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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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. "
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
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?
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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
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, he should be considered guilty for the crimes of others? Land of the free :(.
NYCL clearly has his "side". The statements in it should be considered to be nothing more than opinion, as they are, rather than statements of fact or actual precedent
True
because the courts have repeatedly explored and rejected his claims
False. The issue has never been decided in any of the RIAA cases. The only RIAA case in which it has been litigated to any extent was UMG v. Lindor, where
-the RIAA argued that it was a frivolous defense,
-I argued that it was not a frivolous defense, and
-the Judge agreed with me and rejected the RIAA's argument.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
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.
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.
1. We were not going through the motions. It really happened.
2. I guess you didn't notice that we're the ones who started the youth revolution you're referring to.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Thus, we can conclude that your previous statement
the courts have repeatedly explored and rejected his claims
was, and is, a lie. You're consequently not a troll, but a simple liar.
Well I'm glad you said it; I was afraid if I said something like that, it would sound impolite.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful