little to do with electoral college votes right now. Rather, it has a lot to do with Congressional elections, so if you're arguing a conflict of interest I think you have it backwards. As for ACORN, there wasn't any scandal I know of, just media scare tactics about ACORN turning in voter registrations that were likely improper (and which they marked as such) as the law requires them to turn in all the voter registrations they receive, regardless of what their opinion of them is.
Obama was promising that he'd try to cut down earmarks..."line by line" I think was his quote. Yet, that Omnibus bill was loaded with what, like 8K of them?
Yup, he broke a promise there. Sadly, I think I would have done the same in his place. Getting it passed right away for economic reasons was simply too big of a concern compared to the relatively insignificant amount of pork dollars. It sucks that such compromises had to be made, but I lay that mostly at the feet of congress.
The move to help people in housing problems....where they are allowing judges to overturn, revamp the condition of valid contractual agreements, that is dangerous, with far reaching implications for valid contract law in the US.
Again I'd do the same in the short term. There are already plenty of laws that interfere with contract law and place limitations on it. In my (northern) state you can't kick people out or shut off their heat regardless of nonpayment during the winter months. It doesn't matter what your contract says. This is more of the same and absolutely needed to keep the economy from spiraling down the shitter even faster. Housing is more than a contract and more than a market. It is the stable wealth base and security base of a large portion of our populace.
While it is understandable that people are pissed over the AIG bonuses...the acts passed by the house which try to retroactively and specically target these, again, is scary and I'd think unconstitutional.
Yeah, they screwed up in handling that originally and now are still messing it up. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is unconstitutional though. It has been mishandled, but that is again, mostly congress. I don't think any of us has any illusions left that they're working for us.
The latest proposals...to not only mandate what execs of bailout companies can make..but also implications coming out that they want to actually set limits on what healthy, non=bailout companies can pay....that acares[sic] me.
The former is absolutely necessary in my mind. Execs should be fired, not given bonuses. As for non-bailout companies, it is attacking the very real wealth disparity problem, but I agree it is a misguided approach to it. It is much more of a "looks good" solution to appease the people than a real, workable solution. I'm not worried about us becoming less capitalist tho
Re:Business as usual (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Libertarians have too much baggage. (Score:2, Interesting)
While Libertarians are pro-ownership, in theory they should not be PRO-IP. For example, instead of Patent laws, Libertarians should support the inventors having trade secrets. This would be in keeping with the Libertarian focus on the free-market.
Patents are certainly a government imposed restraint on the free market, which goes against the rest of the beliefs.
That said, copyright would be more complicated, especially since individuals can hold copyright as well as corporations. Almost all Libertainans would agree that copyright law could stand to be reformed, but what the end result would be like is definitely subject to debate.
Libertarians should probably be PRO-Trademark. The restraints trademarks place on trade are pretty trivial, but they allow the free market to work well, in allowing companies to differentiate their products, without having to worry about a competitor passing off inferior versions of the same product using the same name. Trademarks by design have basically no impact on personal freedom, so everything seems good there.
But unfortunately all of that is what libertarians in theory should believe and stand for, which may differ from what they really do stand for.
Re:Libertarians have too much baggage. (Score:5, Interesting)
If I ever met Ron Paul in person, this is something I would like to ask him about. Even though Libertarians are pro-property (copyrights and patents are in the Constitution iirc), he at the same time is very much against corporate welfare (voted against bailouts) and corporate fascism. So this new fangled IP (intellectual property) may not be so cut and dried.
I have a feeling he would have voted against all the copyright extensions and patents back in the day were not so bad when they protected implementations vs. now which is "intellectual property" vs. methods, thoughts, whatever, etc.
While I have sympathies to the pirate bay, a lot of it is just people demanding free shit which is a form of welfare if instituted on a public level. I enjoy using google books to find books and think fair use should extend to that although I don't demand the entire book for free.
One should remember while libertarians uphold private property rights, there is a real and distinct difference between private property vs intellectual property.
