Slashdot Mirror
Obama DOJ Sides With RIAA Again In Tenenbaum
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Despite having had some time to get their act together, Obama's Department of Justice has filed yet another brief defending the RIAA's outlandish statutory damages theory — that someone who downloaded an mp3 with a 99-cent retail value, causing a maximum possible damages of 35 cents, is liable for from $750 to $150,000 for each such file downloaded, in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. The 25- page brief (PDF) continues the DOJ's practice of (a) ignoring the case law which holds that the Supreme Court's due process jurisprudence is applicable to statutory damages, (b) ignoring the law review articles to like effect, (c) ignoring the actual holding of the 1919 case they rely upon, (d) ignoring the fact that the RIAA failed to prove 'distribution' as defined by the Copyright Act, and (e) ignoring the actual wording and reasoning of the Supreme Court in its leading Gore and Campbell decisions. Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department's 'oversights' to the 'eye-popping number of people [in its employ] who worked for, and/or are directly connected with, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music's RIAA.'"
And two party system.
or not. Obama or not, remember that Hollywood greases Republican and Democrat pockets alike. Many of the big guys at the MPAA and RIAA are Democrats too, which must surely help.
As long as Hollywood gives politicians glamour by attending fundraisers, and actual cold hard cash, you won't find anyone in the government willing to speak out against Big Content. The only thing that can change this is public opinion.
Go somewhere random
God sake fucking MAFIAA and now it seems the DoJ is also going that way. Wish the US government wasn't so blantantly rife with corruption and bribery
I'm having that "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" moment that I really didn't want to have.
Or maybe is has something to do with the fact that his party receives significant contributions from the entertainment industry.
I thought that we were all pretty much aware prior to the election that Obama and his crew were against personal freedom and all for corporate freedom.
Just wait until the courts finish granting natural person status benefits to corporations without imposing natural person responsibilities and liabilities.
Welcome to hell!
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
Obama taught, was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and graduated top of his class.
How he can abide this DOJ finding is really unknowable, outside of politics. It is behavior and outcomes like this that cost his party Mass. last night, and may well cost him his re-election bid in 2012. Pollingplace.com showed that last night in Mass., 37% of voters that voted for this independent that won, did so in protest of Democrats favoring Wall Street in the bailout.
The lesson is simple: Either the DOJ and the Obama administration stop taking sides against Main Street and for the big corporate interest, or they will keep losing.
A travesty of justice. Libraries routinely lend out copies of books, music and videos for free. I guess librarians will be the next victim of the RIAA.
Looking at their actions i think a new name is in order, how about Department of Corporatism? maybe fascism? thats streching a bit isnt it? for now...
ps. you may mark as flamebait, don't care its my judging of that institution as by their actions wich themselfs help prove my point.
I don't get it. Who were we supposed to vote for?
Only Obama and McCain had any real chance of winning (sorry guys, the Green Party and Libertarians have been, and always will be, fringe groups run by potheads with a pro-drug agenda) and it was beyond obvious that McCain was willing to run this country into the ground for the sake of the almighty dollar. So I picked Obama, mainly because I love America and want the best for this country. But has he delivered?
Patent reform? No.
Environmental protection? No.
Taxing the middle class when he said the rich would finally be made to pay their taxes? Hell no.
Stopping the war? No.
Stopping the MPAA/RIAA from walking all over American citizens? Nope.
It's frustrating because I want Obama to be great and he is ending up being another Jimmy Carter. A nice guy, and a hell of a diplomat, but completely inept and useless at running the country. I cannot possibly explain how sad this makes me.
Clearly the RIAA is at fault here, and Obama's DOJ is doing as the RIAA instructed them to do. Shameful.
This is the President's job folks: to defend the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by a sitting President. It's implied by the Oath of Office. Presidents ignoring laws they don't like by refusing to defend them in court--which is what the DOJ is doing here--would be a pretty flagrant violation of the obligations of the executive.
This is not the first time and will not be the last that a President, through his officers, defends a law he isn't thrilled about. Just because DOJ lawyers show up with a brief in support of a law does not mean that the President--or even the DOJ lawyers, for crying out loud--believe either 1) that the law is worth defending, or 2) the validity of their own arguments. They're just doing their jobs.
Hopefully they remember $750 to $150,000 per song when they go to court in Canada over the 300,000 songs they did not pay the artists for.
That'll be $225,000,000 to $45,000,000,000. ($225 million to $45 billion)
And since they were selling the songs, I'd suspect it should be the high end of that scale.
People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed. They would not be doing their jobs if they said, "nah, you're right, this law should be overturned."
Lrn2USLegalSystem and US Government, please.
The media fell in love with Obama during his election campaign. Don't think they won't come asking for favors later, and don't be surprised at the response. My new voting strategy: Find out who Tom Cruise is voting for. Vote for the other guy.
Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department's 'oversights' to the 'eye-popping number of people [in its employ] who worked for, and/or are directly connected with, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music's RIAA.'
"I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences."
--Garak, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine "Cardassians"
"What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
Most works of art are copied from or influenced by something. Imagine you're an artist and you have to worry about whether you have express permission rights or not before you pick up the brush.
Lawyers run the DOJ. Lawyers run Congress. Of course they want to be able to sue for large amounts.
