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."
If a laywer is any good... (Score:5, Insightful)
He knows the opposition's position as well as his so he can counter it up front. If he can't put himself in the opposition's shoes and argue against them, then they're going to suck.
These guys argued the other side forever, they *should* know how to tear that apart now.
Re:If a laywer is any good... (Score:5, Insightful)
These guys argued the other side forever, they *should* know how to tear that apart now.
If they knew how to tear it apart, and they did by my understanding of the brief [beckermanlegal.com], then they knew the original case was flawed. If the case was flawed, a reasonable person or persons would not attempt such a case in the first place with the intent on 'winning'. If they are not trying to win, then is it a fair and reasonable use of the courts for these ulterior motive shenanigans? Are there penalties for such behavior?
I guess I'm also wondering if this suddenoutbreakofcommonsense has implications in current or future litigation where the RIAA/MPAA or other content redistributors are the plaintiff.
Re:If a laywer is any good... (Score:5, Interesting)
If they knew how to tear it apart, and they did by my understanding of the brief [beckermanlegal.com], then they knew the original case was flawed. If the case was flawed, a reasonable person or persons would not attempt such a case in the first place with the intent on 'winning'. If they are not trying to win, then is it a fair and reasonable use of the courts for these ulterior motive shenanigans? Are there penalties for such behavior?
The specific lawyers who represented the RIAA and MPAA, and are now in the DOJ, are recused for two years from working on any of these types of matters. So they are not supposed to have had anything whatsoever to do with this brief. And from all appearances they did not, since this brief was written with much greater integrity and respect for copyright law than their arguments ever exhibited.
I guess I'm also wondering if this suddenoutbreakofcommonsense has implications in current or future litigation where the RIAA/MPAA or other content redistributors are the plaintiff.
Only time will tell. The two other government briefs of which I am aware in this type of litigation, which have been submitted by the government subsequent to the RIAA lawyers's going to work for the DOJ, were both quite poorly done, and took wild and crazy legal positions obviously calculated to please the RIAA overlords.
Re:If a laywer is any good... (Score:4, Insightful)
The two other government briefs of which I am aware in this type of litigation, which have been submitted by the government subsequent to the RIAA lawyers's going to work for the DOJ, were both quite poorly done, and took wild and crazy legal positions obviously calculated to please the RIAA overlords.
I am beginning to suspect that there are more un-bent, ethical legal professionals out there than my early upbringing seemed to indicate. We are such children of the meme-stream...
It's difficult to consider at times that professionalism sometimes means being loyal to your employers until you can beat a retreat. I suppose that must be a part of the legal profession. At least some percentage of the lawyers out there went into the profession on the belief that they could right wrongs, and it's beginning to look like some people kept the faith all the way to the top.
I am now wondering if some of those DOJ ex-**AA legals didn't weep at the prospect of being able to escape.
All in all, I found that to be a nice piece of news. And I'm beginning to harbour some nice suspicions.
Re: (Score:3)
All in all, I found that to be a nice piece of news. And I'm beginning to harbour some nice suspicions.
Well, like I say... I'm not ready to genuflect just yet. But this brief was good news.
Re:If a laywer is any good... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, like I say... I'm not ready to genuflect just yet. But this brief was good news.
Where's Tom Lehrer when we need him? Two, four, six, eight...
Actually I'm beginning to think this whole copyright business was scripted by Gilbert & Sullivan. Anyone?
I'll start it.
"This is the very model of a copyright attorney brief
In amicus it challenges the findings for recording fiefs
It simply disassembles any arguments enjoining use
Of any little copies kept in RAM for momentary use!
The data kept in buffers necessarily but fleeting is
Not there for long enough to be infringing on your rights it is
It's not enough to keep petitioners to keep petitioning...
(pause)
Your language overbroad is far too scattered to define the thing!
Divide and Conquer? (Score:5, Insightful)
When Obama was elected, one of the things that was most apparent was his understanding of technology and related issues. When he appointed the ??AA lawyers to the DOJ, there was a large outcry from people who believed he was being influenced by his party's traditional media kowtowing.
The specific lawyers who represented the RIAA and MPAA, and are now in the DOJ, are recused for two years from working on any of these types of matters. So they are not supposed to have had anything whatsoever to do with this brief. And from all appearances they did not
I'm wondering if the ??AA lawyer appointments weren't designed to "take them out of the game". If so, it's a brilliant move, IMHO. :)
Worked on Hillary (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe so. Dick Morris argues that this is exactly how he's neutralized Hillary Clinton:
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-incredible-shrinking-clintons-2009-05-26.html [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It wouldn't be slashdot if there weren't any such reactions.
4Chan has their lolcats, slashdot has their kneejerk desire to punch people they disagree with. It's the natural order of things.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After Biden's Hollywood Speech, I doubt it. More likely this is a circuitious maneuver to benefit the MAFIAA in the long run by surrendering tactical ground now.
Good call (Score:5, Insightful)
Can someone mod those lawyers up? +1 insightful.
Re:Good call (Score:5, Funny)
"Can someone mod those lawyers up?"
Something I would never expect to see here on /.
Furthermore, it's modded 4 Insightful.
I'm staring at my window now, waiting for a pig fly-by.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
waiting for a pig fly-by..
Sorry. That was last month [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good call (Score:4, Informative)
it shouldn't be too surprising... he actively refused donations from lobbyists (snopes confirms)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm staring at my window now, waiting for a pig fly-by.
This is time that would be better spent building a reinforced, manure-proof umbrella.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, that doesn't actually work outside of Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. This is a lot like Roman bread and circuses, but we've advanced a lot since then.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the Meta-Circus.
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:Tactical Deception (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps the real bread and circuses is all this whining about copyright while your nation fights two wars, has out of control military spending, locks up non-violent drug offenders, arrests medical marijuana growers, denies rights to gays, is in the middle of an economic meltdown, has out of control gun laws, etc etc etc, yet here we are arguing the minutia of copyright law. If anyone is guilty of deceiving the public with inconsequential shit, its us geeks, not Obama. Whining about copyright and quoting Ayn Rand is not how you fix things. Bread and circuses indeed!
Re:Tactical Deception (Score:5, Insightful)
Good job. Dismiss his bullshit logic with some even worse false logic of your own.
You're suggesting that if we all drop everything else, we will be able to solve all the major problems in the world, and just work our way down the list... Reality is quite the opposite, really.
You can stop bathing until you've achieved world peace, but the time saved won't gain you world peace, and you'll just go around stinking.
Try this... Don't bother changing the oil in your car. It's not important enough. Just keep going until your car blows up. THEN your car blowing up will be important enough to merit your attention.
Re:Tactical Deception (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, are you serious?
The government does something bad, and it's out to get you.
The government does something good, and it's a "tactical deception", designed to lull you into a false sense of security, and it's out to get you.
Your theory is not falsifiable. And you get a 4, insightful? This is supposed to be a science-oriented discussion board; we should know better.
Re:Tactical Deception (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you joking? Let me fill you in... Obama doesn't give a rat's ass about copyright legislation. He has a nuclear-armed Korea threatening war, a nuclear-armed Pakistan fighting for its life against the Taliban, extreme tensions between Israel and Iran (one of which has nukes, and the other's probably working on it), two wars of our own to deal with, a collapsed global economy, and on top of that, he still probably wants to get his universal health care plan rolling.
He's not in bed with the **AA the way a lot of Slashdotters like to think. He's not out to get them either. He's simply got bigger things to worry about. This decision was undoubtedly made at a lower level. If anything, he glanced over it quickly and agreed to the arguments put forth by his lawyers.
Re:Tactical Deception (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Tactical Deception (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not in bed with the **AA the way a lot of Slashdotters like to think.
Evidence indicates otherwise.
I have been quick to point out 'tea leaves' suggesting that he was being overly generous to the content cartel in his appointments. And I pointed out the 2 misguided, fervently pro-RIAA, briefs his DOJ filed in 2 'RIAA v. End User' cases (if I weren't a professional I would call them "dumbass", but of course I would never use such a term). But fairmindedness requires us to see this new filing, which is at the United States Supreme Court level, as evidence to the contrary. This brief directly contradicts the things the pro-RIAA appointees argued in this very case.
As far as I am concerned, if every brief Obama's DOJ files is as fair minded and scholarly as this one was, I will not care if the conclusions drawn by the brief agree with, or disagree with, the conclusions I have drawn.
All I ask for is fairness. A lawyer who disagrees with me, but does so with integrity and honor, is okay in my book.
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.
Re:NO (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I had mod points. This weak minded PC world of moral relativism must be abolished. Copyright holders demand to be taken seriously and insist others listen to their arguments. I DONT NEED TO, your arguments are worthless because the position you already occupy is outrageous. The stated intent of the law was to promote innovation. Being able to profit from one work for a life time does not do that, it eliminates the need for innovation almost entirely.
Return to the bright bright line and we can have an intelligent discussion listen to each other and hash out the specifics, till then I am for damaging the strength of copyright law in any possible way, including making completely impossible to enforce on a technical level such that everyone is a violator and the entire concept becomes a sad joke. Chances are that we can't come back from that point, which does not bother people like me much so maybe you pro IP types aught to think about giving us some concessions because there are more of us and eventually we will defeat you; yes some of us are willing to whip others into what amounts to an unruly mod to do that.
