Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Can someone mod those lawyers up? +1 insightful.
paul reinheimer
I know it isn't likely, but I would love to see this evolve into a situation where I could time shift my MythTV recordings with other users over BitTorrent.
coffee | nose > keyboard
Now if they can only come around on Warrantless Wiretapping.
4096R/EF7BAFA6 79E1 DF98 D09D 898F 9A11 F6F0 DDDC 23FA EF7B AFA6
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.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." --Mark Twain
I agree. This is a lot like Roman bread and circuses, but we've advanced a lot since then.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the Meta-Circus.
Your brain is not a computer.
Sounds like non intervention is good policy.
See what it did to the banking system and global economy?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
"since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ."
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.
And in this situation, it worked out in our favor.
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."
Thus demonstrating again why you should never trust a lawyer. Unless you are still paying him, of course. (sorry nycLawyer)
Qxe4
I believe you're trying to be a bit snarky, but you are close to the mark. Try some Greecian Philosophy. Thesis / antithesis is one of the bases of legal argument.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
That is like blaming car accident deaths on seat belts(not wearing them/them not existing) rather than bad driving. Lack of regulation is not what killed the global economy. Regulation could prevent it from happening again, maybe, but that doesn't mean a lack of regulation caused anything.
If everyone involved in the lending crisis had done a little homework before buying the loan packages they would have realized that they were paying too much. It was their own free will to buy the crappy loans, no one forced them. Regulation is just forcing people to do the homework + making people jump through more hoops.
NewYorkCountryLawyer said:
Well here's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism.
It's way too early on a Sunday morning and/or afternoon for me to ponder and/or grok the in and/or out of the and/or in that sentence.
Just add {In Space!} to anything.
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.
So far, at least on the surface, Obama is mostly keeping his hands off the DoJ and letting them do their thing independently. Perhaps it is a misperception on my part. And Obama seems to be at least trying to be his own president. It seems pretty obvious that he has capitulated on quite a few important issues and hasn't had quite the smooth ride he might have expected, but I don't think Obama cares much about the whole copyright thing right now.
No, blaming the market rather then those who abused the market is like blaming a perfectly good road to cover up for a drivers incompetence.
Well I suppose it is those who took advantage of the lack of regulation.
Like regulation prevented the GFC from becoming a major issue in Australia? Banks being forced by the government to maintain a certain percentage of liquidity to prevent them running entirely on credit, or interest rates that reflected the true growth of the market?
Well, empirical evidence suggests otherwise, the AUD is at .78 USD, it was about this during Australia mining boom. +1 for Australia's overly regulated banking system (none of whom have required bailing out BTW).
B-b-b-but it I'm able to sell a predatory loan shouldn't I be entitled to profit on it.
The blame here lies not on those who were sold the bad loans but on those who were selling the bad loans, this goes all the way back to the government whom would not allow interest rates to reveal the true state of the economy although it also includes those bankers who knew better but did not act against it as there was profit to be made in the mean time.
Remember that the economy relies upon those who are not experts at economics as much as the car industry relies upon those of us who cannot strip a six cylinder car engine blindfolded.
So, you're saying that regulation gives people more time to decide weather a large debt is feasable or not. But isnt regulation a bad thing(TM).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I suggest you go look up the definition, history, and maybe some examples of fascism, having somebody help you when you stumble over the hard words. Because calling the Republicans "fascists" (at least, while giving the "hey GM CEO, you be fired now, k?" Democrats a pass) is pretty silly.
An accusation made against one party is typically defended by pointing out that the other party is no better. I have a way of neatly avoiding such bickering. For all practical purposes, whether this was intentional or accidental, the USA has one party that happens to be composed of two factions. They're both rotten bastards and the continued dominance of politics by the Democrats and the Republicans guarantees that nothing really changes. They're both leading us to a fascist nanny-state or whatever you care to call it and they'll blame each other for it the whole time that they are taking us there. For those who don't want to live in a modern police state, this is nothing to celebrate.
I mean, this news is good and it's a step in the right direction, but it's a tiny little baby-step that's barely even measurable compared to all of the other things that need to change if the USA is going to once again become a sustainable country (financially and otherwise) that really celebrates freedom instead of paying lip service to it. A good start would be to implement the single transferrable vote, this would go a long way towards breaking the two-party duopoly and allowing more third parties to actually stand any chance of winning elections (or at least, to lose elections because the people know about them and disagree with them and not because a duopoly has made them obscure).
