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!

RIAA and BSA's Lawyers Taking Top Justice Posts

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the one-hand-washes-the-other dept.

Government 377

An anonymous reader writes "Following the appointment of RIAA's champion Donald Verrilli as associate deputy attorney general, here's a complete roundup of all the RIAA and BSA-linked lawyers comfortably seated at top posts at the Department of Justice by the new government. Not strange, since US VP Joe Biden is well known for pushing the copyright warmongers' agenda in Washington. Just in case you don't know, Verrilli is the nice man who sued the pants off Jammie Thomas."

cancel ×

377 comments

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

Change you can believe in (4, Funny)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738771)

http://i40.tinypic.com/11tqy52.jpg [tinypic.com]

Found on this thread [tickerforum.org]

Re:Change you can believe in (0, Troll)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739113)

Well, Wonko, you jest, but let us not forget computers *are* wonderful tools but for most subjects, students learn at that point in their lives (middle/high school in the US), computers aren't necessary. [zoy.org] Think about your breathing the primary subjects - Math, Science, and Literature/Writing - where do you see the benefits in using computers? Obviously for English classes, having access to computers to type papers is handy, but it's hardly necessary. Computers can be used in math to help illustrate concepts, but you don't want the students using computers to do their work, otherwise they won't know how to do it without them. And much of science is math - again, not something you want students using computers for.

=Smidge=

Re:Change you can believe in (3, Insightful)

Lostlander (1219708) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739717)

Yes, and we don't want our hunters to start using pointy sticks as they might forget how to kill a buffalo with a club or their bare hands if they get too proficient with the pointy sticks we will have a generation of people unable to bash things with a rock properly. And then we will surely be in trouble and we will all starve.

-Rough translation from a crotchety old caveman

Re:Change you can believe in (4, Interesting)

ppanon (16583) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740163)

It depends. There's good reason to be able to do some back-of-the-envelope tests of your theories - first order approximations to see if your idea makes sense. You won't be able to do that if you can't do basic arithmetic in your brain. Maybe at some point we'll be able to tie computers directly into our brains so that just thinking an equation provides us with the solution, but until that happens somebody who can do the math in his brain will have an edge. Indeed, unless you always whip out the calculator at the cash register, it could mean you're also an easier mark to rip off.

I'm reminded of a couple of chapters in Vernor Vinge's The Peace War where Wil Wachendon enters a chess tournament where he plays unassisted against computer-assisted chess players. He gets his butt whipped by the computer-assisted players. That changes his attitude regarding using computer assist to solve problems. However I think the reverse would be true as well, the computer-assisted players who had never learned to play without the help of a computer would also be at a disadvantage because some of the pattern recognition abilities required for chess would never have developed as strongly. Sure it's fiction, but good SF writers put some pretty strong reality checks on their fiction

Similarly, while you can use Mathematica to do analytical solving of integration problems or differential equations, if you haven't done some of it by hand then you won't have as good an intuitive feel for what the equations that you are manipulating actually mean. That could seriously limit your ability to make new discoveries. But yeah if your ambition is to work on a road crew, you probably won't need to know all of your times tables up to 12x12 by heart.

Moon is haunted, repeat; moon is haunted! (1)

UbuntuLinux (1242150) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739659)

This is ridiculous, that so many lawyers are taking top justice posts when they should be legislating against the illegal research that is being carried out on the Moon. Right now experiments using space-technology are taking place on the moon, a haunted planet, inhabited by space-ghosts. When it gets dark and the scientists and technicians go home at night, the moon ghosts begin to haunt the labs, tampering which technology they cannot comprehend. This could lead to terrible consequences!

Re:Change you can believe in (1)

anactualfemale (1470121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739705)

Thanks for the nightmares, man.

change (4, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738801)

Well, at least this is change I can believe in. As in, it's certainly not hard to believe.

Damn.

Re:change (5, Funny)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738901)

Well, at least this is change I can believe in. As in, it's certainly not hard to believe.

Damn.

The more things CHANGE!, the more they stay the same. That's CHANGE! you can HOPE! for.

Re:change (4, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738993)

I don't think that many people in American (or the world for that matter) thought that 'change you can believe in' meant exactly what you imply that it seems to mean. I think the only real change we got was the name plate on the desk in the oval office.

