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."
He picked their favorite senator as a running mate.
Badass Resumes
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Between that and this pick, will all the Slashdot Obama koolaid drinkers who thought he was supposedly pro-tech please stand up and be heard now!
I'm popping a big bowl of Orville's best right now.
/.
If Chimpy McBushitler had done this, it'd be business as usual on
But now that his O'ness has done it, I'm looking forward to a really entertaining read.
I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless. Obama is being surrounded by the same assholes that have been driving this country into the ground for decades. No matter how good his intentions may be, he'll believe his trusted advisers and they will believe the lobbyists, cause they just don't know any better.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It sickens me how blinded people are by partisan politics.
Then why do you engage in it?
Your first post presupposes *way* too much to be anything other than partisan.
The Democrats have always been fairly cozy with the media industries in particular, so it wouldn't surprise me if Obama is likewise fairly cozy with them.
My question is whether the RIAA stuff is the sum of what this lawyer has done with his career, or if there are other achievements, perhaps more noteworthy. It could be that the lawyer in question is indifferent to the RIAA's ideology and was simply representing them in a professional manner. It definitely doesn't make Obama's pick any less questionable and the lawyer any less scummy, but it would at least assuage my fears that the appointee would be pushing the RIAA's agenda from a position of power.
Obama wants to change the system. But in order to do that, he needs insiders, clinton retreads, lobbyists, and big corporate stooges that know how to get shit done. Once he's surrounded by them, he'll be able to change the system.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
It could be, that like most lawyers, he doesn't actually believe in the RIAA cause and just wants their money. Murderers and rapists need lawyers that just have to be advocates in court and not true believers in their client's innocence. That being said, when you set your expectations higher than the gutter (especially in politics) there is a chance you'll be disappointed.
Slashdot headline:
Obama Picks RIAA's Favorite Lawyer For Top DoJ Post
Original headline:
Obama picks RIAA's favorite lawyer for a top Justice post
Quibbling over a single letter might seem pedantic - and /.'s headline is misleading rather than incorrect - but in this case, that's one very important letter. *sigh* The news lately is like a game of blogger's telephone.
I think that we're probably going to see people defending Obama himself rather than his decision. I personally voted for him and generally support him (at least more than McCain), but I abhor this appointment. I hope that Obama will appoint other, anti-RIAA people to help balance things out. I don't follow politics enough to know all the ins and outs, so I can't provide any real insight in this decision. Hopefully some fellow /.ers will give some useful insight other than the typically "Politics as usual", "Democrats suck", "Both parties are the same", etc that goes on every time something political comes up. Maybe something new and useful, like an analysis of his other advisors and appointments to see if there are other pro-RIAA as well as anti-RIAA people.
I'm sure he doesn't want to burn through all his change in his first term. He's probably starting slowly, pacing himself. I'm sure that's it.
Honestly, I lost all hope when he won the election. Now I'm laughing at all the drones here that fell for the Messiah's clever PR campaign. Here it comes geniuses, are you ready for it?
Hehehe. It's going to be a spectacular four years. I have no faith left at all, so it's all for entertainment value now.
Congratulations on electing a politician. Please enjoy the next 8 years of corporate whoring.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
Some noble attorneys take lower paying positions as public defenders, or take on cases pro bono to help a political cause. However, many (most?) take cases based on the financial benefits to be gained. Mr. Perrelli is paid by the RIAA to represent them, he doesn't represent them because he hates file sharers or technology. And he's done a pretty good job for his clients, so hopefully he will do a good job for his new client, the DoJ.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
The sad part is, I think you struck a nerve. If Bush had done it, oh hell yes we'd hear all about how that eeevil Booosh is taking one more step towards total world domination.
I do wonder how this one is gonna get spun, though...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
On what basis do you abhor this appointment?
I can't speak for marc.andrysco, but personally I abhor it because this particular counsel has shown that they are not above outright lying to the court.
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.
I can't wait to watch all the hardcore supporters roll back expectations, deny all the claims they made about change, and finally blame the system itself for any failures on the chosen ones part.
