Slashdot Mirror

I realize it's a popular opinion to assume Pai has been bought and sold but it continually surprises me no one in gov't has launched an investigation into his ties yet.

He doesn't need to be investigated, because it's already out there. He is bought and sold, and has not claimed otherwise, because he knows anyone could immediately prove he's lying. So he doesn't bother lying about it.

Here's his financial disclosures. Go to page 2 of the 2016 financial disclosures and you'll see that his personal income is/was from Jenner & Block LLP. That's the company Pai joined to represent telecom companies.

His replacement (and previous boss) still has a page there, where it explains the job:

He represents cable, telecom, media and technology companies in a wide variety of matters including litigation, proceedings before regulatory agencies and transactions. Mr. Federâ(TM)s practice is enhanced by the knowledge and experience gained from serving as General Counsel to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and, before that, as a senior legal and policy advisor to two FCC Commissioners."

Got that? He worked at a company where his job was to influence the FCC for profit.

You don't need to hide your dirt when you're displaying it openly. Pai is beyond "corrupt," because he doesn't pretend otherwise. He is, for lack of a better term, an "honest politician" and if that sounds like praise to anyone, they ought to look up what that means.

He represents telecoms, not America. His purpose is to use the power of government to extract money and power from the public and channel it to certain companies. He is a wealth redistribution professional.

If you're a person and don't work at or own stock in a telecom company, then he is your adversary.

He isn't the problem, actually. It's ok to be a telecom lobbyist; somebody's gotta do it. The problem is that some anti-American fuckwit appointed him to the FCC where he woudl have actual power, instead of laughing in his face when he asked/paid for the job. That's like appointing Ted Kaczynski to postal inspector, or hiring John Wayne Gacy to be a clown at your kid's party knowing what he does. You know what their agenda is, because they're totally up-front with you about all the harm they intend.

He will personally profit from his vote to repeal NN, and he will lose money if he votes to retain NN. His own money is on the table and he's voting on it, and YOUR PRESIDENT THINKS THIS MAKES SENSE.

"You know, that might be the answer -- to act boastfully about something we ought to be ashamed of. That's a trick that never seems to fail." -- Colonel Korn

A more detailed treatment of the Warner Bros case, if you care I read. There were allegations of a counterfeit bag used as a prop, so the case isn't 100% identical. But it's on point for the proposition that First Amendment concerns in expressive works often trump Lanham Act claims.

Further, since everyone is caught up in the notion that this applies to religious organizations and that they are the only ones exempt, it might also behoove you to read that specific part:

You don't mention non-profit or public sector here. If this wasn't an attempt to assert that I was saying that only religious organizations were exempt, I'm not sure what you were getting at.

To be fair, there were others further up the reply chain who were specifically mentioning religious institutions; although that I neglected to include all other edge cases seems moot considering my immediate quote from the FLSA site thereafter specifically points out non-profits, humanitarian organizations, and so forth.

I didn't gloss over your post - I read it carefully and it failed to effectively convince me of your point. Your blockquotes, in particular, don't actually constitute any sort of rebuttal to the statements I made, and you didn't explain why FLSA doesn't apply in this case. If you'd care to make that clear, I'll be glad to read it, but honestly, all you did was make an unfair claim about my comment and fail to back it up.

I recall quoting, from the FLSA link provided by one of the OPs, that SCOTUS declared that FLSA was not unnecessarily broad in that all volunteer labor could be classified as falling under its auspices, regardless of how it related to non-profits, religious organizations, and so forth. Unfortunately, the FLSA site seems to offer an extremely truncated review of both the ruling and the rules. My reading of the material provided in that link is mostly what lead me to believe that Valve would not fall under the scrutiny of FLSA, and why I believe that your speculation is incorrect. For instance:

While this mostly outlines public service, I believe it covers at least part of the spirit of the FLSA in regards to volunteer service by defining what is meant by "volunteer." Being as the translations were offered without "pressure or coercion" and that they are neither employees of Valve nor expect compensation for their labor, they are likely classified as volunteer labor.

Further, I also believe that the volunteer clause in the FLSA is intended to prevent companies from "forcing" employees to volunteer part of their time unfairly in effort to circumvent paying them overtime for their labor. This might also explain why the language used to define volunteers and their role for the organization is mostly concerned with compensation, their existing status with the company, and so forth. That said, according to this, it might be useful to Valve for those volunteers to sign a volunteer agreement, which would certainly give them legal backing if a suit were raised (I don't think one will be).

In particular, I could see where the Department of Labor may side with you since "the DOL has 'a long-standing policy of limiting volunteer status to those individuals performing charitable activities for not-for-profit organizations.'" So yes, you are absolutely correct that there are few exceptions to the rule. However, if you consider these factors listed:

To determine if a person is truly a volunteer and not an employee, the DOL ordinarily will consider the following factors:

1. How much the organization benefits from the services performed;
2. The time spent in the activity (the activity is less than a full-time occupation);
3. The individual's services are of the kind typically associated with volunteer work; and
4. The individual does not expect pay for the services.

It could be argued thus

Verrilli was not, as the summary implies, a lawyer who worked exclusively for the RIAA. Verrilli worked for Jenner & Block, one of the larger law firms in the US. The recording studios were one client of many, and it does not appear that he had a habit of representing studios. Judging by his significant Supreme Court experience, Verrilli represented a wide variety of clients, including indigent criminal defendants, a federal employee who alleged he was discriminated against because of his age, insurance agent trade groups, wireless telecommunications companies (against the FCC), Coors Brewing Company (arguing against a state law forbidding the display of alcohol content on beer), citizens alleging violations of their voting rights, and the American Libraries Association (arguing against the Communications Decency Act of 1996) .

That's a broad set of clients, including a lot of litigation against the government, which is what the Solicitor General handles. It is absurd to impute an agenda to an attorney based on one case, and Verrilli seems qualified for the job of Solicitor General.

These guys list the #1 specialty of their Entertainment and New Media group as file-sharing cases (including suits against both companies and "individual infringers"). They work very hard to build up a top-notch legal department that specializes in suing college students for $15k / song.

They're not just accepting the RIAA as a client -- they're actively seeking them, and intentionally encouraging clients that they can get away with distorting the intent of the law on the books, as long as they get paid enough money.

These guys list the #1 specialty of their Entertainment and New Media group as file-sharing cases (including suits against both companies and "individual infringers"). They work very hard to build up a top-notch legal department that specializes in suing college students for $15k / song.

They're not just accepting the RIAA as a client -- they're actively seeking them, and intentionally encouraging clients that they can get away with distorting the intent of the law on the books, as long as they get paid enough money.

The biggest loser here could indeed by the RIAA, since some of the best lawyers are no longer available and are now working in the interests of the federal government. I wouldn't be surprised if these now judges, formerly lawyers, are quite capable of turning the tables.

Jenner and Block's "Entertainment and New Media Law Practice" department are still in quite able hands. Remember, this isn't just some law firm that picked up a few jobs for the RIAA and have now moved on -- these guys have a whole department that advertises itself specifically to pick up anti-piracy jobs for clients just like the RIAA and MPAA, and specifically lists anti-file-sharing lawsuits as their #1 specialty in their Media department.

There are a lot of people in this thread who are wanting to exonerate Jenner & Block simply because they are doing the work of their clients, but they are failing to recognize who Jenner & Block advertise themselves as.

The biggest loser here could indeed by the RIAA, since some of the best lawyers are no longer available and are now working in the interests of the federal government. I wouldn't be surprised if these now judges, formerly lawyers, are quite capable of turning the tables.

Jenner and Block's "Entertainment and New Media Law Practice" department are still in quite able hands. Remember, this isn't just some law firm that picked up a few jobs for the RIAA and have now moved on -- these guys have a whole department that advertises itself specifically to pick up anti-piracy jobs for clients just like the RIAA and MPAA, and specifically lists anti-file-sharing lawsuits as their #1 specialty in their Media department.

There are a lot of people in this thread who are wanting to exonerate Jenner & Block simply because they are doing the work of their clients, but they are failing to recognize who Jenner & Block advertise themselves as.

What experience could they all have in common? What job skills is the DOJ looking for when screening new attorneys?

Lets look and find out!

http://www.jenner.com/people/bio.asp?id=222

IAN HEATH GERSHENGORN,
Mr. Gershengorn frequently represents clients in appellate matters at the Supreme Court of the United States and at the federal Courts of Appeals. He has represented numerous parties in Supreme Court merits cases, including the motion picture and recording industries in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster; NextWave Telecom Inc. in FCC v. NextWave Personal Communications Inc.; Kevin Wiggins in Wiggins v. Smith; Clarence Hill in Hill v. McDonough; Jeffrey Landrigan in Schriro v. Landrigan; and MCI in Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC and AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board. He has also served as counsel of record in numerous amicus briefs before the Court, including a brief on behalf of the defense industry addressing government contracting practices, and a brief in connection with litigation over the Ten Commandments.

Mr. Gershengorn has an active Indian law practice, with particular emphasis on Supreme Court and appellate litigation. He was counsel of record in Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, which he argued in October 2005. And he successfully argued before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Carcieri v. Norton, a case challenging the authority of the United States to take land into trust for Tribes. He has filed amicus briefs supporting the Tribes and tribal interests at the Supreme Court, including Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. Leavitt; City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York; and Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony. He also successfully opposed certiorari in South Dakota v. Cummings, a case involving the authority of state officials in hot pursuit to arrest a tribal member on the reservation for a misdemeanor committed off the reservation.

Mr. Gershengorn has also represented an array of clients in litigation at the courts of appeals, including MCI, Inc. (formerly WorldCom, Inc.); the Association of American Railroads; the Recording Industry Association of America; NextWave Telecom Inc.; CTIA -- the Wireless Association; and the National Association of Broadcasters. He has argued numerous cases in the United States Courts of Appeals.

Mr. Gershengorn has also represented clients in a range of non-appellate litigation matters. Mr. Gershengorn represents, for example, Fannie Mae in its suit against its former auditor in connection with Fannie Mae's restatements of its financial statements. He also represented copyright holders in their copyright infringement litigation against Grokster, Ltd. Mr. Gershengorn also represented WorldCom Inc., in congressional investigations, in investigations by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, in merger filings at the Department of Justice, and in commercial litigation. He has also represented the National Association of Broadcasters before the Federal Communications Commission in issues including the constitutionality of mandatory cable carriage for the signals of broadcasters, and has represented NextWave Telecom Inc. in a variety of regulatory proceedings before the FCC.

Before coming to Jenner & Block in 1997, Mr. Gershengorn served for two years in the U.S. Department of Justice, first as Special Assistant and Counsel to Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, and then as Assistant to Attorney General Janet Reno. At the Justice Department, Mr. Gershengorn worked on a variety of civil and civil rights matters, and also coordinated the Department's responses to the Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar Association, and other organizations on rules-related issues.

Mr. Gershengorn is the author of "Lingering Uncertainty," National Law Journal (Aug. 3, 2005) (re

I am extremely disappointed, to say the least. These scum have caused huge amounts of trouble to innocent victims. The **AA's are just bullies. I have strong feelings on this issue -- I really don't care what else Obama does, this makes a future vote for him impossible.

Wow! Pretty strong feelings. Have you actually looked at how Mr. Gershengorn fits into into this bullying that you speak of? According to his online biography, it seems that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster was the most important case he was involved in as a representative of the motion picture and recording industries.

How did that case end? The Supreme Court found that Grokster could be held liable for distributing "a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement." 545 U.S. 913 (2005).

His biggest case of bullying resulted in the Supreme Court unanimously saying "if you go around telling everyone to use your technology to violate copyright law, you might have to take responsibility for subsequent violations of copyright law using your technology."

Granted, the argument for infringement in that case was much broader, but still, it doesn't seem like he has been on the forefront of bullying efforts.

Moreover, he has represented a lot of different groups in a lot of different matters. Take a look at that bio again. He's represented telecoms, the Association of American Railroads, the National Association of Broadcasters, supporters of the separation of church and state, and multiple Native American tribes.

Do you really want to judge him without reviewing some of his broader record? Do you really want to label him as "scum" without even looking at what his positions were and now are?

You wouldn't want someone to label you as anti-Native American because you showed hostility to someone who represented Native American tribes, would you?

Of course not. It wouldn't be a fair assessment of your values and qualifications. Neither are the uninformed knee-jerk assessments showing up on /. fair, either to Mr. Gershengorn or to Mr. Obama.

Before coming to Jenner & Block in 1997, Mr. Gershengorn served for two years in the U.S. Department of Justice, first as Special Assistant and Counsel to Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, and then as Assistant to Attorney General Janet Reno. At the Justice Department, Mr. Gershengorn worked on a variety of civil and civil rights matters, and also coordinated the Department's responses to the Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar Association, and other organizations on rules-related issues.

Full "bio" listing is here.

Big name firms took the RIAA/MPAA cases, so it's not surprising that many of these top lawyers are getting positions in the Justice Dept. While I'm completely against the RIAA/MPAA tactics, how many lawyers would turn down the payday they were throwing their way?

Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger involved in part mandatory video game labeling.

To pass the strict scrutiny test, therefore, the state must demonstrate that the industry labeling standards, either alone or combined with technological controls that enable parents to limit which games their children play, do not equally address the state's interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of children. The State has not demonstrated that the Act is narrowly tailored to address its purpose. Therefore, the Act cannot pass strict scrutiny.

Entertainment Software Association v. Blagojevich

The SEVGL requires video game retailers to place a four square-inch label with the numerals "18" on any "sexually explicit" video game. ...
As the
State concedes, the SEVGL is a content-based restriction on speech, and we must employ strict scrutiny in assessing its constitutionality....To survive strict scrutiny, the SEVGL
"must be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest." ...
Here, the State's identified purpose is "shielding children from indecent sexual material and in assisting parents in protecting their children from that material." Governor's Br. at 16. We need not spend time determining whether this is a compelling interest; it clearly is....
Applying strict scrutiny, we cannot say that the "18" sticker is narrowly tailored to the State's goal of ensuring that parents are informed of the sexually explicit content in
games. As we described above, the State has not demonstrated that it could not accomplish this goal with a broader educational campaign about the ESRB system.

We're talking about non-narrowly tailored content-based compelled speech here. Is it really that hard to follow?

perhaps thats true for the RIAA

the MPAA hires theres.

www.jenner.com/

One wonders how a big, powerful law firm staffed with smart people could have made such an enormous blunder, if in fact Jenner & Block was the firm doing the work on this.

I'd be interested to find out how many lawyers the RIAA employs and/or keeps on retainer.

FYI - The attorneys filing all of these subpoenas on behalf of the RIAA are Yvette Molinaro and Jim Trilling according to United States District Court for the District of Columbia documents available on PACER.

FYI - The attorneys filing all of these subpoenas on behalf of the RIAA are Yvette Molinaro and Jim Trilling according to United States District Court for the District of Columbia documents available on PACER.