Slashdot Mirror
Will Obama's DOJ Intervene To Help RIAA?
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Cloud, a Pennsylvania case in which the RIAA's statutory damages theory — seeking from 2,200 to 450,000 times the amount of actual damages — is being tested, the US Department of Justice has just filed papers indicating that it is considering intervening in the case to defend the constitutionality of such awards, and requesting an extension of time (PDF) in which to decide whether such intervention 'is appropriate.' This is an early test of whether President Obama will make good on his promises (a) not to allow industry insiders to participate in cases affecting the industry they represented (the 2nd and 3rd highest DOJ officials are RIAA lawyers) and (b) to look out for ordinary citizens rather than big corporations."
but I think not...
Let me get this straight. Obama, the man of the people, has a Dept. of Justice filing an amicus brief in order to HELP the extortionate RIAA win their case?
Oh Lord, I wasted my vote.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Come on, really?!? Believing Obama isn't in the pockets of Hollywood (incl. the MPAA and RIAA), trial lawyers, and the unions is as naive as believing Goerge Bush wasn't in the pockets of Wall Street, big oil, and the bible-thumpers.
Every politician is someone's bitch. Hollywood most assuredly produced the carton of cigarettes to buy Obama. And you can bet that they expect results.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Going to various Obama web sites where public submission of comments are facilitated is exactly where people should go to voice their view on these matters. If it is clear to Obama that people are watching and responding, he will have a much more difficult time ignoring the situation and the people and will have an even more difficult time going back on his word. People are still up in the air about Obama's credibility and one negative is worth more than a hundred positives and I know he is well aware of that fact. This early in his presidency, he cannot afford to let his credibility slip. He can't make excuses. He has little choice but to respond as he would be expected.
You got suckered into voting for the Democrats, the party of big media. Now you will just have to live with the consequences of your foolishness for at least the next two years.
I have no sympathy.
While I still can't determine where Obama is going to stand on helping the citizens over the corporations my guess is that he's looking to do this in a case where th coporations are pushing the innocent around, not in helping a law breaker get away with theft.
You can track the progress of Obama's many campaign promises at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ - its pretty interesting.
I can only hope that Obama steps in, because this sets a dangerous precedent of things to come.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Obama took lots of RIAA money to get elected and then appointed two of their lawyers to Justice. Justice will argue that whatever the RIAA wants is Constitutional. So far no recusals either, so there go his ethics promises, too. This is about the same time into the first term that Bill Clinton's honeymoon ended, too.
Given all the worship directed at The One by /. commentors, reaction to this one ought to be a beaut. I can't wait to hear how cow-towing to the record companies and movie moguls is somehow all Bush's fault.
"This is an early test of whether President Obama will make good on his promises (a) [[clip]] and (b) [[clip]]"
Learn how to form a question and I might consider a response to same...the only thing I'm convinced of at this point is your troll-wrath.
'whether' ~ conjunction ~ Expressing a doubt or choice between alternatives
No.
I am surprised they aren't getting a bailout as well. The RIAA are professional fear mongers. With the economy in shambles this is their time to shine. I expect it to get worse.
In fact I see this moving to the SCO model of business. They will just give up on music, and just sue people for money. It worked for them. We can only hope, as at least that way the RIAA dinosaur would go extinct and the music industry could move forward into the present reality.
I agree this is a great concern. The article would do well to cite these promises, though. I do recall these being brought up, but it would be nice to post the evidence. Anyone have a link to support for these claims? So far I've found this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/
That is an awesome link. Thank you for that.
I hope the entire force and power of the federal government will be placed into the global war against copyright infringement. The RIAA needs all the help it can get in this tough fight. They're only one organization expending millions of dollars to protect their rights. They are outnumbered by the pirates. Only a force as powerful as the federal government can give the RIAA the boost it needs to win this fight for the good of the entire population. In addition to providing this boost, new legislation is needed which will place a nationally mandated minimum price of $20 per song, $60 per movie under 90 minutes in length, $80 per movie 90 minutes or more in length and under 120 minutes in length, and, and $100 per movie 120 minutes in length or longer. There should also be a new tax to help fund the effort to fight copyright infringement. I think a 15% tax on the licensing price of all intellectual property will be adequate initially and will be embraced by an understanding public. This would be called the Intellectual Property Protection Tax, and would be charged in addition to regular sales tax and other taxes which may apply. This revitalized effort to fight theft of intellectual property will satisfy the needs of both content producers and consumers, stimulate the economy, and eliminate a substantial amount of the illegal piracy that is taking place.
