Slashdot Mirror
Obama DOJ Sides With RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Obama Administration's Department of Justice, with former RIAA lawyers occupying the 2nd and 3rd highest positions in the department, has shown its colors, intervening on behalf of the RIAA in the case against a Boston University graduate student, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, accused of file sharing when he was 17 years old. Its oversized, 39-page brief (PDF) relies upon a United States Supreme Court decision from 1919 which upheld a statutory damages award, in a case involving overpriced railway tickets, equal to 116 times the actual damages sustained, and a 2007 Circuit Court decision which held that the 1919 decision — rather than the Supreme Court's more recent decisions involving punitive damages — was applicable to an award against a Karaoke CD distributor for 44 times the actual damages. Of course none of the cited cases dealt with the ratios sought by the RIAA: 2,100 to 425,000 times the actual damages for an MP3 file. Interestingly, the Government brief asked the Judge not to rule on the issue at this time, but to wait until after a trial. Also interestingly, although the brief sought to rebut, one by one, each argument that had been made by the defendant in his brief, it totally ignored all of the authorities and arguments that had been made by the Free Software Foundation in its brief. Commentators had been fearing that the Obama/Biden administration would be tools of the RIAA; does this filing confirm those fears?"
The RIAA can't win in the courts, with advertising, or education of the young. Lobbyists haven't been able to get new laws passed. So the CEOs get their guys into the DOJ.
What did we expect?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
As a registered republican, I knew that the republicans would do everything in their power to secure the oil interests.
Now that the dems are in power, you're surprised that they are doing everything to secure the media's interests? Really?
Raise your hand if you were surprised by this posting.
He made changes with Guantanamo.
He's made changes in the tax system - albeit not enough for my tastes.
He's dealing with one of the worst economies in decades.
It looks like we're finally getting out of Iraq and maybe things in Afghanistan will improve too.
Maybe he is a tool of the RIAA. I don't know, but considering the other shit happening in this World, the RIAA and their actions are not exactly high on people's list.
I'm all for third parties myself - I voted for Barr - but I think Obama is getting much of his changes through. It's just not the "working in the system peaceful revolution" that I think many folks expected.
Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
False dichotomies are lies.
Compared to everything else....take this lovely mafia family over here...or this fair and justly operated drug ring in south america....
All far less corrupt than the fairest of governments.
"The GPL is viral by design, like any good religion."
The statement "There will never be a point in voting Libertarian." Is false and most likely flamebait.
I vote for the person that closest represents my value system and promises to do the things I would like to see done while they are in the White House. REGARDLESS of the fact that they may lose. Voting for either Republican or Democrat because "no one else will win" is not only morally bankrupt it is foolish.
There is no point voting the two major parties, they're owned by interests, not by the people.
BTW, Jesse Ventura won the governor's race as an independent so not only is your logic false, it only serves the status quo.
The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.
EXTREMELY corrupt? Compared to who?
Does it matter? Is it OK to be corrupt if some other government is more corrupt?
You won't get an expanded menu until you tell the restaurant owner you aren't buying either the chicken and rice or rice and chicken and stick to it. If you just keep buying one of the two exactly the same selections on the menu, he isn't going to change, no matter how much you ask or beg for a third or fourth or fifth choice.
With voting, you can do this. You have to crack 1% to get to 2%, then crack 2 to get to 3 and so on. We've had examples in the past where third party candidates hit close to 10%, and when that level hit and the high level corrupt goons in the R and D parties got scared, and with the help of the compliant media demonizing or outright ignoring those alternatives and hijacked congress keeping the voting regs tilted in favor of the same two parties, it dropped back down. And the media IS complicit, they only "allow" the two major parties in the so called national debates. The league of women voters dropped sponsorship of the debates over that stance and being forced to acquiesce to some other shenanigans like scripting in advance, they refused to participate any longer and called it a "fraud on the american people". The big corporate media should have had the integrity and balls to do exactly the same at the exact same time, but being mostly controlled tools and way more a propaganda arm of the establishment than being independent journalists, they didn't.
In other words, I categorically reject the notion that casting the ONE vote you have for who you really want is a waste. Maintaining that criminal gang duopoly by spending your one vote-and that is all you have realistically- on it is the only true waste (that or not voting at all) if you really don't want that criminal duopoly to remain in power. I know I have a clear conscious, been voting third or alternate party for decades now, and I can say I don't vote for the status quo of corruption and malfeasance in government as "business as usual".
If you vote for one of those back room and media picked for you political sock puppets. no matter what your reason if it is anything except really wanting that particular doofus...that's it, that is who you voted for and you are affirming their continuance of corruption and malfeasance. It doesn't matter what you think in the back of your mind, what matters is that you personally gave them a signal that what they are doing is perfectly fine. If you don't want to do that, then don't, and it is that simple.
The more people who are not made artificially afraid of that the better. I refuse to be intimidated by this threat of "wasting your vote", because I've been around long enough to clearly see the only major difference with those two criminal gangs is which of your pockets they want to pick first, and which of our born with rights they put at the head of the list to infringe on. I just slap refuse to vote in the affirmative for either of those bogus alleged choices.
