Obama DoJ Goes Against Film Companies 321
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot, I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism. Well here's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism. Chalk one up for those who like to point out that, occasionally, the system does work. You may recall that the US Supreme Court has been mulling over whether to grant the film industry's petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the important Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. This was the case which held that Cablevision's allowing its customers to make copies of shows and store them on Cablevision's servers for later viewing did not constitute a direct copyright infringement by Cablevision, there being no 'copy' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory' duration. The Supreme Court asked the Obama DoJ to submit an amicus curiae brief, giving its opinion on whether or not the film companies' petition for review should be granted. The government did indeed file such a brief, but the content of the brief (PDF) is probably not what the film companies were expecting. They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ. Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced."
Re:Tactical Deception (Score:4, Informative)
I believe you're trying to be a bit snarky, but you are close to the mark. Try some Greecian Philosophy [ablemedia.com]. Thesis / antithesis is one of the bases of legal argument.
Re:Tricky things, lawyers. (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe. Lawyers, despite having no morals, are smart enough to know they can't just start handing cases to the RIAA without an appearance of a battle. This is one step in the right direction but there are miles left to walk so to speak. If this pattern continues then we can let our dukes down, but I still think it's too early to tell.
Re:Tricky things, lawyers. (Score:2, Informative)
Lawyers don't make findings. They make arguments for one side, in an incredibly biased manner. Being biased is how the whole adversarial system works. There's another guy arguing against them who is employed to be incredibly biased to the other side. As such, their job when working for the MPAA was simply to put forth the argument as to why the MPAA is going to be harmed. They did that to the best of their abilities.
Their job when working for the DOJ is to put forward the argument that is in the best interests of America, and in this case, American businesses.
Re:Ray... what's with the frames? (Score:5, Informative)
A PayPal "Donate" button goes a long way..
Well the last time we mentioned my PayPal button, some contributions came rolling in. So if you insist it's here [beckermanlegal.com].
Thing is, what I like about the affiliate advertising idea is I'm not asking for a handout, and it's not costing you anything. You buy stuff on the internet anyway. So why not check and see if you can buy it through one of my links and help ol' NewYorkCountryLawyer out, without it costing you a dime?
Re:Good call (Score:4, Informative)
it shouldn't be too surprising... he actively refused donations from lobbyists (snopes confirms)
Re:Gov representing reality is rare (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed. But, too big government is bad. Again, I'm referring you to my own country, Croatia.
Where court cases commonly last 3 years, and extreme cases for over 20 years.
Where people and companies wait for 1-3 years for construction permits -- even when the companies would bring large profit and extra employment to local community.
Where people sometimes get off the hook with the law simply by waiting for the case to become too old according to the law. (For example, avoid getting sued for few years for not paying bills, and you can't get sued at all.)
Here's a quote in Croatian (source [tportal.hr]):
Translation:
Most important number here is 65.000, in a country with a population of 4.2 million and with about 400.000 employed people (perhaps I'm even optimistic with that last number).
Now, let's again talk about big governments -- can they really be efficient? Does the size of state apparatus really say something about the strength of the government itself? Is the far-reaching hand government really that important, so much more than the freedoms we might gain if it controlled a bit less?
We definitely don't need absolute lack of government like in Snow Crash. We also don't need absolutely big government.
USA probably needs a small reduction in government powers, and greater responsibility of its leaders towards the public. It'll still stay a "big" government capable of protecting the public. Croatia however needs a large reduction of government apparatus, still remaining a powerful government on its sovereign territory capable of handling corporate problems.
What we don't need it the government to act towards its people like a "big" government.
Re:Tactical Deception (Score:5, Informative)
If you mean that treaties have the same force as statutes enacted by Congress that do not violate the Constitution, then you are right.
That's not exactly correct. If a treaty provision conflicts with, or expands upon, an existing statute, it is invalid. See, e.g., Elektra v. Barker, which held that the WIPO copyright treaty could not vary the terms of the Copyright Act.
Re:Tactical Deception (Score:4, Informative)
He cares enough about copyright to appoint former RIAA lawyers to the DOJ
The guy he appointed to the top spot was a law school chum, and headed the Obama transition team. Even I do not think he was appointed because he represented the content cartel in copyright infringement cases. He was hired because of their relationship and because Obama obviously placed great trust in him.