Slashdot Mirror
Cloud Computing, Music Lockers, and the Supreme Court
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."
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..
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!"
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.
Gah! Scribd! Here's a plain text link (which also has a link to a PDF).
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.
Why do people assume that a former RIAA lawyer is not going to vigorously defend the American people? I was going to go off on a rant and explain (for the billionth time) that lawyers have an ethical obligation to zealously advocate for their clients; that professional responsibility demands that lawyers follow the instructions of their clients (up to a carefully defined point); and that lawyers represent murderers and rapists all the time without personally endorsing those pursuits.
But then I thought about all the people employed in the tech industry that have no love for the companies they work for, and are even openly dismissive of the products they once peddled. If I wanted to diagnose the problems associated with a particular code or piece of software, who better to ask then the people who created the software's architecture? The law is exactly the same way.
Moreover, these are exactly the right people to bring the RIAA to justice. They better than anyone else understand the legal strengths and weaknesses of the RIAA's position. Really people, do you think that these people sell their souls to the RIAA for all eternity? They understand the tactics and how to fight them.
Someone might look at my current employment as an energy industry lawyer and say I am unqualified to take a job with the government regulating the energy industry. These people are morons. There are few people qualified to police an amazingly complicated industry than those who were once a part of it. Barring corruption and direct conflict of interest checks (which are mandatory), if I were in charge of regulating an industry I would insist on hiring people with experience. Why is this so hard to understand???
I'm sorry, I TIVO'd the previous discussion and just now got around to playing it back.
It's tough to pin down such a large group of people..
Reject network DVRs -> Group A says: "Government in the MPAA/RIAA's pocket!" Defend network DVRs -> Group B says: "Government in the cable companies/ISP's pocket!"
Wonder what group C thinks of this.
Group C is only interested in how big the weathergirl's boobs are.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?