Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Picks RIAA's Favorite Lawyer For Top DoJ Post

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the paging-mister-lessig dept.

Government 766

The Recording Industry of America's favorite courtroom lawyer, Tom Perrelli, who has sued individual file swappers in multiple federal courts, is President-elect Barack Obama's choice for the third in line at the Justice Department. CNet's Declan McCullagh explores the background of the man who won the RIAA's lucrative business for his DC law firm: "An article on his law firm's Web site says that Perrelli represented SoundExchange before the Copyright Royalty Board — and obtained a 250 percent increase in the royalty rate for music played over the Internet by companies like AOL and Yahoo," not to mention Pandora and Radio Paradise. NewYorkCountryLawyer adds, "Certainly this does not bode well for CowboyNeal's being appointed Copyright Czar."

cancel ×

766 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Quick! (-1, Flamebait)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352937)

Everyone start defending this decision.

It sickens me how blinded people are by partisan politics.

Re:Quick! (5, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352983)

It sickens me how blinded people are by partisan politics.

Then why do you engage in it?

Your first post presupposes *way* too much to be anything other than partisan.

Re:Quick! (5, Insightful)

marc.andrysco (1173073) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353047)

I think that we're probably going to see people defending Obama himself rather than his decision. I personally voted for him and generally support him (at least more than McCain), but I abhor this appointment. I hope that Obama will appoint other, anti-RIAA people to help balance things out. I don't follow politics enough to know all the ins and outs, so I can't provide any real insight in this decision. Hopefully some fellow /.ers will give some useful insight other than the typically "Politics as usual", "Democrats suck", "Both parties are the same", etc that goes on every time something political comes up. Maybe something new and useful, like an analysis of his other advisors and appointments to see if there are other pro-RIAA as well as anti-RIAA people.

Re:Quick! (1, Interesting)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353135)

I think that we're probably going to see people defending Obama himself rather than his decision. I personally voted for him and generally support him (at least more than McCain), but I abhor this appointment.

On what basis do you abhor this appointment? You're not judging counsel by the client they represent. No, of course you're not, that would be silly, wouldn't it?

Re:Quick! (5, Interesting)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353211)

On what basis do you abhor this appointment?

I can't speak for marc.andrysco, but personally I abhor it because this particular counsel has shown that they are not above outright lying to the court.

A lawyer's first responsibility is to the court, not the client. They are supposed to represent the client to the best of their ability, but not at the expense of the court. The simple fact that this particular lawyer has had at least one of the judges recommend sanctions speaks volumes about just what kind of morals they have.

Hey, Libertarians! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353395)

Guess what? Our government is itself a product of the market system. Cities like New York, London, and San Francisco are successful precisely *because* of their enormous governments--they compete for capital, talent, and prestige against cities with small, ineffectual governments that are unable to effectively lure and corral said capital, talent, and prestige. And as goes the city, so go city-states and nations: Somalia, being a libertarian paradise, is a rather unpleasant place to live for non-ideologues. Somalians, those who can, vote with their feet and leave.

Now go suckle Ayn Rand's rotten tits some more and leave the rest of us alone, you stupid fucking Paultards.

Re:Quick! (3, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353275)

Yes, it would be horrible to judge people by the company they keep.

And I assume you also believe that Cheney and Bush are completely free of influences of the oil industry, in which they were both employed?

Re:Quick! (5, Insightful)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353149)

Congratulations on electing a politician. Please enjoy the next 8 years of corporate whoring.

Re:Quick! (-1, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353303)

Bush's appointment of Tony Snow [wikipedia.org] as white house press secretary was bad enough but I just found out that Obama wants Sanjay Gupta [cnn.com] for surgeon general! It probably started with Reagan and went sharply downhill after Californians elected The Terminator as their governor. Sigh.

Re:Quick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26352995)

It is always fun to see flamebaits (ie. messages only flaming others but with no real content or arguments in themselves) to be moderated +4 insightful in a few seconds.

Re:Quick! (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353043)

Maybe you could think of his post as stating a hypothesis, and we are about to see whether it is proven correct in practice? After all, if it does end up being correct, perhaps something may be learned.

Re:Quick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353009)

Then why not get rid of the parties [metagovernment.org] ?

