Slashdot Mirror
Obama Taps a 5th Lawyer From the RIAA
risingfish writes "Looks like Obama did what many organizations have asked him not to do. In a disappointing move, he has tapped a fifth RIAA lawyer to a top spot in the Justice Department."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Once he's been bought off, he STAYS bought off.
I wonder how much "donation money" we'd need to offer him to get this policy to "change."
!surprised
OJ was able to get off because he hired an incredibly talented set of lawyers.
It makes sense that those with a lot of money would hire the best lawyers. Now that Obama chooses the cream of the crop, suddenly these guys are somehow no good?
sorry, Mr. President, but you're building another nest of evil, just like Bushie did, in hiring RIAA weasels.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
If these guys are that good, then it is the RIAA's loss so that's good. Lawyer's are not usually paid to represent their own positions. They are hired by clients to represent theirs. A defense lawyer for a murderer isn't necessarily a murder or in favor of murder. The defense lawyer may even believe the client is guilty, but legal representation if still their right.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Noooooo! Obama! Noooo!!! Resist the dark side! Resist Obama! You were the chosen one!!!
Very disappointing.
There is a war going on for your mind.
I had so much hope. It's too bad I can't take my vote back.
It's not that it's simply a decision I don't agree with, it's an assault to impartiality and protecting civil arguments as civil arguments.
Everything about Obama was the example he set, it was all about making the US look good, inside and outside. This kind of action just tears it all down.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Before coming to Jenner & Block in 1997, Mr. Gershengorn served for two years in the U.S. Department of Justice, first as Special Assistant and Counsel to Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, and then as Assistant to Attorney General Janet Reno. At the Justice Department, Mr. Gershengorn worked on a variety of civil and civil rights matters, and also coordinated the Department's responses to the Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar Association, and other organizations on rules-related issues.
Full "bio" listing is here.
Big name firms took the RIAA/MPAA cases, so it's not surprising that many of these top lawyers are getting positions in the Justice Dept. While I'm completely against the RIAA/MPAA tactics, how many lawyers would turn down the payday they were throwing their way?
I am extremely disappointed, to say the least. These scum have caused huge amounts of trouble to innocent victims. The **AA's are just bullies.
I have strong feelings on this issue -- I really don't care what else Obama does, this makes a future vote for him impossible.
Federal criminal copyright statutes are right around the corner for casual filesharers.
Potheads move over, there is another class of evil felons threatening to overthrow America in this decade's War On $VOTEGARNERINGTOPIC.
Change.... people its....Change..... Hey Obama you're so fine,you're so fine you blow my mind! Hey Obama! Hey Obama!
839*929
witty quip about change here.
Good people go to bed earlier.
If you voted for him, behold your creation.
Obama Taps a 5th Lawyer in order to summon a horrifying beast!
(Someone, please, make a better "Tapping" joke then mine. I haven't touched Magic for over 10 years)
I'd like to think that despite my youthful spitting into the local Orange Julius mixer, I can't get a government job spitting into everyone's Orange Julius mixer plus a pension.
Assuming these guys are among the best lawyers in the country, who would you rather they work for?
I guess it all depends on who you are. If you're a heavy internet user (downloading illegally or not), you probably would rather they work for the U.S. government. If you happen to fit the wrong demographic group, you might prefer that they work for the RIAA.
This space left intentionally blank.
I thought he was *against* lobbying groups?
Since when has the "nerd" community ever bought into the concept of shunning someone based on their "social" standing as opposed to their talent? I remember being proud of the fact that this community used to think like I did, that talent and skill would always mean more than one's affiliation with a group. I say if this lawyer has talent, and is worthy of the appointment, what does it matter if he did work with the RIAA? Since when have "nerds" thought it was ok to ostricize people?
And I can already hear the replies, "Ohhh the RIAA is evil" and "Wahh the RIAA stolez my MP3's" and "OMG my 3m4cs p0wn the R144!"
Get a grip, if people do their jobs well, they deserve to be recognized, regardless of a minority's stance on the issues that said person was hired to work with.
"This is the value of a summer spent and a winter earned"
You don't like the fact *AA cronies now occupy the highest offices in the land? Instead of hitting iTunes and Netflix for your entertainment needs, close your wallet and head on over to The Pirate Bay. Change happens when people are pushed over the edge and many famous instances of civil disobedience proves it.
I believe people heard Obama's campaign slogan correctly.... and it wasn't even a lie. People just interpreted it incorrectly.
They were thinking, 'change we can believe in' - because it's hopeful, optimistic change. It's the kind of change we want, let's go ahead and believe in it.
What he really meant was, this is the kind of change you can believe in your incumbent government parties implementing. That is to say, very little change, which consists of generally making lawyers and rich companies richer and more powerful.
That's the only kind of change from the incumbents that we can believe it. Get it?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
. . . Same as the old Boss.
It's a broad brush, admittedly, but generally entertainment and non-defense technology have their leashes on the Democrats and oil/defense/defense-tech have their leashes on Republicans. When GWB was elected I thought that I should have gone out and bought up shares in defense and oil, only I was a poor college kid at the time, and history I think well illustrates how those bets would have paid off 2000-2008. All things considered, yes it's disappointing that this Democratic administration will likely pander to the above corporate interests, but I'll take DRM and p2p stupidity over bloody oil wars and dreams of empire any day and twice on Sunday.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
I'll reserve my judgment until the policy implications come out. Unfortunantly, some of that policy has already been shown.... http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/22/184221
It would be nice to see this question directly asked to Obama in a press conference.