Off topic perhaps, but this is why we won't see meaningful tort reform in the near future.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Folks, what part of "The RIAA is in your pocket, and in your life" are you not getting? For the love of Pete, the Vice President is a media hit-man... what do they have to do before it's clear, carve their initials in your forehead? There is no law, no juris-prudence, no honest, decent, or rational bit of thinking that the RIAA won't pave over, pay to have overturned, ignored, or publicly gutted, to protect their charges' strangle hold on media. Once they are finished with this little piece of business, they can move to the next piece. Make all use public or private payable, maybe they can even get a tax passed on the presumed number of people at anytime who my be humming a tune to themselves. That and make all new music created from that day forward, which is not owned by an affiliate of the RIAA illegal to listen to. They want a monopoly on sound, and they want to own your ears, and they want to utterly destroy anybody who get's in the way of what they want. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW...
I smelled this coming when he sided with the Telcos on the wiretapping.
I knew we were in for it when he kept Gitmo going.
ACTA secrecy pretty much cemented my opinion.
This is just icing on the cake.
And yes ladies and gentlemens, I voted for him...hoping he wouldn't be what he's showing himself to be...just another crooked pol, interested in being elected and nailing a sweet deal speaking deal once he's thrown out on his ear.
meh.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
That's not really an excuse. Didn't Obama publically state that he wouldn't be spending Federal Funds to go after state licensed medical marijuana growers? That sounds a a lot like not defending the laws as passed.
I'll cut Obama slack when he has to choose the lesser of two evils. This is not one of those cases.
I really wish they'd crack down on these blatant infringers before getting all sanctimonious about copyright. Don't they know better than to publicly perform a copyrighted song?
Although I certainly don't agree with current copyright laws, I'm glad our administration upholds them. If we allowed the DOJ to selectively enforce laws there would be no point in creating laws in the first place. So, until the laws are actually changed, I would prefer they be enforced the way they were intended.
No, its job is to defend the Constitution first, the laws second.
Note, for the record, that very few DOJs have bothered with that nasty old Constitution thing.
Though FDR's early DOJ prevented him from doing a few things that were unconstitutional, and GWB's actually argued once to overturn a law due to unconstitutionality....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Funny. I thought the D.O.J. was merely an extension of the Military Industrial Complex, a lapdog for Corporate entitlement, and hell-hound for Big Oil. Now I can add Copyright bitch to my list government pet names.
Obama can't decide which laws to defend in court. It's an entirely different thing.
One is defending a program that is within his power to do, so long as the program is in the purview of the executive branch. The other is picking and choosing which laws (passed legally by the legislature) the executive branch will choose to defend.
If you will recall, the GWB administration tried to get around this with signing statements. If you will recall, they were *slightly* controversial.
One is defunding
Typo, sorry.
Who defines this? The people suffering under tyranny? Or the tyrant lords themselves?
The Constitution I know and love dictates that I strike these tyrants down in cold blood, that is my right, nay, my obligation as a citizen of the US.
The founding fathers of this once great nation did this. Then they talked about it for years afterward. Then they wrote scores of literature on the subject, such that no one should ever forget the costs of the freedoms we once enjoyed; freedoms and liberties that are currently being stripped away by our current Tyrant Lords.
Someone please tell Jerry Brown that.
Just be happy they didn't make it one word.
If the DOJ were doing their jobs, they would NOT be doing any of the following:
(a) ignoring the case law which holds that the Supreme Court's due process jurisprudence is applicable to statutory damages,
(b) ignoring the law review articles to like effect,
(c) ignoring the actual holding of the 1919 case they rely upon,
(d) ignoring the fact that the RIAA failed to prove 'distribution' as defined by the Copyright Act,
(e) ignoring the actual wording and reasoning of the Supreme Court in its leading Gore and Campbell decisions.
It is their job to pay attention to these precedents, and if they had done so then their decision would be much different by logical necessity.
Huh. Who'd'a thought. Wonder how that Wednesday morning Massachusetts hangover feels.
And Obama is still wondering why his approval rating is crap. Another DLC fail. Change doesn't mean Republican-lite instead of honest Republican.
The DOJ's job is not to determine if a *law as passed* is constitutional. That's the court system's job. They can, indeed, argue that something is unconstitutional, but if the federal government is party to a lawsuit, the DOJ's job is to defend it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Might it be possible that, with UHC, Afghanistan, Iraq, now Hati, re-election campaigns, issues of open-government, Gitmo, bailouts, unemployment, etc.... might it be possible that awards to the RIAA simply aren't on Obama's radar at all?
Couldn't this just be the people of the Justice Department, most of whom predate Obama and who Obama has never met, being (as pointed out) in the music-industry's pocket?
Don't get me wrong: I don't know where the president stands on this issue, and he may indeed support the RIAA position... I just don't see that this instance establishes that.
I don't remember all the stories about the government during the bush administration reading Bush's X it was the Bush administration's X. Just because Most people actually like him instead of hate him doesn't mean bash him harder, or that every thing's his fault.
Obama is siding with the LAW. Is that too complicated for you guys?
People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed.
Yes. PS The Constitution of the United States happens to be one of our laws. In fact, it's our highest law. Any "law" which conflicts with it is invalid.
They would not be doing their jobs if they said, "nah, you're right, this law should be overturned."
Yes they would be doing their jobs. By ignoring the Constitution, they are failing to do their jobs. The United States Supreme Court has spoken loudly and clearly that punitive awards of this nature violate the Constitution.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
It was never "Bush's" doj or "Clinton's" doj before.
It used to just be the Department of Justice.