Re:Quick! (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353015)

Obama wants to change the system. But in order to do that, he needs insiders, clinton retreads, lobbyists, and big corporate stooges that know how to get shit done. Once he's surrounded by them, he'll be able to change the system.

Re:Quick! (2, Insightful)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353051)

Wow, that was some of the driest humor I've EVER read on Slashdot. Impressive.

Re:Quick! (1)

Ifni (545998) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353103)

Before modding the parent down, please understand that he neglected to put in a sarcasm warning.

I know that politicians lie through their teeth to get elected, but I feel exceptionally taken by Obama's bait and switch.

Fittingly enough, the Slashdot fortune cookie for me today is "Sic transit gloria mundi. [So passes away the glory of this world.] -- Thomas `a Kempis"

Re:Quick! (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353249)

but I feel exceptionally taken by Obama's bait and switch.

I don't. The bait [boingboing.net] and switch [senate.gov] was telegraphed months before the election. If you voted for him anyway you don't really have anyone to blame but yourself.

I actually took a week off work and campaigned for him during the primaries. Adding insult to injury was the fact that Hillary (whom I helped him defeat) had the spine to vote against the FISA "compromise". My response to his victory was to apply for my pistol permit before Albany or Washington decides that I shouldn't be able to do so.

Re:Quick! (2, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353429)

I helped campaign for him on the weekends with my sister... got on stage when he came to Newport News and was on the tv, and got to shake his hand and stuff...

But in VA, you don't need a permit to own a gun (actually, sales records are destroyed 30 days after purchase), but I already had my concealed carry permit.

I spent most of the first 2 years out of college working in politics -- Palin was the only one of the candidates I haven't met. I voted for Obama anyway, while having an RNC card in my wallet, because I figured that he would list a little more to the right later one, average out, and would probably be quite alright. I wasn't about the hype, I just want someone sane and relatively moderate (slightly leftish is alright) after all the bullshit we've all had to deal with the last few years.

Re:Quick! (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353439)

I actually took a week off work and campaigned for him during the primaries. Adding insult to injury was the fact that Hillary (whom I helped him defeat) had the spine to vote against the FISA "compromise". My response to his victory was to apply for my pistol permit before Albany or Washington decides that I shouldn't be able to do so.

I know some people who work on the system which handles the background checks for firearms (handguns, long guns, etc.). Leading up to Christmas the background checks were coming in so fast (due to people buying guns and also getting permits I assume) that they were being overrun. Management personnel were having to take calls it was so bad. Now given, the fall/winter seasons are the busy season for firearm background checks but they were seeing at least a 20% increase in firearm purchases and therefore bg checks above the normal busy season numbers. I spoke with one of the supervisors of the system one day after work in November as we walked to our cars and his last comment to me was "it's not like Obama can take their guns away tomorrow". Don't be so paranoid.

Re:Quick! (5, Insightful)

OhPlz (168413) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353127)

I'm sure he doesn't want to burn through all his change in his first term. He's probably starting slowly, pacing himself. I'm sure that's it.

Honestly, I lost all hope when he won the election. Now I'm laughing at all the drones here that fell for the Messiah's clever PR campaign. Here it comes geniuses, are you ready for it?

Hehehe. It's going to be a spectacular four years. I have no faith left at all, so it's all for entertainment value now.

Re:Quick! (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353313)

Now I'm laughing at all the drones here that fell for the Messiah's clever PR campaign

I think it had less to do with his PR campaign and more to do with Republican incompetence. Independents in this country have historically broke Republican in Presidential elections -- Katrina was probably the point at which the GOP lost them.

Re:Quick! (5, Insightful)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353373)

constant media misdirection away from Louisiana government's gross incompetence about Katrina was probably the point at which the GOP lost them.

There - fixed that for you.

Re:Quick! (0, Troll)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353399)

There - fixed that for you.

I'm sorry but that doesn't fly with me. I don't care how incompetent the state government was -- the fact remains that George W. Bush went to bed while Americans suffered and died. What the fuck happened to "The Buck Stops Here"?

It's exactly that kind of "See, it's not really my fault!" rationalization that cost the GOP the independent vote.

Re:Quick! (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353289)

LOL

Re:Quick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353465)

almost got caught by the lack of sarcasm tags.

