Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Lobbyist Becomes Federal Judge, Rules On File-Sharing Cases
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica:
"Last week, Washington, DC federal judge Beryl Howell ruled on three mass file-sharing lawsuits. Judges in Texas, West Virginia, and Illinois had all ruled recently that such lawsuits were defective in various ways, but Howell gave her cases the green light; attorneys could use the federal courts to sue thousands of people at once and then issue mass subpoenas to Internet providers. Beryl Howell isn't the only judge to believe this, but her important ruling is especially interesting because of Howell's previous work: lobbying for the recording industry during the time period when the RIAA was engaged in its own campaign of mass lawsuits against individuals. The news, first reported in a piece at TorrentFreak, nicely illustrates the revolving door between government and industry."
Enjoy your Corporate States of America!
The alternative to the "revolving door between government and industry" seems to mostly be regulators who don't know anything about what they're regulating. Fun stuff either way! :)
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
but this is ridiculous. I honestly don't think that cases of this nature should be allowed to come before, or be judged by someone who has spent so much time fighting on one side of a cause like that.
That's like asking an ice cream man to preside over a case or cases where someone is suing an ice cream company for them being fat or something (probably not the best analogy, but as close as i could think of). In short, this is retarded, and that judge shouldn't have been allowed to have anything to do with this stuff.
That's a false duality. There is no reason that regulators can't listen to the industries they regulate as long as the industries aren't buying them trips, cars, vacations, etc...
How can any judge with even a sliver of a conscience not recuse themselves from this case?
It's because we say corporations are "people." When they have the "same" rights as people they essentially have more rights than people since they can amass so much power.
They shouldn't have the same right as people because they aren't people. Giving the the exact same set of rights means the rights of real living, breathing people are lessened.
Under most usages *I'm* a liberal. I don't like Obama. He *isn't* a liberal.
Only in the minds of crazy right wingers and tea party activists involved in fighting shadows is he a liberal.
Even if that weren't a false dichotomy I'd prefer a meddlesome regulator who follows the laws to the letter because he didn't "know anything about what he was regulating" to the lazy one that "knows which regulations don't need to be followed".
Red tape may be annoying, but it's often there for a reason.
You think a republican majority would not have done the same?
They are all bought and paid for.
Well, all you YRO types who voted for Obama, this is what you get.
It was pretty obvious Obama was not going to be particularly progressive where it counted. McCain, however, after his rightward lurch during the election would probably have gone to war with Iran, would have appointed right-wing nutjobs to the EPA, Department of the Interior, etc., and would have emboldened the Republican party for generations --"look how much we screwed the country up with Bush, and we still got re-elected, we can do anything!" So he was still worth voting for.
When they were given the "rights", they should have also been given the same liabilities as people:
- lifespan of 80 years.
- incarceration (everyone in the company gets locked up) for wrongdoing.
(i know it doesn't work. just pointing out HOW corporations aren't people and therefore shouldn't have rights as such).
Right now, it's much better to be an incorporated entity than it is to be an individual. They get all the rights, and get to enjoy it for far longer than any person and without the possibility of incarceration if the entity starts enjoying it's "rights" a little too much by violating the rights of others.
This isn't possible. President Obama said that the era of revolving doors at the white house (corporations hiring away whitehouse appointees and whitehouse appointees with conflicting interests being hired away from private industry) was over. Yet, that's all I've seen here. From a company hiring out nearly the entire IRS to help it pay zero taxes to a guy with no history or experience or knowledge in anything becoming the country's "CTO" to . . . this.
I can only surmise that this has somehow slipped under Obama's radar and that as soon as someone brings it to his attention, he'll make sure some heads roll. And I'm sure the next president will totally not allow this to happen. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. This is totally not the way government has operated for most of our two centuries and change. This is toooootally a rare exception. Yep. I'm sure of it.
your attorney is fucking your spoiuse. I'm sure you'd agree that your divorce will be equitably handled so long as they no longer have sex....
Welcome to fascism. Benito would be proud.
Those that do not learn from history...
If Congress truly wanted to prove themselves to the American people to be above it all they would ban any contribution of any kind from K-Street to any member of Congress or their families. Further more, they would forbid the same from ever working for such organizations. However I doubt this will come, it will take influence outside of the Democrat or Republican parties.
Yet both are deft at playing people off each other, getting people to focus on the other party, which thereby keeps them in power. When groups rise up outside of their control you can tell as the media will line up and protect their investment, along with all the powers on Wall Street. The American public are only allowed to rise when commanded and when they dare do so on their own the entire establishment comes down in force. Unfortunately too many buy into it and side with the very people keeping them under the thumb of two political parties corrupt beyond repair.
If you voting for a party your voting for your loss of freedom
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Isnt this a conflict of interest and grounds for appeal?
WTF?
It is 100% a conflict of interest, and the judge should automatically be recused from ALL file-sharing lawsuits as a result.
All rulings made should be immediately and retroactively reversed.
Then the judge herself needs to pay a HEAVY fine for such inexcusable behavior. The kind of fine that will BREAK HER POCKETBOOK and give incentive for other judges to behave.
It is time our judicial system got a dose of accountability.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
It is 100% a conflict of interest, and the judge should automatically be recused from ALL file-sharing lawsuits as a result.
All rulings made should be immediately and retroactively reversed.
Then the judge herself needs to pay a HEAVY fine for such inexcusable behavior. The kind of fine that will BREAK HER POCKETBOOK and give incentive for other judges to behave.
It is time our judicial system got a dose of accountability.
But who would hold a judge accountable? Another judge? Surely you jest. There's a reason the second amendment is a part of the united States Constitution...
There's no place like
"Surely you jest. There's a reason the second amendment is a part of the united States Constitution..."
We are well past hope of peaceful change, but still far too comfortable for the masses to act.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
We are well past hope of peaceful change, but still far too comfortable for the masses to act.
Indeed - western tyranny's sweet spot.