And I think this site is maintained by our /. editor overlords. It has bill 234 listed twice as promises broken.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
For the naive to realize that Obama is nothing more than A LOT MORE of the same...
*sighs*
If you wanted change, you should have voted for Ron Paul.
If the performers don't want you to listen to recordings of their stuff without paying, then either PAY THEM or DON'T LISTEN. (If you cheap/broke, then listen to other recordings by other performers who have so objections.) You shouldn't need a Law to help you decide whether or not to mess with recordings made by others.
Just because the US federal administration argues that something is constitutional does not necessarily mean that they think it is a good or fair policy.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Obama repeatedly made sure that we knew that his campaign was funded entirely by us the citizens, not lobbyists or businesses. Therefore he should be using the DOJ to protect us from the RIAA, not the other way around. I sure hope he can fix the economy, because this is a strike against him.
You believed Obama. Suckers.
Yeah, it's a good way to keep track of things. Although, I can't help but think they're taking a swipe at Obama when they write "Of Obama's 510 promises, most are still rated No Action." Uh, give the guy at least a month, damn.
...they'll just be the colors of green - envy of the perpetual hipness of music and movie industry, whereas his is transitory. Obama will continue the long-standing tradition of political corruption by hollywood and RIAA companies -- corruption far more substantial than their relatively small revenues would seem to dictate -- simply because of the glamor involved. You don't see this same scale of the corruption of long-standing law for the sake of companies like IBM, even though it's worth three times more than Sony and Time Warner combined (and that includes Sony's non-media businesses).
By the way, are there any public betting pools on when Obama will lose his demi-god status? I'd think some place in Vegas covers this, and I want in on the action.
Yes I know they worked for the RIAA before. But do they still do so?
If they don't also still work for the RIAA are we sure these lawyers actually even give a damn about the RIAA? Unless they have stocks and shares or whatever in the RIAA companies then what's in it for them if they no longer work for them?
It is possible that these lawyers were just doing it for the money and don't actually give a damn about the company they were working for.
Does anything have anything more damning than that they used to work for the RIAA? do they still? are they receiving money or incentives still from the RIAA?
DOJ should intervene on the side of customers.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
You're only the second person I've seen admit that he was fooled by Obama. That takes a bit of bravery, a willingness to swallow some pride when called for, and probably some intelligence. Good job!
BTW, tag these stories "messiah" please. :-)
politifact.com: owned by St. Petersburg Times
St. Petersburg Times: owned by the Poynter Institute
The Poynter Institute is a journalism school well know for its uncommon (in today's world) approach of unbiased reporting and the primacy of fact over sensationalism.
Gotta say, props to you for linking to a neutral site, when there are so many sites "Obama broken promises" sites maintained by partisan hacks.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
kdawson strikes again huh ?
And I think this site is maintained by our /. editor overlords. It has bill 234 listed twice as promises broken.
It's listed twice in "recently rated" section. There's still only 1 broken promise listed on the meter.
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
I sure he doesn't turn out that way!
How is this offtopic?
A politician lied?
Why is anyone surprised?
You actually were dumb enough to expect different?
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
DOJ should intervene on the side of customers.
Let me correct that statement:
DOJ should intervene on the side of citizens.
In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Cloud,...
So they've finally done it. The RIAA's legal expertise has lead them to sue the internet.
http://xkcd.com/250/
What do you think of that treaty that is being negotiated in secret? (the one that has popped up in 2 or 3 slashdot stories over the past half year)
Obama isn't being open about that one.
...seeking from 2,200 to 450,000 times the amount of actual damages...
I've only seen up to 8000, anything over 9000 would just be ridiculous.
How is no action a swipe?
There is no DOJ. There is no U.S. Federal Government.
The U.S.A. has collapsed economically. The U.S.A. is now in political collapse.
Good luck suckers.
Cheers,
Kilgore Trout
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's listed twice but there is only one promise counted as broken
Well I guess, but there's not really a better way of phrasing it. No action is no action, whether its because he hasn't had enough time, or because he just doesn't care. Hopefully we, as the voters, are smart and attentive enough to find out which is which.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Another campaign promise bites the dust. This guy has been in office for about a month and he's already a train wreck.