Re:It's government corruption. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Libertarians have too much baggage. (Score:3, Interesting)
Usually in politics, the words "in theory" mean "in my delusional world".
Despite what you think the libertarians ought to be, a majority of them are on record as pro-patent and this is the mainline stance of the party. Of course they throw in a line about how they are "concerned" about abuse of the system but never a concrete suggestion for reform (just like every other politician). For some reason, slashdotters believe the libertarians but not the others. Must be an underdog effect.
I've never gotten a good answer from an L to this question: if the government is too incompetent to tax us, why are they competent enough to grant 17+-year monopolies on ideas?
Re:Third party would not be different (Score:1, Interesting)
The concept of "compromise", which you eagerly dismiss out of hand, is at the heart of engineering.
Go read a book.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:3, Interesting)
I also voted for a candidate who understands that the Government's role isn't to diminish itself small enough for Grover Norquist to drown it in a bathtub and that regulation of markets is a good thing. Sure, legal pot, no Taxes/IRS and "liberty" as it's defined by libertarian wackos, sound great, but let's work in the real world. We had that. And it went all wrong. Booms and busts. Bank failures, market failures, depressions, recessions, all happen independent of regulation but the effects are made much *much* worse when there is nothing there to keep the market from deciding to shit it's collective pants.
Re:Third Party (Score:3, Interesting)
I keep seeing this line about inflation, and even my parents trot it out.
What none of you realize is that we're currently in an incredibly massive DEflationary period. The money supply is shrinking by FORTY TRILLION DOLLARS. That's the derivatives market dying. It was all imaginary money from the beginning, but the economy treats fake dollars just like real dollars. Sure, issuing more bonds as a license to print money will cause inflation, but adding a few billion dollars into the economy against FORTY TRILLION DOLLARS of deflation isn't going to send us into african-dictatorship-inflation territory.
Who is a "tool" of whom? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is interesting that the Administration is described as being a "tool", and not only that, but of being tool of an institution.
This twisted rhetoric not only ignores the the essential fact that institutions are tools of people, but also denies the possibility, even probability, that the RIAA effectively represents at least some of the opinions of the President.
To put it another way: the RIAA is a tool of people like myself who want to see aggressive promotion of intellectual property rights, and with only minor regret, accept the minuscule number of strong-handed actions being used to oppose the masses who have been pretty much thoughtless about the merits (or even demerits) of intellectual property theories/practices.
Slashdot is an endless forum for knocking RIAA practices, declaring them as being ineffectual at best and evil at worst. But by my own observations, I see the typical person of 2009 actually considering the legality of their media consumption, and even having a preference for legal practices (even though they still commonly engage in violation of intellectual property rights). As I recall, these legal considerations were typically non-existent in Joe Q. Public 8 years ago. The shift in attitude is not a result of increased virtue, schooling, nor for sure because of the advice of Slashdot pundits. It is, quite simply, some semi-intelligent byproducts of awareness that comes from the buzz surrounding the irrational fear of being prosecuted, even though the likelihood of that happening is so small as to be safely ignored.
Music distribution is flourishing. Artistic variety is flourishing. Consumer cost is dropping. Consumer access is rising. And intellectual property awareness is on the rise too. Those are all good things.
Enjoy flogging your bogeyman (read: the RIAA). He is my tool.
I believe if one does the research difference.... (Score:3, Interesting)
...the campaign and the actual end direction of the Obama admin, they will find another word to use meaning bait and switch.
Obama, really should be careful to be genuinely fair, otherwise he only puts more weight on the public camels back.
Otherwise its gonna break and the civil out break against the government that has been analyzed by economists [wsj.com] and reported as a real possibility, will happen. Its predicted to happen next year.
The current laughability level is that of what it was before the Soviet Union collapsed, bu the laughability of this at one time, did not stop it from happening.
Even I find the map laughable but tax payers are getting very tired of footing the bill for billionaire bull shit.
