Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cloud Computing, Music Lockers, and the Supreme Court

Posted by timothy on from the advance-the-useful-arts-and-sciences dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Net speculation has swirled about the DOJ being stacked with media company-friendly attorneys who will throw the consumer under the bus, but in one of the first rulings, the Solicitor General defended network DVRs, mentioned cloud computing and a music locker — which has to be a first for a Supreme Court brief. Michael Robertson chronicles the latest developments and you can read the brief for yourself."

16 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. Is this change you can believe in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Oh noes! Maybe the situation is more complicated than the average slashdotter thinks!

  2. Thank goodness by jdgeorge · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What a relief to see our government coming out on the side of big businesses (cable TV/Internet service providers). Yes, this bodes well for consumers, but at its heart, this is about enabling big businesses to make tons of money. The MPAA/RIAA is not the only or biggest corporate interest the government is supporting.

    1. Re:Thank goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you're saying that no matter how they ruled, you would still have a snarky, cynical comment about the government?

      Reject network DVRs -> "Government in the MPAA/RIAA's pocket!"
      Defend network DVRs -> "Government in the cable companies/ISP's pocket!"

    2. Re:Thank goodness by Aladrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As the others have noted, this would have meant 'tons of money' for 'big businesses' either way. Since that is the same on both sides of the equation, this ruling is really about the people and not the companies.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    3. Re:Thank goodness by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretty much. These types of people always have to find fault with the government even if it's a the exact same position they themselves were advocating.

    4. Re:Thank goodness by MatthewCCNA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think a certain amount of cynicism is warranted

      --
      "He is so stupid. And now back to the wall!" Moe Szyslak
    5. Re:Thank goodness by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I hate to break it to you but the judicial system is part of the government.

    6. Re:Thank goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      While technically correct, most people when speaking of the "government" are referring to the legislative or possibly executive branches, not the judicial branch. To further pick a nit, the "judicial system" doesn't make rulings, judges who are themselves only one part of the judicial system, make rulings. Other component elements of the judicial system (the Bar, court staff, Sherriffs and/or bailiffs) do not make rulings.

  3. Why the surprise?? by Pvt_Ryan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them..

    When employeed by the RIAA ofc they are going to be aggressive to earn their keep.

    When employed by DoJ they don't care about the RIAA the govenment is paying them so they do what the government wants and if the govenment doesnt care they use their own views.

    Logically (most) lawyers don't like to repersent rapists (for example) but they will when paid..

    1. Re:Why the surprise?? by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's kind of a naive view of how it works. They're hired guns, and everyone knows it.

      And, to be honest, the advantages that the former DOJ lawyers would bring - in terms of knowledge about the department, and possible relationships with people still working there - are sufficiently valuable that any hurt feelings from their stint in the government are easily overlooked.

    2. Re:Why the surprise?? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them..

      "known to be"? Jebus, that's their fucking job!

  4. Scribd? Really? by superdana · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gah! Scribd! Here's a plain text link (which also has a link to a PDF).

  5. Terrible Summary by hax0r_this · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't see what this has to do with consumers, as the summary seems to imply. Also, if you RTFA, no one related to the Obama administration "ruled" on anything, rather "President Obama's attorney filed papers with the Supreme Court supporting an earlier court decision that found Cablevision's remote storage DVR to be legal."

    New Summary:

    The Solicitor General filed a brief supporting a one company over another, after the Supreme Court already ruled that the first company was correct. Both companies were from industries that financed Obama's campaign and have done everything in their power to fuck the consumer, so the ruling is essentially meaningless to you unless you happen to own lots of fiber or lots of IP.

  6. Not really all that great by Neeperando · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't really see how this is a win (or even a loss, for that matter) for the consumer. Who owns the content that I paid for? The argument was whether it was owned by the cable company or the network, and it came up for the cable company. Who cares? It's still not me.

    --
    Being a computer scientist means you tell people how computers should work, not that you know how they actually work.
  7. Re:Smug Contempt of Lawyers by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No ethical professional accepts a job and then undercuts the client's goals by substituting their own.

    No, an ethical professional accepts no job that would require them to compromise their ethics. A lawyer who takes jobs on both sides of an ethical issue has either compromised their ethics for one client or the other, or they have no ethics at all.

    Right now, I'm reading this biography of one well-known lawyer: Abraham Lincoln. (More or less on the top of my list of great Americans.)

    Lincoln destroyed states rights and set the stage for the all encompassing federal government we have today. He should have just let the South go.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  8. Re:Why Attorneys are like Microsoft Employees.... by rgviza · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why on earth should we assume that they've all suddenly found the light and will never sin again?

    Because they are being paid to? I agree with Sampson, know thy enemy (or hire people that do).

    -Viz

    --
    Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.