You mean from capitalism to socialism
One thing any lawyer will tell you is that they work for whoever pays them. The RIAA was paying these lawyers, so they came up with arguements to prove that people owed them money. They didn't sue students and grandmothers out of evil and malice, they sued them because that's what they were paid to do. Lets not lie, the RIAA lawyers are VERY good; they have won a lot of cases and have a lot of experience in and out of court. I don't know why we wouldn't want someone like that working for the Department of Justice, so long as we don't want an inept Department of Justice (which is a different arguement entirely. Maybe we do).
they thought Obama was going to change everything in to a liberal socialist utopia, just look at what he has been doing = bailing out the same corporate entities with billions of tax payer dollars that have been in business long before Obama & his bullshit story he used when he was campaigning before he got elected, its the same old shit every politician uses to get elected - rinse & repeat every four years and the US voting population eats it up like candy. this Lawyer is just another shill of the established corporatocracy...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
The headline *really* implies that Hopey Changey is in bed with them.
How many of us are (1) against the RIAA's fascist-like tactics and (2) supported Obama?
Well, we got what we asked for with #2. How many of these shysters were all at Harvard Law together? Something smells fishy here.
The holder of the executive office is a complete sell-out. Let every person of every type know it. If there are any flag-waving african-americans remaining, you have to ask them why. I completely lost all doubt long ago.
Achievement or it didn't happen.
Nonsense, Obama uses NinnieOS! It doesn't have any spyware.
One other thing: this is the last post in this thread. Anyone posting past this point will have to answer to Vladimir Putin and his army of rabid, communist chiwawas!
Those cases just happened to make up most of his private career.
It is not required that they believe in or personally support the positions of their clients. Lawyers will gladly bite the hand of anyone who is NOT paying them.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
This strains even the very-flexible dialectic reasoning capabilities of the Obamamaniacs. Although some of them, from the early comments, appear to be doing rather well: 'the new hires were well paid, hence they must be talented attorneys; once elected, they will do a solid job furthering the Presidents Chosen Causes; the fact they worked for RIAA is irrelevant.' The reality? The industry lobby has managed to sneak this one in in order to further their 'copyright' protection agenda. This is not just a coincidence - to believe so would strain the imagination. Now excuse me while I go back to my daily self-flagellation exercises: WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH OBAMA IS THE SECOND COMING
believe in it yet?
IAALS (I am a law student):
First: While Jenner & Block has represented the RIAA before, that does not make it a "RIAA law firm". It is a full service corporate firm- the RIAA is likely one of their smaller and less important clients.
Second: The cream of the crop of law school graduates are usually the ones that end up in large law firms. Large law firms are not going to be representing the people sued by the RIAA because those people can't afford their billing rates. The fact that they are representing the RIAA has nothing to do with their personal feelings towards copyright law. If Obama wants the most qualified people, he is going to end up with ones that have previously represented corporate entities such as the RIAA.
Third: Nothing I have seen indicates that any of these "RIAA lawyers" are going to have anything to do with the more unsavory aspects of copyright law. The DOJ does not have the time or the inclination to go after 13 year old children downloading Britteny Spears. The DOJ is only after the big boys. Is it really a problem if the DOJ goes after the more notorious pirates? (those making a profit off piracy).
Becoming a {ri,mp}aa lawyer is a Nazgulian event. You don't suddenly turn into a gardener because the ring changed hands.
The current that runs through almost of the postings and comments on Slashdot is that music, once released, is in the public commons. It isn't. It never has been. Musicians are losing a lot of money because copyright is ignored and most need that money desperately. Grow up people. Pay for your entertainment and stop whining!
There were probably a lot more organzations that asked him to do exactly this.
...what if Obama is trying to shut the RIAA down by hiring all their lawyers away? Nahhh!
Did you honestly think he was going to be any better than the other candidates? Or his predecessors? Give me a break.
He's a politician. It's what he does for a living.
And you actually believed his promises?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
I fail to see how anyone could have looked at his background and failed to see a bought and paid for Chicago machine politician. I know he was "other than Bush", but really, who rationally really believed he would have been better? Just a different sort of jerk, that's all, all smooth and like most successful politicians, his acting ability carries the day for him. He has packed his economic team with wall street crooks and insiders who's main goal is to make their drinking buddies even richer and screw joe middle class to do it. His attorney general is Constitutionally unfriendly, a fascist buffoon who has ideas directly contrary to the entire bill of rights, first through the tenth. His main foreign policy gurus are that genocidal maniac pig Kissinger and that insane warhawk Zbignew Brzezinski. His chief of staff is a traitorous israel firster criminal scumbag. So he picks the worst possible lawyers to be execs in the justice department, how is that not expected?
Those of you who voted for him, you got your wish, now you can remove the rose colored glasses, piss out the last of that propaganda kool aid you drank by the gallon, and see what you really got.
In light of the completely corrupt and basically un-constitutional regime that we just got out of, how quick are some of you people to forget what has already happened in America? MY god, I read comments like "this decision makes me certain I won't vote for him again!"
Wow, I'm pretty sure for one thing, your one meesly vote doesn't mean sh1t to anyone, Obama in the slightest. And also, if you're so quick to vote whatever idiot the Republicans decide to put up in the next election, than by all means, throw your meaningless vote away to JEB Bush, none of us care.
You think in the grand scheme of things, one position in the Justice Department being given to a former RIAA lawyer means ANYTHING to the grand schemes going through Washington, and the world right now? I'm pretty sure the economy is still tanked, and that there are still American soldiers in battlezones across the globe, not to mention China and Russia, strutting around the world like the old/new SuperPowers they were/almost are.