Re:change (1, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739131)

Really? Have you not been paying attention?
In the last month or so, much had changed.

The US's focus on science is back, forcing a religion on people via the government is gone, foreign policy changes have already started getting us into better light globally, a renewed focus on alternate energies..and not just on a specific ideology regarding alternate energies, but a focus on a broad swath of alternative energies.

I don't by in to any Cult of personality, but I can look at what's going on.

So I, for one, am pretty happy at the changes so far. You can bet the farm that if he does something I don't like I will call him out on it.

Re:change (1, Troll)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739191)

So you're apparently fine with this decision, I take it?

Re:change (0, Troll)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739441)

I sincerly hope that whomever you voted for wasn't someone you actually thought was going to be lockstep with you 100% of the time.

If they were, I'm sorry you were a fool.

If they weren't, quit being an ass simply because it's not 'your guy' up there making choices you don't agree with.

Re:change (0, Troll)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739629)

You didn't read the parent of my post, did you? If you did, you just might get it. As it stands, you don't.

Re:change (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739893)

You are correct, my comment would have been more appro to one of HordeKing's, you were the end of the thread and I simply ascribed to you his words. I apologize. Regardless of whether the words are directed at you specifically or not through, the issue still stands.

I've heard more bullshit from the "anti-Obama" group in the past month about "Ha! Ha! This is 'change'..." every time he makes a decision that could even be mildly thought of as controversial than I think I heard during the entire campaign.

News flash for these people. You can't please everyone 100% of the time. The test of Obama's presidency won't be "Does he make decisions that Chyeld has always agreed with."

Re:change (4, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740255)

The problem is that Obama was all things to all people. He was worse then Ron Paul who you could at least look at his speeches and see where he stood. Obama's speeches and history of actions typically were vague and open enough that this wasn't possible and he didn't fizzle out like Ron Paul did.

Anyways, I do find it funny because these issues are important issues to people on this site. Rewarding RIAAs laywers and appointing oppressive lawyers like the BSA to federal judgeship is something that effects geeks on this site more then funding abortions with tax dollars and the other issues he has supposedly changed.

The test of Obama's presidency, at least for a lot of us here, is going to be "does his cons outweigh his pros". And currently it looks like the answer is no. Change and hope was Obama's message- it appears the message wasn't clear enough for many to expect shit like this. It may have very well been a vote changer if it where.

Re:change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26740345)

I sincerely hope that you considered the possibility that I voted for myself.

Re:change (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739263)

Its been a month already?

Re:change (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739315)

forcing a religion on people via the government is gone

The problem isn't the forcing of "religion" on the people, it's the forcing of any belief system. That is far from gone, you're just aligned with this presidents beliefs so you don't feel the sting. Others who were aligned with the last president do feel that they are having beliefs forced on them.

I'm not really for or against the man yet as I haven't seen any real results beyond a feel good cult mentality sweeping the nation but I do like the stopping of torture so I'm hopeful. All that said, you're still being fed and likely always will be one mans belief system rather than an adherence to a small set of immutable principles that govern all equally, which was the original goal of this little experiment we call America. Government has become far to profitable for that to return any time soon so prepare to have your beliefs determined for you and disagreement shouted down from both sides.

Re:change (1, Offtopic)

The Spoonman (634311) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739491)

Others who were aligned with the last president do feel that they are having beliefs forced on them.

Yes, they're bitching that by including other religious and non-religious folks in the conversation for once that we're not being inclusive because we're not paying them exclusive attention. They want us to be inclusive as long as we only include them.

Re:change (3, Insightful)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739409)

In the last month or so, much had changed.

The US's focus on science is back,

How about that manned space program?

forcing a religion on people via the government is gone

Only to be replaced by forcing secular religion on people via the government, again.

foreign policy changes have already started getting us into better light globally,

Because I'm happy to kowtow to the Republic of Ruritania and give a shit what France thinks of my domestic policy.

a renewed focus on alternate energies

No argument.

and not just on a specific ideology regarding alternate energies, but a focus on a broad swath of alternative energies.

I suppose you have better ideas. Let's have your research, or at least your speculations.

Every president will do good things and bad things. GW did some terrible things with our freedom, and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives. Socialized medicine? What next, momma gub'mint thinking for me? My opinion remains that a president is there to interface to the rest of the world, not run my life (why else would we have the 10th amendment?)