Well.... (5, Insightful)

xzvf (924443) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353019)

It could be, that like most lawyers, he doesn't actually believe in the RIAA cause and just wants their money. Murderers and rapists need lawyers that just have to be advocates in court and not true believers in their client's innocence. That being said, when you set your expectations higher than the gutter (especially in politics) there is a chance you'll be disappointed.

Re:Well.... (2, Insightful)

Missing_dc (1074809) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353073)

I have a friend that I truly believe was guilty of a crime who was acquitted. After having witnessed his lawyer's representation, I think the lawyer believed the same. He did his job to the fullest regardless of his own beliefs.

Re:Well.... (2, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353345)

Unfortunate, but the guilty deserve a good defense, even if they are guilty. We have to make sure we do our best not to lock up the innocent. Despite the outcome, I'd have to applaud the lawyer for defending a client to the best of his ability, even if he thought the client was guilty. I don't think I'd have the stomach for that, but its a job that needs to be done for our legal system to even resembling something close to justice.

Re:Well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353371)

If it was murder, please send a note to Dexter.

Re:Well.... (1)

db32 (862117) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353107)

That isn't far from what I was thinking. I mean really...how many lawyers have YOU met that had a code of ethics beyond getting paid? I suppose there is Jack Thompson...but then you kinda get into the realm of lawyers with codes of ethics aren't very good lawyers. (Yes...Jack Thompson had "ethics", he believed in his little crusade against the immorality of blah blah blah...that doesn't mean his ethics are anywhere near rational)

Now...to be fair...criminal defense lawyers that defend murderers and rapists should not allow their personal beliefs to get in the way. There have been so many mock trials in this country where the defense lawyer basically refused to put up a fight for an innocent man because he had already decided himself that he was guilty (typically based on things like skin color and the like). They should do their best job regardless of what they think. Of course...RIAA lawyers have a little more freedom in their choice of clients...but hey, if the paycheck is big enough...

Re:Quick! (1)

ITEric (1392795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353061)

Well, perhaps with the RIAA's star lawyer poached away, the rest of us will get a break~

Re:Quick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353071)

Look, if he's a lawyer, he's not making policy for the client, he's executing it. What matters is how effective he is at running with it, etc.

Although a sleazy lawyer is probably an unfortunate choice, if the policy the sleazy lawyer is working for is okay, and he does his job for the clien, it may yet turn out okay.

Not that I believe it ...

Re:Quick! (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353191)

Why?

In case you haven't noticed, Slashdot is predominantly Libertarian, and very strongly anti-RIAA.

Re:Quick! (2, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353375)

Hey, this is change I can believe in... I'd be shocked if he picked the head EFF attorney instead.

I voted for him, but I won't defend this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353425)

Why would I start defending this? I don't like it one bit. I don't want someone who will twist the law working for the DoJ, especially not someone using RIAA tactics.

I plan to complain via change.gov [change.gov] and see if Obama will change his mind. If enough of us do that, he might reverse course.

How everyone feels about this appointment. (1)

Applepuppy (563948) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352945)

Why that @#$%^ #$%^&*^&*() &*()_+ @#$%@@@!!!!! son of a #$%^&*^ ^&&^*()( ^& ^&* () *&!!!

Is this really a surprise? (5, Insightful)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352947)

He picked their favorite senator as a running mate.

Figures (4, Insightful)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352959)

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Re:Figures (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353165)

But... But... But.. Change, dammit! Change!

Change? Sure.. there is change... (4, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353461)

Here it is. Right there after the first refrain:

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, thats all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

See? Its there TWICE!
That is a whole lotta change, yes sir...

Re:Figures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353187)

LOVE the Who!

To the Obama Koolaid drinkers (5, Insightful)

Whatsmynickname (557867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352961)

Between that and this pick [time.com] , will all the Slashdot Obama koolaid drinkers who thought he was supposedly pro-tech please stand up and be heard now!

Re:To the Obama Koolaid drinkers (5, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352999)

Between that and this pick [time.com] , will all the Slashdot Obama koolaid drinkers who thought he was supposedly pro-tech please stand up and be heard now!

He is pro-technology. After all, DRM is tech.

Re:To the Obama Koolaid drinkers (3, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353049)

He is pro-crapology. After all, DRM is crap.