Why is it that suddenly everything one disagrees with is Obama's fault?
oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
I thought it's still RIAA's Department of Justice.
I mean, the man is just another Chicago politician. Duhh...
The DOJ's job is to defend the laws. The Courts' job is to determine Constitutionality. The DOJ is simply arguing in the favor of the interests of those they defend (Congress, here) in the case of legally passed laws.
So why cant the public unite to create a lobbying organization? Instead of all the bullshit,
people donate money to buy politicians. Its no different to what companies do except it doesn't
hide behind silly names.
I'd be willing to donate $25 to a legalized bribery fund to get my agenda heard.
It's Called a PAC(Political Action Committee)
Why is it the "Obama DOJ" when last year it wasn't the "Bush DOJ"?
I used the term "Obama DOJ" because
-Mr. Obama when campaigning, did so upon a platform of "change"
-he campaigned as though he would be working on behalf of the people, rather than large corporations, and
-there was a great deal of skepticism about his appointment of RIAA lawyers to many of the highest positions in the DOJ.
So I think it is a legitimately significant point to note that on this issue there has been no "change", and that the DOJ continues to act as an intellectually dishonest rubber stamp for Pres. Obama's RIAA overlords.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Who's "doing their job" is open to interpretation. It's balance of power. There are laws all over the place in this country that aren't enforced by the executive branch on multiple levels of government (especially local and state levels). The DOJ's job is to defend the laws as they (and Congress) see fit. If the executive branch chooses to pick and choose laws to enforce, they can do it at the ire of the legislative branch, which can choose to cut funding to the executive branch OR pursue impeachment. It's really the beauty of the American system's overlapping powers, and a testament to how they keep each other in line IMO. You can rant and rave about what's right and wrong about morality and job-doing and all that, but political expediency will always trump everything in this country. That's how it works, that's how it's ALWAYS worked.
Obviously there is only one solution.
!!!!RON PAUL 2012!!!
"I smelled this coming when he sided with the Telcos on the wiretapping."
I don't have a big problem with this. If I federal security agency goes to a Telco and asks for a wire tape then the Telco should be protected from prosecution. A company should not be held at blame for following the law.
The problem isn't with the telcos but with the fact that the government can get warrentless wiretaps at all! Change that law which Obama has not done.
"I knew we were in for it when he kept Gitmo going."
It is closing. I fear that Obama found out the world was not the place he thought it was. Adaption is a good thing.
"ACTA secrecy pretty much cemented my opinion."
Boom! With you on that one. It is a huge misuse of "National Security" terrible and slimy. Shameful, rotten, nasty, immoral, and just wrong.
If you want to reel in the Content folks your best bet is probably going to be a Republican. They might leverage the more outrage of cracking down on the Godless, drug pushing, sex selling, music and movie industry .
I still don't get why it is legal in the US to bribe politicians.
It has something to do with Buckley v. Valeo in which the Supreme Court ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. I tend to think of speech as speech which each person can do in a similar way, but when you spend money you can basically make your voice louder than anyone else which seems a bit slanted toward people with money.
I think national funding of each campaign would be more fair. Same amount of money, no "donations" allowed. I'm sure there are drawbacks to this way too, but I'm not sure what they are... thoughts?
Umm, no. Yes, I do understand that the Supreme Court has claimed the privilege to be the final arbiter on the Constitutionality of laws. But that is written nowhere in the Constitution.
Do yourself a favour of looking at the Oath of Office for the President and for members of Congress.
Here's the one for the President (the only Oath of Office specified in the Constitution itself - note that it mentions laws not at all): I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
There's no Oath specified for the Congress, but this is the one the First Congress used: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.
And here's the one they've used for the last 122 years: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Note the phrase "defend the Constitution" in the current Oaths of Office for both the President and Congress. Note the absence of any phrase even approaching "defend the laws of the United States"....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
That someone who downloaded an mp3 with a 99-cent retail value, causing a maximum possible damages of 35 cents
The essence of P2P is file sharing.
Meaning that uploads - unlicensed and unlimited redistribution - is always in the picture. Which is why statutory damages is always in the picture.
The defendant knows, of course, that he was never entitled to free copies of his mp3 downloads - and unless he - and his lawyer - are idiots - the last thing he wants to see entered into evidence is a full accounting of every infringing mp3 he possesses.
The downloader collects files like a cheap woolen suit collects lint.
Willful and reckless disregard of the law makes a very good case for the imposition of punitive or statutory damages.
The geek knows how the game is played.
The trial judge and jury know how the game is played. That is why the outrage when these cases come up on appeal is never quite convincing.
Citation Please. NYCL is, in fact, a lawyer.
"Didn't Obama publically state that he wouldn't be spending Federal Funds to go after state licensed medical marijuana growers?"
You can hang that up with government run health care. Once that passes your body is property of the US Government. I expect you will see the government using that fact to pass and enforce many more laws concerning health related "sins". With the full support of the legal drug industry.
At this point I'm just hoping that after 4 years of Obama's "leadership" that I'll still have a little bit of change in my pocket.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Umm, no. Yes, I do understand that the Supreme Court has claimed the privilege to be the final arbiter on the Constitutionality of laws. But that is written nowhere in the Constitution.
Strict constructionists are like children with hands in front of their eyes. The brick wall doesn't exist until they've already run into it.
Citation Please. NYCL is, in fact, a lawyer.
What relevance does that have as to the job of the DOJ?
