Obama Nominates RIAA Lawyer For Solicitor General

Xiph1980 writes "President Barack Obama on Monday nominated former Recording Industry Association of America lawyer Donald Verrilli Jr. to serve as the nation's solicitor general. The solicitor general is charged with defending the government before the Supreme Court, and files friend-of-the court briefs in cases in which the government believes there is a significant legal issue. The office also determines which cases it would bring to the Supreme Court for review. Verrilli is best known for leading the recording industry's legal charge against music- and movie-sharing site Grokster. That 2003 case ultimately led to Grokster's demise when the US Supreme Court sided with the RIAA's verdict."

Comments

Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[elrous0]

I can understand the argument that he wants the most vicious shark in the tank to be his attack dog. I might could even buy the argument that this WASN'T just another in a long line of examples of Obama prostrating himself before his Hollywood and entertainment industry patrons. But, it seems to me that he could have found an attack dog that was just as vicious who didn't come with RIAA baggage. To hire someone whose such an obvious enemy of much of the online community and such a lapdog of the entertainment industry seems specifically designed to send a message to his patrons that he's definitely in their pocket. It's the judicial equivalent of Eddie Cicotte hitting the first batter in the 1919 World Series.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[shadowfaxcrx]

Obama is better than W only because he has a normal IQ. As to his politics, he's a corporatist who's broken enough campaign promises (close gitmo! Stop military tribunals of suspected terrists! Get out of Iraq! End welfare for the rich!) to lose 3 re-election bids. Nonetheless, I'll probably have to vote for him because the other side will be running some jackass like Palin, Pawlenty or Bachmann, and letting them get within 3 miles of the White House would be disastrous.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[billcopc]

You assume people stop being corrupt greed-mongers when they switch jobs. Funny guy!

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[Aryden]

"Amicus Curiae: Literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views. Such amicus curiae briefs are commonly filed in appeals concerning matters of a broad public interest; e.g., civil rights cases. They may be filed by private persons or the government. In appeals to the U.S. courts of appeals, an amicus brief may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof." -- legal-dictionary.freedictionary.com This means that in cases such as the legality of the suits filed by the *IAA's, he will have the ability to file amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the administration and/or the *IAA's. It doesn't have to mean that the government was directly implicated in anything, but it is a preparatory action for the future class action suits that will be filed against them.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[elrous0]

Actually, my position is more anti-DRM and pro-privacy. I buy every piece of my media legitimately, mind you. So it's not piracy I'm defending--it's my right as a legitimate consumer to be protected from big media companies intruding on my rights and my privacy because they assume I'm a pirate by default (and want to use the government to help them trample on my rights).

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[elrous0]

The Solicitor General does way more than that. As another post in the thread pointed out, a big part of the job is filing Amicus Curiae briefs with the Supreme Court. that means when the RIAA/MPAA or big media goes before the Supreme Court, guess who will be asked to file a friend of the Court brief saying "We support these guys"?

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[jfalcon]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html [cnet.com]

"By choosing Joe Biden as their vice presidential candidate, the Democrats have selected a politician with a mixed record on technology who has spent most of his Senate career allied with the FBI and copyright holders, who ranks toward the bottom of CNET's Technology Voters' Guide, and whose anti-privacy legislation was actually responsible for the creation of PGP."

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[mcgrew]

I'll probably have to vote for him because the other side will be running some jackass like Palin

There's more than one other side. You can vote Litertarian, Constitution, or Green. If you buy into the unintelligent argument that voting for any other party besides Reps and Dems is a wasted vote, than all those votes for McCain were wasted, because HE LOST and you voted for a loser!!! See the idiocy here?

If you smoke pot you're a fool to vote Democratic or Republican; they both want you in jail. If you're a foe of the media cartels you're almost as much a fool to vote for them, because the MAFIAA owns both parties. A vote for a Democrat or Republican is a vote for multinational corporation control of the government.