First, the RIAA is basically irrelevant in this day and age. There is no need to make sure that the record labels continue. Record labels do not add anything to culture, or to the economy, artists do. The record labels do more harm than good to the artists. Back before the internet, it was important to be signed on to a record label for a few reasons.
A) Recording the song, today though, with a small investment anyone can record songs that sound about as good as professionally done songs.
B) Giving the song air time. Today, radio is a dead medium. Sure, it reaches some people, but internet radio, music video games (Guitar Hero, Rock Band, Tap Tap, etc), online promotions, YouTube, etc will reach a larger number of people, and all those do not require a record label.
C) Giving the album store space. Today, most music sales are digital, its not too hard to put a song on iTunes, Amazon MP3, etc. And while a record label will certainly help getting you into a physical store, that is not the only way.
Today, all the functions of a record label can be done by the band and a few others. There is no need to make sure the record companies survive, only the artists. Because the record companies do not help the artist, why keep them?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
If I ever met Ron Paul in person, this is something I would like to ask him about. Even though Libertarians are pro-property (copyrights and patents are in the Constitution iirc), he at the same time is very much against corporate welfare (voted against bailouts) and corporate fascism. So this new fangled IP (intellectual property) may not be so cut and dried.
I have a feeling he would have voted against all the copyright extensions and patents back in the day were not so bad when they protected implementations vs. now which is "intellectual property" vs. methods, thoughts, whatever, etc.
While I have sympathies to the pirate bay, a lot of it is just people demanding free shit which is a form of welfare if instituted on a public level. I enjoy using google books to find books and think fair use should extend to that although I don't demand the entire book for free.
One should remember while libertarians uphold private property rights, there is a real and distinct difference between private property vs intellectual property.
while it may look like a choice of rice and chicken versus chicken and rice, until you can get the menu to expand you pick one of the two or you don't eat.
What can someone do to expand this menu other than vote third party and volunteer for a third party campaign?
Revolution.
It's really depressing that so many people are this stupid. Every argument against voting third party eventually boils down to "third parties can't win" which completely misses the point.
If you're voting against what you really want just so you can brag that you voted for the winner, then you're doing it wrong. Do us all a favor and stay home next election day.
Maybe not
There's no point voting for the major parties. They're going to win anyway.
Property is theft.
From reading Slashdot, I have deduced that Libertarians are like Republicans, only without the empathy and concern for their fellow man.
Well shoot from reading Slashdot, one could deduce that women are like cars but without mufflers.
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
If said official can't be bribed for less than a million dollars, then that greatly reduces the mischief that can be done.
So wealthy corporations and private interests would be the only ones with enough money to to bribe. Exactly the way it is now. All you have done is raise the price.
There will never be a point in voting Libertarian.
1) The candidate won't win.
2) You'll only peel votes from a Republican.
3) Some of them are scarier than the devils we know.
There is always a point in voting for the person you would actually like to see in office.
1) I don't vote to be on the winning team. I vote for who i want to see in the position. Independents will never be able to win if you keep voting against people instead of for people.
2) This one is ridiculous. If you are voting for the Libertarian, you clearly dont want the republican in office, so how are you peeling a vote from the republican? If i dont want any of the people running in office, i dont vote for any of them. The lesser of two evils is still fucking evil.
3) I dont vote for scary libertarians.
i do not hold a political party affiliation. I'm not advocating voting libertarian. I'm advocating voting for anyone, regardless of party, that you think would be good in the position.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
Hell...the founding fathers knew this. They had problems with corruption right at the start. That's why the constitution has so many limits on the power of government. Limits that are just blatantly ignored today. The constitution has been under non-stop assault for decades now as the jackals in DC chip away at the protections in it. I noticed the saying "that government governs best which governs least" was not in my childrens history books. I guess it's not PC nowadays.
To take a lesson from history, the American Progressive Party never won a presidential election, but took enough votes from the Rep/Dem parties that both parties began to adopt elements of the Progressive platform.
The US army could hardly handle Iraq, which is about the size of Texas, and didn't have an armed populace at the outset of the war. The US is much larger than Texas, and we have an armed populace. We also have the national guard, which answers to the state governors. Should revolution break out, all it would take would be a few governors siding with the revolution and you've got a full scale civil war on your hands. That doesn't take into account the fact that there are nuclear installations thoughout the nation. A civil war in a nuclear armed nation probably wouldn't last long, so long as both sides had nukes. The national guard could easily take control of at least a few ICBM installations within a few hours, and it would take weeks to recall foreign based troops to put down any rebellion.
So yeah, we would have a pretty good chance. Especially with widespread public support. If there was enough support, it might even be wholly bloodless.
Now in a democracy, too, there are drones, but they are more numerous and more dangerous than in the oligarchy; there they are inert and unpractised, here they are full of life and animation; and the keener sort speak and act, while the others buzz about the bema and prevent their opponents from being heard.
And there is another class in democratic States, of respectable, thriving individuals, who can be squeezed when the drones have need of their possessions; there is moreover a third class, who are the labourers and the artisans, and they make up the mass of the people. When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob.
Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence. Then follow informations and convictions for treason. The people have some protector whom they nurse into greatness, and from this root the tree of tyranny springs. The nature of the change is indicated in the old fable of the temple of Zeus Lycaeus, which tells how he who tastes human flesh mixed up with the flesh of other victims will turn into a wolf.
Even so the protector, who tastes human blood, and slays some and exiles others with or without law, who hints at abolition of debts and division of lands, must either perish or become a wolf--that is, a tyrant. Perhaps he is driven out, but he soon comes back from exile; and then if his enemies cannot get rid of him by lawful means, they plot his assassination.
Thereupon the friend of the people makes his well-known request to them for a body-guard, which they readily grant, thinking only of his danger and not of their
own. Now let the rich man make to himself wings, for he will never run away again if he does not do so then. And the Great Protector, having crushed all his rivals, stands proudly erect in the chariot of State, a full-blown tyrant.
Plato, The Republic
Full explanation: How we'll move into tyranny
Great empires like the USA are not conquered. They decay from within. We are corrupt because we have lost social consensus. To understand that, you will have to first realize that not all of the humanities are BS and that politics/philosophy is a discipline as structured as programming. Until you overcome that bias, it will all be Greek (heh heh) to you.
Futurist Traditionalism
Typical American attitude at the moment. "Woe me, my country is going to implode and it's the most corrupt and worst place on the planet!" Fucking Americans, try living in some of these other places before whining about how bad your own place is.
But most people don't know about this. Why? Because it's painful to learn, I guess.
Although you certainly have some good flamebait attempt at the beginning, you do make a point at the end.
The reason the majority of people outside the USA are not aware (or don't care) of the USA corruption is because they are very busy living their lives coping with their governments corruption.
Also, as you didn't say (but that is the point you made), the reason USA corruption is *very*important, is because it affects several countries OUTSIDE the USA.
However, GP has some wisdom in his comment. My wife parents live in the North of Mexico, where due to the fear state imposed by and other paramiliar groups, they can't live a normal life.
The issue is that they get 'used' to it, and now you hear them saying things like "as long as you obey the rules and do not go out after it is dark, and keep a lo profile, everything is OK".
Now, the sad thing with corruption is that people in the government is *well* aware of who are these people and mostly where do they live (for example, where my Wife's parents live, there is a guy who is a renown entrepreneur but is also known to have links with drug cartels. However, police (haha, police, they are deeper in the shit) do not get him for interrogation because they know if they push, someone higher in the government will punish them (at least) or they will get "levanton" (kidnapped in the middle of the day), "tabliza" (to be hit by wooden sticks) or just disappear.
Corruption no, compromise yes. The fledgling country needed to get all the states to go along with the Constitution to have a chance at succeeding so they made compromises that were appropriate for the times. Do not judge the decisions of the 1700's by today's standards. Consider the times.
Slavery was an accepted tradition in much of the world, from east to west. Read the history of the numbers of Africans transported as slaves around the world. Many were sent to China, but where are their descendants today? Or the fact that slavery existing in parts of South America until nearly the 20th century. The fact that the northerners got slaves recognized as three-fifths of a person at all was a compromise. Slavery only officially existed in the United States for around 75 years, from the signing of the Constitution until the Emancipation Proclamation. And yet we continue to see news reports of slavery being actively practiced in parts of Africa and Asia.
The electoral college exists for a very simple reason, to ensure all states have a say in electing the President. If we did not have the electoral college and only used majority popular vote, then candidates would only need to convince the residents of the largest states/cities. The rest of the country would be ignored.
By having Senators appointed instead of elected, the Senate was not susceptible to populist sentiment. Consider how impeachment works -- the House presses charges but the Senate is the jury. Whether you agreed with the bogus impeachment trial of Clinton or not, it showed one thing: impeachment of a popular president is now a thing of the past, regardless of his/her actions. A Senate that reads polls to see what people think before sitting on a jury will never impeach a popular official. Read the writings of the founders, they envisioned Congress to be made up of citizen-statesmen who would server a short time then go back home to their business and farms. Though there were federalists at the time, most did not envision politics as a lifetime career. Add to that the fact that originally the VP was the second most popular candidate in the election, where today the candidates pick someone most people wouldn't actually want as president, folks would not want to see today's VPs taking over as President.
And as for the Bill of Rights, no where does it specify gender or race. At the time of the signing, it may have been perceived to only apply to white males, but it is not codified that way. The Constitution was conceived of and written by white males, simply because at that time in the history of the US, that is who ran things. There are a couple of uses of the masculine pronouns him and himself but most refer to people or person. Considering the banning of the use of gender pronouns in official documents in the EU just happened this week, I'd say this wasn't an attempt by the writers to mean only men were covered, it is just the writings of the times.
It always frustrates me to read and hear people make comments about actions or activities that took place hundreds of years ago using the standards and moralities of today. Looking at the world at the time of the Constitution, the fact that there even is a Bill of Rights and that the Constitution was written as a limitation on the rights of the government, not the governed, is amazing.
So instead of continuing to bash aspects of something written over 200 years ago, that have provided more opportunities and freedoms than anything else from that time period, why don't you attack those that are trying to destroy it and take away those hard won freedoms?