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

Slashdot buttplugs goatse trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

-1

Afro-American Racism Against Whites & Asians

[Anonymous Coward]

During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data by CNN.

Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against non-Blacks. Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is a non-Black minority. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate. Only about 65% of them supported Obama.

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.

At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.

Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.

African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.

Re:NO

[Anonymous Coward]

nobody cares except your fellow basement dwellers

hopefully some day you will make e-e-eye contact with a g-g-g-girl

Re:Ray... what's with the frames?

[BarefootClown]

Probably because most people are more interested in getting something for free and whining when they can't than they are in paying anything--even a token amount--for the value received.

But then, that's why we're in this situation in the first place.

Re:Gov representing reality is rare

[im_thatoneguy]

I'm a liberal. (Not really a democrat since I don't want my opinions to be automatically determined by a party).

But I get sick and tired of this sort of ignorant bullshit.

We don't have a true two party system. We have a 30+ party system that has a run off to two candidates. Ron Paul tried running as a Republican. He failed. Why? Because there aren't enough people who agree with him for him to win! No conspiracy. No monopoly of ideas on the two parties... he's just a loser that not very many people like.

The primary system is an opportunity for anybody to vote between an almost bewildering array of choices. Look at Michael Steele and the Republican party. What does the republican party believe in? Nothing. Look at the democratic party what do they believe in? Nothing. They are simply a fundraising and loose collections of individuals. Ideologically speaking they are composed of their members and most importantly of their leadership. If communists want to run they could run as a Republican. Or they could run as a Democrat. There is nothing to intrinsically define a party except whether or not they can garner enough votes.

Historically there have been numerous instances where the definition of Democrat and Republican have completely flipped.

The differences between Obama and Dennis Kucinich are about as extreme as Obama and McCain. The differences between McCain and Ron Paul were about as much as Obama and McCain.

There is no Duopoly unless you are completely uninvolved in primary politics. And if you are dissatisfied with your choices then you have nobody but yourself to blame for not getting involved and working to get your candidate to the forefront.