Slashdot Mirror
Obama Picks RIAA's Favorite Lawyer For Top DoJ Post
The Recording Industry of America's favorite courtroom lawyer, Tom Perrelli, who has sued individual file swappers in multiple federal courts, is President-elect Barack Obama's choice for the third in line at the Justice Department. CNet's Declan McCullagh explores the background of the man who won the RIAA's lucrative business for his DC law firm: "An article on his law firm's Web site says that Perrelli represented SoundExchange before the Copyright Royalty Board — and obtained a 250 percent increase in the royalty rate for music played over the Internet by companies like AOL and Yahoo," not to mention Pandora and Radio Paradise. NewYorkCountryLawyer adds, "Certainly this does not bode well for CowboyNeal's being appointed Copyright Czar."
There - fixed that for you.
I'm sorry but that doesn't fly with me. I don't care how incompetent the state government was -- the fact remains that George W. Bush went to bed while Americans suffered and died. What the fuck happened to "The Buck Stops Here"?
It's exactly that kind of "See, it's not really my fault!" rationalization that cost the GOP the independent vote.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Plus 4 Insightful?!?!? The dude came right out and said "I can't provide any real insight in this decision. "
(grumble grumble meth-head moderators grumble grumble)
I am not left-handed, either!
I should also add that I'm not exactly happy with this decision, but come on. This is nowhere near a Bush-class error.
You expected an appointment by a corrupt member of the Chicago political machine not to be a corrupt appointment?
Please.
What was [president Bush] supposed to do, Fly to Baton Rouge and bully her into making a decision that [the small state Governor] felt was unnecessary?
Yes, who ever expect a president to act like a leader in a crisis?! I mean, the decider can't make such tough decitions straight from the hip! When people are dying in the street, the leader of the free world needs to eat cake with the people who paid to get him elected, so that he has a clear head when the voters starts to ask questions why nothing was done.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
A lawyer's first responsibility is to the court, not the client. They are supposed to represent the client to the best of their ability, but not at the expense of the court. The simple fact that this particular lawyer has had at least one of the judges recommend sanctions speaks volumes about just what kind of morals they have.
Not true. Any professional's first responsibility is to the profession.
Now, that may mean different things in different contexts. While I can't imagine it would ever mean knowingly lying in a court of law, at the same time it doesn't mean you have to give your client the third degree to confirm with absolute certainty that the story they're giving you is true.
See also: How Obama Got Elected.
I hate to point out the obvious, but he's RIAA's favourite lawyer, not RIAA's favourite lobbyist. That means he doesn't necessarily give two shits about RIAA and its "cause", nor does he have a conflict of interest. If being RIAA's favourite lawyer means anything, it's that he's a good lawyer.
You just got troll'd!
You are saying that it was OK for the RIAA lawyers to claim to the judge that making available is considered distribution, and even basing it on a decision that they knew was overturned before they told the judge? This is the exact same type of behavior they've been continuing.
Big business and lawyers are essentially doing things (anything almost) that they want knowing that the public is not educated enough in the laws in those areas. They do it till it looses cost effectiveness. They only quit when the courts start to take large sums of money from them.
I say large businesses and lawyers for a reason. Here's an example: With Vista, Microsoft has installed 47+ programs on your computer to spy on you. There are more; and that doesn't include the WGA/WGN programs. These are applications that collect information about what you do and report it back to Microsoft. When you bought the machine and you started up the OS the first time you are required to agree to the EULA. The EULA is a document that you can't possibly have any idea of its meaning nor the impact of that meaning, and you didn't get to negotiate it. The result is that you unknowingly give them this permission. The only way to deny it is to not use their software. But which software to use? Well, use one that doesn't force this sort of crap on you.
So, you give them permission without really knowing it that allows them to spy on you. Would you let Walmart enter your home and search it for potential stolen goods? Would you let them put a camera in your home to monitor you? Would you let the police do this in order to ensure you are not breaking any laws? Of course you wouldn't. No one in their right mind would. Yet, your computer is an extension of your home and business and you are giving Microsoft permission to do this.
This is a violation of your privacy and most people don't know that they are doing this. When someone points it out you (or others) debate it till you are blue in the face and the conclusion is that you are not a lawyer so you should STFU.
Microsoft has learned that they can simply ignore some of these issues till they go away, such as the outrage over them installing the 47+ programs on your computer because the public memory is very short. It's like Linux. You used to hear the word Linux from Microsoft. Now you never hear the word from their mouths as if they are trying to say that we don't acknowledge it is even a product.
This is precisely the reasoning and tactics of the large businesses and the lawyers behind them. Are they protecting their clients or are they violating yours?
They know you are incapable of fighting it so they do it until the regulators start to tell them to stop or face punishment (but large companies such as Microsoft can even afford large punishments (e.g., the EU fines for non-compliance is a great example of blatant non-compliance with a legal court's orders--because Microsoft thought they were too important to the economy of the EU to have them actually follow through)).
As long as laws are created and they are strategized by lawyers that are not held to higher standards, we'll have every sort of abuse possible. And to then appoint one of these maniac lawyers to an important position is beyond most people's tolerance that understand what's been happening.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.