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I was initially skeptical about the alleged, lauded virtue of Barrack Obama, but the more I see of his actions, the more I'm forced to concede that I was wrong, and that in this case, water genuinely has flowed uphill, to use that analogy.
Obama's level of integrity is genuinely intimidating, for the simple reason that an American President is, at this point in history, expected to be a thoroughly amoral and corrupt human being. That he isn't, is rightfully seen almost as a violation of physical law. Bush's degree of evil had almost become reassuring, purely because of its' level of routine familiarity. When he attempted to do something monstrous, it was entirely expected.
Even with Bush aside, it is also a paradox when considered in light of the dynamics of political power in general. Reading Machiavelli and virtually every other treatise on the subject, one is left with the overwhelming conclusion that the single greatest prerequisite of political power is amorality, to the extent that it can be said that an individual's degree of political power will be directly proportional to their level of amorality.
Given this, Dick Cheney is perhaps a more likely example of who we would ordinarily expect to hold the office of President, morally speaking, than Obama. Cheney is, according to virtually every depiction of him, a consciously, willingly, and indeed enthusiastically evil individual. He is, therefore, far more consistent, both from study of political theory in general, and observation of American political history in particular, with the type of individual who I would expect to hold the office of the Presidency.
It is said that within a democracy, a people get the leader they deserve. I'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama's comparitive level of decency, especially given that Bush was so far to the opposite, but even for us outside America, Obama's integrity is certainly very welcome.
It will be fascinating to observe just how far outside of the established, conventional rules Obama is permitted to go.
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.
Yeah right. Like we're expected to believe what you think about slashdot's opinion. You know, it's summaries like this that prove we can't expect much change either from the government OR slashdot... PS: For the HUMOR impaired, the above was meant to be a skeptical, cynical comment. But THIS bit is actually sarcasm.
I am "humor impaired", and you had me there.
But seriously, the comments to my story so far demonstrate that this welcome bit of good news does nothing at all to dampen the raging cynicism and skepticism which seem to be the prevailing winds of Slashdot.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Fascism is supreme belief in the power of the state and/or the party and that if you're "against them" you're "against ."
If you're not with us, you're AGAINST US!
If you don't like Bush, GET THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICA!
If you don't like the Patriot Act, MOVE TO A DIFFERENT COUNTRY!
If you're against the war, YOU'RE AGAINST THE TROOPS!
That's fascism, and those are all quotes I've heard from Republicans, either personally or have seen at demonstrations on YouTube. None of those quotes is made up.
That's fascism, FishWithAHammer. Obama asked GM's CEO to step down and be replaced. It wasn't forced, just like we weren't forcing them to take billions of dollars of funds that would protect America's stake in the international automotive industry. But hey, if they wanted it, they had to make some concessions.
Unlike Bush, who was totally in favor of just giving away ten times as much money with no accountability whatsoever.
I find it interesting that our Supreme Court Nominee was not part of this ruling. In fact, the 2nd circuit is making a lot of important rulings - they also established legal precedent in the Google Adwords trademark violation case, and some stuff about trademarks and internet before that. But I don't see her opinion on -any- of them. Maybe we should appoint the judge whose opinion this is?
This is my sig.
But you'd be a fool not to play the scam like everybody else. The rational choice for a person was to treat their home like an ATM, after it was a "sure bet" and if they didn't, they would regret it. Even if they knew it was a scam, they figured if they got screwed everybody was screwed so why not play?
In other words, good regulation can keep a bunch of individuals who are making rational decisions from screwing up the entire system. Sometimes what is right for one person is harmful to the whole. The lending crisis is an example of that.
Any argument that requires a strong majority of the populace to be an intelligent and rational actor is flawed. At least half of the human race falls below the mean intelligence level. When was the last time high school taught a course that detailed how to get a loan in a safe way, or how to sensibly manage credit? Many high schools don't even require civics courses, preferring instead a selection of "multicultural studies", "introduction to computers", and "remedial English grammar".
Any argument that requires a strong majority of businesses to act in a completely ethical fashion, without external pressures, is flawed. Corporations exist only to extract wealth. Thanks to the de-regulation of the last couple of decades, businesses have been free to take any action that improves the bottom line. They loaned to people with no income verification, to people who were blatantly unable to repay the loans. Predictably, many of these people defaulted on their loans. The credit industry cannot function when the default rate erases any possible profits, and eats into capital besides. This is a case of individual businesses acting to harm the environment (the industry in which they work) for their own selfish gains, a true "tragedy of the commons".
A rational and educated actor would have been able to see 5 years into the future, and know that their income would not suffice for them to manage the repayment.