Re:change (2, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739519)

and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives.

Possibly the worst will be removing all parental rights [wikipedia.org] .

Speaking of the 10th amendment, why have 7 [tickerforum.org] state legislatures introduced declarations of sovereignty in the last few weeks?

Re:change (1)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739671)

and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives.

Possibly the worst will be removing all parental rights [wikipedia.org] .

Speaking of the 10th amendment, why have 7 [tickerforum.org] state legislatures introduced declarations of sovereignty in the last few weeks?

I've been hearing far more rumblings of secession the past two years, as well. And this time it isn't confined to the South.

Re:change (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739747)

What about my rights to my earnings? Considering the recent news about that single-bitch in CA who had a litter of 8, it's hard not to toy with the idea of restricting parental rights. Ultimately that would be a bad idea. Much better would be to simply limit the amount of government support a person can get for kids. In this way you don't limit a parent's right to play dog, but you don't stick all the rational people in the world with a massive bill. "Ya wanna have a litter? Fine, but you get to pay for it." I'd set the maximum level of gov't support at three kids. I'd prefer it to be one, but I suspect I'm on the extreme side in that regard. It really pisses me off that in all liklihood, that selfish litter bearer will be sucking up money from everyone else for absolutely no good reason.

Re:change (1, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739995)

I just heard about the CRC. That is a crazy scary prospect. Basically, let the government teach and raise and instruct (read: brainwash) your child. Great, any child can argue about a parental decision and it can be "overturned" if a GOVERNMENT WORKER agrees? Hmmm. Government worker. Basically, if my seven year old doesn't agree with my decision that he can't eat all the cookies, and a government worker agrees with him, I am forced to let him?

This isn't about the rights of a child, this is about the "rights" of the government to do what they want. And it's been going on for years and years in the public education district.

And the GP as some excellent points as well, especially the part about having the US's reputation be better. I'm not going to excuse any BAD behavior, but since when have all nations loved the US? What exactly are we trying to "regain" here, and at what cost? I don't want the US diplomacy scene to be like Obama's campaign scene... kissing up to a bunch of groups, saying what they want to hear, etc., in order to have a good (fabricated, based on rhetoric) image.

Example: For being so "change"-ish from the typical political scene, from other democrats, etc., he appointed his opponent (Clinton), he has appointed many key democrats, la la la ... basically NOTHING has changed except the name went from Republican to Democrat. And I'm not sure, ideologically, I like the Democrat better...

Re:change (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740077)

It really pisses me off that the NWO tinfoil hat people are looking less and less crazy all the time

Re:change (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740331)

Dude, in the future, make you links larger then the number 7.

Your point is sort of too important to miss.

Re:change (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739565)

GW did some terrible things with our freedom

Sure am glad that Obama won't go along with an attack on any of our constitutional rights to appease the far wing of his party. Oh, wait [whitehouse.gov] ......

why else would we have the 10th amendment?

Has either political party ever taken the 10th amendment seriously?

Re:change (1)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739821)

Sure am glad that Obama won't go along with an attack on any of our constitutional rights to appease the far wing of his party. Oh, wait [whitehouse.gov] ......

GW did some terrible things with our freedom, and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives. QED.

why else would we have the 10th amendment?

Has either political party ever taken the 10th amendment seriously?

They haven't. Libertarians are pretty tough on that one, but they constitute an ideology, rather than a political party. The states better start taking it seriously again. It may already be too late.

Re:change (1)

mh1997 (1065630) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739585)

The US's focus on science is back, forcing a religion on people via the government is gone, foreign policy changes have already started getting us into better light globally, a renewed focus on alternate energies..and not just on a specific ideology regarding alternate energies, but a focus on a broad swath of alternative energies.

I don't by in to any Cult of personality, but I can look at what's going on.

So I, for one, am pretty happy at the changes so far. You can bet the farm that if he does something I don't like I will call him out on it.

You can add that people are also paying attention to the excuses that the new head of the IRS gave about his inability to pay taxes.

Re:change (1)

Malevolyn (776946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739663)

Call him out on taking Bush's side on the wiretapping bill, then.

ROFLMAO (1, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739939)

Talk is cheap, actions haven't followed all the hype.

