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."

Comments

Well I'll say this for Obama

[Moryath]

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."

Re:Well I'll say this for Obama

[Amazing Quantum Man]

That's the definition of an "honest politician". Of course, being from the Chicago political machine, he probably learned that early in his career.

Re:Well I'll say this for Obama

[Icegryphon]

You assume he did not have this stance before he got elected.
I seem to remember Hollywood and Obama going hand in hand,
gotta love a $28500 a plate for Barbra Streisand.
But I already knew this he was like this before hand, because I didn't fool myself.

Lawyers represent their clients

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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?

Re:Lawyers represent their clients

[Shatrat]

So do politicians.
A vote makes you a constituent, but a huge donation makes you a client.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients

[ArcherB]

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?

I'm sure these are excellent lawyers, but that won't make them "good".

Do you think these guys are suddenly going to change their tune after arguing against freedom for years? (Free as in information, not as in beer.)

Something else to note: These guys have been defending using extremely questionable methods to gather "evidence" for years. I'm sure that experience goes a long ways in the Justice dept. You think pulling an old lady who doesn't own a computer up on charges for sharing music over the Internet was bad... wait until they have the power of the NSA/CIA/FBI behind them.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients

[internerdj]

While their past actions in the employ of the RIAA might make them good lawyers, the complete disregard for both justice and the standard of law in this country pretty much makes them crappy appointments for the JUSTICE department.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients

[pavon]

I have a very hard time believing that the best lawyers in this country all specialized in the same subset of the law, let alone were all hired by a single entity. While these folks certainly have studied other aspects of the law, and have had other clients, the bulk of their recent experience is all the same.

Even if all the lawyers Obama appointed used to work for the EFF & FSF I would still be concerned, because the DOJ needs a wide base of experience, not just IP law.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients

[should_be_linear]

Following same logic, bin Laden should be named as anti-terrorist chief of operations. Who knows better how terrorists plan their attacks on innocent people?

Re:Lawyers represent their clients

[canajin56]

Also this guy used to be in the Justice department until the changing of the guard in 2001. I wonder if the RIAA was as worried about hiring a firm that employed a pro-civil-rights lawyer, as alarmists are now that he's back in the Justice department...

Re:Lawyers represent their clients

[Shakrai]

While he hasn't proven he can out-Bush Bush in this particular area (see warrantless wiretaps and Internet security)

Obama voted for the legislation that ended any possibility we had of discovering the Bush abuses in this area. I'd say that he's at least his equal and will probably "out-Bush" him in the years to come. No reason to oppose expansions of Executive Power if you are the Executive, is there?

Re:Lawyers represent their clients

[dgatwood]

Lawyers are not required by law to take cases except possibly as public defenders. You're right that we shouldn't paint lawyers who defend people with the same brush as their clients. However, when the client in question is filing the charges, when their lawyers are knowingly (or unknowingly and completely incompetently) introducing illegally-obtained evidence, etc., then yes, we should paint the lawyers with the same brush.

There's no grey area here. You either have a sense of morality or you don't. If you choose to represent somebody in suing a 66-year-old grandmother, an 83-year-old dead person, and a 12-year-old girl for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, then you have the morals of a jellyfish.

We're not talking about going after commercial music piracy---one corporation suing another corporation (or nearly so). We're talking about companies that maliciously use laws intended to prosecute commercial piracy against ordinary people, that frequently sue completely uninvolved people, that have gross disregard for the legal process, etc. The lawyers themselves either hired unlicensed investigators (in which case the lawyers behaved illegally) or accepted evidence from them without looking into the background of the investigators (in which case the lawyers are completely inept). Either way, introducing such evidence should be grounds for disbarment in and of itself, but instead of throwing these dirtbags out on the streets where they belong, Obama is hiring these leaches on society as the highest lawyers in our land....

There's a point at which someone shows such reckless disregard for the law, for right and wrong, and for humanity in general that we can no longer give them the benefit of the doubt. RIAA lawyers crossed that line many, many years ago and have been sinking progressively farther below that line with every passing day.... I'm appalled that Obama would choose people like this to head the DOJ. You cannot hire people who knowingly violate the law to win cases as our nation's highest lawyers. That's like hiring Hitler to head up the anti-defamation league. It just doesn't make sense, and it is this very sort of practice that causes sleazebags like Ted Stevens to be let off the hook due to prosecutorial misconduct. Unless Obama wants the same crap as the last administration, he needs to seriously rethink his hiring strategy.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients

[jlarocco]

The goal should be to make things better. Swapping out Bush's poor choice of appointees for equally poor choices doesn't really get us any where.

At some point Obama and his supporters will have to stop using Bush to justify their own poor decisions. Yes, Bush made horrible decisions. Yes, Bush was an idiot. Yes, Bush was a bad president. That's why everybody hated him and why so many people were excited about Obama changing things - it was implied that he meant change for the better. So it's a bit disappointing to see Obama make poor choices and then have those choices justified with "But look what Bush did," or "It's okay because we're no worse off than with Bush." Pointing out that somebody else did something stupid doesn't make their own choices any less stupid.

Now let the RIAA find replacements

[Old97]

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.

Re:He's lost my vote in next election

[Helios1182]

You realize these lawyers no longer support the RIAA, right? They have a new client.

So their affiliation negates their talent?

[S7urm]

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.

Re:So their affiliation negates their talent?

[CodeBuster]

I say if this lawyer has talent, and is worthy of the appointment, what does it matter if he did work with the RIAA?

