Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Will Obama's DOJ Intervene To Help RIAA?

Posted by kdawson on from the jury-is-out dept.

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."

52 of 546 comments (clear)

  1. I hope so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but I think not...

  2. Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by srussia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh Lord, I wasted my vote.

      "Wasted vote" is a redundancy.

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    2. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not yet. Obama has lots of things to worry about, a big economic crisis, making government more open, a couple wars.......on the scale of importance of things this one is rather low. Heck, on my scale I'd rather have Obama worrying about the high rates of murder in Oakland, CA than worrying about an industry whose music isn't that great anyway.

      So, we don't know if Obama has even looked at the issue at hand yet. All that has happened so far is that they've asked for more time to look at the issue, which is totally fine in my book. The ultimate tests will be what he eventually decides (assuming he actually looks at it; if he doesn't look at it, then we can't conclude anything about Obama except about his priorities), and who he lets work on it. If he lets the two DOJ officials who are RIAA lawyers take the lead in the case, then we can know he's a tool.

      Which we should have already known. How likely is it that the Illinois political system can produce a politician untainted by corruption? We chose Obama because he is a step in the right direction, a step towards openness, a step towards making friends with the rest of the world, and I would even say a step towards cleaning up corruption (that's the point of openness, right?). We knew he wasn't perfect, that's not why we chose him. We chose him because we wanted a change in direction; that can take time, and won't all happen with one man.

      --
      Qxe4
    3. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by LameAssTheMity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Voting for either "side" in this broken two party corporate governance is a waste, the best you can hope for is that the guy who wins will fuck you less than the other guy.

      that is unless we take control of our federal government by utilizing our state power, but who really paid attention to the local elections? Last time I checked, they were installed by the same corporations/banks that paid for McCain AND Obama!

      Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself at opensecrets.org

    4. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it was never 'one man, one vote'.

      but rather: one dollar, one vote.

      get hip to how the world works, folks. this isn't a disney movie. the bad guys OFTEN win.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by Palpitations · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh come on. I'm so sick of that argument. Every vote matters. I'm as fed up with mainstream Democrats and Republicans as anyone, both tend to have major flaws... That said, do you really think that McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are equal? Even if I don't agree with them on many issues, I'll take someone with a constitutional law degree over a senile old man and a far-right nutjob any day.

      That said, I've voted for a third party all of my life. I've never lived in a swing state, so my vote won't change the outcome anyway. Does that mean my vote was wasted? Absolutely not! I vote for the third party that is most likely to get 5% of the vote, a requirement in order to receive matching funds during the next cycle (see the Public Funding of Presidential Campaigns Brochure). I recommend that everyone who lives in a solid blue or red state does the same. More voices and more opinions brought to the table will only help us.

      Saying that every vote is wasted is absurd. If you don't care to educate yourself on the issues or involve yourself, that's one thing. By all means, stand aside and let those of us who do care take care of things. But if you give a damn, either stand up and be counted or shut the hell up.

    6. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That said, do you really think that McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are equal?

      Of course I do. They both had critical flaws which made both of them unsuitable to be our next president. Once we get past that, it doesn't matter what else you can say about them. They were both equal: really bad.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    7. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We chose Obama because he is a step in the right direction, a step towards openness, a step towards making friends with the rest of the world, and I would even say a step towards cleaning up corruption (that's the point of openness, right?). We knew he wasn't perfect, that's not why we chose him. We chose him because we wanted a change in direction; that can take time, and won't all happen with one man.

      Thank you.

      He's made some very good pledges about openness and anti-corruption measures, so now's the time for him to live up to them.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    8. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's made some very good pledges about openness and anti-corruption measures, so now's the time for him to live up to them.

      Here's some background on Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10110922-38.html

      Intellectual property piracy: "This is theft"
      Less ambiguous were Holder's arguments for aggressive enforcement of U.S. intellectual property laws. In 1999, he joined the president of Adobe Systems at an event in San Jose, Calif., to announce that digital piracy had become a real problem and would become a "real priority" for the Justice Department.

      "This is theft, pure and simple," Holder said at the time.

      The Business Software Alliance, which counts Adobe Systems and Microsoft as members, applauded Holder's nomination this week. "He's smart, he's dedicated, open minded, he's very tenacious in pursuing the goals of the department," said BSA president Robert Holleyman. "We're very enthusiastic...He's a first rate choice."

