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.
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
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
"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?
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
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.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
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.
What if the RIAA lawyers are all on our side all along, and they were filling up their positions incompetently just to prevent people who actually want to do damage from doing so?
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
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