There. Fixed it for you.

Re:To the Obama Koolaid drinkers (4, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353113)

He is pro-crapology. After all, DRM is crap.

There. Fixed it for you.

I was trying to add a small degree of subtlety to the proceedings.

Trojan Horse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26352971)

I've said all along that the preZ elect is a Trojan horse. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Oh boy this should be fun (5, Insightful)

Doghouse Riley (1072336) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352973)

I'm popping a big bowl of Orville's best right now.

If Chimpy McBushitler had done this, it'd be business as usual on /.

But now that his O'ness has done it, I'm looking forward to a really entertaining read.

Re:Oh boy this should be fun (1)

Missing_dc (1074809) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353013)

I know the parent post is rather trollish, but it got a LOL out of me!

PARENT IS NOT A TROLL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353155)

The parent is not a troll.
He's right on the mark.

#ifndef MOD_FUNNY (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353181)

The sad part is, I think you struck a nerve. If Bush had done it, oh hell yes we'd hear all about how that eeevil Booosh is taking one more step towards total world domination.

I do wonder how this one is gonna get spun, though...

/P

And so it begins (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352977)

I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless. Obama is being surrounded by the same assholes that have been driving this country into the ground for decades. No matter how good his intentions may be, he'll believe his trusted advisers and they will believe the lobbyists, cause they just don't know any better.

Re:And so it begins (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353083)

Agreed. Clue-stick for the clueless -- no matter who is in the White House, no matter who is on Capitol Hill, change happens in Washington very, very slowly. The government is a big bureaucracy, run by bureaucrats. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Oh, and as a result -- the changes are usually for the worse, not the better.

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

Re:And so it begins (4, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353341)

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

Things will have to get pretty fucking bad before the average American bothers to turn off American idol and vote -- let alone come up with the wherewithal to alter or abolish the Government.

Re:And so it begins (1)

Wild_dog! (98536) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353091)

I agree totally, the US and indeed the world are heading closer to the Orwellian world that many anti-utopians have predicted as the world becomes more complicated and more connected. There isn't really a solution as far as I can see. It seems the powers of the dark side are indeed more formidible. As for Obama, he may achieve some great historic things in his time as President, but there will be many dastardly things to credit him with as well. He is a master of Machiavellian politics. Indeed I cannot recollect anyone better at it than he is currently. I just wish there was a champion for the rights of the people and the preservation of the constitution. I'm not sure where such a leader might come from.

Re:And so it begins (5, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353201)

First chink? Only if you don't count FISA immunity, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. Hell, Eric Holder (you know, AG nominee) is arguably worse, having signed off on some dubious pardons.

Re:And so it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353207)

first chink in the army

I think the word you were looking for is "armor", not "army".

HTH. HAND.

Re:And so it begins (3, Funny)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353309)

first chink in the army

I think the word you were looking for is "armor", not "army".

Either that, or he thought Perrelli was Chinese...

Re:And so it begins (3, Funny)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353209)

I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless.

Am I missing a reference or something? Is this some sort of racist pun?

Re:And so it begins (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353255)

I believe it was a typo/mistype. Substitute "armour" for "army"

Re:And so it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353269)

In case you actually haven't ever heard the expression before, OP meant "chink in the armor" as in a crack that lets attacks get through. Politically, it means that it'll be an opportunity for his supporters to turn on him.

Re:And so it begins (2)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353315)

I know what a "chink in the armor" is. But since I don't see how one can easily mistype "armor" as "army" I was wondering if this was a joke (possibly from some inane comedy) where a character misspeaks. "Chink in the armor" implies a crack, but "chink in the army" implies the derogatory racial term for chinese, since having a crack in your army is nonsensical... hence my question.

Re:And so it begins (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353437)

Its hard to mis-type armor as army, but if you're typing quickly without thinking thoroughly about what you're typing, its pretty easy to swap two words that seem similar and share some sort of conceptual similarity (an army may use armor). I'd say its safer to chalk it up to a mistake rather than make this into some sort of witch hunt.

Re:And so it begins (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353227)

Obama is being surrounded by the same assholes that have been driving this country into the ground for decades. No matter how good his intentions may be, he'll believe his trusted advisers and they will believe the lobbyists, cause they just don't know any better.