The funny thing about most of this is that the DOJ is 99% career employees, not political folks. They do the same jobs no matter who is in in the White House. To make this sound like its a political matter is, to say the least, disingenuous.
/. really needs to create some kind of LAML (Logical Argument Markup Language) so knara doesn't have to keep addressing the same damn issue over and over ad infinitum. In fact, the whole internet could really cut down on redundancy if there were a premiss-conclusion data type, perhaps with some cross-site referencing thrown in. Will someone please make it so?
should be a nice precedent. In that case, Apple asked for $30,000 damages for actually proven distribution of more than 700 illegal copies of MacOS X Leopard, each worth $30,000, and another for an (unknown to me) number of illegal copies of MacOS X Snow Leopard. (They also asked for damages for DMCA violation, but that is a different matter).
Using that as precedent, $80,000 seems about right if there is evidence that 200,000 copies of a song were distributed.
And where did you get the 'maximum possible damages of 35 cents'? Why do you think the theft value is only a third of the purchase price? If I steal a $30000 car, could I then pay a $10000 fine and keep the car?
That and spouting of the 'Obama's DOJ' nonsense certainly shows where your biases lie.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Yes, but when push comes to shove, the DOJ when asked if a law is enforcable and legal, will argue that it is.
What confuses people is that the DOJ can also sue and suggest that a law is unconstitutional.
I guess I don't understand the outrage. This is exactly what I would expect the DOJ to do, regardless of who is in the chief executive position this month.
What relevance does that have as to the job of the DOJ?
Absolutely nothing, but it has everything to do with the strength of your argument, which also isn't relevant to the job of the DOJ. As for your second remark, the whole legal system is disingenuous! Are you saying that 99% of the DOJ is without any political alignment whatsoever? What about alignment to the guys cutting their checks? Our whole government is comprised of self-interested people making self-centered decisions, it's not evil or wrong, it's just how it is. We set up our system to rely on these traits and exploit them, not to pretend that they're nonexistent.
In answer to my own question: http://www.springerlink.com/content/c2u10m3511536m5x/ Now all we need is a firefox plugin!
This completely misunderstands the issue. It's not about downloading, it's about sharing. The 'alleged' damages are not the value of the files Tenenbaum GOT but the value lost when he SHARED (both directly and indirectly). The RIAA would never get anywhere fast attacking the individual downloads, but the uploads have an exponential effect making the damages monsterous and frightening. The RIAA plan is to stop the sharing and the downloads will take care of themselves...
I guess I don't understand the outrage. This is exactly what I would expect the DOJ to do, regardless of who is in the chief executive position this month.
It's not outrage. Most people just won't picture the DOJ to be some knight in shining armor standing up for pure principle. It's definitely influenced, and it applies influence. It's not any different than something like the CIA, the FBI, or a bunch of other government organizations that have established bureaucracies with their own friends and connections. Yes, it may not be influenced by the current president completely, but it also has its own strange impure behaviors that exist independent of the current administration.
Yes, but when push comes to shove, the DOJ when asked if a law is enforcable and legal, will argue that it is.
Maybe. However, push must first come to shove, like you said, and the DOJ must also decide to agree with both push and shove and not put up claims to the contrary.
Absolutely nothing, but it has everything to do with the strength of your argument, which also isn't relevant to the job of the DOJ.
It's entirely relevant to the job of the DOJ. If you haven't noticed, NYCL isn't exactly the most objective in this particular subject matter.
Furthermore, there's a lot of presumption that I necessarily agree with the DOJ's argument. What I think of their argument is irrelevant. The fact that its their job to *make* the case that the law is applicable is at hand.
As for your second remark, the whole legal system is disingenuous!
Okay. Let us do away with it. What do you suggest we replace it with?
Are you saying that 99% of the DOJ is without any political alignment whatsoever? What about alignment to the guys cutting their checks? Our whole government is comprised of self-interested people making self-centered decisions, it's not evil or wrong, it's just how it is. We set up our system to rely on these traits and exploit them, not to pretend that they're nonexistent.
No, I'm saying that most people who work in government take pride in doing their jobs well. You may not agree with their motivations, but since the vast majority of them do not hold jobs that are beholden to whoever happens to be in the White House at the time, the idea that they are all in there, angling for some sort of Internet-forum "gotcha" moment is a dubious one, at best.
The damages are based on uploading, not downloading.
The damages theory isn't the RIAA's. It's what is built into the copyright statute.
The DOJ is not a knight in shining armor, however, what people seem to be expecting is that the DOJ will argue *against* that which it is tasked with defending.
The DOJ is a legal advocate and resource for the federal government, not a shining beacon of objectivity with free reign to go against its client's own interests.
Constitutionality is for the courts to decide, opinions on legal applicability and constitutionality can be done by all interested parties, and those who are in standing to request opinions from the DOJ (i.e. federal government entities).
There's nothing scandalous here. It *seems* to be that people think that Obama being elected was going to undo copyright law. I don't understand why that would even be within the realm of imagining, other than people don't know how the US government and legal system works.
Okay. Let us do away with it. What do you suggest we replace it with?
Now you're just being silly. Nothing! I love the mess way it is :-P! I never said I wanted to do away with it, I just said it was messy by nature.
No, I'm saying that most people who work in government take pride in doing their jobs well.
I can't say I necessarily agree with your statement, or a statement to the contrary. Call me a misanthrope. I HOPE that they do, but do I believe that to be the case? Meh.
BTW, thanks for the timely responses. I like your points. Props.