Lets see, Iran is now openly declaring we have to respect their nuclear right. North Korea is again launching test rockets towards Japan.

Yeah, looks like newly found world wide respect.

Throw in, the French laughing at our bail out ideas... I have seen the manure recently (read: two nominees toasted, two more that should have been, and the labor one is on her way out already) but I haven't seen the flowers or unicorns. Instead of substance we get interviews with him about his substance use (read: tobacco)

Science at the forefront? Looks like to me that building water slides in Louisiana is more important (read the stimulus bill he so solidly supports). What science? Must be the 50 plus million to the arts. Go read it http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/hr1_engrossed.pdf [huffingtonpost.com] (warning it is like only page and half of the 600 page bill)

Don't know where you've been but nothing has changed except for how fast the back peddling has become or where it comes from. If this is change I am not sure it is what we really wanted.

Re:change (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739955)

Really? You think all those minor things amount to all that?

I mean seriously, do you think funding abortions now somehow stops the religious right? Do you think that an couple of executive orders.....

Wow.. I think you sense of what was screwed up in this country was blown way out of portion and your just a crazy kid.

Re:change (1)

andyring (100627) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740075)

Better light globally? You mean by pissing off all our trade allies by trying to restrict this "economic stimulus" spending to only American products?

Re:change (0, Offtopic)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739481)

Right, because Bush was in the habit of respectfully addressing the middle-east, he believed in single-payer healthcare, and he had been toiling endlessly to shut down Gitmo. Bush was such an ally of middle and lower income earners, he was on the verge of fixing our economy by giving out money "without preconditions", and, oh right, he was just wrapping up the War on Tactic^wTerror when he got kicked out of office by that stupid term limits thing.

Damn, some people wouldn't be happy if their unicorns shit gold that was only three 9s pure.

Re:change (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740027)

giving out money "without preconditions"

Ah yes, the solution to a recession: government giving out "free" money. Wonder who pays for that? France?

There may be some good come of this (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739351)

With those who've sold their souls in those positions, maybe they'll make things so bad that the public sits up and takes notice and demands reform to our seriously dysfunctional copyright laws.

So I, for one, welcome our new plutocratic overlords. At least, I think I do...

Re:change (2, Interesting)

rssrss (686344) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739413)

"despite everything the world continues to turn in its old corrupt way. And the same idea may now be crossing the minds of those who believed that electing Democrats into power would mean cleaner government, world peace and a high moral tone only to realize that maybe Washington is like a softdrink machine which dispenses orange bug juice no matter what buttons you push."

-- Richard Fernandez [pajamasmedia.com]

Wait a minute (5, Insightful)

Bakobull (301976) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738881)

So the lawyers brought these lawsuits not the RIAA. I didn't realize Donald Verrilli brought these lawsuits to protect his copyrights. I don't blame the lawyers for this anymore than I would blame the soldiers for fighting Bush's war.

Re:Wait a minute (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738989)

But you need to look at the lawyers behavior in doing their job.

Look for NewYorkCountryLawyer to reply in this thread. He put's it better then I do.

Re:Wait a minute (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739027)

If you don't have the scruples to dismiss yourself from the case of suing a dead man for copyright infringment, I'm not so sure I want you running the f*(#ing country, but hey thats just my opinion.

Re:Wait a minute (2, Insightful)

Malevolyn (776946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739793)

Don't forget all the innocent people, and backing illegal evidence gathering methods. MediaSentry? And there's probably a legal minefield around SoundExchange. I mean, why is the RIAA gathering money on artists they don't own? How is that legal? And how to licenses come into this? Couldn't I sue the RIAA for collecting royalties on my music that I've licensed under a noncommercial, free-to-distribute Creative Commons license?

Re:Wait a minute (5, Informative)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739031)

It's all about influence. The more influence you can inject into a government, the more you'll see laws that favor your business model.

Re:Wait a minute (1)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739079)

Yeah, because Verrilli had no choice but to file those lawsuits, right? Or is it because being a copyright lawyer was his only way to attain a college education?

   

Re:Wait a minute (1)

Fast Thick Pants (1081517) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740153)

And being a mafia hitman was the only way Sammy the Bull could attain a new Camero, but it's still no excuse.

Re:Wait a minute (4, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739115)

You're right that its the RIAA not the lawyer, but it still marks him an opportunistic worm that has no scruples.

