Obama DoJ Goes Against Film Companies

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot, I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism. Well here's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism. Chalk one up for those who like to point out that, occasionally, the system does work. You may recall that the US Supreme Court has been mulling over whether to grant the film industry's petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the important Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. This was the case which held that Cablevision's allowing its customers to make copies of shows and store them on Cablevision's servers for later viewing did not constitute a direct copyright infringement by Cablevision, there being no 'copy' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory' duration. The Supreme Court asked the Obama DoJ to submit an amicus curiae brief, giving its opinion on whether or not the film companies' petition for review should be granted. The government did indeed file such a brief, but the content of the brief (PDF) is probably not what the film companies were expecting. They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ. Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced."

Comments

If a laywer is any good...

[Anonymous Coward]

He knows the opposition's position as well as his so he can counter it up front. If he can't put himself in the opposition's shoes and argue against them, then they're going to suck.

These guys argued the other side forever, they *should* know how to tear that apart now.

Indeed.

[viyh]

It's nice to see things happening the way they are meant to happen. While the DoJ employees are not elected by the people, they are appointed by people who are. They are, in theory, supposed to represent the will and needs of the people, not corporations or lobbyists with money. Hopefully this will open up the debate about rewriting copyright and property laws in the age of information and the internet.

Re:Indeed.

[sumdumass]

It's nice to see things happening the way they are meant to happen. While the DoJ employees are not elected by the people, they are appointed by people who are.

Your more or less right here except that the vast majority of DOJ employees don't change jobs when new leaders come in. It's entirely possible that people working for President Carter are still employed at the DOJ and remained employed under different presidents and parties.

They are, in theory, supposed to represent the will and needs of the people, not corporations or lobbyists with money.

Here, you are just wrong. The DOJ is supposed to enfore the law period. They don't represent anything but the law as it is written and how courts reconcile that to the constitution. The DOJ can push for an interpretation the administration has laid out if there is shacky grounds but they in no way "reflect the will of the people".

In fact, the federal government was never indented to address the will of the people directly. The federal government in the US is only supposed to represent the states in matters of state (foreign relations) and matters between the states with a limited few other things specifically written into the constitution. You can see how obvious this is by simply reading the constitution. The senate was originally appointed by the state, the president was/still is appointed by the state, and the house of representative which all tax raises are supposed to originate in was the representation of the people. The idea was so that the people had a say in government not so that government served the people. The federal government serves nothing but the offices they hold. Now don't get me wrong, the office covers the people but they also cover so many other things like corporations which provide jobs, trade between the states and with foreign countries and so on.

You also need to understand that a: corporations are nothing more then collections of people who invested in a concept but are shielded from it's performance to some extent by their lack of participation in the company. b: Lobbyist are nothing more then people who have familiarity with the congress critters and take points directly to them instead of leaving it to them to figure out on their own. There is nothing wrong with lobbyist because they allow single representation of groups of people with no political clout. Without them, no one's voice will be heard more, nothing will be different, except those groups will have to spend the money directly on getting the congress critters attention some other way instead of giving it to someone who already has their attention.

Re:Indeed.

[mmaniaci]

There is nothing wrong with lobbyist because they allow single representation of groups of people with no political clout

How is that a good thing? The richest get to buy political clout and change the gov and the masses still have no say.

Re:Tricky things, lawyers.

[James_Duncan8181]

"Sometimes people just need a reminder that there is no grouping of people with less principles than Lawyers. We made the assumption that, since RIAA lawyers were hired to the DOJ, that they would find in favor of the RIAA. But it seems that lawyers are almost always megaphones for who is signing their paycheck."

Mmm. Or people who are doing their best to protect the interests of their clients? A lawyer must make the best arguments available for their client, but the ruling is not something they can be held responsible for. The system of justice works best when both sides present the strongest form of their argument, allowing the issues to be debated by those in the judicial role (who you can hold responsible for their judgments).

Or would you rather your own counsel failed to advance your best arguments because he personally thought you were guilty?

Re:lawyers are mercenaries

[ColdWetDog]

Grrr. This always pops up here. Lawyers are supposed to represent the client's interest. If the client is RIAA, they are supposed to make arguments that support RIAA's goals and aims. If you're client is the Federal Government (and thus, the interests of the 'people'), you are supposed to argue their views.

What the lawyer actually thinks is correct doesn't have a whole lot of traction here. If the clients arguments or interests are so repugnant to the lawyer that they feel that they can't represent them successfully, they are bound to tell the client, but that's about it. No, it's not perfect, not a great system but it seems to work better than anything else we've come across.

A lawyer well versed in a particular case dammed well ought to be able to argue both sides of the issue. It's what they do for a living.

Re:Gov representing reality is rare

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a really good point. That's why I advocate turning over all economic policy making to hyper-intelligent, omniscient, perfectly altruistic robot overlords.

Oh, we don't have those yet? Guess we better go with that "regulation" thing.

Re:Please let this be a trend

[decoy256]

This needs to be the main focus of digital rights, at least right now. When I buy something, I should have the right to transfer it to any media form I deem proper for my own uses. Heck, if I wanted to transfer my DVDs to BetaMax, I should have the right (of course, the reverse is also true and the more likely/useful application of this theory).

Re:Tactical Deception

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

He's not in bed with the **AA the way a lot of Slashdotters like to think.

Evidence indicates otherwise.

I have been quick to point out 'tea leaves' suggesting that he was being overly generous to the content cartel in his appointments. And I pointed out the 2 misguided, fervently pro-RIAA, briefs his DOJ filed in 2 'RIAA v. End User' cases (if I weren't a professional I would call them "dumbass", but of course I would never use such a term). But fairmindedness requires us to see this new filing, which is at the United States Supreme Court level, as evidence to the contrary. This brief directly contradicts the things the pro-RIAA appointees argued in this very case.

As far as I am concerned, if every brief Obama's DOJ files is as fair minded and scholarly as this one was, I will not care if the conclusions drawn by the brief agree with, or disagree with, the conclusions I have drawn.

All I ask for is fairness. A lawyer who disagrees with me, but does so with integrity and honor, is okay in my book.

Re:NO

[DarkOx]

I wish I had mod points. This weak minded PC world of moral relativism must be abolished. Copyright holders demand to be taken seriously and insist others listen to their arguments. I DONT NEED TO, your arguments are worthless because the position you already occupy is outrageous. The stated intent of the law was to promote innovation. Being able to profit from one work for a life time does not do that, it eliminates the need for innovation almost entirely.

Return to the bright bright line and we can have an intelligent discussion listen to each other and hash out the specifics, till then I am for damaging the strength of copyright law in any possible way, including making completely impossible to enforce on a technical level such that everyone is a violator and the entire concept becomes a sad joke. Chances are that we can't come back from that point, which does not bother people like me much so maybe you pro IP types aught to think about giving us some concessions because there are more of us and eventually we will defeat you; yes some of us are willing to whip others into what amounts to an unruly mod to do that.

A power struggle is an awful hard fight to win, once one side has excepted anarchy as satisfactory outcome, and a large enough group of people start to fell that would be preferable to your continued control; that is whats happening slowing in the world of IP. "Information wants to be free," is catching on.