Racial comments about the military aside (I left that part of your post out), I am so confused. Is Obama so oblivious that he can't recognize if someone whom he hand-picked to be knowledgeable on a given subject "doesn't know any better"?! Or maybe he picks advisors who he wants to deceive him on the issues they were picked to advise him on?!!? Maybe his advisors don't know what lobbyists are, or how they work? If so, and if Obama does know how lobbyists work, why would he choose people so ignorant of the very forces they are supposed to buffer him from?!?!!

Re:And so it begins (1)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353235)

Sorry to be a metaphor Nazi, but I think you meant first chink in the armor.

I guess (-1, Flamebait)

DigDuality (918867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352985)

This was all that "change" those lifer democrats who hailed him as the 2nd Coming were talking about.

Re:I guess (0, Offtopic)

Missing_dc (1074809) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353095)

Dig, they were not all "lifers", some of them were fooled by the NLP talk used in the elections.

(NLP= Neuro Linguistic Programming-- look at my sig for an example)

Re:I guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353443)

No kidding!

Can we pay back the trial lawyers by hiring one of their biggest hacks who sued teenagers for sharing songs on their iPods? YES WE CAN!!!

Hey, all you Obamabots! How's your "Hope and Change You Can Believe In" looking now?

Your disillusionment has only just begun. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Not Surprising (5, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352993)

The Democrats have always been fairly cozy with the media industries in particular, so it wouldn't surprise me if Obama is likewise fairly cozy with them.

My question is whether the RIAA stuff is the sum of what this lawyer has done with his career, or if there are other achievements, perhaps more noteworthy. It could be that the lawyer in question is indifferent to the RIAA's ideology and was simply representing them in a professional manner. It definitely doesn't make Obama's pick any less questionable and the lawyer any less scummy, but it would at least assuage my fears that the appointee would be pushing the RIAA's agenda from a position of power.

Re:Not Surprising (1)

Missing_dc (1074809) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353029)

Anyone care to cite references to support the view that the prime pick is stalwart?

Re:Not Surprising (5, Informative)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353305)

Make no mistake, I am not trying to support Obama's decision. Especially considering that his second pick was Ogden who, according to TFA, "...was responsible for organizing the defense of the Child Online Protection Act..." and "...successfully defended the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act before the U.S. Supreme Court."

I did a bit of research using Google and Wikipedia. Wikipedia has some light information on Tom Perrelli. It seems he is most well-known for his copyright litigation, but did do work for the United States Department of Justice [wikipedia.org] , including tobacco industry litigation. Also he was "... defending the constitutionality of federal statutes, defending federal agency action and regulations, representing the diplomatic and national security interests of the United States in courts of law, and conducting significant Title VII, personnel and social security litigation." That's a pretty sanitized summary, and its hard to find out if he was doing good work or bad, but the bit about defending federal agency actions, regulations, and statues against constitutional question leaves me with a bad feeling in my gut. There's a lot of unjust and unconstitutional laws out there, so I'd place my bets on him defending bad laws rather than good ones.

I couldn't find much on David Ogden, other than his firm's bio page, [wilmerhale.com] and fluff pieces. [upi.com] Apparently he was already involved with Obama's transition team and worked for Clinton's administration. He also has experience at the federal level. There's a lot of juicy stuff in the firm's bio page, but he seems to be pretty cozy with media and big corporations. Without a lot of detail, a casual reading suggests that he tends to represent the big corps over the little guys. The only two bright spots seem to be "Obtaining summary judgment and affirmance ... rejecting the claims of a major tobacco company seeking to shut down the .. nationwide counter-marketing campaign to discourage young people from smoking", and "Representing a US media company with respect to the detention and threatened prosecution by US Forces and the Iraq government of the company's Iraqi employee."

Overall, not much to be happy about. It looks like he picked two big-business, media-friendly lawyers. They have a lot of federal-level experience, but not the kind I would have wanted.

Plus ça change... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353027)

...plus c'est pareil...

One character makes all the difference (5, Informative)

MWoody (222806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353033)

Slashdot headline:
Obama Picks RIAA's Favorite Lawyer For Top DoJ Post

Original headline:
Obama picks RIAA's favorite lawyer for a top Justice post

Quibbling over a single letter might seem pedantic - and /.'s headline is misleading rather than incorrect - but in this case, that's one very important letter. *sigh* The news lately is like a game of blogger's telephone.

