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."
LOL, I have no idea who Eric Alterman is. Do you know who Richard Mellon Scaife is? He's much more germane to this discussion.
You could repaper half the White House using just the Obama covers from Time and Newsweek in 2008.
You say that like it means something. Hint: It doesn't. Two more things. If these claims of liberal media here on slashdot were backed up by any kind of evidence, I'd be more courteous, but it's just the same old fucking gut check.
Second, the media, for whatever liberalism it possessed when the term start gaining currency so many decades ago, is a lot less liberal now. See, it doesn't matterif you're right or wrong. I just know you're backing yourself into the irrelevancy corner.
So, to recap: "liberal media" was a bogeyman created almost whole cloth from billionaire money and incipient prejudice, and whatever actual value the term used to contain is even more meaningless in this internet age.
But keep bleating. Nothing important going on these days anyway, so you'll be OK.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
We wanted change that maybe made some sense and at least pretended to try to solve problems.
Libertarian ideology might be a little bit more internally coherent than Republican ideology, but that's all that its got going for it.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
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.
The second amendment is the part of the constitution which guarantees the right of militias to bear arms in their own defense. The amendment does not at any point grant an explicit individual right to gun ownership. Interpreting it as such requires a purposeful misreading of the amendment.
It is also worth pointing out that the case law of the US doesn't support the particular ruling that SCOTUS put out last year. Just as the government has the right to make certain rules related to slander and false claims without running afoul of the first amendment protections.
But, I'm sure I'll be modded a troll, because hey it's not like that first clause is of any importance.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, 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.
And you are one of the 20% who demonized him before you even knew anything about him? Figures.
Right. You are as bad as the 80% you claim "bought into HopeyMcChange's schtick". Except you are blinded by irrational hatred of Obama for some reason.
Now, I don't know who those people who "bought into HopeyMcChange's schtick" were. I didn't see any of them. But I guess you 20% see them everywhere. A bit obsessive, are we? Angry that McCain didn't win? Scared that science might just trump superstition?
Clever signature text goes here.
No one believed he could keep all his promises, or even necessarily that he'd even have time to try to keep all his promises.
What a lot of people beleived was that Bush did more to destroy the USA than all the terrorists in the world combined, McCain who was once a man of honesty and integrity sold out to the same assholes who gave us the last 8 years in order to get the nomination, and Sarah Palin shouldn't be allowed to be president of the PTA let alone president of country.
Given the choice between a man who has already sold out, partnered with a lunatic, and a man who has not yet sold out, partnered with someone who isn't as bad as Palin, the choice was fairly obvious. It does't mean Obama is wonderful, just that he's head and shoulders above our other choices.
Aside from all that, intellectual property is about the only thing the US still exports to the rest of the world and if you think that any president no matter his political beliefs is going to destroy it while that's true is fooling themselves.
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."
So basically, for americans to be 'free' - they have to have a bloodbath from time to time? This gun stuff always seems really bizarre from a european perspective. These guns are to use against tyranical authorities? So its your constitutional right to own guns, but not to actually shoot anyone... especially not the people in positions of authority that you have the guns to use against in the first place?