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."
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.
Fascism, with its merging of corporate, political, and military power, is almost complete in America. Too much 'rah rah USA, we so free, we so great, god just loves United States !', from a young age. Brainwashed people don't see it coming. Those who do go crazy trying to get others to see it. Even today, people who own a car, or a home, or even a business think they are part of the ownership class. They cheer the corporations on as if they will benefit. They believe they are part of the people who own enough wealth to create international policy, national policy, and military support of that policy. Silly people, they think they are part of the rich, when all they make is hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. If you aren't making governments bend to your desire, you are not part of the ownership class.
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.
Most lawyers have never been lobbyists. This judge was a lobbyist employed by the RIAA. You see, the issue here is that she was recently a lobbyist. Not that she is a lawyer.
I just told you what you could have learned on your own with a little reading comprehension. The information necessary to determine that your post is a waste is contained in the SUMMARY. Fuck man, it's contained in the headline and in the titlebar of your browser. You remind me of the people who have no comprehension of the issues and no understanding of civics who for some reason still insist on voting.
The only real question is whether you are really that clumsy and careless or whether you have some kind of pro-RIAA bias yourself, some kind of sympathy for their cause that makes you want to whitewash the whole affair.
No. The purpose of a defense lawyer is to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial, even if the accused is guilty. As an officer of the court a lawyer is expected to do this job professionally, whoever their client may be. Even scoundrels who are guilty as sin deserve a fair trial. That is how the system is supposed to work. Defense attorneys are an important part of making this happen. It is a higher ideal than whether they happen to like the client personally. It is based on principle, not fleeting sentiment.
If they spent years lobbying Congress on behalf of that plaintiff, and were well-compensated for it, then yes the judge should recuse herself from the next medical malpractice case involving that same plaintiff. Not all medical malpractice cases, but the ones involving that particular plaintiff. That's because in this case, the judge's bias is known and has a demonstrable history. It is not hearsay or supposition.
This judge has ties to the RIAA. This is demonstrable history. Unlike legal representation, no one is entitled to lobbyists. The state does not pay for a lobbyist if you are unable to afford one of your own, like the state would pay for a public defender. This judge would have had to favor the RIAA or else she'd have refused to be their marketer before Congress. There is no higher ideal that would motivate someone to lobby.
A judge with any integrity wouldn't want there to be even the question of bias. This case involves the very same organization for whom she lobbied Congress. Not a different organization with the same vague type of "case in that arena" (your attempt to muddy the waters has failed). The exact same one. If it were entirely up to me, this judge would be impeached and a new trial would take place. I take the prospect of overwhelming state power being used against citizens that seriously. If it needs to be done, it needs to be done correctly with no obvious questions of bias.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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