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."

Comments

Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[bigstrat2003]

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.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[macraig]

Have you not noticed or already blanked-out the fact that it was Obama's new administration that placed these RIAA lawyers in the DOJ in the first place? A Slashdot reminder of that fact was linked right in the article above.

You call it "optimism", but I call it "delusion".

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Raistlin99]

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"

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheGeniusIsOut]

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."

Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[elrous0]

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.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[elrous0]

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.

The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises

[snarfies]

You can track the progress of Obama's many campaign promises at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ - its pretty interesting.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[Red Flayer]

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.

open -- how about RIAA's new treaty?

[r00t]

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.

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:That's not even possible...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

...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.

:)

But seriously, the actual damages are around 35 cents per download. (70 cent wholesale price minus ~35 cents expenses=35 cents lost profits). The now discarded Jammie Thomas verdict was 23,000 times the actual damages (9250 per song file).

Interestingly, when the record companies are defendants they sing a different tune, complaining that even 10 times the actual damages is unconstitutional.

Re:an "ordinary citizen" can wrong a corporation

[navyjeff]

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.