Bah....I'm ranting a lot today, but you'd think people would have a lot more to worry about in times like these then a man's prior affiliation with a "news on slashdot" generating group. I mean come on, devote 1/10th of your concern of Obama "making a HUGGGE mistake" and focus that energy on how to fix even 1/10th of the REAL problems we have today.....I mean we're all pretty much smart people, so why not have some way to organize through what is essentially a thinktank the size of Maine's population, and put us to some good use, get us discussing things that matter.....which the RIAA, while being very bunk, just doesn't mean a whole h3ll of a lot right now.
"This is the value of a summer spent and a winter earned"
Oh wait. I didn't. I voted for libertarian-Republican Ron Paul, about the closest you will get to a Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson in today's politics.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
It makes sense that those with a lot of money would hire the best lawyers. Now that Obama chooses the cream of the crop, suddenly these guys are somehow no good?
They are paid to do their job. If their job is prosecute then they will do it to the best of their ability, if it is to defend they will do that. If deciding between prosecution and defence then they will do that. There are two sorts of lawyers, IMHO, those that will do the bidding of who ever pays them the most and the other who has principles. I get the feeling the vast majority fall into the first category.
The biggest loser here could indeed by the RIAA, since some of the best lawyers are no longer available and are now working in the interests of the federal government. I wouldn't be surprised if these now judges, formerly lawyers, are quite capable of turning the tables.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
For that implied comparison to be vaild, you have to assume the that working for NAACP during the the middle of the 20th century paid as well as the RIAA paid in the last 20 years. Somehow I doubt this, and furthermore I also doubt that during that period of time the NAACP paid better than the alternative clients he couldn't represent becasue of the the time he spent working with the NAACP. Therefore, it's very probable Thurgood Marshall did care about civil rights, and demonstratably moreso than he cared about maximizing his profits. So even the point you hoped to make through sarcasm is invaild.
By removing whatever competent lawyers remain for them it makes it even harder for them to win a case. It's win-win. RIAA loses the lawyers that enabled them to "win" these silly cases by stupid means, and the government gains a pitbull they can use to win cases. The only downside is if the pitbull/government go after cases that are not pro-human rights, common sense, etc. I leave that to be seen.
I'm so awesome I don't need a sig file -Me
Mmm, bush... Now can we get some tits in the picture to round things off? Oh, never mind, the boobs are already in office...
The Federal Government -- Bringing You More T&A Every Year!
(NB: That's probably something more along the lines of "terror and authoritarianism" than that other T&A... You know, in keeping with that jen-yoo-wine American preference for violence over sex [c.f. movie ratings, censoring, etc.].)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
What a stupid list, frankly. The fact that many of these people were vetted and had to withdraw their nominations is a sign that he is holding people to a higher standard. These aren't people who have misused their office and been forced to resign. And the Whitewater tip totally tips you off a right wing loon. And as for those who think hiring RIAA lawers == launching disastrous wars; well, I think your priorities are a bit off.
Newsflash: Just like the Republicans let you do whatever you want with your money, as long as Jesus gets your soul, the Democrats don't care what you do with your soul, as long as they get your money. I can't understand the shocked disappointment people express about the Chosen One.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
...same as the old slaves...
Except that they are beholden to different masters.
US politics is a funny thing--just like soviet-era "democracy" all the "legitimate" contenders are fundamentally the same--the only difference in the US is that they have different masters, indicated by the party name. By and large, Republicans represent the slaves of big oil and defense, whilst the Democrats represent the slaves of big unions and Hollywood.
Comfortable as their lives are made by their masters, it doesn't change the fact that they are slaves beholden to certain special interests, and that being in the position of running government enables them to remove freedoms just the same.
I'm not sure why this is surprising or disappointing to anyone. Sure, Obama is an extremely skilled orator and ran a masterful campaign, promising hope and change, but hope for who, and change to what? He emerged on the federal scene as a senator from an area heavily influenced by union-dominated heavy manufacturing (especially automotive manufacturing), and was endorsed heartily and heavily by Hollywood superstars and media giants. He overtly hinted at what his administration's attitude would be re. "intellectual property" in his selection of Biden as a running-mate and it was even dismissed here by many /.ers because he was "only the VP" and surely Obama would believe in preserving freedom of information.
Now Obama's administration is returning the favours to his masters as you would fully expect in the system as it exists. It is just exactly the same as GW Bush--people voted for a Texas governor and his running-mate with evident ties to big oil and defense contractors, then they were angry and upset when, after deposing the Al Qaida terrorists from Afghanistan with very obvious justification, went on to chase down Saddam in Iraq based on tenuous justifications.
Both Bush and Obama promised to do things very differently in their first campaigns and, well, both very much have delivered on that promise. The devil, as they say, is in the details.
The RIAA litigation campaign has been performed extremely shoddily, with scant attention paid to either rules of procedure or bar ethics rules. It's more of a quantity-over-quality thing, hoping that if they keep sending the same inadequate pleadings to hundreds of courts, a few courts will fail to see through them.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Or you wouldn't post shit like this. You claim to be liberal but believe Clinton/Mafia conspiracy theories and hate welfare? A d you think Bush's medicare scam was a benefit? Yeah, I believe that.
Change? Hope?
There are three possibilities here:
- he just sucks at gift-giving, and picked up something he had laying around the house.
- he wants to give what is most precious to his donors: intellectual property and entertainment.
- he wants to put the spotlight on how absurd it is that his gift to the queen is potentially illegal.
Fourth possibility: The issue never crossed his mind or those of his advisers.
Note that it matters. Despite attempts to criminalize copyright violation this is all about CIVIL liability. So if the copyright holders are aware of the copying there's no foul unless they think there's a foul and claim it. Given the situation, and the value of keeping Obama in their pocket, they're no doubt quite happy to treat this particular set of copies as "authorized" and let it go. They'd probably have paid for them and gifted them themselves if it wasn't more legal trouble and protocol clumsiness than the current situation.