      Do not expect any change from the previous administration's stance on IP matters. It's going to be pretty much corporatist justice, if not more so.

    9. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by Palpitations · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They both had critical flaws which made both of them unsuitable to be our next president.

      Okay, let's say that we expect a standard of 10, that's what we consider suitable. Neither a 3 nor a 7 meet the standard. That doesn't mean that 3=7.

      Nothing in life is perfect. Inability to compromise is the downfall of Libertarians and Greens everywhere. Both have some great ideas (in my opinion, anything those two group agree on is as good as gold - social issues mainly), but the all-or-nothing attitude that they share keeps them from being taken seriously.

    10. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "We chose Obama because he is a step in the right direction, a step towards openness, a step towards making friends with the rest of the world, and I would even say a step towards cleaning up corruption (that's the point of openness, right?)."

      Goodness, I wish I had your youthful optimism about the world.

      *Sigh*....well, just give it a few years, with experience and seeing how it all works, that optimism and hope for the world fades. Enjoy it while you have you illusions. After that, you learn to just look out for yourself.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by tsm_sf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act

      Obama might be the first black president, but this will be his real legacy. That's not delusion.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    12. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd hate to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment as imagined by the Republican party doesn't exist. Interpreting it as being a right to personal firearms without any qualifiers is unjustified. Felons, children and those not trained to use them safely not have any protections that guarantee them access.

      Of course this is a false strawman. You are perpetrating the common caricature of the "gun nut".

      People who fixate on "gun control" want nothing of the sort. They want to ban
      guns outright buy are stymied by the current state of the law. They don't want
      the moderate version of your little caricature.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    13. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let this be a lesson to the blind faith Obama supporters out there

      I think that is a 'straw man' argument. I have never met a 'blind faith' Obama supporter. There probably is no such thing, except for maybe a very small number of very dumb people. We are offered a limited number of candidates, we vote for the one we feel is best, and we vote for the best. That's it. Don't try to disparage Obama supporters by mislabeling them 'blind faith' Obama supporters.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    14. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This would be by no means a bad thing.

      TORTS are supposed to right wrongs, not be a payday. So it is logical
      and obvious that damages awarded in lawsuits have some relationship to
      actual proven harm. That's that civil courts are for: to prove harm and
      resolve the harm.

      They aren't meant for social crusading.

      Any ambulance chaser who isn't fodder for Lawyer jokes would tell you that.

      If there is a public policy reason to FINE people and corporations then
      the law should allow for that explicitly. It should not be done as a back
      door hack for something that isn't meant for the use you're putting it to.

      Want megabuck fines for piracy? Fine, make it a proper criminal offense with
      the state being the only entity with standing and a proper burden of proof.

      Something that is not serious enough for society to pay attention to and take
      seriously should not have severe draconian consequences attached to it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    15. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      TORTS are supposed to right wrongs, not be a payday. So it is logical and obvious that damages awarded in lawsuits have some relationship to actual proven harm. That's that civil courts are for: to prove harm and resolve the harm. They aren't meant for social crusading. Any ambulance chaser who isn't fodder for Lawyer jokes would tell you that. If there is a public policy reason to FINE people and corporations then the law should allow for that explicitly. It should not be done as a back door hack for something that isn't meant for the use you're putting it to. Want megabuck fines for piracy? Fine, make it a proper criminal offense with the state being the only entity with standing and a proper burden of proof.

      Well said, jedidiah. Thank you. That is the issue that will be argued in SONY v. Tenenbaum, when the First Circuit sorts out whether the argument can be streamed over the internet. It is a very important discussion we need to have about the RIAA's interpretation of copyright law.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    16. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by Raistlin99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, but the 2nd is a collective right given to a group?

      You claim the first clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", overrides the second which states "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      So People references militia in this situtaion but when the same clause is used in the 4th amendment it refers to actual individuals?

      I'm going to disagree with the notion that the people who enjoyed the right to bear personal arms, who saw such arms used in the defense of libery, would then limit their distribution to a subset of people deemed "the militia"

      --
      I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
    17. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heck, on my scale I'd rather have Obama worrying about the high rates of murder in Oakland, CA than worrying about an industry whose music isn't that great anyway.