A power struggle is an awful hard fight to win, once one side has excepted anarchy as satisfactory outcome, and a large enough group of people start to fell that would be preferable to your continued control; that is whats happening slowing in the world of IP. "Information wants to be free," is catching on.
Please let this be a trend (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Please let this be a trend (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Please let this be a trend (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please let this be a trend (Score:4, Interesting)
Replace DVD with VHS in your post, and Blu-Ray with DVD (and minus the part 'bout the comp) and go back ten years and it would be just as true (or untrue rather).
Blu-ray "isn't catching on" because the players are still damn expensive, like DVD players were 10 years ago. 10 years from now DVD will be just as replaced as VHS (if not sooner). However it may well not be by Blu-Ray.
The reality is that HD is little more than novelty (sure, it is a sharper image, but so what? So is the view out my window), and once the novelty wears off the inconveniences of the 13cm plastic disc become obvious--especially compared to on demand internet service.
Wiretapping (Score:2, Interesting)
Now if they can only come around on Warrantless Wiretapping [eff.org].
Re:Wiretapping (Score:5, Interesting)
Why can't we nail the Govt for Copyright Infringement of our audio phone works?
Indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your more or less right here except that the vast majority of DOJ employees don't change jobs when new leaders come in. It's entirely possible that people working for President Carter are still employed at the DOJ and remained employed under different presidents and parties.
Here, you are just wrong. The DOJ is supposed to enfore the law period. They don't represent anything but the law as it is written and how courts reconcile that to the constitution. The DOJ can push for an interpretation the administration has laid out if there is shacky grounds but they in no way "reflect the will of the people".
In fact, the federal government was never indented to address the will of the people directly. The federal government in the US is only supposed to represent the states in matters of state (foreign relations) and matters between the states with a limited few other things specifically written into the constitution. You can see how obvious this is by simply reading the constitution. The senate was originally appointed by the state, the president was/still is appointed by the state, and the house of representative which all tax raises are supposed to originate in was the representation of the people. The idea was so that the people had a say in government not so that government served the people. The federal government serves nothing but the offices they hold. Now don't get me wrong, the office covers the people but they also cover so many other things like corporations which provide jobs, trade between the states and with foreign countries and so on.
You also need to understand that a: corporations are nothing more then collections of people who invested in a concept but are shielded from it's performance to some extent by their lack of participation in the company. b: Lobbyist are nothing more then people who have familiarity with the congress critters and take points directly to them instead of leaving it to them to figure out on their own. There is nothing wrong with lobbyist because they allow single representation of groups of people with no political clout. Without them, no one's voice will be heard more, nothing will be different, except those groups will have to spend the money directly on getting the congress critters attention some other way instead of giving it to someone who already has their attention.
Re:Indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with lobbyist because they allow single representation of groups of people with no political clout
How is that a good thing? The richest get to buy political clout and change the gov and the masses still have no say.
Re: (Score:2)
The federal government in the US is only supposed to represent the states in matters of state (foreign relations) and matters between the states with a limited few other things specifically written into the constitution.
Since the development of rail transport, what isn't a matter between the states?
Re: (Score:3)
Given the entertainment industries strong connections with the Democrats in particular do you think they will just sit back with feet up and say "well played, you got us on that one."? Or do you think it's more likely that since they found out what the brief actually said that they went on the lobbying offensive to get those behind it punished / r
Re: (Score:2)
Please keep in mind that this is a amicus brief requested by SCOTUS, not an independent one filed by interested party. I would say that they would put more weight into this brief if it was requested what the DOJ thought about the legal position here.
Corporations are known to support whomever is in power. While I don't like the fact that
Tricky things, lawyers. (Score:4, Insightful)
"since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ."
Sometimes people just need a reminder that there is no grouping of people with less principles than Lawyers. We made the assumption that, since RIAA lawyers were hired to the DOJ, that they would find in favor of the RIAA. But it seems that lawyers are almost always megaphones for who is signing their paycheck.
And in this situation, it worked out in our favor.
Re:Tricky things, lawyers. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Sometimes people just need a reminder that there is no grouping of people with less principles than Lawyers. We made the assumption that, since RIAA lawyers were hired to the DOJ, that they would find in favor of the RIAA. But it seems that lawyers are almost always megaphones for who is signing their paycheck."
Mmm. Or people who are doing their best to protect the interests of their clients? A lawyer must make the best arguments available for their client, but the ruling is not something they can be held responsible for. The system of justice works best when both sides present the strongest form of their argument, allowing the issues to be debated by those in the judicial role (who you can hold responsible for their judgments).