And the rest of us who maybe had a little hope for change are just going to be disappointed with more "new boss".
You mad
but I feel exceptionally taken by Obama's bait and switch.
I don't. The bait and switch was telegraphed months before the election. If you voted for him anyway you don't really have anyone to blame but yourself.
I actually took a week off work and campaigned for him during the primaries. Adding insult to injury was the fact that Hillary (whom I helped him defeat) had the spine to vote against the FISA "compromise". My response to his victory was to apply for my pistol permit before Albany or Washington decides that I shouldn't be able to do so.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm laughing to myself, because anyone who thought there was going to be serious change in DC was only deluding themselves. Now the truth is becoming apparent, Obama is no different then any other politician except he has a greater personal charisma.
RIAA types are allowed into the discussion, but they don't CONTROL the debate or its terms.
His picks for the Justice Department are pretty fucking scary. He picks a pro-gun control/pro-war on drugs person to lead it and a former RIAA lawyer for #3? Unless John Ashcroft is #2 I don't really see how this could be any worse.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It deeply saddens me that you have chosen to appoint Tom Perrelli to be the third in command at the Justice Department.
This is a man who has represented an organization that has hunted down and victimized children and college students using the legal system as a weapon. He has knowingly and willingly attacked America's supply of future skilled labor, and potential doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, and more have all been forced to go into debt to pay off what they have been blackmailed out of.
And all of this was not done in the name of profit, but of control. Proof has been shown that the RIAA has done nothing but lose money by attacking their customer base, calling them pirates and thieves, violating their rights, and leveraging out of court settlements out of families who do not believe that they have what it takes to fight this injustice in court.
The man you have chosen for this position is the wrong choice. Please revert this decision. I and others are deeply afraid of what it means to see you appointing him.
Now I'm laughing at all the drones here that fell for the Messiah's clever PR campaign
I think it had less to do with his PR campaign and more to do with Republican incompetence. Independents in this country have historically broke Republican in Presidential elections -- Katrina was probably the point at which the GOP lost them.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Years ago, I wrote Saint Wellstone that I thought it was ridiculous that I could buy a DVD and be a felon for playing it on a linux machine. The reply I got from Saint Wellstone's office said the DMCA was a great thing and he would vote for it again if he had the chance. Just look at where the money comes from.
constant media misdirection away from Louisiana government's gross incompetence about Katrina was probably the point at which the GOP lost them.
There - fixed that for you.
Here it is. Right there after the first refrain:
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, thats all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
See? Its there TWICE!
That is a whole lotta change, yes sir...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
So far the only questionable selection that concerns me.
The RIAA have been misusing the DMCA for the longest period of time. The person that drafted the law even admits that the RIAA is abusing the law.
Now we have a lawyer, however intellectual, that has acted utterly un-smart, being appointed from "a lobbying organization"; which are supposed to be an antithesis to the Obama adminstration.
I mean, really, listen to those videos that made it to the net from those lawyers that were part of the RIAA; those that lobbied to convince law enforcement that copying music is contributory to money laundering. And now you have Obama appointing one of those crazies to an important position.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
WHat about that website Obama's been running? Does it have a way to mod this guy down?
It is very much different than here on Slashdot.
You get moderator points only once every 4 years.
Everyone gets moderator points at the same time.
You only get 1 moderator point.
It lasts only 1 day (half actually).
You get to moderate posts of only 2 posters.
Rest of those 4 years all your posts are automatically moderated as -1 Overrated+Troll, and nobody reads them.
But if you happen to have shitload of money - you can buy yourself golden undemoteable +5 Insightful+Informative posts.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Easy. When Bush requested the legally required permission for federal troops and assistance to cross into Louisiana from the Louisiana Governor, She said no. What was he supposed to do, Fly to Baton Rouge and bully her into making a decision that she felt was unnecessary? I would go to bed too, knowing that I may have to declare a national emergency tomorrow to pull some ignoramus' butt out of the fire because she felt she didn't need federal help. Get a good night's sleep, or try to, to better be able to deal with the shit-storm coming my way.