Re:Wait a minute (2, Interesting)

ianare (1132971) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739563)

As opposed to what ... politicians ?

Re:Wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739579)

you just described 99% of all lawyers

Say it ain't so! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739707)

You mean there are some lawyers who represent clients for money? It can't be!

Re:Wait a minute (4, Insightful)

dmomo (256005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739295)

These lawyers have a vested interest in keeping this war going as long as possible.

The soldiers of Bush's war probably want to go home and see their family.

Re:Wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739305)

I don't blame the lawyers for this anymore than I would blame the soldiers for fighting Bush's war.

Yes, but would you want the enemy's soldiers guarding your home base?

Re:Wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739367)

I still blame both.

A lawyer can choose when to and not to accept a client. The solders have little choice that does not involve shooting their military career in the foot. Choosing to comply in order to avoid personal hardship over the interests of the American people, however, is still a choice each soldier has made.

Re:Wait a minute (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739369)

I think the good question is : what kind of contact, relation and common interest do they still have with their former clients ?

Re:Wait a minute (5, Insightful)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739637)

There's a key difference here, mate:

Commander: Go to Iraq, soldier!
Soldier: No sir, I don't want to.
Commander: Then get out of the military.

RIAA: Hi lawyer, would you like to sue people for us?
Lawyer: No, I only accept legitimate cases.
RIAA: Okay then.

Lawyers can turn down cases and keep their job.

Re:Wait a minute (1)

pipboy9999 (1088005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740111)

There's a key difference here, mate:

Commander: Go to Iraq, soldier! Soldier: No sir, I don't want to. Commander: Then get out of the military.

RIAA: Hi lawyer, would you like to sue people for us? Lawyer: No, I only accept legitimate cases. RIAA: Okay then.

Lawyers can turn down cases and keep their job.

So the Law profession is the exact opposite of every other industry? Every employer I've heard of fires you when you tell your boss you refuse to do what the company has set forth as policy.

You can safely bet that if I tell my boss that I'm going to turn down supporting a new application because I don't believe in promoting horrible products, I'd be out the door by lunch.

Re:Wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26740175)

I don't think the military quite works how you think it does.

Re:Wait a minute (1)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740353)

It's not absolute like that, no, and there are other branches, and you can request assignments, but in many cases your only choice would be to either go or quit. A lawyer or lawfirm can turn down cases.

Re:Wait a minute (2, Informative)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740393)

Lawyers can turn down cases and keep their job.

I love it when somebody thinks our all volunteer military is somehow full of pitiful victims who are being railroaded into shooting innocent women and babies by their evil overlords. What a load of tripe!

When you join the U.S. military, you take an oath with full understanding of the meaning of that oath. If you don't, you're a fool who deserves whatever you get, but that's a separate argument. If people join because they think they'll get free travel, pretty uniforms, college tuition, and so forth, they're joining for the wrong reasons. Again, having served in Iraq, I have no pity for those types. Service is a calling. There is no other way to describe it. Freeloaders and opportunists need not apply.

So, you don't want to go fight when ordered to do so? Too bad. You swore an oath to do it and were given all kinds of opportunities to get out beforehand. Still object on moral (i.e. conscientious objector) grounds? Fine. You'll get your discharge and can go your own way. If you refuse to do the job you were hired (and sworn) to do, you deserve to be kicked out. You damn sure shouldn't have been inducted in the first place because you joined for the wrong reason.

Only they are to blame (2, Interesting)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739647)

People can dress it up all they want to, but when you pick up a gun and follow orders it doesn't absolve you of responsibility for what you do. I know the majority of the people in the world just plain worship violentism, but that doesn't change a thing. There is no glory in fighting and killing is wrong, period.

And even the law isn't so blind as to be able to be otherwise. Invading Iraq was immoral and illegal and ALL of the people who participated in it, from top to bottom, committed a crime. Pure and simple.

Some things may be understandable, even forgivable, but that does NOT make them right.

Re:Only they are to blame (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739865)

Wish I hadn't posted already cause I'd mod you up. Well put.

Re:Wait a minute (2, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739677)

Except that people who sign up for the armed services make a years long commitment to serving and defending their country. That meas that even if they don't agree with the current mission they made a commitment follow legal orders to the best of their abilities.