A rational and educated government would have been able to look back to 1929, and draw lessons from the boom time immediately before the crash that spawned the great depression.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
Dude, are you serious?
The government does something bad, and it's out to get you.
The government does something good, and it's a "tactical deception", designed to lull you into a false sense of security, and it's out to get you.
Your theory is not falsifiable. And you get a 4, insightful? This is supposed to be a science-oriented discussion board; we should know better.
Are you joking? Let me fill you in... Obama doesn't give a rat's ass about copyright legislation. He has a nuclear-armed Korea threatening war, a nuclear-armed Pakistan fighting for its life against the Taliban, extreme tensions between Israel and Iran (one of which has nukes, and the other's probably working on it), two wars of our own to deal with, a collapsed global economy, and on top of that, he still probably wants to get his universal health care plan rolling.
He's not in bed with the **AA the way a lot of Slashdotters like to think. He's not out to get them either. He's simply got bigger things to worry about. This decision was undoubtedly made at a lower level. If anything, he glanced over it quickly and agreed to the arguments put forth by his lawyers.
A PayPal "Donate" button goes a long way..
Well the last time we mentioned my PayPal button, some contributions came rolling in. So if you insist it's here.
Thing is, what I like about the affiliate advertising idea is I'm not asking for a handout, and it's not costing you anything. You buy stuff on the internet anyway. So why not check and see if you can buy it through one of my links and help ol' NewYorkCountryLawyer out, without it costing you a dime?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I think it is fairly obvious what approach the Obama DoJ is going to take. In return for coming down hard on those that distribute pirated content (it is indeed a crime, if not one that deserves much punishment), the DoJ is going to make sure it is only going after actual pirates instead of consumers trying to use content they have already paid for.
While this is not an ideal situation (there are a LOT of things the DoJ could be doing other than chasing after torrent trackers), it's better the previous situation, where the xxAA gets whatever they ask for.
SirWired
I RTF Brief. It was a good read. There is one issue that was mentioned and claimed to be explored, but I don't understand the reasoning.
In the last paragraph of discussion B.3.A and in foot note 10, on page 19, they say that the customer is the only one that makes the copy through RS-DVR, with some help from the respondents (the cable company). In fact, through out the brief, it is emphasized that who makes the copy is very important, and in this case it is always the customer that does.
But, this paragraph and foot note strikes me. It says that it is possible that two parties at once both be the "who" and who makes a copy. Like "if one person selects the programs or documents to be copied, but hires someone else to push the buttons used to operate the relevant copying machine, it is possible that both could be held liable as direct infringes for any copyright violations that their conduct entails." The brief argues that this doesn't happen; the customer makes the selection and pushes the button.
Why is pushing the button important? If a customer makes a selection but no button is pushed, then nothing has happened. If a company pushes a button but no selection was made before then, then again nothing happens. The customer is always the one that makes the selection; pushing a button is the extension of that selection. Hmm, maybe it is important, actually.
But, in the case of RS-DVR, the company is pushing some buttons of several kinds. The customer can make a decision, then press a button on their remote. This button press is sent to the RS-DVR server at the company's location, and the server presses it's own internal buttons to set the recording time and channel, and then presses some more when the right time comes. If these internal server buttons were not pressed, then nothing would happen. To me, they look just as important to the process as the remote control.
Hmm, maybe the server's internal buttons usage are considered a service, while the remote control's buttons usage is not?
I think the only thing that's clear here is that I'm not familiar enough with this aspect of law to figure it out conclusively myself.
Big government is bad.
That's the Reagan myth which has been handed down, and which has caused our present crisis, that it's okay to have big corporations but not big government. It doesn't work that way. If you're going to have mega-corporations running business, you need big government to regulate them.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
It is not so much Obama that we are concerned about, but rather his Vice President, Joe Biden, who has a long history of close and loyal support of entertainment industry interests and presently holds an office which, at least historically, doesn't have too many responsibilities (he breaks tie votes in the Senate). We are concerned that someone like Biden, who has time on his hands to introduce legislation and has the ear of the President, might use his position and the fact that the President is preoccupied with more pressing business to push through some really awful legislation. This is not an illegitimate or merely theoretical concern.
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS327US327&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:fascism
A lot of people disagree with you. Fascism is not "primarily" an economic descriptor. Fascism has in fact, little to do with socialism or capitalism. It's a political ideology that the government is best and that they can cure our ills. This can take the form of extreme pressure or crimes against political dissidents, or it can take the form of state-owned monopolies, or other things. Fascism starts with a single kernel of an ideology: our way is best, you aren't part of us, so get the fuck out of our way or join us.