Re:One character makes all the difference (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353253)

I'm sure you'd post the same thing if Bush did this. /sarcasm

Re:One character makes all the difference (4, Funny)

Devil's BSD (562630) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353507)

Don't worry, this is slashdot, everyone RTFA's.

Reagan Republicans That Call Themselves Democrats, (1, Insightful)

occamboy (583175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353059)

and today Sanjay "I just make crap up about Michael Moore" Gupta, and the RIAA golden boy. Obama is surrounding himself with some pretty interesting characters. Not good.

CHANGE (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353069)

A vote for Obama is a vot for change.
Yea, right. I can't wait.

Re:CHANGE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353231)

A vote for Obama is a vot for change.

Vot? Vot ist dat you vere sayink?

Re:CHANGE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353435)

Oh noes! He mades a typo!?
Can I haz cheezburger?
What are you? A literate nigger?

lawrence lessig? where are you? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353075)

Doesn't Lawrence Lessig have Obama's ear? Larry? Now's when ya gotta step up and say something.

And while you're at it, please get the dmca repealed. Thanks.

A nation turns its lonely eye to you...

Re:lawrence lessig? where are you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353391)

A nation turns its lonely eye to you...

Woo woo woo...

There is a Silver Lining (1)

mrfett (610302) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353115)

Let's face it, we weren't going to get slam dunks on every appointment. There are so many ex-Clinton people everywhere that it was foolish to think Hiilary Rosen and her crew weren't going to get into the new Executive. But the silver lining is this: RIAA types are allowed into the discussion, but they don't CONTROL the debate or its terms. Allowing all sides at the table is a very different thing from deciding policy and ideology from on high and mandating that ideology all down the chain of command. The new Administration seems willing to include both progressives and moderates at the table. That means that we aren't going to get purely progressive solutions, but it does bode well for getting solutions. Obama seems intent on stopping the gridlock, and if that means allowing in points of view I vehemently disagree with, that 's fine as long as solid, scientifically-backed reasons and evidence are necessary criteria for policy decisions, not blind adherence to dogma.

Re:There is a Silver Lining (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353257)

Okay, assuming arguendo you are correct, who has Obama appointed that would counterbalance this particular appointment?

Re:There is a Silver Lining (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353283)

RIAA types are allowed into the discussion, but they don't CONTROL the debate or its terms.

His picks for the Justice Department are pretty fucking scary. He picks a pro-gun control/pro-war on drugs person to lead it and a former RIAA lawyer for #3? Unless John Ashcroft is #2 I don't really see how this could be any worse.

Re:There is a Silver Lining (2, Informative)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353385)

Number two is David Ogden [wilmerhale.com] , according to the article. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Not to worry... (1, Flamebait)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353157)

Like the tax collectors in the New Testament, one touch by the Messiah and he will repent his evil ways and thereon lead a life of righteousness.

(Yes, it's flamebait. Burn, Baby, BURN!)

Doing Wonders (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353169)

I'm sure this will do wonders for Obama's standing with his college age voters.
[/sarcasm]

Lawyers are paid to represent clients (4, Insightful)

John3 (85454) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353175)

Some noble attorneys take lower paying positions as public defenders, or take on cases pro bono to help a political cause. However, many (most?) take cases based on the financial benefits to be gained. Mr. Perrelli is paid by the RIAA to represent them, he doesn't represent them because he hates file sharers or technology. And he's done a pretty good job for his clients, so hopefully he will do a good job for his new client, the DoJ.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients (2, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353331)

Some noble attorneys take lower paying positions as public defenders, or take on cases pro bono to help a political cause. However, many (most?) take cases based on the financial benefits to be gained. Mr. Perrelli is paid by the RIAA to represent them, he doesn't represent them because he hates file sharers or technology. And he's done a pretty good job for his clients, so hopefully he will do a good job for his new client, the DoJ.