The RIAA lawyers, on the other hand, signed up to make money. They were asked to do something that 95% of people out there would identify as ethically wrong (or at least questionable) and yet they didn't walk away. They have a choice in the matter, and they made the choice to continue frivolous lawsuits against people who are often clearly not guilty of anything.

Putting these people in charge of criminal law is just going to lead to situations where people are arrested for something they didn't do, but when the police realize that they just start digging into the persons past so that something can stick, even if nothing should. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, we've seen numerous stories on /. where these situations arise, off the top of my head would be the guy with the amateur chem lab in his basement.

Re:Wait a minute (5, Insightful)

The Moof (859402) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739685)

The RIAA didn't create the legal tactics with the lawyers being their drones following instruction. The lawyers came up with the tactics and loopholes and abused them to the fullest extent. They also walked a very fine line on the legality of what they were doing. You want someone who practices law like that to be in a position of authority in terms of justice?

Also, the soldier analogy is terrible. Soldiers get arrested for going AWOL. There are a few options to get out of service on a moral basis, but I imagine they're difficult to pull off (interesting approach taken by this guy [wri-irg.org] ). There also also repercussions for doing so. Lawyers just turn a client down and don't get paid.

This is not necessarily bad (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740251)

Lawyers are hired guns. Does anybody think the RIAA lawyers actually believed in the cause they were litigating over? No, they were doing what they were told. Redirecting some of the most competent RIAA lawyers' efforts into more productive work could actually be a good thing.

Re:Wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26740349)

Oh please... difference is, soldiers do it for honor and courage, and for the weak. Lawyers do it for profit and greed, no matter how dishonorable and cowardice the goal.

Obama IS changing things around... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738903)

yes, as per his campaign agenda he *is* changing things in DC.

He's putting Hollywood's interest ahead of people's. After electing Hollywood frontman as the country's vice president what else would you expect !

Not a bad move IMHO (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738909)

Looks like the days for thievery of music, software, and movies is over. And just why, pray tell, is that a bad (tm) thing? The cost of your free ride is passed on to the rest of us who don't pirate. I'm not going to shed you any tears.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739069)

You best be trollin'

Re:Not a bad move IMHO (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739693)

All art, as all science and engineering, is built on the achievements of those who came before. Engineers have it easy, as patents only last 20 years and I'm told are often easy to get around.

Copyrights are forever when compared to an artist's life. I cannot legally build on any work produced in the last hundred years.

This AP story illustrates the folly of our system. [yahoo.com]

On buttons, posters and Web sites, the image was everywhere during last year's presidential campaign: a pensive Barack Obama looking upward, as if to the future, splashed in a Warholesque red, white and blue and underlined with the caption HOPE

Designed by Shepard Fairey, a Los-Angeles based street artist, the image has led to sales of hundreds of thousands of posters and stickers, and has become so much in demand that copies signed by Fairey have been purchased for thousands of dollars on eBay.

The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Mannie Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington.

The AP says it owns the copyright, and wants credit and compensation. Fairey disagrees.

"The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission," the AP's director of media relations, Paul Colford, said in a statement. "AP safeguards its assets and looks at these events on a case-by-case basis. We have reached out to Mr. Fairey's attorney and are in discussions. We hope for an amicable solution."

There is a comparison of the two works, and it's obvious (to me as a content creator anyway) that the Fairey image is fair use.

As to your incredibly ignorant remark, it is exactly like the guy who said "Looks like the days of drunken bums is over" when they passed prohibition. Copyright law is getting worse and worse, and people are responding by ignoring it, just as they ignored laws against alcohol. It WILL reach a breaking point.

I should not have to pay for a digital copy of Jimi hendrix' work. The man is dead and has been for decades. It should be in the public domain as the Founding Fathers wished and as is written in the US Constitution.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739879)

Just what creative element is AP claiming copyright of? The camera angle? Nothing else had anything to do with AP.

Pattern recognition (4, Insightful)

Clever7Devil (985356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738949)

I suppose putting the attack dogs for anti-competitive businesses in the DOJ is better than putting tax evaders in charge of the IRS...

Re:Pattern recognition (1)

olddotter (638430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740231)

Not sure about that. I already don't trust the IRS. I'd like to make the Justice Department more honest.