That's it. It's patriotism taken to its most extreme. In Italy, it meant if Benito Mussolini contradicted himself, he was right both times. It means that whatever the government does is right, and if you aren't for it, you're against it and you're hurting (pick at least one): progress, the future, the children, democracy, the nation, the system... Etc.
The extreme nationalism encourages people to accept things like government ownership of things, because after all, if you're not with them, you're against them. And the troops. And the flag. And whatever else.
And let's be honest, Bush's supporters (note I did not say Bush himself) were the closest to fascists this nation has ever had. They were those hyper-nationalistic people you refer to.
Agreed. But, too big government is bad. Again, I'm referring you to my own country, Croatia.
Where court cases commonly last 3 years, and extreme cases for over 20 years.
Where people and companies wait for 1-3 years for construction permits -- even when the companies would bring large profit and extra employment to local community.
Where people sometimes get off the hook with the law simply by waiting for the case to become too old according to the law. (For example, avoid getting sued for few years for not paying bills, and you can't get sued at all.)
Here's a quote in Croatian (source):
Translation:
Most important number here is 65.000, in a country with a population of 4.2 million and with about 400.000 employed people (perhaps I'm even optimistic with that last number).
Now, let's again talk about big governments -- can they really be efficient? Does the size of state apparatus really say something about the strength of the government itself? Is the far-reaching hand government really that important, so much more than the freedoms we might gain if it controlled a bit less?
We definitely don't need absolute lack of government like in Snow Crash. We also don't need absolutely big government.
USA probably needs a small reduction in government powers, and greater responsibility of its leaders towards the public. It'll still stay a "big" government capable of protecting the public. Croatia however needs a large reduction of government apparatus, still remaining a powerful government on its sovereign territory capable of handling corporate problems.
What we don't need it the government to act towards its people like a "big" government.
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
What we probably really need is smaller corporations. Another part of the Reagan legacy was to relegate antitrust enforcement and securities law enforcement to a back seat. We need a strong dose of government to start moving away from monopolization, anticompetitive practices, and financial gamesmanship. And to move towards investment in the people who live here, with health care, education, child care, housing for the homeless, etc. Then when we have made some progress in those areas, we can start talking about reducing the size of government. But not until then.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If you mean that treaties have the same force as statutes enacted by Congress that do not violate the Constitution, then you are right.
That's not exactly correct. If a treaty provision conflicts with, or expands upon, an existing statute, it is invalid. See, e.g., Elektra v. Barker, which held that the WIPO copyright treaty could not vary the terms of the Copyright Act.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Perhaps the real bread and circuses is all this whining about copyright while your nation fights two wars, has out of control military spending, locks up non-violent drug offenders, arrests medical marijuana growers, denies rights to gays, is in the middle of an economic meltdown, has out of control gun laws, etc etc etc, yet here we are arguing the minutia of copyright law. If anyone is guilty of deceiving the public with inconsequential shit, its us geeks, not Obama. Whining about copyright and quoting Ayn Rand is not how you fix things. Bread and circuses indeed!
I have no need to hide behind the AC mask. Whoever spreads this trash are pretty desperate. OF COURSE some blacks voted for Obama, just because he's black. It's no different than all the white people who voted against him just because he's black. I happen to be non-black. I'm a veteran, for that and some other reasons, I really WANTED to vote for McCain. So - why didn't I? Well - McCain was far more likely to get my SONS killed than Obama. McCain wouldn't have exactly followed in Bush's steps, but he would have followed closely enough that it wouldn't have made a tremendous difference. Do I really CARE that our president is a funny looking nappy headed non-white? Not much. I voted for him because he understands more about world culture than McCain ever did, or will. The man has lived in places that McCain just flew over in a fighter jet. Tremendously different perspective. The black guy can relate to the world, whereas McCain used the world as a background on which to acquire targets. McCain may not be a pure neocon, but he does believe in much of the agenda of the New American Century. It is McCain's mission to spread corporate control around the world, supposedly for the benefit of Americans, but really for the benefit of those wealthiest 2% of Americans who already have more money than they can ever spend.
With one son in the Army, and one son in the Navy, I really feared for their lives with Bush in control. Obama may or may not commit to some action which puts their lives in peril - but I'm fairly confident that the purpose of that action WILL NOT BE to enrich our wealthiest 2%. That is exactly what Iraq accomplished, with the neocons in charge.
While you bitch and belly ache about the "nigger" in the White House, I breathe a sigh of relief. My own funny looking kids (sans the nappy heads) are far more likely to live long enough to give me some grandchildren to play with.