If they're concerned about the precedent they could explicitly announce they've authorized this particular set of copies, putting the issue to rest without waiving any other rights. But I'm sure they're more than happy to watch us all waste effort wringing hands about it. B-(
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You want to know who "BOUGHT" him? Take a look and while you're at it, go look at the RIAA. You know how much they gave him? Precisely ZILCH. Their members did, though. A total of $5,250. I bet he's really shaking to repay that favor.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
... is that Washington is full of "revolving door" groups which work in the private sector for a specific company, then go into the government and work for a department in charge of regulating that same portion of the private sector. They then leave when the administration leaves and go back into the same industry. While they were in the government, they create policies, procedures, and precidents which give their industries an advantage. Obama seems interested in reform in general, but still, there are tons of great lawyers out there who have ethics and believe the RIAA is a bad thing. Why tap 5 RIAA lawyers when there is a chance they'll go back to working for the RIAA or a similar organization when they leave?
Ability counts for a lot in government, but so does position and motivation. It's not a bad thing to question if these guys, given their background, will chose to go after the RIAA for malicious prosecution, or not help the RIAA go information scrounging and threaten organizations that don't submit to warrantless searches of personal information. If the government went after the RIAA, would the RIAA accept them back? Would they be willing to find a job somewhere else?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
They have lost almost every case that they've filed, been admonished by multiple courts for incompetent practice of law bordering on fraudulent, and generally done a piss-poor job that would make a mediocre law student ashamed.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
i dunno... how much are bullets these day?
ha, ha, just a joke, folks! ;-)
A very risky joke at the best of times. But especially during the runup to fascism. It's right up there with waving at your friend Jack whom you've just noticed on the other side of the plane and yelling: "Hi, Jack!"
Security personnel are paid to have NO sense of humor. This is at least partly because REAL bad guys often talk about things as they work themselves up to doing them - and try to claim they were joking if anybody calls them on it.
Back during the "Vietnam Era" (it was undeclared so I STILL won't call it a war) there was a guy who wrote "P*ss on LBJ" on the outside of letters he sent. After a while he noticed that Secret Service agents were following him around. He confronted one and, upon finding out he was Secret Service asked him why he was being followed. Answer: "If enough people p*ssed on LBJ it would kill him."
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Now that Obama has given the order to shoot pirates...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Resist the racism!
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
These are likely very good lawyers, excellent in fact, but I do questions their ethics.
And with that I do not want them in MY Justice Department.
We'll all just have to HOPE they do the right thing..... Just like we'll all have to HOPE for a lot of good things to come out of all of these political decisions and appointments. I'm not getting my HOPE up though based on the "quality" of his appointments so far. In six months he's managed to pick how many "problem" appointees? Out of millions of people in this country he seems to have the uncanny ability to choose poorly.
I hate to say it- but Its been creeping up on me the last few months. Were we wrong about Obama?
I supported him during the campaign, and I expected that when he went into office, things would start to change for the better.
I know that things take time, but so far- what have we done? Given a shitload of money to AIG and raised taxes for people with $250,000 and more annual income?
We're still in Iraq. Guantanamo is still there. What has changed?
You could at least argue honestly. From you posts above.
"I'm a liberal by political beliefs"
" * Gary Locke: potentially-suspicious fund-raising history [michellemalkin.com]"
Liberals would not link to Malkin. Or run Fake-Barak web sites that make solely conservative points. At least be honest about you beliefs.
You also do the right wing blogger trick of using short, misleading arguments like "Daschle didn't pay taxes," Of course he paid taxes, he did fail to accurately list a car and driver as taxable income--a far different item. Which he then paid. Just like withdrawing doesn't equal resigned civil law != criminal law.
Wow..... Obama, the precious little thing of the Democratic Party, has changed masks and broken SEVERAL firm campaign promises in the first 3 months of being in office.
He has broken his promises and shown the country the hard on he has for Big Brother that he managed to hide the whole election.
Where's the change?! It's still the same corrupt, two-faced, lying, promise-breaking, Orwellian bullshit that we had to put up with during the Bush years.
Obama: What a fucking joke.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
I really hope "taps" doesn't mean what I think it means.
Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
They haven't curtailed sales; ammo sales are up just like firearms sales. It's just that demand and prices are higher, but even with a small increase in supply, stores are bought out as soon as the stuff gets on dock. That's why your walmart is out; everybody who sells ammo is experiencing a big rush with people buying cases at a time as soon as it shows up. Total rounds sold have gone up, but it doesn't look like it because the shelves are empty.
I've heard that most manufacturers have gone to three shifts, and I think a couple of them are considering opening up new production lines.
Incidentally, what did you buy? I'm looking at getting into reloading myself (if I can find primers), and in the meantime have dropped to shooting rimfire almost exclusively. It's hard to justify casually expending $.40/round, particularly when you can't easily replace it.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
How is this any different than companies hiring 'ex' hackers to work on a security or development team for a chance to join the 'good guys'?
If you had said said, here is a list of nominees withdrawn, I would not think you a troll. But you said "Obama appointees who had to resign"
Non of them were confirmed, non of them could therefore have resigned. Change that, you are at least an honest right-winger.
I'm a liberal by political beliefs, but I am here to tell you that I have seen a disgusting media spin trying to tell you the past 8 years that all Republicans are evil, and all Democrats are perfect. I work for a newspaper, and I am saddened by the lack of any objective journalism is today's society.
Are you sure you're not confused by the facts that Republicans had (a) largely been in charge of the country for eight years and (b) had really, really screwed up?