With two lawyers (5, Insightful)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739105)

as President and Vice President, what do you expect? Perhaps all of that Hollywood support from actors and musicians bought something from Obama and Biden.....

Re:With two lawyers (1, Informative)

keithjr (1091829) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739223)

Umm, pretty much every President and Vice President has been a lawyer by trade before entering politics.

Re:With two lawyers (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739389)

Bush 43? Nope
Clinton? Yep
Bush 41? Nope
Reagan? Nope
Carter? Nope ...

Re:With two lawyers (3, Interesting)

tripdizzle (1386273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739461)

So true, we need to start electing engineers. While lawyers focus on ideological agendas, engineers focus on efficiency and effectiveness. (Just an observation, of course there are ideological engineers and efficiency-focused lawyers, but as a whole, lawyers are looking out for themselves and engineers try and see the big picture and how everything is interrelated.)

Re:With two lawyers (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739567)

Not to mention the fact that the white house would end up being turned into the most ridiculously awesome technologically advanced robot the world has ever seen. For defending the president - of course.

Re:With two lawyers (0)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739627)

So true, we need to start electing engineers

The last time [wikipedia.org] we did that it didn't work out [wikipedia.org] so well......

Re:With two lawyers (3, Insightful)

tripdizzle (1386273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739735)

He was a farmer, teacher, and career politician. He had a generic science degree, no specialized field of study (or in-depth knowledge of any subject). Not an engineer by any measuring stick I know of.

Re:With two lawyers (1)

jacks0n (112153) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740335)

We have a more recent precedent for engineer-as-leader:

Hu JinTao http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Jintao

Re:With two lawyers (2, Informative)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739599)

Umm, pretty much every President and Vice President has been a lawyer by trade before entering politics.

[citation needed]

If you start at Washington, about 3/4 of our presidents were ex-military (31 according to wikipedia).

Most recently, Carter was ex-Navy. Reagan was an actor. Bush #1 was ex-Navy. Clinton studied law but was basically a career politician. Bush #2 was (kind of) ex-National Guard and then an oil man. Yes, Obama studied & taught law.

When you say "pretty much every President...", who exactly are you referring to?

Re:With two lawyers (1)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739667)

I think Obama can be characterized as a career politician as well.

Re:With two lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739933)

What jack-ass modded this Informative!?!

Where's the (-1 blatantly wrong, called out for it, and exposed as ignorant) mod?

Sweep away imperialist barbarism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739147)

with international socialist revolution!

Re:Sweep away imperialist barbarism (2, Interesting)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739333)

Yes and make all media belong to the glorious state!!!

And make it high treason to use any state owned media unless you get permission from the commissar and pay a usage fee to the state.

YAY!!!!! Where do I sign up!!!

trvollkore (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739183)

And/0r distribute get tOugh. I hope server crashes BSD's codebase members' creative Practical purposes, minutes now while

Could be good... (1)

geeper (883542) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739257)

if they try to enforce some bad things. Currently, Joe User isn't really bothered by this but as it becomes more commonplace it will get more attention from normal people. They could be getting enough rope to hang themselves.

OIW (1)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739281)

Obama is wonderful! He's taking RIAA's and BSA's lawyers away from them and giving them productive jobs, and now the RIAA and BSA won't be able to sue helpless people!

-Loyal

So, what you're saying... (4, Insightful)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739337)

Cheney|Halliburton = Biden|RIAA

Re:So, what you're saying... (5, Funny)

evilkasper (1292798) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739463)

Do you think we can get Cheney to take those nice folks at the RIAA on a hunting trip?

Re:So, what you're saying... (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739641)

That's a taxpayer funded vacation I could get behind. The only downside is we'll need to buy him a lot of ammo. We already know how good he is at aiming... and apparently those lawyers are bloody resilient.

Re:So, what you're saying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26740041)

Cheney|Halliburton == Biden|RIAA

Did you mean comparison?

Another excellent decision from Him (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739393)

If our Dear Leader likes these picks, then I like them too.

From all of the negative comments I read, I can only conclude that pirates are racist.

As a Brit... (4, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739669)

I'm currently more interested in this as a real test of the Obama administration's sincerity:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7870049.stm [bbc.co.uk]

If Obama can't come forward and say to us "Yes, your courts can now open that evidence" then it is evidence of one important fact. Obama is a fraud.