Trust me, you would not want a federal government that could simply decide to go into a state and take over. "Aw, heck - there's people suffering there and we can help!" No, that would not be a good way to run things. States' rights are there for a reason.
And every level of government in Lousiana failed the people.
Uh, I don't think Obama's appointments to the DOJ have anything to do with Bush's legacy... It's not Bush's fault we said "Wow, Obama's a technology literate candidate! Let's vote for change!" and then watched as he handed our collective asses to the RIAA.
Funny how Bush "going to bed" didn't seem to affect the people in other places that were hit just as hard, like EVERY county in Mississippi.
The clear difference between Mississippi and Louisiana was that one place heeded the warnings and didn't wait for the government to hand-hold them out of town while the other still thinks government is the answer to everything.
I guess when one grows up depending on government handouts, it's hard to make choices on their own even when their lives depend on it.
Those sentiments are no less true for being repeatedly stated. We won't see real political reform until more Americans abandon the ridiculous idea that politicians of either party are actually acting in the interests of the general public.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
I can guarantee you that the votes would have been reversed had Obama lost the primary contest and Hillary been the nominee.
The only reason Hillary voted against the FISA bill was because she could (politically).
Obama is a political pragmatist if nothing else. His campaign didn't want to be painted as soft on terra or hamstringing intelligence efforts by the Repubs in the general.
It's still to early to REALLY know what Obama will do as president. We'll just have to wait and see.
I agree that his vote was pretty repugnant, but I have to believe that he KNOWS that immunity for the teclos is wrong. HE WAS A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! I have to believe that he felt this was a situation where the ends justify the means...
(But just you know know, I contributed probably a couple hundred dollars to the Obama campaign - until the FISA vote. That night I went to the ACLU's site and saw the headline "Senate passes telco immunity: ACLU sues", and I became a member. I voted Barr in the general. I want a president that respects the constitution with more than just flowery speeches...)
Firstly, I am not an American, so please forgive me for any mistakes that I am about to make here.
From the outside looking in, at least to myself, it appeared to be more a case of who could amass, and consequently spend, the greater amount of political donations.
I could be wrong here, and I am perfectly willing to accept that, but that is how it appeared to be to me.
Political donations, or more accurately "bribes," (because that is what they are, regardless of what your government tells you) are used during the campaign to pay for speech writers, spin doctors, and also to pay off the media so that they are cast in a favourable light.
Then once the vote has been carried out, and the winner decided, all of those people who have donated substantial amounts of money to the campaign, then start demanding their dues. After all it was they who ensured victory, therefore they should be rewarded for their assistance.
$712M (Banking on becoming President) dollars was spent on the Obama campaign, and you can rest assured that very very VERY little of that was given by your average citizen. So once again, the corporations have elected a president, and now they want something in return.
I know that democracy is "government for the people, by the people," and I believe that that is what the intention was. However in recent times it has wavered from that ideal, and we are all having our freedoms stripped by our governments on the behest of the corporations (lobbyists, etc) who financially support the campaigns of the political parties.
I am not stubborn. I am right!
Can we pay back the trial lawyers by hiring one of their biggest hacks who sued teenagers for sharing songs on their iPods? YES WE CAN!!!
Please don't equate the RIAA with "trial lawyers". Who do you think have been fighting these vermin? Answer: trial lawyers.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Throwing politicians at the problem won't solve anything.
It will if "problem" is a code-word for a very large furnace.
John
The dude came right out and said "I can't provide any real insight in this decision. "
Yes, that was the insightfull part.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
2nd worst is NOT best.
All right, I'll defend Obama. This really sucks but he's still the right man to be President.
It's pretty darned inconceivable that he was ever going to agree with us on everything. This particular issue is going to be a difficult one for us to win, even with reasonably enlightened political officials. Don't forget that NOBODY voted against DMCA.