... Goerge Bush wasn't in the pockets of Wall Street, big oil, and the bible-thumpers.
Religious intolerance has caused a lot of human suffering.
Time for it to stop.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Change... for the RIAA!
Yes we can... extort excessive damages!
Hope... we survive the next 4 years.
Doesn't matter, there's an implied conflict of interest in intervening on behalf of former employers.
So Bush attacking Iraq and ignoring Afghanistan had nothing to do with the oil business?
Fair use has nothing to do with this. The defendant has challenged the statutory damages of the Copyright Act as unconstitutional. So, the DOJ wants to look into this, and perhaps offer a brief supporting the constitutionality of the damages.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Slate.com has a Change-o-Meter at http://www.slate.com/id/2209273/ [Slate.com] to track the "amount of change" President Obama has brought to Washington.
who promised NOT to hire lobbyists for Administration positions and then had to ask for release from that promise a dozen times (or whatever the final number was)?
I call bullshit. They'll rip the consumer a new one and we'll all be screwed just for LOOKING at a copy of a movie we purchased legally.
Pax Vobiscum
An unbiased lawyer's point of view really should reflect the interests of the person or party that he is meant to be defending or accusing. A judge's point of view should be to defend the law of the land and judge the merits of the defence and the accusers in this context. In many ways, just because a judge was previously a lawyer for the RIAA does not mean he will continue to support them, since they are no longer the customer and are no longer paying the former lawyer. If he is still receiving money from a previous client, then the judge should be disbarred, since they have a conflict of interest.
Oh, IANAL, so this is just an outsider's view point.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
the problem I see is that Bush while supported corporations seemed truly to protect the country and did what he thought best. So far all I see is Obama ceding authority and decisions to others. He seems adept at not taking action himself or taking responsibility. He is after face time and "credit" but credit without owning anything. The stimulus bill was handed over to Pelosi and Reid and he flew around campaigning with doom and gloom if it wasn't signed. Bush just stayed either out of sight or just said it was going to be done and did it.
Yeah you wasted your vote but don't feel bad. We didn't know jack shit about the guy other than he wasn't a Republican (I did not vote for either of these two so maybe I wasted my vote by not voting against him but no good conservative could vote for McCain like we could not vote for Obama).
Look, what little of his voting record existed should have told you his stance. We had two poor choices and after seeing the stimulus bill and the fear mongering used to push it I know we got it wrong. But hey, its America, there is only so much damage that can be done. Will we recover, certainly, will it be hard, yes. Yet we made this choice as a country and we as a country will bear it.
Who knows, he could suddenly wake up and realize that being President means living up to the hype and promise of his campaign. Its early. The stimulus bill was strike two (Geitner & related were strike one). Lets see where he goes from here. As they say, we can only go up - and I hope that is true.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
look out for ordinary citizens rather than big corporations
Just because Party A is an "ordinary citizen" and Party B is a "big corporation" doesn't mean that Party A should be able to harm Party B with impunity.
NewYorkCountryLawyer, for all the good work he is doing, seems to include verbiage like this in almost every post that makes it to the front page. Over and over... the industry is suing "ordinary folks"... they should stop suing "ordinary folks"... evil big corporation vs. noble, innocent ordinary folks...
I happen to be in the camp that the historical reasons for copyright are no longer extant and that massive reform should be done. But this verbiage disturbs me.
Our legal system should provide facilities for party A to address grievances with party B, whether B is big and A is small, or vice versa. It shouldn't be the goal (as the verbiage seems to suggest) that the legal system should be rigged to favor the smaller party in a dispute.
Vegeta says, Its over nine THOUSAAAAANNDDD!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I for one am very glad that there are no corrupt judges in Pennsylvania!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Here's how I understand the motion. Can a lawyer comment if the DOJ's request is just standard procedure? On October 29, 2008, the Defendant (Denise Cloud) challenges the constitutionality of the statutory damages section of 17 U.S.C 504c. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1a says that the Attorney General can intervene in any constitutional challenge within 60 days. This motion requests more time for the DOJ to study whether they should intervene beyond the 60 days. The DOJ may have 3 outcomes: They can reject the challenge. They can allow the challenge to proceed and not interfere. They can also support the challenge.
