RIAA and BSA's Lawyers Taking Top Justice Posts

An anonymous reader writes "Following the appointment of RIAA's champion Donald Verrilli as associate deputy attorney general, here's a complete roundup of all the RIAA and BSA-linked lawyers comfortably seated at top posts at the Department of Justice by the new government. Not strange, since US VP Joe Biden is well known for pushing the copyright warmongers' agenda in Washington. Just in case you don't know, Verrilli is the nice man who sued the pants off Jammie Thomas."

Comments

Wait a minute

[Bakobull]

So the lawyers brought these lawsuits not the RIAA. I didn't realize Donald Verrilli brought these lawsuits to protect his copyrights. I don't blame the lawyers for this anymore than I would blame the soldiers for fighting Bush's war.

Re:Wait a minute

[geekoid]

But you need to look at the lawyers behavior in doing their job.

Look for NewYorkCountryLawyer to reply in this thread. He put's it better then I do.

Re:Wait a minute

[LordKaT]

It's all about influence. The more influence you can inject into a government, the more you'll see laws that favor your business model.

Re:Wait a minute

[Kamokazi]

There's a key difference here, mate:

Commander: Go to Iraq, soldier!
Soldier: No sir, I don't want to.
Commander: Then get out of the military.

RIAA: Hi lawyer, would you like to sue people for us?
Lawyer: No, I only accept legitimate cases.
RIAA: Okay then.

Lawyers can turn down cases and keep their job.

Re:Wait a minute

[The Moof]

The RIAA didn't create the legal tactics with the lawyers being their drones following instruction. The lawyers came up with the tactics and loopholes and abused them to the fullest extent. They also walked a very fine line on the legality of what they were doing. You want someone who practices law like that to be in a position of authority in terms of justice?

Also, the soldier analogy is terrible. Soldiers get arrested for going AWOL. There are a few options to get out of service on a moral basis, but I imagine they're difficult to pull off (interesting approach taken by this guy). There also also repercussions for doing so. Lawyers just turn a client down and don't get paid.

Re:change

[Hordeking]

Well, at least this is change I can believe in. As in, it's certainly not hard to believe.

Damn.

The more things CHANGE!, the more they stay the same. That's CHANGE! you can HOPE! for.

With two lawyers

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

as President and Vice President, what do you expect? Perhaps all of that Hollywood support from actors and musicians bought something from Obama and Biden.....

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

forcing a religion on people via the government is gone

The problem isn't the forcing of "religion" on the people, it's the forcing of any belief system. That is far from gone, you're just aligned with this presidents beliefs so you don't feel the sting. Others who were aligned with the last president do feel that they are having beliefs forced on them.

I'm not really for or against the man yet as I haven't seen any real results beyond a feel good cult mentality sweeping the nation but I do like the stopping of torture so I'm hopeful. All that said, you're still being fed and likely always will be one mans belief system rather than an adherence to a small set of immutable principles that govern all equally, which was the original goal of this little experiment we call America. Government has become far to profitable for that to return any time soon so prepare to have your beliefs determined for you and disagreement shouted down from both sides.

Re:So, what you're saying...

[evilkasper]

Do you think we can get Cheney to take those nice folks at the RIAA on a hunting trip?

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[mcgrew]

All art, as all science and engineering, is built on the achievements of those who came before. Engineers have it easy, as patents only last 20 years and I'm told are often easy to get around.

Copyrights are forever when compared to an artist's life. I cannot legally build on any work produced in the last hundred years.

This AP story illustrates the folly of our system.

On buttons, posters and Web sites, the image was everywhere during last year's presidential campaign: a pensive Barack Obama looking upward, as if to the future, splashed in a Warholesque red, white and blue and underlined with the caption HOPE

Designed by Shepard Fairey, a Los-Angeles based street artist, the image has led to sales of hundreds of thousands of posters and stickers, and has become so much in demand that copies signed by Fairey have been purchased for thousands of dollars on eBay.

The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Mannie Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington.

The AP says it owns the copyright, and wants credit and compensation. Fairey disagrees.

"The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission," the AP's director of media relations, Paul Colford, said in a statement. "AP safeguards its assets and looks at these events on a case-by-case basis. We have reached out to Mr. Fairey's attorney and are in discussions. We hope for an amicable solution."

There is a comparison of the two works, and it's obvious (to me as a content creator anyway) that the Fairey image is fair use.

As to your incredibly ignorant remark, it is exactly like the guy who said "Looks like the days of drunken bums is over" when they passed prohibition. Copyright law is getting worse and worse, and people are responding by ignoring it, just as they ignored laws against alcohol. It WILL reach a breaking point.

I should not have to pay for a digital copy of Jimi hendrix' work. The man is dead and has been for decades. It should be in the public domain as the Founding Fathers wished and as is written in the US Constitution.

Re:Only they are to blame

[prisoner-of-enigma]

There is no glory in fighting and killing is wrong, period.

If someone is bent on killing you and the only means you have to defend yourself is with deadly force, is it wrong to exercise that force? Or would you stand on your morals and be slaughtered like an animal?

Your lofty rhetoric doesn't stand up to real-world scenarios, I'm afraid.