I doubt that Obama would keep these people in governmental employment if he knew they were in the pocket of the recording industry. If someone has good access it can be pointed out that this issue stains his administration and appears to be corruption.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the DOJ does not file a brief in every case, and does not always agree with the outcome of all cases tried in court. When the DOJ files a brief, this has nothing to do with their activities in the enforcement of the law, but rather their opinion about the judgement of the court after the fact.
In this case, this was a civil suit, right? What enforcement of the "law as passed" was every required of the DOJ in this case?
I told you so.
Not that McCain would have been any better.
Stop voting for the state-approved candidates.
Stop relying on a party to do your homework for you.
Stop believing that either of the main ones has your interests in mind.
Your brain is not a computer.
So.. you're asserting that the DOJ is filing briefs for the defense in every case to ever land in federal court? Somehow, I doubt that is in fact occuring.
This is not the DOJ's case, and the federal government is not a party to the case. The filing is contrary to the supreme law of the land. You know.. the constitution. And the DOJ can either be aware of the Constitution, its previously noted interpretations by the court, and the legal code (in which case it is acting unethcially) or the DOJ can be unaware of some/all of that and thus be acting ineptly. Neither bodes well.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
If legally permitted (I'm Canadian) I'll donate $100 to the Democratic Party if they appoint NewYorkCountyLawyer to head up the Department of Justice. These stupid US laws/cases end up biting us here eventually; better to stop them at the source. Now if a thousand people on Slashdot do the same (and it wouldn't at all surprise me if far more would) that is $100,000.
How much did the RIAA and its minions donate? Looks like under $100K to manage to get their appointees in place. Our money should be as good or better than the RIAAs?
I want an appointee who actually works for the public, I'll put my hard money on the line to that end, and in return want NewYorkCountyLawyer as Attorney General of the United States. That is how the system works, right? Make donations, get the appointees and agendas you want?
Let's just be honest here. You used the term Obama DOJ because it is incendiary. You chose it just to be sensationalist. It's what lawyers do. Your profession sensationalizes a subject to sway people. You are in fact part of the problem.
He has enacted change, but obviously not fast enough for you. How much did you think was going to change in a little under a year? Unless you change first how can you expect the corrupt system you work in to change. Honestly, are you any better for throwing a hot and fairly disingenuous title in the article? There is great information in the summary and I appreciate you sharing it, but I have little more respect for you and your position than the DOJ. When one person pees in the pool everyone swimming in the pool is covered in it.
Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
Don't buy from Sony
No what we got is exactly what we should have expected with someone with his limited experience. Someone with his "school intelligence" that never was tested, tried, and perfected. In other words, we got a directionless administration which was driven by someone who truly thinks they are special. His self references in many speeches makes clear to me he isn't yet figured out he is here to lead, here for us, instead he is there for himself. Its a me complex.
So if your expecting the second year to be the equivalent of a MMORPG Miracle Build I think you will be disappointed. He didn't know how to lead, he was used to campaign staffers and sycophants who fell over themselves to do what he asked for, not Washington which marches to its own drummer
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
This is what we get with the big O in charge.... OPRAH had a major to do with getting him in, what group of people do you think obama is going to be beholden to?
No, he used it to make a point. The point is that Obama's hope and change is mostly a fraud and that he's not, as was a common opinion on Slashdot before 2009, going to make everything all right. The point is that he's a politician with his hands in shady pocket just like most of the others before him. You may not agree with that point, but that does not make him a sensationalist.
Umm, no. Yes, I do understand that the Supreme Court has claimed the privilege to be the final arbiter on the Constitutionality of laws. But that is written nowhere in the Constitution.
Actually it is, in Article III, Section 2:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"
The power to Judge is the power to decide matters of law, including to Judge when two laws are in conflict and when they are which one prevails. Since the Constitution is the highest authority in the land it always overrides legislation.
You can't just search for a term like Judicial Review and when it doesn't show up say the concept is not in the Constitution. "Separation of Powers" appears nowhere in the Constitution, yet it clearly creates said separation.
The enemies of Democracy are
When the argument is that "Obama's hope and change is mostly a fraud," that absolutely is sensationalist. The word "fraud" has some very specific connotations, and using it when Obama has, in fact, made some very large and far-reaching changes is pedantic.
The people who seem to be most upset and using words like "Obamacare" are the folks who thought that his message of hope and change meant that everything would magically be made right in an impossibly short period of time (or, more often, thought that's what his supporters believed). Now, a year later, when every facet of the government hasn't seen massive change, he's a failure and a fraud. And, again, those same complainers will look at the changes that have been made and say that they were the wrong way to go. It's insane how many people will distort reality in whatever way possible to make sure Obama can't do anything right in their eyes.
If they were really discussing the issues without trying to put a sensationalist slant on things, the headline would simply have left the word "Obama" out and the article would perhaps mention that some of those DOJ officials had at one time worked for the RIAA and possibly pose the question as to if they still had some loyalties there. That would be factual and would spur discussion /of the issue at hand/, rather than what you see here - all this discussion needlessly focussing on Obama himself and his campaign strategies, etc..
They can, indeed, argue that something is unconstitutional, but if the federal government is party to a lawsuit, the DOJ's job is to defend it.
Is the RIAA the "federal government"?
That much I understand, what I don't understand is how people formerly employed by some of the biggest corporations in America can be given the power to represent the government in cases involving those same corporations.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
If congress passed a law saying that every FBI agent needed to rape and murder one woman a month, the president would rightly say "No, don't do that, the law is unjust and illegal. Do not follow it." He is bound to a higher law, the Constitution. All laws must be constitutional to be valid. Obviously said rape and murder law wouldn't be.