Because not only do I recall a pretty different story -- and don't think it'd be hard to come up with examples of Democrat-focused criticism and Republican praise in the mainstream press -- it's arguably completely reasonable to have had a press that's been quite focused on the problems with Republican governance for most of the new millenium, given that until less than 3 months ago, Republican governance is exactly what we've had.
I'd go farther: it wouldn't have been partisan to have avoided giving even a single line of criticism to Democrats from 2000-2006. You put your critical focus where the power is, and the Democrats simply didn't have it then (they barely had a reasonable claim to power from 2006-2008, given that the executive can largely ignore or stare down anything other than very determined and unified congress).
I am curious how and why you think only one party is evil.
Certainly both parties have issues with political corruption. The Republicans also sport a political philosophy which is often essentially anti-social. Which one you think is more evil probably depends on whether you prefer certain flaws to be clearly labeled and/or whether you also have an essentially anti-social political philosophy. But in any case, right now I suspect political philosophy has less to do with the whole issue than coming out of a long period of Republican governance with some markedly ugly episodes. They *look* more evil because their mistakes and corruption are more recent and visible. If we get through an equal period of Democratic governance with qually terrible mistakes and equally visible corruption, I suspect the pendulum will swing.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Right, Bush is one of those slick greasy MBA types. Completely different I'm sure...
Following same logic, bin Laden should be named as anti-terrorist chief of operations.
After some of the documents that the DHS has lately leaked out of their "Fusion Centers", I'm inclined to think he's found somebody even more "appropriate".
FYI: "Fusion Centers" are interagency training and intelligence groups where the DHS and FEMA train the state, county, and local law enforcement. They've recently been caught feeding them two documents claiming people who voted for Ron Paul or a third party candidate, have such a bumper sticker on their cars, and listing a number of other "signs" (like wanting to audit or regulate the Federal Reserve, opposing the bailouts, pushing to lower taxes or government spending, ...) are probably right-wing extremists and members of white-supremacist militias and likely to shoot at police during traffic stops. (The second was funny in that it used the phrase "right wing extremist" in virtually every paragraph. If you say it often enough...) Also a third one making similar claims that anybody who wears Muslim clothing or goes to a mosque is probably a terrorist and out to kill first-responders.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Verify that on claim for me, and I'll use all my karma to uprate you. Show me that Daschle didn't pay any taxes, because that is what the sentence you typed says.
The "Fact" is, Dashcle paid income-tax, sales-tax, property-taxes, and probably a few others. He did make a mistake in not listing a car and driver as income. A mistake that cost him a job.
But it didn't make him resign; he never had the job. It didn't make him a criminal; he re-paid the IRS and it was a civil, not a criminal, matter.
It is also important to draw a distinction between a fact, and a half-correct pseudo-fact spun for political purposes..
... but the light side is sticky.
(Wait. That's duct tape!)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Come on, you don't really think he hired all those people because of some personal RIAA fetish, do you?
I'd bet on a front organization with a vague but nice-sounding name. It could be named something like "People for Democratic Change in America" or the "American Change 2008 Committee". This is the norm for fake grassroots fundraising and PR.
Elian Gonzales? Ruby Ridge? Waco?
We could be in for REALLY interesting times...
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
There are alternatives. Everybody could have told you Obama's a demagoge 15 years ago.
Before he even held office? Or is that just your way of telling us you're full of shit?
Kinda like how Benito didn't make the Italian trains run on time. He made the Italian press SAY he'd made the trains run on time.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So from reading peoples comments I if I hire a lawyer I now work for who ever hired that lawyer before me?
If I hire a lawyer that defended a sex offender to defend me, now I'm scum too?
If I hired lawyer that worked for a patent troll to defend my patent, now I'm scum too?
We're not supposed to hire "good" (as in wins for their client) lawyers, we're supposed to hire "good" (only works for moral clients, regardless of their skills)? Really?
Cause I'll be honest with ya, if I was in court I'd rather win.
Unlike my argumentative posts, this is an honest question to those people arguing both sides are exactly the same. Is the answer simply to stop trying to make either side better? Vote not for the lesser of two evils, but just don't vote or vote 3rd party so you maintain the right to complain?
I must admit, I'd rather argue passionately. Then again, I guess I'd also like to argue policy and outcomes--not who people used to work for before they got hired, as if the RIAA's misdeeds were the worst threat the US or world is facing right now.
Just which definition of 'tap' is being used here?
Have gnu, will travel.
When GWB was elected I thought that I should have gone out and bought up shares in defense and oil, only I was a poor college kid at the time, ...
Next time you have such an insight, buy call options.
They're a pure bet that stock prices will rise above a specified threshold before a specified date. You get all the gain beyond the threshold plus your buy-in price and transaction costs (or maybe sell the bet to somebody else for a different price before it expires) and can't lose more than you bet.
Downside is that the price of the options is set by other betters, usually with a better idea of the market than you have. But if you call a major move correctly you can get ENORMOUS leverage without being caught in a squeeze if your bet goes wrong.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"All your base are belong to us."
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Many of the policies passed in the Clinton years, with the help of a Republican congress, led us to our current economic meltdown. Obsessing about Whitewater distracts from looking at actual policies and outcomes. One reason I supported Obama was that he wasn't Hillary Clinton--although again, I dislike her policies.
Obama may yet prove a failure and dissapointment. But 3 months in I'm not willing to declare him one on the basis of withdrawn nominations--or even RIAA hires.
I'll take Obamas record over Bush's.
http://thedcshuffle.com/2009/02/11/complete-bush-appointee-resignation-scorecard/
Sickening. I hope the Oval Office's latest corporate whore feels good about himself. Millions of stupid fucking Americans deserve no better than you Mr. Obama.