Now, if you're a corporatist, Republicans and Democrats are both good choices. If you're for human liberty, neither is.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[cheekyjohnson]

Nonetheless, I'll probably have to vote for him because the other side will be running some jackass like Palin, Pawlenty or Bachmann, and letting them get within 3 miles of the White House would be disastrous.

People who keep voting for the "lesser of the two evils" are exactly why we keep ending up with politicians who are only slightly better than their competition, but still tremendously corrupt. It is the "third parties have no chance" (not that you necessarily displayed that in your post) attitude that prevents third parties from ever winning, not the fact that they are third parties. Instead of voting for the lesser of the two evils, vote for someone good, and encourage others to do the same so that hopefully we'll be able to break this cycle sometime in the future.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[wurble]

I would agree with you if we didn't have a first past post system. If we had instant runoff or some other similar multi-vote system, then your theory could work. However in first past post, any third party serves only to act as a spoiler for the party closest to them. As such, libertarians tend to act as spoilers for the Republicans and Green tends to act as spoilers for the Democrats.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[h4rm0ny]

I feel the same way and would only vote D just to keep the R's away. I do NOT want D's; I want less R's.

Wow. If people think this way, then I've just thought of a way it could be exploited. All I would have to do would be to pick what I wanted to happen and have it supported by group A, and then just make sure that alternative B was horribly worse. For added refinement to stop people getting wise to it, I could divide up what I wanted to achieve between both A and B and alternate which appeared worse.

Phew. I'm glad no-one else has ever thought of that. Can you imagine what America would be like if they had...?

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[Anonymous Coward]

But the fact that he's a former RIAA lawyer has nothing to do with that. If, as you claim, the US government will be pushing their solicitor general to file amicus curiae briefs in support of the RIAA (a contention that I strongly disagree with, but will support for the sake of argument) then whoever gets put in that job will be asked to do so. Hiring an ex RIAA lawyer really doesn't speak to that point at all. The fact is, he was hired for the exact same reason the RIAA hired him, he's a damn good lawyer.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[h4rm0ny]

It doesn't matter. The only logical ways out of the trap are either break the two party lock by voting for someone else, or reject the current democratic process. As the only legal method of rejecting the current process is to get third parties into power which is the problem you're trying to solve, that only leaves illegal means. So basically if you ever want this to change, you're facing a choice of voting your principles or revolution. Do not let it get to the point where it has to be a revolution.

If people start voting their principles, then third parties may only get 5% this year, but that makes it easier to get 6% next year. When people see it's rising, more people vote for it. Then you've got 7%, which encourages more people to vote. Then one year, you wake up and you've changed things.

If America is worth fighting for, then accept it's going to take more than one battle. If you lose a few, it doesn't matter because you're gaining ground. You have to try.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[Archangel Michael]

What is funny, is that you think there is substantial difference between (D) and (R), to the point of thinking one is less dangerous than the other. The problem is that both are extremely dangerous to Liberty, just in different areas. You may not care about what liberties the (D) are taking away, but I do. I'm equally concerned with the Liberties that the (R) are talking away.

When you overlook the deficiencies of one group (D) because you fear the deficiencies of the other (R), you're equal to those you despise on the other side, who do the exact same things in reverse.

Lets look at the TSA under Obama and his leadership, which is, as far as I'm concerned 10 times worse than anything Bush did, not that Bush wasn't dangerous (he was). The real danger is that Obama is only 1/2 though is first term, and has potentially six more years to screw with us. Bush is no longer here, and no longer scares me.

By Focusing on how horrible Bush was, while ignoring that Obama has for all intents and purposes kept Bush Era rules around and even extended them, does us all a great disservice.

Suffice it to say, Obama scares me more than Bush does. And if he doesn't scare you more than Bush you're living in a delusion. One last point, I love how people think Bush was an idiot, while simultaneously thinking he is brilliantly evil and draconian. I see the left making the same mistake with Palin, while ignoring how stupid Pelosi / Reed seem to be at times. NONE of these people are stupid, they are all just Evil.