Or would you rather your own counsel failed to advance your best arguments because he personally thought you were guilty?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but when the RIAA counts on little people being forced to settle because they
Re:Tricky things, lawyers. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What if the RIAA lawyers are all on our side all along, and they were filling up their positions incompetently just to prevent people who actually want to do damage from doing so?
Hmmm. You are one Slashdot member who is not a cynic or skeptic. You're ascribing the highest and noblest of motives to them, looking for the best in your fellow man. I am impressed.
Perhaps you are right. There is certainly something to be said for that point of view. When one looks at their blunders, it is hard to imagine they were not intentional, now that you mention it.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Oh, like many experts, they have whatever principles you are willing to fund.
More seriously, they are the champions in the "battle of chapions" that is a US courtroom. So many, as individuals, have excellent principles which they try to support by the clients they accept. And they can lose their license for not doing their courthouse best for their clients, even if their violation of legal "canons" helps keep a child rapist or Dick Cheney from hurting society as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you tell me which lawyers who names are on the brief actually worked for RIAA, MAPP, or have some other connection to them?
I don't think this paper says anything about the DOJ nor the RIAA lawyers because I can't find one of their names behind the brief submitted. Chances are, the EX RIAA lawyers never saw the brief, it was probably reviewed for accuracy by some other low level lawyers and approved by some mid level management.
Re: (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 o
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa, stop the presses...you mean lawyers act as advocates for their clients?? That's crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes people just need a reminder that there is no grouping of people with less principles than Lawyers.
I'm sure Lawrence Lessig, Eben Moglin, Larry Rosen, and even NYCL would be glad to hear that. Oh wait, you just mean lawyers who fight for people you disagree with?
Re: (Score:2)
As would Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Mahatma Gandhi.
lawyers are mercenaries (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Thus demonstrating again why you should never trust a lawyer. Unless you are still paying him, of course. (sorry nycLawyer)
Re:lawyers are mercenaries (Score:5, Insightful)
What the lawyer actually thinks is correct doesn't have a whole lot of traction here. If the clients arguments or interests are so repugnant to the lawyer that they feel that they can't represent them successfully, they are bound to tell the client, but that's about it. No, it's not perfect, not a great system but it seems to work better than anything else we've come across.
A lawyer well versed in a particular case dammed well ought to be able to argue both sides of the issue. It's what they do for a living.
Re: (Score:2)
They had asbestos plaintiffs who were diagnosed with asbestosis but not silicosis, rediagnosed with silicosis but not asbestosis, by the same doctor, with the same X-ray. They laid the seeds for their own destruction."
Or how about in New Mexico [blogspot.com] where the attorney general seems to give good contracts to those who pay? Or maybe that's just a general politician thing.
Or how about doctors who are no longer paying for malpractice insurance as a way to ensure against lawsuits? [sun-sentinel.com] Here's a quote from one of those doctors:
"I have a strong feeling I'll never hear from another attorney again," Rosenbaum said. "Sure, I'm nervous. But I practice carefully. The first thing lawyers do when they have a case is [check] all the doctors involved to see who has how much coverage."
In theory the law is great: it prevents doctors from m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Thus demonstrating again why you should never trust a lawyer. Unless you are still paying him, of course. (sorry nycLawyer)
I think the traditional ire against lawyers is better applied to instances where they foment and churn expensive litigation (e.g., chase ambulances)... not where you pay them to voice your position more eloquently and knowledgably than you could. Moreover, it seems here there's an outside chance that the lawyers just might be voicing their own position...
Re: (Score:2)
I think the traditional ire against lawyers is better applied to instances where they foment and churn expensive litigation (e.g., chase ambulances)...
You mean, something like what an RIAA lawyer might do?
:Head Asplode: (Score:5, Funny)
Well here's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism.
It's way too early on a Sunday morning and/or afternoon for me to ponder and/or grok the in and/or out of the and/or in that sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually Monday morning here. 12:32 AM on June the 1st, by the time of your post to be exact. At least its a public holiday tomorrow.
Not quite as surprising as everyone thinks (Score:5, Interesting)
So far, at least on the surface, Obama is mostly keeping his hands off the DoJ and letting them do their thing independently. Perhaps it is a misperception on my part. And Obama seems to be at least trying to be his own president. It seems pretty obvious that he has capitulated on quite a few important issues and hasn't had quite the smooth ride he might have expected, but I don't think Obama cares much about the whole copyright thing right now.
Oh really? (Score:2)
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.
Yeah right. Like we're expected to believe what you think about slashdot's opinion. You know, it's summaries like this that prove we can't expect much change either from the government OR slashdot...
PS: For the HUMOR impaired, the above was meant to be a skeptical, cynical comment. But THIS bit is actually sarcas
Re:Oh really? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Yeah right. Like we're expected to believe what you think about slashdot's opinion. You know, it's summaries like this that prove we can't expect much change either from the government OR slashdot... PS: For the HUMOR impaired, the above was meant to be a skeptical, cynical comment. But THIS bit is actually sarcasm.
I am "humor impaired", and you had me there.
But seriously, the comments to my story so far demonstrate that this welcome bit of good news does nothing at all to dampen the raging cynicism and skepticism which seem to be the prevailing winds of Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
Ray being s[k]eptical is an important attribute for an engineer. It just might be true that many /. readers are engineers.
If people were screwed about one topic over years it is very likely that they do not believe something has changed just because the outcome of a few cases is different.
Yours typical cynical and skeptical ./ reader ;)
-S
I'm not asking anyone to give up their skepticism and cynicism; I'm certainly not giving up mine. I'm just pointing out that in this instance, something good happened. The DOJ took a position opposite to that taken by some of its own lawyers in this very case. That is an instance of the system working, as opposed to its malfunctioning. So we cynics and skeptics should take note that it happened, just as we take note of the myriad malfunctions. Unremitting negativity is as false as blind optimism.
Ray... what's with the frames? (Score:2)
Just curious why you feel it's necessary to link the PDF in via a frame with some other stuff in the "sidebar" I could care less about.
Here's a direct link to the PDF:
http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/cartoonnetwork_csc_090500AmicusCuriaeBriefOfUS.pdf [beckermanlegal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious why you feel it's necessary to link the PDF in via a frame with some other stuff in the "sidebar" I could care less about.
Just trying to make a dollar or two. Sorry. I keep thinking that people who support my work would try to help me out by buying a product or signing up for something through my affiliate ads, but it hasn't really worked out that way.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one don't mind the links going to your pages with the frames and all.
As for the advertising, I think the problem is that for me at least it's just noise to be filtered out. If I'm interested in something, odds are I've already found where to buy it using Google so the ads aren't interesting. If I'm not already interested in what's being advertised, most likely the ad won't interest me and I'll ignore it. And if the ad does catch my eye, there's a major problem with it: the ad network. There's generall
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?
I expect we'll see more of this (Score:5, Insightful)
I was initially skeptical about the alleged, lauded virtue of Barrack Obama, but the more I see of his actions, the more I'm forced to concede that I was wrong, and that in this case, water genuinely has flowed uphill, to use that analogy.
Obama's level of integrity is genuinely intimidating, for the simple reason that an American President is, at this point in history, expected to be a thoroughly amoral and corrupt human being. That he isn't, is rightfully seen almost as a violation of physical law. Bush's degree of evil had almost become reassuring, purely because of its' level of routine familiarity. When he attempted to do something monstrous, it was entirely expected.
Even with Bush aside, it is also a paradox when considered in light of the dynamics of political power in general. Reading Machiavelli and virtually every other treatise on the subject, one is left with the overwhelming conclusion that the single greatest prerequisite of political power is amorality, to the extent that it can be said that an individual's degree of political power will be directly proportional to their level of amorality.
Given this, Dick Cheney is perhaps a more likely example of who we would ordinarily expect to hold the office of President, morally speaking, than Obama. Cheney is, according to virtually every depiction of him, a consciously, willingly, and indeed enthusiastically evil individual. He is, therefore, far more consistent, both from study of political theory in general, and observation of American political history in particular, with the type of individual who I would expect to hold the office of the Presidency.
It is said that within a democracy, a people get the leader they deserve. I'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama's comparitive level of decency, especially given that Bush was so far to the opposite, but even for us outside America, Obama's integrity is certainly very welcome.
It will be fascinating to observe just how far outside of the established, conventional rules Obama is permitted to go.
Re: (Score:2)
It is said that within a democracy, a people get the leader they deserve. I'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama's compar[a]tive level of decency, especially given that Bush was so far to the opposite, but even for us outside America, Obama's integrity is certainly very welcome.
Well I'm not ready to genuflect just yet. But this was a welcome bit of news.
Re:I expect we'll see more of this (Score:5, Insightful)
an American President is, at this point in history, expected to be a thoroughly amoral and corrupt human being
I find it thoroughly depressing that that seems to be the prevailing opinion. That in itself just shows what a tremendous amount of damage Bush has not only caused to the IMAGE of the US, but to the US itself. Having said that, they had willing assistance from the UK New Labour government in this, so I hope the current "it was within the rules" expense claim abusers get chucked out on their ears soon.
I've seen it in the UK, no sooner did they step through the doors of No10, out came the efforts to switch off as many controls as they could get away with so they could fill their pockets as quickly as possible. Regulators? Take away their power. Competent people in government? Lose them to consultancies, then re-employ them and pretend that's the same thing (try saying "no" as a consultant if you have a family). Protests? Tarnish those who do, and bury it under spin. The worrying thing is that it has at both sides of the ocean worked so well that it has taken TWO terms for the damage to show up. And then they vanish, publishing "memoirs", hit the speaking circuit or, in the case of Blair, apparently go and work for the people who stand to profit from the collapse. No, I don't believe in coincidences.
The main problem with such an attitude is that it flows downwards. As soon as industry sees this happening, they realise it's time to do the same because farming the economy to death MUST lead to a crash. so everyone was trousering wadfulls of cash while the going was good. Screw the man in the street, he's there to take the hit when it goes wrong. So it has, and he does.
If Obama is tring to do The Right Thing (and so far, the signs are good even though he has to do this very slowly) he must alreday have discovered that this will take more than the time he has, even assuming he can serve TWO tems. I'm going to be very interested in what he does for long term planning.
Pretty big 2nd circuit opinion (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it interesting that our Supreme Court Nominee was not part of this ruling. In fact, the 2nd circuit is making a lot of important rulings - they also established legal precedent in the Google Adwords trademark violation case, and some stuff about trademarks and internet before that. But I don't see her opinion on -any- of them. Maybe we should appoint the judge whose opinion this is?
Re:Pretty big 2nd circuit opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe we should appoint the judge whose opinion this is?
We?
cynicism (Score:2)
It's obvious what the approach is going to be (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it is fairly obvious what approach the Obama DoJ is going to take. In return for coming down hard on those that distribute pirated content (it is indeed a crime, if not one that deserves much punishment), the DoJ is going to make sure it is only going after actual pirates instead of consumers trying to use content they have already paid for.
While this is not an ideal situation (there are a LOT of things the DoJ could be doing other than chasing after torrent trackers), it's better the previous situation, where the xxAA gets whatever they ask for.
SirWired
Pushing Buttons? (Score:3, Interesting)
In the last paragraph of discussion B.3.A and in foot note 10, on page 19, they say that the customer is the only one that makes the copy through RS-DVR, with some help from the respondents (the cable company). In fact, through out the brief, it is emphasized that who makes the copy is very important, and in this case it is always the customer that does.
But, this paragraph and foot note strikes me. It says that it is possible that two parties at once both be the "who" and who makes a copy. Like "if one person selects the programs or documents to be copied, but hires someone else to push the buttons used to operate the relevant copying machine, it is possible that both could be held liable as direct infringes for any copyright violations that their conduct entails." The brief argues that this doesn't happen; the customer makes the selection and pushes the button.
Why is pushing the button important? If a customer makes a selection but no button is pushed, then nothing has happened. If a company pushes a button but no selection was made before then, then again nothing happens. The customer is always the one that makes the selection; pushing a button is the extension of that selection. Hmm, maybe it is important, actually.
But, in the case of RS-DVR, the company is pushing some buttons of several kinds. The customer can make a decision, then press a button on their remote. This button press is sent to the RS-DVR server at the company's location, and the server presses it's own internal buttons to set the recording time and channel, and then presses some more when the right time comes. If these internal server buttons were not pressed, then nothing would happen. To me, they look just as important to the process as the remote control.
Hmm, maybe the server's internal buttons usage are considered a service, while the remote control's buttons usage is not?
I think the only thing that's clear here is that I'm not familiar enough with this aspect of law to figure it out conclusively myself.
Limited Impact (Score:2)
After all, when have we seen the MPAA/RIAA litiga
Victory? They punted... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Network-based technologies for copying and replaying television programming raise potentially significant questions, but this case does not provide a suitable occasion for this Court to address them. The Second Circuit is the first appellate court to consider the copyright implications of network-based analogues to VCRs and settop DVRs, and its decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals. The partiesâ(TM) stipulations, moreover, have removed two critical issuesâ"contributory infringement and fair useâ" from this case. That artificial truncation of the possible grounds for decision would make this case an unsuitable vehicle for clarifying the proper application of copyright principles to technologies like the one at issue here."
It sounds as though they are expecting this case to essentially repeat for an arbitrary future combination IP holder and cable company, without the peculiar waivers of contributory infringement claims and fair-use counterclaims, and are simply waiting for that no-holds-barred case to be settled by a lower court. The extreme quibbling over (to quote the brief) âoewhoâ would âoemakeâ the copies that would be stored does not inspire my confidence, as all this decides is whether the alleged infringement should be considered as direct or contributory. The cynic in me says that a pro-RIAA author would rather the latter be the ultimate test case since the bar for arguing secondary/contributory infringement is much lower. (You stored arbitrary data which included the pointer to a pointer to data that a 3rd-party chose to infringe? You're a contributory infringer!)