Agreeing to work for an organization that many of us find morally and ethically repulsive calls into question the ethics and judgment of the lawyers who do so. A lawyer is supposed to be an officer of the court (albeit one in private employ) who is obliged to represent his or her client(s), yes, but to do so within the framework provided by the law and according to the rules. The RIAA lawyers, by their abusive tactics, willfully and knowingly flouted the rules (rising in some cases to the level of rule 11 sanctions) and did damage to the law in service of their clients and that is what is so morally and ethically reprehensible, because without the rule of law and fair justice in this country, we are no better than any other politically motivated two-bit dictatorship on this planet.

Another factor in the special ire reserved for the RIAA by the nerds is the potential and actual collateral damage caused to the computer hardware, software, and technology industries in general by the ongoing RIAA litigation and their lobbying for particularly onerous and abusive new legislation when they are unable to enforce their will in court under the existing laws (i.e. if you don't like the way the game is playing, then cheat...change the rules). In their attempts to defend the business models of last century they are doing considerable damage (witness the DMCA) to the practice of free computing and open source software development and they couldn't care less. It is this casual and wanton attitude regarding aggrieved third parties and wrongly accused people that singles them out as being especially vile.

So you ask us why we are unable to separate the individual lawyers who agreed to work for them from the larger RIAA agenda? There is your answer

Cut off the money supply

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Cut off the money supply

[Ethanol-fueled]

Don't forget to donate your music allowance to the EFF and TPB.

Re:Cut off the money supply

[Svartalf]

Don't even go there... TPB is part of the problem- RIAA and the associated companies use that as an excuse for more evil crap inflicted upon us. While you're "cutting off their air supply", they're well off enough that they will do lots of damage on the way down and the only way to minimize that is to not give them ANYTHING to use as a rationale for their actions.

Don't.
Use.
Their.
Crap.

If you want music, there's quite a bit of indie (honestly so...) stuff on places like payplay.fm and others like it. Send a robust message- you don't want ANYTHING to do with the RIAA members or those that do business with them. Videos aren't there yet, but in the same vein, all it'll take is the same sort of movement- videography gear has gotten into the same basic space as the audio gear and software and should be following suit as people figure this out.

Re:Cut off the money supply

[Duradin]

Or you could do something *legal* and support non-??AA artists.

Supporting iTunes, Netflix, eMusic and friends shows that there are people that will pay for content delivered digitally.

Hitting up TPB for things available through legal outlets just shows that you're some whiny brat who wants to eat his cake and have it too, for free. You want ??AA backed artists but you don't want to pay for them. Not downloading anything, anywhere would be better than giving the ??AA the finger and setting a course for Scandinavian trackers.

(And generally civil disobedience only works when it isn't a convenient thing to do for the protester. Sitting in the white only section of a bus with a good risk of getting ejected, beaten or both is civil disobedience. Getting music for free, not so much.)

Re:Cut off the money supply

[MaWeiTao]

No... The way you protest is by having some principles and acquiring this entertainment illegally or otherwise. All you're doing is showing that there is demand for this content. Downloading content illegally is telling the entertainment industry that all they need to do is keep working towards more stringent DRM.

All they need to do is make it so difficult to find and use illegally obtained content that most people will just give in and start paying for it.

Being principled means being able to sacrifice your entertainment needs to make a message. If people want to make a statement they need to be more vocal. They need to set up protest sites, not download content illegally. They need to organize demonstrations.

Otherwise you're part of the problem.

Re:Cut off the money supply

[sexconker]

Because

"Hi Britney! I love your new album! You're like, totally back!
So like, I didn't BUY your cd, I downloaded it off of thepiratebay. I still totally want to support you, I just hate the record companies! Don't you hate them too? Like, OMG they're so mean! Here's a check for $1.

Love your BFF,
Tiffany
XOXO"

Is basically a signed confession to a crime, with your bank account details to boot.

"Donating" money (not admitting to any crime) wouldn't work because the labels won't allow the artists to set up a electronic payment method people can easily use. Paper checks, and people dumb enough to send cash through the mail, will barely be worth handling, and processing. Hell, the overhead for postage is ridiculous by itself.

If the volume becomes great enough to actually be profitable, the labels will get their lawyers on it and demand their "fair share".

Re:Cut off the money supply

[harlows_monkeys]

So your idea of civil disobedience is to rip off artists and support a site that makes millions from porn ads? Ghandi and King are spinning in their graves around now...

Re:What's the problem here?

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Short answer - no, because the public and private sector differ greatly.

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)

Re:a new culture of arrogance and incompetence.

[Enderandrew]

I don't want to start a flame war, but again, if you think one party is evil and the other isn't, then you are probably naive.

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.

How many cabinet members did Bush have with corruption issues? Bush was an idiot with hard-line values, but he wasn't evil.

The Clintons took money from mafia families and pardoned mafia members and large federal drug traffickers. Both Clintons took money from the Chinese government illegally. Both have shown a blatant disregard for the law.

You're saying Democrats aren't evil because they support welfare, but that view is extremely naive. Bush increased social spending programs, lowered the cost of medicare for senior citizens (which the Democrats fought him on until Ted Kennedy told Congress to drop the partisan bickering and try to do right by the citizens for once), and doubled foreign relief packages for impoverished nations (again which Dems in Washington fought him on because they didn't want Republicans to have an apparent political victory).

Furthermore, our current system of welfare is broken. I believe we need aid agencies, but welfare shouldn't be a lifestyle. That doesn't help anyone. We need massive welfare reform so that welfare becomes a transition program that addresses the issues that stop people from working (be it a lack of transportation, lack of affordable day care, drug addiction, lack of training, etc). Yet oddly enough, it only seems to be Republicans that try to push for said programs while Dems seem to advocate for constantly handing out blank checks.

And don't get me started on corporate welfare, which both parties are very guilty of as of late.

I am curious how and why you think only one party is evil. Again I think you are likely just woefully uninformed.