Now I use that as an example because it is obvious, however the current case is the same, just less obvious. The Constitution requires that fines be reasonable, you may remember the part that says "nor excessive fines imposed," as well as other related things. Well, someone who is a scholar in Constitutional law should know about that, and be able to figure out that $150,000 for copying a $1 song is an unreasonable fine. As such the law is unjust and invalid and shouldn't be enforced.
Note that in the oath you link to, he says "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This law is in violation of that Constitution, he should know that, and as such should refuse to enforce it.
You mean this law that's being a) ignored, b) ignored, c) ignored, d) ignored and e) ignored ?
The 25- page brief (PDF) continues the DOJ's practice of (a) ignoring the case law which holds that the Supreme Court's due process jurisprudence is applicable to statutory damages, (b) ignoring the law review articles to like effect, (c) ignoring the actual holding of the 1919 case they rely upon, (d) ignoring the fact that the RIAA failed to prove 'distribution' as defined by the Copyright Act, and (e) ignoring the actual wording and reasoning of the Supreme Court in its leading Gore and Campbell decisions.
I don't think anyone is really saying file sharing is ok. What's wrong is the ways in which people are being raped by the RIAA, the absolutely ridiculous amounts of fines, etc. Those amounts have a purpose for the RIAA, they want them to be so ridiculously high that people will stop. Guess what, not working. Therefore, there is nothing to justify them. The music industry doesn't help themselves by wanting to make you pay over and over again for the same music because you want to play it on a different device. They simply come across as the greedy ba****ds that they really are. Hopefully, someday, all the musicians will be done with the recording companies and sell it all on their own.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the DOJ does not file a brief in every case, and does not always agree with the outcome of all cases tried in court. When the DOJ files a brief, this has nothing to do with their activities in the enforcement of the law, but rather their opinion about the judgement of the court after the fact. In this case, this was a civil suit, right? What enforcement of the "law as passed" was every required of the DOJ in this case?
None whatsoever.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
> Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department's 'oversights' to
> the 'eye-popping number of people [in its employ] who worked for, and/or are
> directly connected with, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony
> Music's RIAA...
Perhaps, but they are probably more concerned about the impact of an unfavorable precedent on their own ability to seize property and impose draconian fines via civil rather than criminal prosecution. They like being able to punish people without having to prove criminal cases.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
>_> I think what ultimately happens in these back and forths is that we wind up talking past each other. I think you and I agree on pretty much everything aside from how I chose to trust organizations.
Do I think the DOJ is a legal resource, advocate, etc? Of course.
Do I think it's doing a pretty damn good job? You bet. I don't think you can find many other organizations in the world near the same level as the DOJ.
I also think that the interests of the recording industry need to be taken into account, and I think you do, too.
However, I think the DOJ isn't immune to political gamesmanship, just like pretty much everything else in government.
So.. you're asserting that the DOJ is filing briefs for the defense in every case to ever land in federal court? Somehow, I doubt that is in fact occuring. This is not the DOJ's case, and the federal government is not a party to the case. The filing is contrary to the supreme law of the land. You know.. the constitution. And the DOJ can either be aware of the Constitution, its previously noted interpretations by the court, and the legal code (in which case it is acting unethcially) or the DOJ can be unaware of some/all of that and thus be acting ineptly.
Or both.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
So how's that "hope and change" working out for you now?
Fools.
So, he should be considered guilty for the crimes of others? Land of the free :(.
Oh and I definitely don't expect the DOJ to argue against copyright law, that'd just be ridiculous. That's definitely something that needs to be done in congress. However, if it's tasked with defending something ridiculous and/or unenforceable, I'd expect it to employ some pragmatism, which in all honesty, it's doing that right now anyway. Ultimately, I have no problem with the DOJ right now. So much for arguing, I do it more for sport anyway. *Sigh*
It's comforting to see that the RIAA corps are so flush that they can afford all that government payola!
This will probably get modded troll, but it's true.
If you vote Republican or Democrat, you are part of the problem.
How is this modded as Troll when the original story is not? *shakes head*
Sorry, but anybody who voted for Obama thinking he was going to reform the freakin copyright laws is beyond delusional. Sure he talked about hope and change when comparing his approach to foreign policy and health care to the Bush Administration's, and we can justifiably criticize him for not delivering in those areas, but he certainly never promised hope and change for file-sharing or independent music production. Hollywood and the music industry have always contributed to both parties on these issues, and if anything the Democrats have been even more in their pockets than the party of war and ignorance. Don't get me wrong, the major parties disagree about some important issues, and I voted for Obama because of those issues, but when it comes to things like the basic distribution of wealth and the power of certain industries (the banks as well as the record companies), Democrats and Republicans always march lockstep with one another.
The DOJ brief only ever talks about "downloading and distribute", or (page 15) just "distributing" on its own.
The brief said that when you offer a song for distribution, it's hard to know how many people you've distributed it to. The number might be enormous. And so you're penalized between $750 and $30,000 for distributing it to this unknown number of people.
As to the penalty for downloading on its own, without distribution? -- NO ONE KNOWS. I don't think this issue has ever come to court. I can't imagine that it ever could come to court. The DOJ has not touched upon it.
I'm having that "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" moment that I really didn't want to have.