He cannot possibly on one hand talk of bringing those guilty of torture to justice and then prevent us doing so on the other.

I think that it's actually our government that's playing up here because they do not want it coming out in the open that our security services were equally guilty of assisting in torture, but all Obama needs to do to make that clear is come forward. By the sounds of it our foreign secretary hasn't even approached the Obama administration yet and if that's true then it's a local issue, if that's not true then the world has bigger problems.

If he can't then yeah, I think he's a fraud and yeah, I think these RIAA appointments possibly are more than just a case of hiring experienced lawyers (i.e. did they work for the RIAA because they believed the cause, or for the money?).

I truly hope it's not too much to ask to at last have an important world leader that can walk the walk not just talk the talk.

Yeah, things are really going to change (3, Insightful)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739775)

Not only is the RIAA now apparently synonymous with the Justice Department, but we STILL have renditions and we still have a President that believes he has the authority to spy on us (and by extension of the same logic essentially ignore any law or any provision of the Constitution by the same argument).

It was unacceptable when GWB did it, and it is STILL unacceptable and it is still the responsibility of the citizens of the US to put a stop to it.

But hey, Barak Obama is a great guy, we don't need civil liberties.

Fools.

See the forest, not the trees (4, Interesting)

Simonetta (207550) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739789)

When grasping the fact that the copyright barons are taking over the Justice Dept, remember that there is fundamental shift happening in the media industry.

The media industry is basically a 20th-century phenomenon. The technology of the 20th-century created a structure where the best musicians of the world sold their musical in the format of fixed recordings through a centralized company. The recordings are the product. Under this structure, the musicians (and actors) become stars or mini-deities.

  The main idea here is that the recordings (of music or filmed performance) are the product that is sold on concept of a fixed price regardless of the 'artist' or the quality of the performance. The unnoticed aspect of this model is that there is NO interactivity between the recordings and the people who buy the recordings.

  The 21st-century entertainment media model is one of increasing interactivity between the recording and the person buying the recording. Starting with crude television-based video games in the 1980s, there has been a strong increase in the amount of interaction between the person 'consuming' the entertainment product and the entertainment product itself. The RIAA/MPAA can't reproduce this interactivity, neither can the companies who create fixed product (audio CDs, films). But this interactivity is becoming the key aspect of the entertainment experience that people (especially young people in their teens and twenties) are willing to pay for.

  The more that the RIAA/MPAA are successful at forcing people away from obtaining low-cost fixed recordings, the more that they drive their core consumer base into interactive entertainment products that they don't control. They don't seem to realize this, primarily because the RIAA/MPAA companies are stuck in the 20th-century. The Slashdaughters generally grasp this concept, but they are mostly young and technologically oriented. They are the demographic most likely to copy RIAA/MPAA product, this is true, but they are also the first people to move beyond RIAA/MPAA product to meet their entertainment needs.

  As the economic structure of the 20th-century fades, then so will the influence (and bullying ability) of the global media companies. As long as the RIAA/MPAA lawyers don't understand or control the emerging fields of interactive entertainment, it doesn't matter if the control the US Justice Department. They will remain 20th-century wolves chasing 20th-century sheep.

Obamaa (1)

jalet (36114) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739977)

why doesn't tagging this with "obamaa" reports my tag as being "obama" instead ?

Biden is why I had a hard time voting for Obama (1)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739985)

Him being VP and the possibility that Obama my be in the frame of mind on these issues made it very hard to vote for this team. Just the thought that Biden is a heartbeat from being President gave and still gives me nightmares.

Repayment? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26740121)

I wondered where he got all the money - most expensive campaign, most expensive inauguration etc. etc. Is this repayment then?

Panties in a bunch.. (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740233)

Don't know why you guys all have this knee jerk reaction. A lawyer is a lawyer, one bulldog looks pretty much like another. These guys rarely share the opinions of their handlers er I mean clients. And if he's a good lawyer I want him where he is. Cause these are the bozo's we get to sic on the former Bush Administration guys.

wtf? (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740287)

This isn't change!

Very interesting (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740291)

Anyone else notice the bias around here?

Years of pointing out the Orrin Hatch is the most evil Senator in Washington and all this time Biden was his evil twin? Of course now that the Dems are in charge everyone thought there was really going to be a change? *snerk, giggle, guffaw*
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>