      Sincerely, why? The rates of murder in Oakland, CA are an issue for the people living in Oakland, and maybe for the people in California. On the other hand, the statutory damages from copyright are a federal thing. I'd rather the people of California be concerned about the problems in California and the people at the federal level be concerned with federal level things.

      So, really, why is it that you want the PotUS to be concerned about murder rates in one city over worrying about the constitutionality of federal laws? Why is it that you want the head of the Executive Office to be concerned about a local issue rather than whether he will be true to his own promises that his appointments won't be involved in the industries they previously represented? Please explain.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    18. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is just two sides of the same coin and it has been for a long time, probably since WW2. When you vote it is nothing but Coke VS Pepsi, since both sides have gotten their bribes....er, lobbyist money before you ever get to make a choice. That is why we need a new system, perhaps letting us have multiple choices so that those that feel they "waste a vote" by voting third party would get a say?

      And on a slight OT note, it kinda saddens me how Bill Hicks has been dead over a decade and his words are if anything more true now than when he uttered them. How I miss the truths spoken by Hicks, Kinison, Pryor, and Carlin. they had the ability to focus like a laser right through the BS and make the lies so clear. I haven't seen any of the current comedians that could cut through the BS like those four could. And it looks like we could really use them now with the shine falling off of Obama and the ugly truths beginning to show behind the pretty lies.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    19. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does that mean you show up at the polling place and then abstain from everything, turning in an empty ballot? I hope so, because otherwise your act is indistinguishable from apathy.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    20. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by Hordeking · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They both had critical flaws which made both of them unsuitable to be our next president.

      Okay, let's say that we expect a standard of 10, that's what we consider suitable. Neither a 3 nor a 7 meet the standard. That doesn't mean that 3=7.

      Well, to conservatives, Obama was a 3, and McCain was a 7. To liberals, McCain was a 3 and Obama was a 7. So if you add each one up, you get 10 for each, so it all works out and they are the same, in opposite ways.

      Nothing in life is perfect. Inability to compromise is the downfall of Libertarians and Greens everywhere. Both have some great ideas (in my opinion, anything those two group agree on is as good as gold - social issues mainly), but the all-or-nothing attitude that they share keeps them from being taken seriously.

      No, their downfall is not being able to break enough people away from the main parties, because those said individuals don't want to waste their dilute their vote and potentially have "the really bad one" win (ie I don't like McCain, and I really like Ron Paul, and I really, really hate Obama. If I vote for Paul, McCain has one less vote, and Obama might win a plurality, so both my guys lose). It's a problem with the voting system.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    21. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by TheGeniusIsOut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      That's pretty cut and dried, it applies to regulated militias. Or in other words it applies only to those that are in a militia for the purposes of civil defense. All other gun rights are based upon which ones aren't taken away in law.

      This correction is the way I have always interpreted the 2nd amendment, since a militia is not a standing army but a collection of citizens, the People, who in times of need must be able to defend their homes/communities/State. This clause in the US Constitution exists because it is the duty of the People to prevent the government from becoming corrupt and possessing too much power. The first course of action should be the ballot box, failing that then the jury box, and finally the ammo box if all else has failed. The US was founded in revolution, and the founding fathers believed strongly that We The People should be capable of revolution when the tyrannies of the government grow to unacceptable levels with no other recourse. These days, it would take a good deal of hardship and corruption to get the average American to accept the need for revolution, since those are rarely stable and comfortable events, but we may get there before too long.

      Thomas Jefferson summed these sentiments up nicely,

      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

      --
      Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
    22. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by Gizzmonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with you in principle (I favor individual gun ownership), however, the 9th and 10th amendments apply to a group as well...collective rights of the states, and the people.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    23. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by Hucko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heh, I reckon that every 3rd or 5th election we need an option of 'None of the above' after Australia's last two election. Perhaps a 'No confidence'.

      Something is needed to show the parties that they aren't heading in directions that their constituents like. Of course I may well be wrong and they simply wouldn't be used by the citizens.

      I came to this conclusion after reflection on my voting history and discovered every time I have been voting against something rather than for something. A case of lesser evil.