When you get audited, and they find mistakes, they give you a chance to pay what you should have paid. If you don't, they then take you to civil court, and get a court order to pay the owed amount, plus interest and penalties.
If you ignore the court order, you go to jail. Or, if they can prove you knowingly lied to them in any of the above proceedings.
Neither happened in Dashcle's case, or in thousands of like them that happen each year. Show me one case where someone is in jail for failure to list income on their taxes. I'll wait...
(And it's quoting Micelle Malkin while claiming to be a Liberal that makes you a loon.)
"At some point Obama and his supporters will have to stop using Bush to justify their own poor decisions. "
You know, I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. But until these gentlemen do something wrong, I'm not willing to throw the Obama administration away just because he hired someone that once worked for the RIAA.
Also, I'll stop mentioning Bush when Republican's stop mentioning Clinton. It's been 8 years and they still bring him up. I think Dems deserve at least another month to bash Bush.
My karma's going to burn for this thought, but lawyers generally do what's in the best interest of whomever their client is... if the *AAs said, "make a rock-solid contract that essentially screws the artists while ensuring we rake in the dough," then that's what the lawyers will (and do) do. Who's to say those lawyers will maintain their practices when not in the employ of the labels anymore....... never mind, who am I kidding?
But Maaa! Everyone else has a
They have to option of just refusing to take these jobs just like you and I do.
The Lawyers guild is now in complete control of the USA.
I would not piss on a lawyer if he was on fire. Sorry to Ray about that but that is how I feel.
Looks like we are destined to live in interesting times.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
I want my vote back, damnit. :-/
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Some days it's brown, some days it's green. Obama is no different. He's still shit of a different color but shit nonetheless with his own agenda which is by no means aligned with the best interest of the nation. Face it, so long as we have a two-party system we will only swing from one form of one-sided extremism to the other. It can never be any different. I despised "W" for his erosion of Constitutional liberties but if all of you idiots who voted this looser in think it's going to get better *think again*. We haven't seen the brunt of what this socialistic, lying motherfucker has in store for us. Sad thing is I have zero confidence remaining that there will exist a better alternative if we make it to the end of his four or eight years. We are fucked on levels we cannot even begin to imagine.
"Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr plans to tell Congress today that President Clinton misused 'the machinery of government' and 'thwarted the search for truth' in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally interfere with Paula Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit and Starr's subsequent criminal investigation," the Washington Post reported in 1998.
"But in a 58-page prepared statement to be delivered at the opening of impeachment hearings, Starr acknowledges for the first time that he has not found enough evidence to accuse the president of criminal conduct in the Whitewater financial venture that generated his appointment in 1994 or in a host of other allegations he has investigated since then."
Read http://books.google.com/books?id=DPNYQBwQ7uoC From more debunking.
Don't get upset when the person you voted for, solely based on slogans, turns out to be worse than what you had before. Next time research your vote.
At first read, I thought you said a "filth" RIAA lawyer. That made more sense to me.
Representation is not transitive.
As far as the legal system is concerned, a client is represented by their lawyer, but the lawyer is not represented by the client.
So this guy isn't RIAA, they hired him to do his job in court.
The breathless, finger-pointing, spittle-flying criticism of Gershengorn and Obama is like saying a lawyer who once represented an obvious criminal is incapable of defending an innocent man ...and that anyone who hires him MUST be as crooked as his previous client. Right. Doesn't fly.
I'm just going to copy some Joe Schmoe's comment from Wired:
"Do you guys have any idea how the legal field works?
Jenner & Block is a pretty reputable law firm. The RIAA, an organization which disgusts me, hired Jenner & Block as outside counsel to represent them. At that point, the law firm and the firm's lawyers have a fiduciary duty to represent their client zealously. Even if a lawyer personally dislikes his or her client, he or she still have a duty to be a strong advocate.
The reason the Obama administration is picking up these lawyers is the same reason the RIAA did, because they are good. These lawyer's personal political opinions quite often differ drastically from their clients. I have no idea what Gershengorn's personal opinion is regarding alleged copy right infringement, but I am nearly certain that he is not an RIAA sock puppet -- not to mention, he and his firm are outside counsel anyway.
If anything, you all should be happy that the RIAA's outside counsel is losing skilled lawyers."
Get it now? Probably not, given the amount of spoon-fed pap you willingly consume and regurgitate from every shoddy, deceptive, and inflammatory story you read... or did you even RTFA?
Law = Protect your clients best interest within the confines of the legal system. Business = protect your stakeholder's interests (stakeholders is not exclusive to stockholders and thus why so many corporations fail in this regard) Doctor = Do no harm. Politician = Win at all costs; seriously have any of us ever seen a politician demonstrate a strong ethical standard? The fact that a lawyer did his job while working for a given client shows he is of strong ethical standing and worthy of hiring. Who he chose to work for is a moral issue which by definition has no place in his profession.
Obama has been supporting a new Copyright Treaty developed with several other countries. Who could be better than former RIAA lawyers to prosecute those charged under the new nationwide Copyright regulations? As I understand it the new treaty does not distinguish between violators. Children are as guilty as commercial operations. It will be chilling to see the changes in the internet here in the US that come with this. Do not get caught on the wrong side of these new laws!
He pimps white women AND black women.
Filesharing can never be stopped, no matter how many hissy-fit lawyers they have.
The NAACP was a damn good place to work, better than most other opportunities.
Where aaaaaaaaaare you, Lessig?
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
It covers all of that as well. Remember, Star was investigating Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, ect.
Despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent, he nailed Bill for being a lier. He was forced to admit the rest did not have evidence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons.
You could also try this rundown: http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politics/obama_and_the_clinton_scandals.php
"For instance, Daschle didn't pay taxes"
This from your post above. Your exact words. You repeated it in multiple other posts. So I didn't say that, you did.
