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."
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
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.
You realize these lawyers no longer support the RIAA, right? They have a new client.
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.
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.
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).
And, from what I have read, it is the people who are being sued by the RIAA/MPAA that are doing questionably legal things. Until legislation changes things or a new legal precedent is set, it's been made pretty clear that if you get caught downloading or sharing movies/mp3s, you can and most likely will get sued. (and lose.) And, as far as I've read, the laws and precedents support this. (IANAL)
The lawyers' jobs are to best serve their clients. Can you argue that they've done anything but that?
Finally, if you find me a lawyer that hasn't lied in court, I'll give you a gold star.
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
... 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"
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
The fact that Bush also pardoned people doesn't prove that Bill Clinton didn't pardon mafia heads whose families donated to him, or major federal drug dealers.
Find me a name that Bush pardoned who was a known mafia member whose family donated to Bush, and then all you will have proved is my parent point, that both sides are dirty. But at the moment, all you are doing is diverting from the fact that you were spouting BS personal ad hominem partisan attacks while my point flies above your head.
It is dangerous to assume one party is evil and the other is perfect, which you are so determined to prove for me. Thanks.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
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?
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
...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.
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