Read the Declaration of Independance for an example or awareness of the public.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:3, Interesting)
If you think that IP theft is the reason people are reading less, then you just don't get it. People are reading more. They are just reading more electronic content on the Internet, and that is supplanting their book reading. They aren't getting electronic copies of books, though. They're reading CNN. They're reading Slashdot. They're reading Digg. They're reading xkcd.
It's not theft of IP that is causing the downfall of books, but rather the cumbersome nature of books themselves coupled with a rapidly dwindling attention span resulting from the proliferation of blogs, the proliferation of text messages full of short little bits of text that are barely long enough to convey a complete thought, the replacement of in-depth newspaper articles with short little sound bits on TV news shows, and the increasingly hectic pace of modern life.... People are gravitating towards content that is brief in nature because they've gotten used to that. It should be no surprise, then, that books don't sell as well as they used to in light of the changing entertainment style of the modern public.
Re:Change? (Score:4, Interesting)
this is not a change for the worse because it's not a change at all
Correct. This is precisely the same thing the Bush Administration would have filed. Which saddens me deeply, since we are all painfully aware of what the Bush Administration accomplished. The only redeeming virtue of this brief is that it is illogical and weak, portending that the RIAA will lose on this issue when push comes to shove.
Re:It won't mattter anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
---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.
Fair enough. Problem is, that copyright lays claim to peoples' physical objects because their information is on them. That's not cool.
I also pay taxes on media to sustain and forcefully support media companies. I have a right to pirate because Im taxed for it. Eliminate the tax and Ill stop.
And going back to you: Never has anybody sued for "Downloading". It's always been for uploading. Good luck suing somebody who linked to rapidshare or torrents on slashdot (like i do a lot).
---I have a problem with what's rapidly becoming perpetual copyright, as well, but I agree with the principle of copyright......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.
Absolutely. We need to encourage the direct creators, whether it be in terms of patents or copyrights. Unfortunately, the best encourager we have now is money.. But the argument is that we want those who create to make more, and i'm for that. I think for starters, we need to not allow persons called corporations allowed to own copyrights. Their lifespans are kind of... long.
Re:Change we can believe in. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T (Score:3, Interesting)
Bank failures, market failures, depressions, recessions, all happen independent of regulation but the effects are made much *much* worse when there is nothing there to keep the market from deciding to shit it's collective pants.
I'd like to point out that the boom/bust cycles only really started after the Federal Reserve was created. Prior to that the only real influence on the economy was a major war, and I think we're done with those from a global perspective (just incessant minor conflicts, most of them started by us). It's a major Libertarian platform point for the abolition of the Fed.
Now, I'm not one to say that a completely free market is the way to go; I think it's a bit of twisted thinking that a society that runs on pure greed will function at all properly - but the Libs do have some good ideas, and giving them a run at the helm for a little while would definitely make for some changes for the better.
Also, trying to arrest an economic downturn just draws out the whole thing far longer than it needs to go. Better to let failing businesses fail: propping them up just allows them to continue failing for a longer period of time. It's very similar to the idea of pulling off a band-aid slowly as opposed to just ripping it off - it might hurt more, but it's over sooner. Also, it leaves a reminder for other companies not to screw up so badly, as opposed to leaving them thinking "Oh, it's OK if we completely and abjectly fail: the taxpayers will bail us out".
Re:Who is a "tool" of whom? (Score:1, Interesting)
Out of curiosity.
If the strong enforcement of "intellectual property" rights (I'm assuming copyright/access restriction rights is what is meant by this) were to result in the establishment of an actual, viable "open source" content production system would the strong enforcement techniques still be viewed positively by those hammering so forcefully for them now?
It may be the case that "consumer grade" entertainment content is only possible nowadays to the wealthy corporations. If this is the case, then obviously strong enforcement is in their best interests. Whether it is in the best interests of society as a whole is questionable in the face of extremely long copyright terms, but we'll pass on that for the moment.
Is there any thought given, anywhere in the "strong enforcement" camp, to the emergence of a true "open source, free access" content creation system? Against all odds, it has happened in the world of software. If it WERE to happen in the content world, it would result in not only lost revenues for the current content creation system but might even starve it to death. The truly effective enforcement of mechanisms such as DRM (if technically possible) and a public aware of legality issues with mainstream content (which, as you yourself pointed out, is happening) would increase the chances of a true "IP counterculture" emerging - a threat to profits fully within the legal system's bounds and not something that can be countered with traditional means.
Is this not viewed with any concern? Perhaps there really is no need for concern, but I'm curious if the possibility is considered at all.
Re:Me and what army? (Score:5, Interesting)
So yeah, we would have a pretty good chance. Especially with widespread public support. If there was enough support, it might even be wholly bloodless.
Just as Plato predicted (Score:5, Interesting)
Now in a democracy, too, there are drones, but they are more numerous and more dangerous than in the oligarchy; there they are inert and unpractised, here they are full of life and animation; and the keener sort speak and act, while the others buzz about the bema and prevent their opponents from being heard.
And there is another class in democratic States, of respectable, thriving individuals, who can be squeezed when the drones have need of their possessions; there is moreover a third class, who are the labourers and the artisans, and they make up the mass of the people. When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob.
Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence. Then follow informations and convictions for treason. The people have some protector whom they nurse into greatness, and from this root the tree of tyranny springs. The nature of the change is indicated in the old fable of the temple of Zeus Lycaeus, which tells how he who tastes human flesh mixed up with the flesh of other victims will turn into a wolf.
Even so the protector, who tastes human blood, and slays some and exiles others with or without law, who hints at abolition of debts and division of lands, must either perish or become a wolf--that is, a tyrant. Perhaps he is driven out, but he soon comes back from exile; and then if his enemies cannot get rid of him by lawful means, they plot his assassination.
Thereupon the friend of the people makes his well-known request to them for a body-guard, which they readily grant, thinking only of his danger and not of their
own. Now let the rich man make to himself wings, for he will never run away again if he does not do so then. And the Great Protector, having crushed all his rivals, stands proudly erect in the chariot of State, a full-blown tyrant.
Plato, The Republic [extremepolitics.org]
Full explanation: How we'll move into tyranny [amerika.org]
Great empires like the USA are not conquered. They decay from within. We are corrupt because we have lost social consensus. To understand that, you will have to first realize that not all of the humanities are BS and that politics/philosophy is a discipline as structured as programming. Until you overcome that bias, it will all be Greek (heh heh) to you.
Re:Republicans and oil, Dems and Big Content (Score:1, Interesting)
Its a setup.
In two years, those same appointments get let go, and now they are locked out of the system. He let them in at the forefront specifically so that he can judge their actions and remove those who supported interests not agreeable with his mission statement.
However on the other-hand he might be doing this so that the MAFIAA keeps itself distracted with the lawsuits and burns more money until it runs out and tries to sue every person in America for both downloading and NOT downloading music (The former for not supporting "authorized playback formats" and the latter for "not supporting industry artists") at which point the entire cartel crashes and burns, and those same lobbyists are now essentially undesirable and unhireable for being associated with such a toxic organization, and the lobbying rules ensures they can't come crawling back to their old hat standbys.
Its a very complex game and Obama made a crafty move, even if the end result is unclear at this point.
(I've been watching too many spy movies recently I admit-- posting as Anon Coward because I can't be arsed to remember my password for just one comment)
Re:It's government corruption. (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't have to spend billions of dollars.
http://moosecove.com/propertyrights/taxes/eminentdomain-taxes-melist-usat-040401.shtml [moosecove.com]
The USA Today article below reveals the latest ugly trend in statist abuse against private property owners: government seizure of private homes and businesses through eminent domain for the purpose of generating higher property taxes on subsequent "redevelopment" of the property.