It is a new administration so we can't be sure which way they will lean. However it maybe that this administration is just more diligent and attentive than the previous administrations to this issue. The Bush administration seemed to be more focused on other legal issues.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
hmm.. better actually read what qualifies as 'promise kept'... i'm not impressed
If you wanted the president less likely to suck up to the RIAA, you chose the wrong party!
Paragraph(?) 7 of the motion states, in part, "Counsel for both parties do not oppose the motion." I understand why it is important to debate whether or not the DOJ should intervene, what stance the DOJ might take, and whether or not this motion should be granted. However, my question is the following (series of questions). What benefit does the Defendant seek to obtain by not opposing the motion? (Do they need time for other things, and this is a convenient opportunity? Do they have reason to believe the DOJ might intervene on Defendant's behalf? Does this [DOJ intervening and agreeing that a certain act is unconstitutional] happen often/ever?)
RIAA doesn't need Obama's DOJ help anymore, because Chris Brown said he was sorry for what he did. So let's just marry RIAA and Chris, and I'm sure all will be fine between them from now on.
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
Why break a preomise only once, when you can get more mileage out of it by breaking it over and over again.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
I'm not defending president Obama here, but do you really think Senator McCain would side with the public instead of the entertainment industry?
If he can help fix the economy (and the middle class) and end the war in Iraq then, for me, president Obama's administration is the lesser of two evils.
-ted
ACK! ACK ACK ACK!
Living in Clearwater (and having the St. Pete Times as my newspaper), I assure you that they are NOT neutral in any sense of the word.
In addition to their editorial page being constantly slanted left, they regularly spin their new stories in the same way.
I have been following the politifact.com site since I found it weeks ago. In fact, I subscribe to the RSS feed here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/feeds/updates/
My main problem with this site in particular is that they count broken promises as "in progress" or "compromise", and they add new promises all the time. This doesn't just track promises made during the campaign: if he says (as president) he'll do something next week, and then he does it, it counts as a "Promise Kept". This ensures that their numbers always skew to the "Promise Kept" side.
That said, I find the site entertaining, if irritating. I just hate the idea that anyone things it's "Fair" or "Neutral".
...the more they stay the same...
Interesting, comparing that link with this one: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424 Apparently McCain's TOP contributor gave less than Obama's 20th top contributor. Not sure what that implies, if anything, I just think it is strange.
DISCLAIMER: I am very rarely serious. If the above comment seems asinine makes no sense, it is most likely a bad joke.
Does this count the people who the RIAA sued who didn't even own a computer?
what changes every four years? only the cover of the book
good judgment calls though - your vote counts!
she was the daughter of a wealthy florentine pogen read em and weep was her adjustable slogan
You have two lawyers with proven track records of a) using evidence that was obtained illegally, and b) suing people with no evidence at all, c) suing the wrong people, and d) participating in a campaign of frivolous litigation.
The only way the administration could have done worse was to appoint Jack Thompson.
They're using their grammar skills there.
This is an early test of whether President Obama will make good on his promises (a) not to allow industry insiders to participate in cases affecting the industry they represented (the 2nd and 3rd highest DOJ officials are RIAA lawyers) and (b) to look out for ordinary citizens rather than big corporations.
Are you in denial? Or just slow?
They will get it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'm confused. How can the DOJ, an arm of the executive, "intervene" with the courts? Doesn't that radically break the separation of powers? Or did I mix something else up?
/ a confused european
But I'll say it just a reminder of where the actual statutory damages point of view comes from.
Penalty payments are not meant to compensate for the damage done. They are meant to be compensation for the damage adjusted for the probability of getting caught. That's why they are penalties rather than simple compensations. For example, how much does a municipality lose when someone doesn't put coins in a parking meter? About $1. How much is the ticket for not putting the coins? I would say (the hypothetical national average is) around $50. This would mean that the municipalities are assuming that only 1 in 50 offenders get caught. The same goes for the penalties (fines, statutory damages, or whatever else you want to call them) for copyright infringement. If the penalty is $150,000 for 1 instance of infringement (that is tantamount to stealing $0.99), then we (as a nation) are going on the assumption that only 1 in 150,000 copyright violators get caught.
Please, don't try to correct me on this assumption. I don't care if it's right or wrong. I am only trying to explain here what is the logic behind this point of view. I am not supporting or condemning the view itself.