If you said, he didn't pay all his taxes; even that would be only part right. You assume it was criminal, not negligent, but you have no facts to back you up.
The best would be to say, he didn't pay all his taxes until the mistake was pointed out to him--after which he did. Because he has in fact paid the IRS back.
You didn't know Obama was owned by the RIAA before he got elected.
I fully expected this. I also expect him to negotiate the ACTA to the fullest extent possible to benefit business and hurt the people. Then I expect him to sign any law implementing it.
I also expect him to take his RIAA "campaign contributions" during the next election cycle.
"Unless Obama wants the same crap as the last administration"
What makes you think he doesn't? You believed his BS about a vague concept of "Change"?
No offense. When it comes to politics me being jaded and cynical makes me right most of the time.
Apparently you ignorance goes deeper than tax law. Civil law and criminal law are separate branches of the law. People who violate civil laws aren't usually considered criminals.
You do not violate the law when you fail an audit. You only violate it when you don't pay what the audit showed you owe.
You are not, for example, a criminal for getting a speeding ticked. You owe a fine. If you pay the fine, nothing happens. It's only if you failed to pay the fine you might face jail time, and that would be extremely rare.
Just so you know, my father is a tax lawyer.
"I did a Google search and took the first result to quickly compile a list."
Did you meant to attach a list, because it isn't there that I can see.
...turn off, tune out. Don't buy music, don't steal music, let them have their own world and do not participate in it. Get together with friends, make music on your own, share with your family and on and on. If you can't do that, STFU, you are part ot the problem. Only by cutting them off will you win. Otherwise, you fail.
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
Seems strangely arbitrary in this thread. Well, not arbitrary; weighted against anyone who might no hate the RIAA, or Obama due to the RIAA.
I'm not turning away, as far as I know. If these lawyers do evil, I'll complain, but I don't see how hiring people who's firm worked for the RIAA automatically means Obama has done "Crap."
And I don't think he can fix the economy, shut down Guantanamo, win the war on terror, and buy me a pony in only three months. So far he seems to be working hard on everything but the Pony.
Obama is a tool just like Bush was, see: Movie - The Obama Deception, by Alex Jones
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
We face so many problems economically, socially, and politically that I find it odd that even Slashdotters respond to this so passionately. You regret you Obama vote because of this?
I mean, the RIAA is ripping off both artists and consumers, yes. But I'd dare say they are doing less damage than our opponents in Afghanistan, or the bankers blackmailing the government for money to cover their own bad bets.
Even when it comes to tech issues, it seems like infrastructure and access and a host of other issues are more important than the RIAAs bad behavior. Would you really just vote for anyone that doesn't hate the RIAA, despite any other issues?
Shouldn't we wait and see what these lawyers do in the administration?
I guess this community is what it is, but there sure seems to be an odd and misplaced anger over this.
Stephen Colbert's brother is a lawyer, and recently was on TCR and in response to the question "So who's right?" answered "That depends: who's paying me?"
There are some lawyers who take up a cause because they believe in it, like Lawrence Lessig. But the vast majority are working for a paycheck and if they're directed to prosecute someone or defend someone, they'll tend to do it. The "golden rule" often applies for lawyers. Not the "do unto others" version, but the "he who has the gold makes the rules". They tend to be beholden to their employer.
That doesn't mean I'm happy to see Obama hiring lawyers from RIAA, but let's keep a little perspective, too.
I guess this community is what it is, but there sure seems to be an odd and misplaced anger over this.
I support and approve of President Obama generally.
But seeing him appoint 6 people from the same law firm to the Department of Justice, mostly to very high positions in that department, who were working on and supporting a legal campaign that was frivolous, meanspirited, unnecessary, based on nonexistent legal theories, and unsupported by evidence, and which represented an abuse of our federal judicial system, was a serious mistake on his part IMHO.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I didn't add a word, you are somehow expecting your reader to add the word "all" or "some" to the quote "Daschle didn't pay taxes."
If I said, "I didn't eat lunch," would you assume that meant I skipped desert, or that I hadn't eaten anything at all for lunch?
You kept saying you dealt in facts, yet you said people resigned who never had jobs; and in Gupta case were never even nominated. You used phrases like "didn't pay taxes" because you know it made it sound worse than it actually did.
And when I quote you, you say I need to argue with what you actually said. To remind you, you said "Please enlighten me how the parent list is untrue in any facet."
I chose Daschle example because it seemed easy. I could just as easily attacked the "potentially-suspicious" quote. As if having a partisan blogger attack you was reason you should be kept from government. Or Whitewater, or any number of other aspersions masquerading as facts.
Whatever your politics, you argue like a right winger. You assume your opinions are facts, that google-searches and anecdotes are the same as research and that any challenging of your ideas is a dishonest attack.
How can you claim to be surprised by this? Obama is a lawyer whose alligence lies with the side of the lawyers and entertainment industry.
Obama will say that "We're not discussing that. We're discussing the topic i want to discuss" and move on to somebody that will ask him a nice easy question
Odd, if I keep it to one point; you argue the bigger picture. If I argue bigger picture, you switch to one point.
But ignoring the larger points, I said:
If I said, "I didn't eat lunch," would you assume that meant I skipped desert, or that I
hadn't eaten anything at all for lunch?
You said "Daschle didn't pay taxes," I pointed out all the taxes he did pay to show that phrase was untrue.
If I say, "You didn't sleep with women," and you say "I'm married with three kids" I can't back and claim I never said you didn't have sex with any women, just not all women.
I'm sorry you have trouble writing what you mean to say.
And I am home. And I'm kind of having fun.