      Anyway, neither has a chance of getting onto our voting system.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    24. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by andy_t_roo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yes, its the golden rule - he who has the gold, makes the rules

    25. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by Yuuki+Dasu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course this is a false strawman. You are perpetrating the common caricature of the "gun nut".

      People who fixate on "gun control" want nothing of the sort. They want to ban guns outright buy are stymied by the current state of the law. They don't want the moderate version of your little caricature.

      The brutal irony here is that you, yourself, are guilty of the exact fallacy you're calling out the GP for. The fact that you can denounce the GP for focusing on the extreme fringe cases and then, with barely pause for breath, explain that everyone against you is an anti-gun extremist is really breathtaking

      Regardless of where we, as a society, decide is proper to draw the line between what we legally permit in this debate, please understand that opinions on this (as in any subject) lie on a vast spectrum. There's a middle ground between banning BBs and allowing personal nukes.

    26. Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? by MetaPhyzx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering most of the major wars since that time were initiated from a European perspective, it shouldn't seem so bizarre.

      This isn't a slam or dig, just a note to remind us all that because you don't agree, you don't have to demean.

      --
      Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
  3. Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? by furby076 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The thing is, he is president right now, he could say "Thanks for the donations...SUCKERS" and then vote for the people. A popular president not getting re-elected is highly unlikely - even if he doesn't have a huge donation base...he has the WH megaphone for free (or at least free for him).

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    2. Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the same media who's played down the tax scandals that have plagued Obama's picks and who have been spinning Obama's blatantly partisan politics as being "the GOP's fault."

      Look, I know it's the summer of '94 all over again for conservatives, and your juices are flowing with insurgent glee, but the "liberal media" myth has been pretty thoroughly debunked and is, in fact, as old as the nostalgia you're currently experiencing.

      Oabama's got enough real deficiencies and faults that we don't need to be wasting time making shit up. Thanks for playing! Sign in next time.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No he can't. He not only needs those donations for his reelection in 2012, but his party needs them for Congressional elections in 2010, 2012, and 2014. Thumbing his nose at them would not only jeopardize his election efforts, but the future of his party's long-term relationship with that particular sugar daddy.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? by Vancorps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't get it, where do you people get that everyone thought of Obama as a messiah? I don't know anyone that did and I know a lot of people that voted for him.

      No one in their right mind thought Obama would solve all the problems but that he would cease the landslide that Bush was causing and so far this seems to be true with the closing of Gitmo.

      Of course Gitmo isn't closed yet so the jury is still out there.

      As for the stimulus bill you seem to be confused about who's pushing for what. The vast majority of Americans are asking for a giant pork bill. Whether that is good or bad for the population should be debated heavily as there are far reaching consequences to borrowing that much money which was previously something the former administration liked doing. Obama never asked for 800 billion, that all came from Pelosi as you say and I've seen a number of republicans acting quite childishly about how it is being developed without their input. If they didn't act like such babies about it I'd be more inclined to believe them or at least feel bad for them since it's good to have opposing viewpoints in a debate.

      Of course the idea of borrowing several billion dollars to give people a tax cut is also quite absurd as we have to pay that money back somehow which will be in higher taxes down the road. This is of course what the republican agenda is all sore about right now as they want more tax cuts.

      I think we can all agree that fear and panic are emotions that should not be involved in bill making especially with a stimulus bill as large as the one on the table. It's forcing all of congress to move too quickly and they will end up making even more poor decisions. Remember, congress had an even lower approval rating than Bush did and for good reason! I wish I could say Pelosi was helping to change that but she is just as ineffective as the republican she replaced.

    5. Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? by jmorris42 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > And you are one of the 20% who demonized him before you even knew anything about him? Figures.

      No, I'm one of those who knew everything I needed to know about The One by about this time last year. As soon as it became clear that HRC didn't have a lock on the Dimmocrat nomination I checked into The One a bit. By spring of last year I had already been clued in on Rev. Wright, read TUCC's website and was utterly repelled by it. I had read enough bio on O himself to realize he was a third generation communist who picked Chicago as the place where he wanted to build his political base because it was the epicenter of most of the black socialist movements he would need to tap into. In other words I knew enough to be very worried, that HRC was pretty much doomed and my team was likely to be totally unprepared for what was coming. I was right.