Dear wandazulu,
I'm sorry to inform you that a substantial portion of your comment is owned by Decca Records. You are hereby warned to cease and desist using our intellectual property. It appears that you are using the vehicle "slashdot" as a distribution mechanism for our property; we are asking for statutory damages well into six figures given that your comment was moderated to "Score 5," giving it a wider distribution and reaching more people who might otherwise have paid for a legal copy of "Baba O'Riley."
Sincerely,
Hell's Kitchen City Lawyer,
RIAA
Find out who Tom Cruise is voting for. Vote for the other guy.
Jack Nicholson?
Or did he mean lots of coins?
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed. They would not be doing their jobs if they said, "nah, you're right, this law should be overturned."
Lrn2USLegalSystem and US Government, please.
Bullshit, the DOJ is a beurocracy like any other. All the executive branch has to do to "adjust" the law-of-the-land is prioritize differently.
"From now on, all RIAA sancitoned suits, FOIA requests and any other administrative overhead that is solely to put our constituents in the poor house are priority 99999, anything else goes first." And since government beurocracies are understaffed, and/or full of bloat it'll never get done.
Problem solved.
If the public of tomorrow are the offspring of the public today[1], does that fill you with hope? I'd buy Brawndo stock, right now.
[1] I'm not like a biologist or anything. But once my TV got stuck on PBS and I heard some program where this guy with gray hair and an accent like a Canadian but more weird said something like that. He was talking about turtles and teapots and shit, I didn't get it for sure.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Assuming that you are correct in the idea that the DOJ is supposed to be a Congressional lap-dog (or lick-spittle), Congress is not a party to this case. Let me see if I understand you: if the corrupt, degenerate Congress passes a law encouraging the torture-murder of accused file-sharers, your position is that the DOJ should defend it? Yes?
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
There was no proof of distribution. Downloading songs without permission is copyright infringement and that is illegal. The fines assessed on Tenenbaum are are disproportionate and therefore unconstitutional. In what moral calculus do two wrongs make a right?
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
-- is that public-funded too? You know, "hate speech" and all that,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Canada, more "hate speech" laws than any other country in the world?
...and again in 2000 and again more recently. Americans too young to have lived through the Depression, World War II or the Korean War have consistently gone along with those who would sell them a smug sense of material comfort in exchange for their freedoms. Two quotes come to mind:
What goes around may well come around, but that will be scant comfort to the multitude of generations who will have to fight their forefathers' battles all over again, courtesy of our self-centered laziness.
- because his set of vested interests is not the same. Obama promotes Unions' agenda and gives them huge give-aways; Obama promotes the trial lawyers' agenda (hence no mention of their role in the staggering insurance costs to doctors and med tech makers). He also promotes copyright lobby and Big Content agenda (up to denying info on ACTA because of "national security") -- and it's mere coincidence that MSNBC and friends (co-owned by Vivendi and suchlike) acted and stills acts like "Pravda " when it comes to the current administration. This just in from that worthy: Mass. is sexist for not electing a Dem senator!
My sympathies to all who are coming around to understanding this.
"Despite having had some time to get their act together,
The oddest thing I find is the assumption that the Democrats are not beholden to corporate interest groups. When in fact, they are even moreso than Republicans.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
If you are sharing, you make the file available. If someone downloads that file, they may or may not have the legal right to do so. For example, the owner of the copyrighted work could download it. There is no law that says you cannot provide the copyright owner with a copy of their work. The question becomes, who breaks the law if someone downloads a file from your machine, you? Or the person downloading the file?
If you can be held liable when someone gets information from you, is that the limit? To what degree are you required to protect files? Suppose I have software installed on my computer like iTunes, and I do not wipe my drive before I give it to a repair shop. If they can boot my computer, they can take my files, possibly infringing. Am I liable?
I understand why content owners would like to say someone who shares files is liable, but it doesn't exactly make sense, does it?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just some unrelated info: Wharton Reserach says that even from a business perspective of maximizing profits the labels should reduce prices as the average cost per song is only 15 cents to them
I don't remember the exact figures and I'm too lazy to look it up, but if I recall, 4 members of the Department of Justice was actually hired from the RIAA by Obama.
Someone should take actions to guarantee that the members of the DOJ can not for the rest of their lives collect money or gifts from the RIAA or MPAA since I'm almost 100% certain that all the guys that started at the RIAA over there will be moving into massive corner offices at RIAA when they're done with their 4-8 years.
It's probably about time someone started an investigation into the DOJ with regards to their possibly illegal ties to the RIAA. I'm no expert on the topic, but it seems to me that lawyers that came from the RIAA into the DOJ interfering with huge case like this IN FAVOR OF the RIAA just screams out corruption to me.
I like Obama, but I knew when he started hiring these guys that there would eventually be a scandal attached to it.
Is Obama good or bad? I don't know, and I don't really care - I think, on balance, that he probably is, but that is not the real issue behind all these endless, and rather childish debates.
I wonder why it is that political debate in America is always so extreme and hateful? To me it seems exaggerated, like a cheap drama with bad actors; no wonder that people end up loathing politics. But then when I look at the discussions in places like slashdot, I can see people going on in the same, tired style. How can anyone hope to achieve real, positive progress in such a poisonous atmosphere?
I mean, take the discussions about this RIAA thing; of course most people agree that the RIAA are unreasonable, verging on criminal - but when everybody starts making howling noises, it actually precludes any meaningful discussion of the subject, which then plays into the hands of RIAA, because they then stand out as the only ones with something that sounds a little coherent.