Bottom line? Fuck off, you cretinous redneck!!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
When Obama was elected, one of the things that was most apparent was his understanding of technology and related issues. When he appointed the ??AA lawyers to the DOJ, there was a large outcry from people who believed he was being influenced by his party's traditional media kowtowing.
The specific lawyers who represented the RIAA and MPAA, and are now in the DOJ, are recused for two years from working on any of these types of matters. So they are not supposed to have had anything whatsoever to do with this brief. And from all appearances they did not
I'm wondering if the ??AA lawyer appointments weren't designed to "take them out of the game". If so, it's a brilliant move, IMHO. :)
No, I didn't. Maybe you've heard of the Normal Distribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
One of it's properties is that the mean and the median are the SAME (as I said, by defintion). Mathematically speaking, one could say that the cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution, evaluated at
Integral from x=-infinity to x=infinity xP(x) dx = xbar (the mean)
is cdf(xbar)=0.5. Statistics 101, as you said.
In modern IQ tests such as the Weschler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale, the standardized scores match a normal distribution with median/mean 100, and standard deviation of 15 (Other IQ tests use a standard dev of 20 I think, but I can't remember which).
Thus, as I said, BY DEFINITION, 50% of people score under 100, the median AND mean, because, as I said, the median and the mean are the same for a normal distribution.
Pro-tip: When you're going to say:
try to at least think before you open your mouth (or in this case move your fingers). In general, you're right. In the specific case I was referring to, you are wrong, and end up looking like an idiot.
He cares enough about copyright to appoint former RIAA lawyers to the DOJ
The guy he appointed to the top spot was a law school chum, and headed the Obama transition team. Even I do not think he was appointed because he represented the content cartel in copyright infringement cases. He was hired because of their relationship and because Obama obviously placed great trust in him.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"Network-based technologies for copying and replaying television programming raise potentially significant questions, but this case does not provide a suitable occasion for this Court to address them. The Second Circuit is the first appellate court to consider the copyright implications of network-based analogues to VCRs and settop DVRs, and its decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals. The partiesâ(TM) stipulations, moreover, have removed two critical issuesâ"contributory infringement and fair useâ" from this case. That artificial truncation of the possible grounds for decision would make this case an unsuitable vehicle for clarifying the proper application of copyright principles to technologies like the one at issue here."
It sounds as though they are expecting this case to essentially repeat for an arbitrary future combination IP holder and cable company, without the peculiar waivers of contributory infringement claims and fair-use counterclaims, and are simply waiting for that no-holds-barred case to be settled by a lower court. The extreme quibbling over (to quote the brief) âoewhoâ would âoemakeâ the copies that would be stored does not inspire my confidence, as all this decides is whether the alleged infringement should be considered as direct or contributory. The cynic in me says that a pro-RIAA author would rather the latter be the ultimate test case since the bar for arguing secondary/contributory infringement is much lower. (You stored arbitrary data which included the pointer to a pointer to data that a 3rd-party chose to infringe? You're a contributory infringer!)
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
A broken clock is right twice a day, a clock that spins like a fan is right much more often! Let's vote batshit crazy people into power hoping they'll do the right thing by mistake even more often!!
You just got troll'd!
Good job. Dismiss his bullshit logic with some even worse false logic of your own.
You're suggesting that if we all drop everything else, we will be able to solve all the major problems in the world, and just work our way down the list... Reality is quite the opposite, really.
You can stop bathing until you've achieved world peace, but the time saved won't gain you world peace, and you'll just go around stinking.
Try this... Don't bother changing the oil in your car. It's not important enough. Just keep going until your car blows up. THEN your car blowing up will be important enough to merit your attention.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Maybe so. Dick Morris argues that this is exactly how he's neutralized Hillary Clinton:
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-incredible-shrinking-clintons-2009-05-26.html
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Ray being s[k]eptical is an important attribute for an engineer. It just might be true that many /. readers are engineers.
If people were screwed about one topic over years it is very likely that they do not believe something has changed just because the outcome of a few cases is different.
Yours typical cynical and skeptical ./ reader ;)
-S
I'm not asking anyone to give up their skepticism and cynicism; I'm certainly not giving up mine. I'm just pointing out that in this instance, something good happened. The DOJ took a position opposite to that taken by some of its own lawyers in this very case. That is an instance of the system working, as opposed to its malfunctioning. So we cynics and skeptics should take note that it happened, just as we take note of the myriad malfunctions. Unremitting negativity is as false as blind optimism.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful