US Dept. of Justice May Intervene To Help RIAA

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Corpus Christi, Texas, case, Atlantic v. Boggs, where the defendant interposed a counterclaim alleging that the RIAA's $750-per-song file damages theory is unconstitutional, and the RIAA moved to dismiss the counterclaim, the US Department of Justice has sought and obtained an extension of time in which to decide whether to intervene in the case on the side of the RIAA. What probably precipitated the issue is that the constitutional question was raised not just as a defense as it was in UMG v. Lindor, but as a counterclaim, thus prompting a dismissal motion by the RIAA."

Comments

I'm making a list, checking it twice ...

[trolltalk.com]

It does not say "will intervene".

It says "may intervene".

What are the odds that "may" will turn into "will"?

In favor:
[X] RIAA has friends in congress.
[X] Lobbyists have a lot more "access" than the ordinary Joe or Jane Doe,
[X] Politicians know their RIAA reps can score them some good "juice" and will keep their mouths shut

Against:
[_] Politicians care about voters
[_] Politicians understand concepts like "fair use"
[_] Prosecuters are immune from political pressure.

Looks like 3-0 in favor of the RIAA from here ...

After all, do you really expect politicians' common sense will prevail in the face of free booze, sex, drugs, and power, if people are dick-headed enough to do this? (NOTE: NSA - Not Safe Anywhere)