Re: (Score:3)
one of the major "decisions" I drew away from this was that the brief recommends against taking up the case because it is not a good test case
Yes that was one of the reasons given; but the brief also, point by point, refutes each and every substantive copyright law argument the plaintiffs' lawyers (including those now at DOJ) had made.
Re:Gov representing reality is rare (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds like non intervention is good policy.
See what it did to the banking system and global economy?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is like blaming car accident deaths on seat belts(not wearing them/them not existing) rather than bad driving. Lack of regulation is not what killed the global economy. Regulation could prevent it from happening again, maybe, but that doesn't mean a lack of regulation caused anything.
If everyone involved in the lending crisis had done a little homework before buying the loan packages they would have realized that they were paying too much. It was their own free will to buy the crappy loans, no one fo
Re:Gov representing reality is rare (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a really good point. That's why I advocate turning over all economic policy making to hyper-intelligent, omniscient, perfectly altruistic robot overlords.
Oh, we don't have those yet? Guess we better go with that "regulation" thing.
Re:Gov representing reality is rare (Score:5, Interesting)
No, blaming the market rather then those who abused the market is like blaming a perfectly good road to cover up for a drivers incompetence.
Well I suppose it is those who took advantage of the lack of regulation.
Like regulation prevented the GFC from becoming a major issue in Australia? Banks being forced by the government to maintain a certain percentage of liquidity to prevent them running entirely on credit, or interest rates that reflected the true growth of the market?
Well, empirical evidence suggests otherwise, the AUD is at .78 USD, it was about this during Australia mining boom. +1 for Australia's overly regulated banking system (none of whom have required bailing out BTW).
B-b-b-but it I'm able to sell a predatory loan shouldn't I be entitled to profit on it.
The blame here lies not on those who were sold the bad loans but on those who were selling the bad loans, this goes all the way back to the government whom would not allow interest rates to reveal the true state of the economy although it also includes those bankers who knew better but did not act against it as there was profit to be made in the mean time.
Remember that the economy relies upon those who are not experts at economics as much as the car industry relies upon those of us who cannot strip a six cylinder car engine blindfolded.
So, you're saying that regulation gives people more time to decide weather a large debt is feasable or not. But isnt regulation a bad thing(TM).
Nobody did force them (Score:3, Insightful)
But you'd be a fool not to play the scam like everybody else. The rational choice for a person was to treat their home like an ATM, after it was a "sure bet" and if they didn't, they would regret it. Even if they knew it was a scam, they figured if they got screwed everybody was screwed so why not play?
In other words, good regulation can keep a bunch of individuals who are making rational decisions from screwing up the entire system. Sometimes what is right for one person is harmful to the whole. The le
Re:Gov representing reality is rare (Score:5, Insightful)
Any argument that requires a strong majority of the populace to be an intelligent and rational actor is flawed. At least half of the human race falls below the mean intelligence level. When was the last time high school taught a course that detailed how to get a loan in a safe way, or how to sensibly manage credit? Many high schools don't even require civics courses, preferring instead a selection of "multicultural studies", "introduction to computers", and "remedial English grammar".
Any argument that requires a strong majority of businesses to act in a completely ethical fashion, without external pressures, is flawed. Corporations exist only to extract wealth. Thanks to the de-regulation of the last couple of decades, businesses have been free to take any action that improves the bottom line. They loaned to people with no income verification, to people who were blatantly unable to repay the loans. Predictably, many of these people defaulted on their loans. The credit industry cannot function when the default rate erases any possible profits, and eats into capital besides. This is a case of individual businesses acting to harm the environment (the industry in which they work) for their own selfish gains, a true "tragedy of the commons".
A rational and educated actor would have been able to see 5 years into the future, and know that their income would not suffice for them to manage the repayment.
A rational and educated government would have been able to look back to 1929, and draw lessons from the boom time immediately before the crash that spawned the great depression.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I didn't. Maybe you've heard of the Normal Distribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution [wikipedia.org]
One of it's properties is that the mean and the median are the SAME (as I said, by defintion). Mathematically speaking, one could say that the cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution, evaluated at
Integral from x=-infinity to x=infinity xP(x) dx = xbar (the mean)
is cdf(xbar)=0.5. Statistics 101, as you said.
In modern IQ tests such as the Weschler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gov representing reality is rare (Score:4, Interesting)
I suggest you go look up the definition, history, and maybe some examples of fascism, having somebody help you when you stumble over the hard words. Because calling the Republicans "fascists" (at least, while giving the "hey GM CEO, you be fired now, k?" Democrats a pass) is pretty silly.
