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."
"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
How is this offtopic?
That is a claim not a fact. It's worth repeating that since small donations do not need to be reported and Obama's fund raisers didn't for a consider portion of the campaign take even basic precautions to avoid fraud (like verifying that the person was a US citizen or that the name of the person paying for the donation by credit card was the same as the person who initiated the donation), we don't have much idea where they came from.
I really, REALLY hope you're joking if you're saying you actually BELIEVE that tripe about his campaign being funded ENTIRELY by the citizens.
Read your own link. "The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates." The organizations listed all obey at least two out of three criteria:
1.) Their employees are generally liberal.
2.) They have a lot of employees.
3.) Their employees make a lot of money.
You're not suggesting that Obama's somehow beholden to the University of California because they happen to have a lot of liberal employees?
> ..Obama's fund raisers didn't for a consider portion of the campaign take even basic precautions to avoid fraud..
There is that problem. But the bigger one is simple math. The One and his disciples tell us that small donations powered his campaign. Math says otherwise. The guy hauled in a billion dollars +/- a few percent. If we define 'small' donor at $200 it would take just how many donors to get to a Billion with a B? His own campaign isn't claiming more than 3 million donors. That barely gets over the halfway point and since a more reasonable calculation would assume most small donors gave somewhat less than $200 the percentage of his take from them drops.
And again, this is before we take into account the documented fraud in the Obama campaign's credit card processing and the rampant accounts in the blogosphere (and a few even made it into the back pages of MSM pubs) that outright money laundering was happening from foreign sources in industrial amounts. Forget all that. The basic math says fat cats giving the max plus some were the primary source of Obama's cash, just like every other campaign in history, only the media were either knowingly parroting press release spin or they are idiots who can't use a pocket calculator.
Democrat delenda est
That claim has been debunked time and time again but like most of the mythy of Obama is still put forward as fact by the faithful.
While Obama did raise a larger than normal amount through small grassroots donations, which is to be expected since he raised more money than anyone else, the largest portion of his donations still came from the same pool of wealthy contributors as every other Democrat candidate. And while he avoided PACs he did take contributions from those same industries in larger numbers than McCain (just not officially from a PAC)
While 45% of his donations did fall into the under $200 category (generally a good measurement of grassroots giving) you have to remember that Kerry got 37% and Bush 31% in that way, and as far as I'm aware, they were at least using some form of validation on their donation system, unlike Obama's system which according to credit systems experts, not only didn't use any form of validation but had to actively disable those validations that are on by default in almost all available credit card services.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
First of all, it's a threat physically (can kill the mother, especially if underage) and emotionally (postpartum depression? difficulty of life, etc)
That's not really relevant; that's not the question. Biologically, it's a parasite, or more accurately a tumor, until it's able to survive on its own. That happens at about 6 months, and I completely agree that there shouldn't be any abortion after then.
Until then, however, it's a growth with distinct DNA (like a tumor) stealing nutrients from its host.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.