The planned displacement of over 5,000 residents - to be removed by physical force if they refuse to leave under the government's threat - from a middle class community in coastal Florida is one in a rash of cases in recent years in which municipal officials collude with large-scale developers to seize private property: The officials use government eminent domain powers to take private property and turn it over to their cronies, who in turn use the land for large scale development of their own. The naked extortion is rationalized as legally justified with the rhetoric of the "public good", nebulously claiming that the seizures will improve "the economy" and, more specifically, arguing that it meets the constitutional test of eminent domain for "public use" because it will raise more taxes.
USA Today reports that a viro, "Larry Morandi, the environmental program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures, says cities are using eminent domain to address financial problems. 'They are taking property they don't believe is generating enough tax revenue and turning it over to a developer who will generate more taxes,' he says."
---
And yes, we knew Obama sided with RIAA beforehand.
Voting for Obama was a complex decision.
a) booting out corrupt republicans
b) stopping their social agenda
c) stopping the next 20 to 25 years being a "pro corporation, hyper socially conservative" court
d) addressing racism
---
RIAA has overstepped, will continue to overstep, and ultimately to avoid them-- just don't buy their products.
They can be reversed when they put enough grannies, dead people, and 17 year olds in prison. Every time Obama's team sides with them, he will waste a bit more of his political capital. Perhaps at some point he will wake up.
Re:Change we can believe in. (Score:1, Interesting)
Well I for one am extremely disappointed in Obama's administration, especially with this latest news that he upholds RIAA's extortion of the People.
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!
Undermining the rule of law (Score:4, Interesting)
Continued undermining of the social contract is a serious problem. Social collapse often happens when people no longer find the current regime in their interest, and simply stop supporting it. Every time the social contract is violated, as it is in the case of copyright, as it is with the bailouts of the financial sector, people turn away. I don't think the risk is that they will revolt, but that if there is a credible challenge to the existing system they will simply fail to act to preserve it. Most revolutions are the work not of the masses, but of a relatively small group. They are able to succeed when the population lacks the conviction to oppose them. Thus many Romans welcomed in the barbarians. Hitler was allowed to become chancellor even though most Germans did not support him. A minority in the American colonies was able to foment revolution. The Communists became a credible threat in China when the Nationalists failed to act effectively against the Japanese. And so on.
When the change happens, it is a phase change, not a gradual transformation. A dynamic system like a society follows a pattern. It never exactly repeats itself, it is in constant flux, yet it can be bounded. Most perturbations are not sufficient to break the pattern - but when they are, the system leaves the pattern, and stabilizes around a new pattern. Just as an economy can handle a lot of stress and maintain high employment, but with enough of a shock it can stabilize in a new depression pattern of low employment.
This is my relatively uniformed opinion - I haven't read enough in this area - so it may be tainted by superficial pop intellectualism. But it does worry me. Persisting with law that is neither supported not observed by the majority of the population serves to undermine the rule of law. Continued evidence of the deep corruption of the system wears away at support for it. The process may seem quiet, but it does have consequences.
Mind you, the Russian scholar you cite is operating in fantasy land. He thinks the American midwest will join Canada and Alaska will be annexed by Ruassia. I'm Canadian, and I can tell you that's just plain nuts.
Good news (Score:3, Interesting)
The RIAA has been arguing that it is "futile" to raise a defense that the statutory damages are unconstitutionally excessive. The Government's brief directly contradicts that position, and concedes that the statutory damages are subjected to a due process test for excessiveness.
Re:Change we can believe in. (Score:3, Interesting)
Income taxation at 39 percent at the marginal rate isn't "too much taxation." It's very much so on the left side of the Laffer curve.
So what? James Madison is dead. The general welfare and necessary and proper clauses nullify the 10th amendent. The Government isn't meant to be either large or small. It's meant to be a compromise of what we, the people, want. Individual liberty is a neat concept and all, but, we live in the real world full of nuance and grey areas. There's more to life than just "individual liberty." There's other people and how we interact with them. What now?