An accusation made against one party is typically defended by pointing out that the other party is no better. I have a way of neatly avoiding such bickering. For all practical purposes, whether this was intentional or accidental, the USA has one party that happens to be composed of two factions. They're both rotten bastards and the continued dominance of politics by the Democrats and the Republicans guarantees that nothing really changes. They're both leading us to a fascist nanny-state or whatever you care to call it and they'll blame each other for it the whole time that they are taking us there. For those who don't want to live in a modern police state, this is nothing to celebrate.
I mean, this news is good and it's a step in the right direction, but it's a tiny little baby-step that's barely even measurable compared to all of the other things that need to change if the USA is going to once again become a sustainable country (financially and otherwise) that really celebrates freedom instead of paying lip service to it. A good start would be to implement the single transferrable vote, this would go a long way towards breaking the two-party duopoly and allowing more third parties to actually stand any chance of winning elections (or at least, to lose elections because the people know about them and disagree with them and not because a duopoly has made them obscure).
Re: (Score:2)
An accusation made against one party is typically defended by pointing out that the other party is no better. I have a way of neatly avoiding such bickering. For all practical purposes, whether this was intentional or accidental, the USA has one party that happens to be composed of two factions. They're both rotten bastards and the continued dominance of politics by the Democrats and the Republicans guarantees that nothing really changes. They're both leading us to a fascist nanny-state or whatever you care to call it and they'll blame each other for it the whole time that they are taking us there. For those who don't want to live in a modern police state, this is nothing to celebrate
Now, see, this is well-said. I have no party allegiance (fiscally conservative, socially very liberal); it just makes me chafe to see partisan idiots start screaming bullshit without acknowledging that their own side is as bad or worse.
Re: (Score:2)
this news is good and it's a step in the right direction, but it's a tiny little baby-step that's barely even measurable compared to all of the other things that need to change if the USA is going to once again become a sustainable country (financially and otherwise) that really celebrates freedom instead of paying lip service to it.
I agree.
Re:Gov representing reality is rare (Score:4, Insightful)
Fascism is supreme belief in the power of the state and/or the party and that if you're "against them" you're "against ."
If you're not with us, you're AGAINST US!
If you don't like Bush, GET THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICA!
If you don't like the Patriot Act, MOVE TO A DIFFERENT COUNTRY!
If you're against the war, YOU'RE AGAINST THE TROOPS!
That's fascism, and those are all quotes I've heard from Republicans, either personally or have seen at demonstrations on YouTube. None of those quotes is made up.
That's fascism, FishWithAHammer. Obama asked GM's CEO to step down and be replaced. It wasn't forced, just like we weren't forcing them to take billions of dollars of funds that would protect America's stake in the international automotive industry. But hey, if they wanted it, they had to make some concessions.
Unlike Bush, who was totally in favor of just giving away ten times as much money with no accountability whatsoever.
Re:Gov representing reality is rare (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS327US327&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:fascism [google.com]
A lot of people disagree with you. Fascism is not "primarily" an economic descriptor. Fascism has in fact, little to do with socialism or capitalism. It's a political ideology that the government is best and that they can cure our ills. This can take the form of extreme pressure or crimes against political dissidents, or it can take the form of state-owned monopolies, or other things. Fascism starts with a single kernel of an ideology: our way is best, you aren't part of us, so get the fuck out of our way or join us.
That's it. It's patriotism taken to its most extreme. In Italy, it meant if Benito Mussolini contradicted himself, he was right both times. It means that whatever the government does is right, and if you aren't for it, you're against it and you're hurting (pick at least one): progress, the future, the children, democracy, the nation, the system... Etc.
The extreme nationalism encourages people to accept things like government ownership of things, because after all, if you're not with them, you're against them. And the troops. And the flag. And whatever else.
And let's be honest, Bush's supporters (note I did not say Bush himself) were the closest to fascists this nation has ever had. They were those hyper-nationalistic people you refer to.
Re: (Score:2)
If the government directs the lending institutions that it controls to make loans to people that a regular market would not consider worthy and the other banks have to compete with that, how is that non intervention?
When organizations take stupid risks because they know their government buddies will bail them out, how is that non-intervention?
We have something working that is worse than non-intervention, we have stupid and crooked intervention.
Before anyone starts with pa
Re: (Score:2)
Did you ever read Snow Crash?
Re:Gov representing reality is rare (Score:5, Insightful)
Big government is bad.
That's the Reagan myth which has been handed down, and which has caused our present crisis, that it's okay to have big corporations but not big government. It doesn't work that way. If you're going to have mega-corporations running business, you need big government to regulate them.
Re: (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
Re:Gov representing reality is rare (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)