To Flip a saying I use occasionally: Any sufficient level of malice is indistinguishable from incompetence.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[Frequency Domain]

The only logical ways out of the trap are either break the two party lock by voting for someone else, or reject the current democratic process.

False dichotomy. You can also work within the system to any number of varying degrees, which involves being willing to compromise.

I actually think your post is indicative of a huge problem in American politics today. More and more people are advocating a rejection of democracy when they don't get their way.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in

[AvitarX]

Considering recent international treaty negotiations (ACTA) I think it's fair to say the US Government has strong feelings on issues re: RIAA.

I think this appointment supports that premise.

Re:What's the deal with Obama, anyway?

[h4rm0ny]

I prefer to believe that he's a good guy, overwhelmed with work and following some very bad advice.

Why?

yes it does

[unity100]

just like how other appointments in his administration turned out to be.

Re:yes it does

[swordgeek]

As a foreigner watching US politics with interest, I have to agree. What bothers me is that he doesn't even seem to be trying to improve things. He hasn't fought very hard for anything, and he's backpedalled (preemptively!) on many HUGE issues like closing Guantanamo Bay.

It's an uphill battle, no doubt, and he's facing some relatively popular whack-job Republicans, but dammit, he needs to FIGHT a bit.

Re:yes it does

[Opportunist]

The Chicago Mafia's power to extort was limited to Chicago.

Re:yes it does

[Culture20]

What's the difference between the Chicago Mafia and the MafiAA again?

The Chicago Mafia's power to extort was limited to Chicago.

Not after we elected its Don to the Oval Office.

Inaccurate Summary

[Grond]

Verrilli was not, as the summary implies, a lawyer who worked exclusively for the RIAA. Verrilli worked for Jenner & Block, one of the larger law firms in the US. The recording studios were one client of many, and it does not appear that he had a habit of representing studios. Judging by his significant Supreme Court experience, Verrilli represented a wide variety of clients, including indigent criminal defendants, a federal employee who alleged he was discriminated against because of his age, insurance agent trade groups, wireless telecommunications companies (against the FCC), Coors Brewing Company (arguing against a state law forbidding the display of alcohol content on beer), citizens alleging violations of their voting rights, and the American Libraries Association (arguing against the Communications Decency Act of 1996) .

That's a broad set of clients, including a lot of litigation against the government, which is what the Solicitor General handles. It is absurd to impute an agenda to an attorney based on one case, and Verrilli seems qualified for the job of Solicitor General.

An attorney's view

[Sonny Yatsen]

You know, as an attorney, we're hired to defend vigorously the position of our clients or their interests. That doesn't necessarily mean we advocate for that position as private individuals, or that we are incapable of striking a fair position. The only thing that should matter as a nominee for a Solicitor General position is whether she can diligently represent the government's position, and that is all.

Re:An attorney's view

[Buelldozer]

You're asking us to risk unknowable amounts of damage to the digital freedom of the entire nation for who knows how long on the _hope_ that Mr. Verrilli won't continue to assist his former industry if he becomes Solicitor General. I'm sure it's a sweet deal for Mr. Verrilli but what's the American public getting that makes this risk worthwhile to us?

Frankly, and please don't take this personally, your profession suffers from an image problem and for a variety of very good reasons people don't trust Attorney's. Why should Mr. Verrilli be any different?

No, Mr. Verrilli should be rejected and someone else should be found. Preferably someone without such strong ties to such a litigious and morally corrupt industry.

Re:If you voted for Obama...

[jez9999]

Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.

So?

[mopomi]

So, someone represented a company that has different ideas than you do...and that's a problem because?
Do /.ers really believe that their employer is their sole identity defining characteristic?
Are all of you who work for asshole-bosses also assholes?
It sure seems that that's what you're all saying when you go on these witch-hunts.

Re:So?

[egcagrac0]

Are all of you who work for asshole-bosses also assholes?

A lot of them are, yes.

What does this mean?