If you disagree with the assumption that 1 in 150,000 violators get caught (as I suspect most people here do), the correct venue to express thit disagreement is to inform your elected legislators (senator and congressman). Legislature's primary mandate is to turn the collective wisdom of the people into law. I am sure, you'll find a myriad of different ways to poke fun at that statement. But read it again. The statement was about the primary mandate of the legislature -- not about its actual performance. As for the question "what's the point of contacting your senator?", it's all you can do.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The best shot at getting President Obama to pay attention to this issue is if he or his family gets sued by the RIAA. Until then he's frying other fish.
Y'all know which way this one's going to go. Just look at Obama's appointments and the attempts by the Dems to slip the anti-net neutrality crap into an economic stimulus bill.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is the dark side of the Obama candidacy in my opinion, completely predictable from the moment he chose Joe "Media Industry Lacky" Biden as his running-mate.
If the Bush administration was pandering to the energy industry, this one will be pandering to the traditional media industries. What will be most interesting will be seeing how this administration balances telecommunications and new media interests versus more traditional media interests. I predict they'll tie themselves in knots even the most adept contortionist couldn't imagine.
I was going to suggest you use "oligopoly" instead of oligarchy, but after considering it further I think the proper term should be "oligarchopoly".
New word?
The term people refers to the "people" as in all other references in the Constitution. Everyone. The default is everyone, if you are judged legally incompetent or have temporarily lost your rights due to conviction and incarceration, that is one thing, but "people" means everyone, not just militia members. The noun doesn't change magically for that one amendment. The "people" are the support base for the ones who can be legally required to drop what they are doing and heed the call of their state governor to arms, males between ages 17 and 45, who form the base of the militia. Others outside that gender and age group are still allowed, by birthright and default, the right to keep and bear, and although they cannot be legally required to heed the call, there is no language anywhere that says they can't serve in support, or volunteer their services even armed. It just isn't addressed one way or the other, so the default is "allowed", because all rights that are not specifically delineated to the federal or state governments automatically default to the individual.
The restrictions are quite narrow by design, because it is based on the radical notion of the free person, the sovereign individual, which no other nation previous or since has ever adopted. All other nations have a head authority (under some various title, king, ruler, commander, bishop, monarch, whatever, even the so called "democratic" nations with a titular ruler and ruling party) who has/have all the rights, and the individual under their command and control is granted some rights on a whim, but they have none by birthright or default. Totally different in the US, and probably why very few people can ever get around to grokking the difference, they have never been educated or informed of it, and in most cases around the globe, have been raised since birth to believe they are property of the state -even if they won't admit it-cognizant dissonance is a bitch.
The US has terribly uneducated elected officials -for the most part- as regards these concepts, example, last prez before bush is on the record saying that the constitution/bill of rights "gives us our rights". He said that.
Completely incorrect, the bill of rights grants no rights to the individual, you are born with them, free speech, the freedom of self defense, the freedom to own and keep your property, etc., with only a very few and quite limited exceptions.
That the corrupt government gets away with infringing these rights all the time does not negate the rights that exist, they just use normal mob action and their hired mercenaries in the police and military to force their extortional demands and edicts on people, and they co-opt the bulk of the media and the bulk of the public educational system to promote what they do as being "lawful", ie, they use brainwashing and physical threats and coercion. They are quite effective at that, but it doesn't make them right or righteous.
(and I am very glad I lucked out and was born here and not elsewhere, at least we have a *chance* at freedom as it is codified in our default inalienable rights.)
Out of curiosity, isn't the government obligated to defend any laws that are being called unconstitutional? Or if they have discretion in the matter, what discretion are they allowed?
President Obama will make good on his promises (a) not to allow industry insiders to participate in cases affecting the industry they represented (the 2nd and 3rd highest DOJ officials are RIAA lawyers) and (b) to look out for ordinary citizens rather than big corporations."
This is a clearly defined case of conflict of interest. If the defendants attorneys can't have this thrown out then they do not deserve their law degree.
Anyone think that's it's a bit too coincidental that this was announced on the same day the stimulus bill was signed and troops were ordered to Afghanistan? Pretty much guaranteed to not get a single lick of major press.
Moderation is not supposed to be used as an indicator of agreement.
To NYCL:
Thank you for putting a relevant ad on your page (the one to the independent download shop). That was the first internet ad I've intentionally clicked on in years.
We should be so lucky that all sites would do that.
To everyone else:
Is it really that hard to understand your target demographic? And another thing: Do you know why adblock plus didn't catch this? Probably because the image in question is hosted at beckermanlegal.com, rather than soullessAdCompanyFromHell.biz.
Vote NYCL for Secretary of the Clue Stick 2010!
Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
"I'd hate to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment as imagined by the Republican party doesn't exist."
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but certainly the Supreme Court agrees with the interpretation that there is a constitutional right for people to own handguns (and certainly long weapons as well). I think the 2nd amendment is worded pretty plainly; it seems like wishful thinking to say that it legitimizes weapons only for the militia; if that was the correct interpretation, it wouldn't be necessary to have the amendment if you really think about it.
Anyway, here's but one of the links. I'm sure you're aware of it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Objective journalist? Is that one of those oxymorons like "military intelligence" or "jumbo shrimp"?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Exactly, people who don't see things your way are sheep. We should all think for ourselves by believing what you believe.
President Obama had better tread carefully here. A lot of tech-savvy internet folks contributed to his campaign and voted for him. A lot of them don't like the RIAA, and are decidedly un-thrilled with his appointment of two RIAA scumbags to his government.
Pissing such people off would be a huge tactical mistake, assuming Mr. Obama has plans to be more than a one-term wonder.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
How do you make that connection?
"Please, don't try to correct me on this assumption. I don't care if it's right or wrong. I am only trying to explain here what is the logic behind this point of view. I am not supporting or condemning the view itself."
Nice that you aren't set in stone on some sort of personal perception here.
We need more commentators on slashdot that are able to listen to and assess other people's ideas like you do here.
Living in Clearwater (and having the St. Pete Times as my newspaper), I assure you that they are NOT neutral in any sense of the word.
Then why do you ACK ACK ACKnowledge your parent? ;-)
No. Lawyers are scum. La-la-la-la-la-can't-heeeaaar-you! ;-)
I, among the many, told the idiots that were so in love with Obama that this was going to happen. So, here I am to make good on my promise, I'm laughing. You got what you wanted and now, magically they were both bad, we had no choice, we couldn't of known. We'll your going to have to live with this dumbass choice of yours and when you've had DRM shoved down your throat, being arrested for just having downloaded Dvdfab you will wish you had listened.
Actually gang, I think is is beautifully on topic.
NYCL, you made what I believe is a very important shift that I believe has far more important consequences than some here might think.
We sorta know that ads are the intermediary currency of the digital age. But unless you're a mercenary who risks not paying bills unless the highest payout/ad is chosen, I think carefully cultivating *ads with a message* is extremely important.
Maybe advocacy services would be another useful type of ad to host.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Perhaps I Mis-Grunted!
I was trying to keep my head from exploding.
Democracy died.
Ho Hummm ..
Well now if some of you care to look back you will see that this is exactly the sort of thing i had predicted would happen when Barak"BinLaden"O'Bama got in now start to pay the price just keet the infection on your side of the pond will you Ho Ho Ho wake up you rednecks your services will soon be needed in your country .
I'll wait until the Obama team actually does something I disagree with before I freak out. And if this post goes like Kdawson's many anti-Microsoft posts that aren't based in reality, then I think I'm wise to hold off and getting the pitchforks out just now.
No need to be attentive. The site has an RSS feed! ;)
Objective journalism is impossible. The idea is a relict of a very outworn idea about how people think.
Try "fact based". Then it's possible to argue about the facts they include and those they choose to exclude. You KNOW they've got to exclude some. That they've got to trim their edition of the news to those facts they deem important. By seeing how close the facts they exclude match those you, also, consider unimportant you can get an idea as to how much to trust them.
That said, I prefer even biased fact-based journalism to ax-grinders who just make up what they think the news should say. (Except for the Weekly World News. I admire any publication that can put a picture of a chambered nautilus on it's cover and claim it's a picture of an invader from Mars.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
All corporate-owned news have a pro-corporate bias. Period. Suggesting their biases are anything (left, right, etc.) other than pro-corporate is hopelessly ignorant.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We just posted a suggestion letter to the white house on dmusic.com heres a link http://news.dmusic.com/article/35684 http://www.dmusic.com/
Comment removed based on user account deletion