Most of what the RIAA has done in the courtroom has shown a total lack of ethics and has been judged by many (including many judges) to be illegal. That's the Bush way of running the executive, and it sickens me to see someone like this appointed by Obama.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients (4, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353419)

Agreed. I could stomach a person that defended cases that I disagreed with based on the case that everyone deserves fair representation in court, and carries out that representation ethically. The RIAA cases, however, have been pretty unethical from top to bottom, disregarding whether you agree or disagree with their position.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients (1)

ImOnlySleeping (1135393) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353485)

So you've established that he's greedy above compassionate. Just what America needs.

Yay! (0, Flamebait)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353221)

Change!

And so it begins (5, Insightful)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353243)

I can't wait to watch all the hardcore supporters roll back expectations, deny all the claims they made about change, and finally blame the system itself for any failures on the chosen ones part.

And the rest of us who maybe had a little hope for change are just going to be disappointed with more "new boss".

Not Suprised (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353267)

I'm laughing to myself, because anyone who thought there was going to be serious change in DC was only deluding themselves. Now the truth is becoming apparent, Obama is no different then any other politician except he has a greater personal charisma.

Dear Mr. President: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353301)

It deeply saddens me that you have chosen to appoint Tom Perrelli to be the third in command at the Justice Department.

This is a man who has represented an organization that has hunted down and victimized children and college students using the legal system as a weapon. He has knowingly and willingly attacked America's supply of future skilled labor, and potential doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, and more have all been forced to go into debt to pay off what they have been blackmailed out of.

And all of this was not done in the name of profit, but of control. Proof has been shown that the RIAA has done nothing but lose money by attacking their customer base, calling them pirates and thieves, violating their rights, and leveraging out of court settlements out of families who do not believe that they have what it takes to fight this injustice in court.

The man you have chosen for this position is the wrong choice. Please revert this decision. I and others are deeply afraid of what it means to see you appointing him.

Republicans=oil, Democrats=Hollywood (5, Insightful)

smchris (464899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353329)

Years ago, I wrote Saint Wellstone that I thought it was ridiculous that I could buy a DVD and be a felon for playing it on a linux machine. The reply I got from Saint Wellstone's office said the DMCA was a great thing and he would vote for it again if he had the chance. Just look at where the money comes from.

So, where do we bitch? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353337)

So, where's the best place to express our collective disappointment?

Does the guy need a senate confirmation for that job or does that only apply to the US AG?

WHat about that website Obama's been running? Does it have a way to mod this guy down?

Re:So, where do we bitch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353393)

So, where's the best place to express our collective disappointment?

The polls.
Unfortunately they're closed for another 2 years.

It's all the same (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353423)

One pair of arms is like another
I don't know why or who's to blame,
I'll go with you or with your brother
It's all the same, it's all the same.
This I have learned:
That when the light's out,
No man will burn with special flame,
You'll prove to me before the night's out,
You're all the same, you're all the same.

So do not talk to me of love,
I'm not a fool with starry eyes,
Just put your money in my hand,
And you will get what money buys!
One pair of arms is like another,
I don't know why or who's to blame,
I'll go with you or with your brother
It's all the same, it's all the same.

Ashes in the fall (2, Insightful)

Meor (711208) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353451)

If only it was productive to laugh when people realize their savior is similar to their enemy. I hate politicians.

So is Obama a Politian after all? (1)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353457)

I spent so many years thinking McCain was not a Politician. But he let his true colors show really early in the Presidential race, which resulted in me losing most respect for him. I still respect the guy for being a POW, no amount of partisanship can take that away from him.

But has Obama succeeded at hiding his true colors for this long? And if he has, then people will still give him the benefit of a doubt even as contrary evidence piles up. It will become the new winning strategy for decades to come. Winner is the guy(or gal) who can act like not a politician the longest.

He's unworthy (4, Informative)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353469)

So far the only questionable selection that concerns me.

The RIAA have been misusing the DMCA for the longest period of time. The person that drafted the law even admits that the RIAA is abusing the law.

Now we have a lawyer, however intellectual, that has acted utterly un-smart, being appointed from "a lobbying organization"; which are supposed to be an antithesis to the Obama adminstration.

I mean, really, listen to those videos that made it to the net from those lawyers that were part of the RIAA; those that lobbied to convince law enforcement that copying music is contributory to money laundering. And now you have Obama appointing one of those crazies to an important position.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?