      The guy is totally amoral, very slick and has billions of dollars and a lot of evil men backing him. Thankfully his administration isn't turning out to be quite as smart as I initially feared. He is making lots of rookie mistakes, which tells me that the idiot started believing his own press releases at some point and isn't being the passive vessel for the backend handlers he was supposed to be.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
  4. Everyone needs to speak their piece on this by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Snicker. Suckers.

    2. Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's what I wrote to them using your link - thank you NYCL...

      Are you going to allow ex-RIAA lawyers, now members of your Department of Justice staff, intercede on behalf of the RIAA in cases where they are finally being brought to task in regard to their unconstitutional attacks on ordinary citizens?

      You did know that the RIAA hired companies to act as Private Investigators in states they held no credentials to act as such, right?

      You did know that the RIAA has brought copyright infringement cases against 80+ year old grandmothers who never had a computer?

      You did know that the RIAA has brought copyright infringement cases against deceased people, then tried to get the 10 year child of said deceased individual alone to scare them into saying they did something, when they may or may not have?

      You did know that the RIAA has continuously cried about losses (to piracy) during years that they've made their highest levels of profit, which was mostly due to people who have lent songs for others to listen to (much like yesterday's radio)?

      You did know that the RIAA has (as a conglomerate of Recording Companies) continually raises the flag that piracy hurts the recording artists, which habitually it's the recording companies that immorally force contracts onto artists that strip them of most of the money they could make - such as charging them for media, distribution (shipping) fees and breakage - for ELECTRONIC downloads of their songs - which have NO media, NO distribution fees, and NO breakage?

      The RIAA (and it's movie industry equivelent, the MPAA) are abominations to the citizens of this country, whose outdated business models leave them gasping for breath, trying to find any way they can possibly survive, which has led them to file law-suit after frivolous law-suit (nearly every time someone has stood up to them with any merit whatsoever, they've dropped the cases), tying up the court systems, in an effort to get the government to force the public to keep funding these dinosaur business relics which are better off extinct.

      Thanks for your time and patience.

  5. Hope, change, a Politician needs not these things by mc1138 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  6. Just one more opportunity by PortHaven · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

  7. Constitutionality != Good by thirty-seven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Constitutionality != Good by Stray7Xi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      The issue isn't the argument, the issue is their conflict of interest.

      You shouldn't use your job as VP to award no-bid-contracts to companies you used to run.
      You shouldn't use your job at DoJ to aid a plaintiff you used to represent.

      It reeks of corruption and distracts from the argument when it's brought to light.

  8. Tsk, tsk by drquoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. I commend you for admitting it by r00t · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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. :-)

    1. Re:I commend you for admitting it by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When the republicans hoist up someone who has a plan for their office besides attacking abortion and gays...

      Citation please.

      OK, Republicans are against abortion, and for the most part, always will be. You see, we see it as killing babies. You may not think it's a baby, but a simple DNA test will prove that it really is a separate human than either the mother or the father. So, yeah, we see it as killing babies and will continue to stand against it. Neither a mother, nor anyone else should have the "right" to kill anyone else that is no threat and has committed no crime.

      Besides, after eight years of a Republican president, many of those with a Republican controlled congress, we still have abortions and gays. So....

      Citation please.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  10. open -- how about RIAA's new treaty? by r00t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Your First Premise WRONG: +1, PatRIOTic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. Implied conflict of interest... by argent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Doesn't matter, there's an implied conflict of interest in intervening on behalf of former employers.

  14. Re:an "ordinary citizen" can wrong a corporation by navyjeff · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I would agree with you if it were that simple. The problem is that the legal system evolves and favors those who have the resources to contend in court.

    A regular person does not have resources to fight civil lawsuits that may last indefinitely. It is not in an individual's best interest (typically) to drag out a proceeding and exhaust every legal option in pursuit of a victory. A big corporation, however, does and can benefit from it.

    If the system were rigged towards the smaller party, I agree it probably would be equally injust (see the current state of patent law).

    It would probably be helpful to the average working man if judges limited the scope of the better-funded party's arguments in a case. But that wouldn't make it just.

  15. those DOJ appointments were just plain stupid. by DragonTHC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Biden's influence . . . you think? by _critic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.