These lawyers have represented an unscupulous industry by applying unethical and even illegal tactics to extort money from people who are unable to afford to defend themselves. Not once, or twice, but thousands of times. When confronted with proof of their shady tactics, they then move to dismiss so they can refile in another court. When pressed for explanations, they lie outright.
Regardless of what your take on the RIAA is, these are simply NOT the sort of people who should be running any department with "justice" in the name. And it's interesting to note that the "cream of the crop" have yet to actually have a win anywhere that has stood up. Their only successes are when the victim caves in to the extortion.
Oh, he's so technology-savvy! He's so pro-change! We like change! We like technology! IT'S THE INTERNET, LET'S VOTE FOR HIM! YAAAAAY! I'd enjoy watching the segment of our geek/nerd population that voted for him getting shafted like this, but I'm too disgusted - mostly because I'm a geek too, and now I have to suffer along with the rest of you who should have known better than to take someone like him at face value.
Simply put, some people's lives are a net loss to society.
You suggest "babysitter", but imagine the outcry when some bonehead abuses the kids. Imagine a babysitter who locks a kid in a shed all day, quiets a screaming baby with heroin, or gives all the kids a disease.
Your other suggestions aren't much better. Some people simply aren't fit to be employed anywhere, and no amount of effort will fix that.
Our general "solution", if you can call it that, is to have these people in and out of prison until they get themselves killed somehow. They commit crime to support themselves: muggings, theft, identity theft, etc.
We don't have the balls to just euthanize the worthless trash. Instead, we let them live shitty lives while harming society.
Rosa Brooks. This twit worked for George Soros and is now going to be an adviser to Michele Flournoy the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon. She'll have high-level security clearance and will doubtless be feeding radical One World Order elements intel and state secrets.
Although Daschle may (or may not) have known that he violated tax rules and regulations, deliberatly violating rules by public officials (or former officials in a quid-pro-quo) in a way that might be considered corruption can result in severe enforcement actions. Non-reporting of income that could be considered lobbying payments by a former senator is certainly suspicious behavior. This isn't like peons like us forgetting to list a 1099 (or not delcaring a $250K of complementary car services as income).
Anyhow...
PS. Oh, yeah, and by the way I'm an enrolled agent (EA)...
I honestly didn't think Obama would betray us all like this. I even considered voting for him. I'm glad I didn't vote for him, because if I had voted, I would be blaming myself for contributing to this.
When both candidates are evil, its best not to vote, because at least you can rest soundly knowing that you didn't assist them.
Hopefully this makes sense.
Well, before one passes judgment, it is worth thinking about the fact that eg. Wernher von Braun worked for Nazi Germany, producing missiles that were subsequently rained on London; he then went on to work for the US gov't and helped us reached the Moon. I dare say he was tainted by his association with the Nazi-regime, but I think helping us into space counts as good, none the less.
Also, it is probably not a bad thing that RIAA lose their best legal minds.
Third: Nothing I have seen indicates that any of these "RIAA lawyers" are going to have anything to do with the more unsavory aspects of copyright law. The DOJ does not have the time or the inclination to go after 13 year old children downloading Britteny Spears. The DOJ is only after the big boys. Is it really a problem if the DOJ goes after the more notorious pirates? (those making a profit off piracy).
Sadly, Obama's administration does take time to go after the little guys (in this case, siding against a former Boston U. student in support of $15k damages per song).
People aren't just concerned about him hiring lawyers that chase dollars rather than justice -- people are concerned that he's continuing in an established precedent that is selling its copyright ethical soul to the highest bidder. If this were "just an standard top-of-the-class lawyer who worked on questionable cases", that would be one thing. The problem is that a lot of Obama voters are extremely disappointed in the way that they feel he's not giving "change" at all, but rather more of the same pro-exploitative-business and anti-citizen policies that they've been so frustrated for years past.
It's only been 12 weeks, and he's already made an extremely disappointing track record of appointments. Let's try to remain hopeful, and continue asking for change.
Even if you don't cast a ballot, it's impossible to not have helped one candidate or the other.
And besides, why would you not vote for your local politicians (who may have more bearing on your life) simply because you don't want to vote for one particular office?
These guys list the #1 specialty of their Entertainment and New Media group as file-sharing cases (including suits against both companies and "individual infringers"). They work very hard to build up a top-notch legal department that specializes in suing college students for $15k / song.
They're not just accepting the RIAA as a client -- they're actively seeking them, and intentionally encouraging clients that they can get away with distorting the intent of the law on the books, as long as they get paid enough money.
You don't like the fact *AA cronies now occupy the highest offices in the land? Instead of hitting iTunes and Netflix for your entertainment needs, close your wallet and head on over to The Pirate Bay. Change happens when people are pushed over the edge and many famous instances of civil disobedience proves it.
Going to the Pirate Bay isn't civil disobedience any more than robbing a store is civil disobedience. If you truly had the courage of your convictions, you'd simply abstain from copyrighted movies and music. What you're advocating is simply an excuse, a convenient cover to not pay for it. You're just a cheapskate using politics as a justification not to pay for those services.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I'll never forget that day. He said, "You, you must be almost 30... have you ever kissed a girl?"
It was one of the blackest days of my life.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"I'd bet on a front organization with a vague but nice-sounding name."
Which would itself be subject to reporting requirements. There's a reason the site is called "open secrets." The buying and selling of political influence is done pretty openly in this country. When 3/4 of a billion dollars of campaign bribes are openly reported, it's pretty hair-splitting to start mincing over some speculative b.s. for which you have precisely zero direct evidence.
There's more value in political horsetrading than blatant palm greasing. If you're looking for conspiracies, don't waste your time looking at the books. Look at the legislation.
On the head?
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.