Or that all-time favourite, the healthcare reform. Everybody, or at least most people know that the current situation is grossly unfair and that something has to be done. The current proposals may end up costing everybody a little bit more tax, but the ones that really fear this plan are the insurance companies. Again, because all you can hear from anywhere is desperate screaming and the sound of fighting, no change, positive or negative, can be achieved, which is exactly what the insurance companies want.
So, when are the American people going to take charge of their country, and take themselves serious? It seems to me that you guys missed out on the whole youth revolution thing, and only went through the motions back in the sixties. You know what - the hippies may look stupid to people now-a-days, but even as superficial and inefficient as they were, they actually took the power away, that politicians, big business and the religious industry felt were their birthright, and shook up the establishment. Just imagine how much more could be done in an age where people can communicate globally and easily, and where people have a much more realistic view of the world.
Umm, no. Yes, I do understand that the Supreme Court has claimed the privilege to be the final arbiter on the Constitutionality of laws. But that is written nowhere in the Constitution.
Strict constructionists are like children with hands in front of their eyes. The brick wall doesn't exist until they've already run into it.
Sorry, it seems that Slashcode has removed the part of your post where you explain what the hell you mean by that.
(Seriously, as a foreigner I'm interested in what you perceive as the problems with "strict constructionists". Also, I'm not sure -- does that term refer to people who insist that all federal laws must fall within the purview of the federal government as defined by the US Constitution?)
Pirate Party UK
In fact, didn't we all criticize Bush for doing this? He'd sign a law into effect but just before signing it, he'd write a note saying that he won't enforce it. (So called "Signing Statements.") In fact, here's a Village Voice article criticizing him for this practice: http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-08-08/news/bush-s-invisible-ink/
I'm not saying I completely approve of Obama's DOJ supporting the RIAA, but I don't think the situation is as black-and-white as some people make it out to be.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Once again NYCL gets yet another copyright troll post on Slashdot.
Here is a news flash NYCDS: Just because you don't like a certain law and you are a lawyer, it does not follow that said law is wrong or invalid and your preaching to the choir about how wrong it is doesn't make you right about it either.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Wait.. wait wait wait.... so Bush was better because he was blatantly and happily in the pockets of special interests? That makes Bush a better President? When Obama at least appears to want to do what's in the best interest of the country, you are suggesting you'd be happier with him if he just came out and said, "You know what? I lied, and I got all you suckers to fall for it, now get ready for US Army soldiers to come shuffle you all into camps while I take all your stuff! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!"
That is idiotic. Bush, or at least his cabinet, was flagrantly corrupt and they didn't care what the hell you had to say about it. Obama is currently in the middle of a HUGE medical care overhaul that will improve the lives of the poorest and neediest Americans more than it will improve the lives of the wealthiest. That is at least indicative that SOMETHING has changed since the Bush administration screwed the poor in order to give the biggest tax breaks in American history to the wealthiest 1%.
To suggest things in Washington are the same now as they've always been shows an amazing lack of either perspective or memory.
Not just a typo.
Throughout most of your posts you either deliberately or ignorantly ignore the fact that the US constitution is in fact law, and a law having higher priority than the ones you're referring to as having to be followed by the DOJ. Is it ok for the DOJ to follow those laws, while going against the constitution in doing so?
Why is it ok?
The damage don is how many copies of that song are then downloaded from that copy which could be in the 1000's easily.
You don't fileshare, much, I suppose. <smirk/> Because of the way it works, it's rare to manage to get your ratio over the single digits.
This "in the 1000's" number is more like the total number of people who share a work, so if you want to continue to attempt to justify the fine as commensurate with the actual damages, you'd have to compare it with the damages all those other people have done. Unfortunately, in the US of A people aren't supposed to be punished for other's wrongdoing (as TheDugong pointed out).
Epic fail.
Where exactly do you get
so Bush was better because he was blatantly and happily in the pockets of special interests?
from
The point is that [Obama]'s a politician with his hands in shady pocket just like most of the others before him.
That is a complete straw man.
Even if the health care bill was the panacea it's being paraded as (hint: it's not; it will continue to enrich insurance companies, it will not control rising healthcare costs, it will be a burden on a significant segment of the population), Obama continues the wars of aggression started by Bush. He continues to stand behind extraordinary rendition, the erosion of privacy by Homeland Security and TSA, he continues to let Wall Street pull its stunts, backs the RIAA, and does a number of other things that Bush did. Let's not forget too that he railed against backroom deals in the Clinton health care bill and repeatedly claimed that his negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN, which they are not.
He has made some good changes, the biggest is in his foreign policy tone, and sanctions against Iran would undermine that completely. He is no worse than Bush, but he has yet to be any better.
Things in Washington are the same now as they have been for the past five decades. If you can't see that you're blinded by partisanship. I am not saying that Obama is identical to Bush, but he is of the same mold: career politician. What happened to the starry-eyed outsider who was going to "shake things up in Washington?" What happened to five days of public comment before signing bills? What happened to tougher rules against the revolving door for lobbyists and former officials (including Wall Street types)? Those were the two most important promises he made, and both of them are broken.
No, Obama is the same old "lesser of two evils" dressed up as a paladin. I would be happy to eat my words if he started making real changes to the Washington cesspool, but so far he hasn't done more than repeat the mantra.
YES WE CAN! indeed.
Your brain is not a computer.