I still feel wonderful that Obama's going into office rather than McCain. And you can't seriously believe that McCain was going to help us on electronic freedom issues.
I do hope that EFF, Lessig, etc. raise a platform on this issue that we can help them with.
I'll be in DC, and in front of some politicians and their staffers, next week. I'll be sure to put in a word about this. But that's going to be the first word, not the last.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Are you sure that isn't a perl program that generates the lawyer's name?
If he really wanted to change the system, he'd leave most of the "do nothing" cabinet positions empty, including the whole departments under those positions, and then apply the trillions of dollars saved to payoff the national debt (read: Chinese, Arab, and European bankers) so we are no longer at their mercy.
By the year 2016 Obama could claim to be the third president (and third Democrat) to operate the government with absolutely no debt.
THAT would be impress me.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards role the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them,"
he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
Yes, it would be horrible to judge people by the company they keep. And I assume you also believe that Cheney and Bush are completely free of influences of the oil industry, in which they were both employed?
Were they employed as counsel?
Do you seriously believe that defending a client on a murder charge amounts to an endorsement of the act?
A lawyer as a duty to represent their client, irrespective of the lawyer's personal beliefs. I would expect any reasonably ethical lawyer to be able to separate those two interests. Whether they do in fact is a matter of examining the actions of any particular lawyer.
Whether Bush & Cheney were able to separate their duty to the corporations by which they were formerly employed, and their duty to the American people is similarly a matter of examining their particular actions. It would be invalid to conclude that any person, having been at one time in their life an employee of a corporation, would automatically be incapable of dutifully serving in some governmental capacity.
Would you like us to lock up any soldier returning from a the front-line where it was their duty to kill, on the basis that now they are killers it's not safe to have them roaming the streets?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Hmm, it was an interesting situation
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?pagewanted=print
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.
For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control.
The debate began after officials realized that Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.
As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.
To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.
While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.
But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.
So Bush's advisers clearly thought Blanco was incompetent and discussed using the Insurrection Act to send Federal troops and decided against it. This was in 2005. In 2006 they modified the Insurrection Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act#Differences_between_old_and_new_wording
Differences between old and new wording
The original wording of the Act required the conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, to be met as the result of
insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy
The new wording of the Act, as amended, still requires the same conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, but those conditions could, after the changes, also be a result of
natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition
and only if
domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
You assume too much. We could elect a different politician in as few as 4 years, and enjoy only 4 years of corporate whoring followed by 4 years of corporate whoring.
I have to disagree with you- while it is clearly a lawyer's duty to act zealously in his clients' interests, that obligation cannot be reasonably construed to allow him to act unethically or illegally. Please don't pretend that the ethical deficiencies of the client excuse the courtroom behavior of their counsel- the ABA doesn't.
think that a war to end slavery was justified
The war wasn't launched to end slavery. The war was launched to bring the southern states back into the union. Lincoln actually went out of his way to say that ending slavery wasn't the goal during the beginning. Ending slavery become the goal later for a variety of reasons -- not the least of which was keeping France and England out of the war.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I think every Obama supporter (and I am one) needs to temper their lofty expectations with a dose of reality. He's not the Second Coming -- he's both human and a politician, so he already has two strikes against him. He will make (and already has made) some decisions and appointments that will piss us off. It's all a matter of contrast and degree. Considering the debacle of the last 8 years, if Obama is even moderately successful, it will be a vast improvement. He has surrounded himself, for the most part, with some very competent people, yards better than the rouge's gallery that has run the show under Bush.
If you've been living off rice and gruel for years, you may dream of steak and lobster, but at that point even a humble peanut butter and jelly sandwich is going to taste pretty damn good.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
He has surrounded himself, for the most part, with some very competent people, yards better than the rouge's gallery that has run the show under Bush.
That remains to be seen. Thus far what we have are promises, nothing more. If we should reserve judgment on the potential for disappointment, then we should refrain from claiming success as well.
As for competent, Mr Panetta has no qualifications for his rumored post. I'm hopeful that Obama will pick someone who IS qualified.