[Charliemopps]

I think we should look into WHY they chose him. He represents the government in front of the supreme court. His specialty is copyright law. What sort of laws or decisions do you think the administration will be enacting in the near future that they thought they'd need his services? It looks like Obama's getting ready to be challenged in court. We should expect so new draconian policies regarding the internet in the near future.

Re:What does this mean?

[Grond]

His specialty is copyright law.

Not particularly. As you can see from the Wayback Machine copy of his Jenner & Block profile, "Mr. Verrilli concentrates his practice on Supreme Court and appellate litigation, telecommunications, and First Amendment and media litigation....Mr. Verrilli has argued many cases in the federal courts of appeals and in state supreme courts on a range of issues, including cases involving copyright, constitutional law (involving the First Amendment, the Takings Clause and the Bill of Attainder Clause), statutory construction, administrative law and criminal law....He is an adjunct professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he has taught First Amendment law for the past 14 years."

Copyright and media litigation were only a small part of a wide-ranging practice.

What is wrong with you people?

[sirwired]

This guy was NOT the RIAAs chief counsel, or responsible for their litigation strategy against individuals. He is a lawyer who has litigated a wide range of cases, most of which have absolutely bupkis to do with the entertainment industry. In fact, it is probably his broad expertise that led to him being appointed to the job. Yes, he was the litigator for the Grokster case, which he won. I don't see how this makes him a slave to the entertainment industry. Both sides of a case are entitled to be represented by counsel; in this case, he happened to be representing a side we, Slashdot, don't particularly like.

Just because a lawyer represents one side of a case does not mean they approve of everything (or even anything) a client does. Are we also going to claim the lawyer representing the maniac from AZ is on the side of "letting psychotic killers go free?"

Re:Why has Obama suddenly turned pro-business?

[twoallbeefpatties]

Of course if you only listen to Rachel Maddow, then you were probably unaware.

If you think that Rachel Maddow doesn't hit Obama for this stuff all the time, then you're just as blindly partisan as you claim other people to be. Characters like Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, and Bill Maher have been giving Obama shit since be got elected - from hiring much of Clinton's economic team with their heavy ties to the financial industry, to his backdoor meetings with healthcare providers promising not to bargain for lower bulk rates if they would support the reform bill.

See, the funny part about all of this is that people like Glenn Beck think that Obama is a socialist, an evil plant of the far-left set out to destroy all American values, but then they turn right around and accusing him of being in the pocket of big business without the least bit of irony. The guy is a centrist, and he's clearly positioning himself to work with the Republican Congress to try and get some compromises and get some things accomplished over the next two-year period - much to the chagrin of his Rachel-Maddow-watching supporters.

Don't confuse legal arguments with personal belief

[cigawoot]

Lawyers are paid to represent their CLIENT's interests, not their own. This guy could have personally disagreed with the RIAA and the Supreme Court's ruling, but as an attorney you are obligated to represent your client in the best possible manner.

I'm pretty sure a defense lawyer for Jarad Loughner personally believes her client is guilty and should get the chair for his crimes, but she's still obligated to defend her client as best as possible.

Uffda, what a downstep...

[osu-neko]

He's going from defending the RIAA to defending the government. His clients get scummier every year... :p

Re:Bush spoke more intelligently

[SuperKendall]

You know: "I don't read,"

I don't know where you got that quote from since other quotes have him saying he was an avid reader. Indeed that seems like just the sort of out of context quote it's so easy to find about anyone if you go looking...

Obama has said things like "there are 57 states" (and even in fact repeated that "heckuva job" line himself referring to someone else). It's easy enough to cherry-pick moments in life where someone, even at the highest levels, misspeaks. Which is why it's far better to judge what they say on average then on specific statements highlighted by others specifically to sound stupid. And on average, as noted, Bush was overall a more intelligent and better informed speaker than Obama.

As for the credentials neither Bush's or Obama's credentials impress me BY THEMSELVES. That's the point I was making, and does not contradict anything I was saying (while at the same time also noting that Obama's credentials alone do not automatically make him smarter than someone without them).