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!

Will Obama's DOJ Intervene To Help RIAA?

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the jury-is-out dept.

The Courts 546

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Cloud, a Pennsylvania case in which the RIAA's statutory damages theory — seeking from 2,200 to 450,000 times the amount of actual damages — is being tested, the US Department of Justice has just filed papers indicating that it is considering intervening in the case to defend the constitutionality of such awards, and requesting an extension of time (PDF) in which to decide whether such intervention 'is appropriate.' This is an early test of whether President Obama will make good on his promises (a) not to allow industry insiders to participate in cases affecting the industry they represented (the 2nd and 3rd highest DOJ officials are RIAA lawyers) and (b) to look out for ordinary citizens rather than big corporations."

cancel ×

546 comments

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

first troll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26891857)

obama is a nig nog

I hope so... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26891859)

but I think not...

Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26891863)

Let me get this straight. Obama, the man of the people, has a Dept. of Justice filing an amicus brief in order to HELP the extortionate RIAA win their case?

Oh Lord, I wasted my vote.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (2, Insightful)

srussia (884021) | more than 5 years ago | (#26891963)

Oh Lord, I wasted my vote.

"Wasted vote" is a redundancy.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892463)

it was never 'one man, one vote'.

but rather: one dollar, one vote.

get hip to how the world works, folks. this isn't a disney movie. the bad guys OFTEN win.

Offtopic? (0, Offtopic)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892479)

How is this offtopic?

Re:Offtopic? (1)

jbacon (1327727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892631)

Because this article is not about the perceived value of one man's vote, it's about a DOJ amicus brief.

He can go bitch about the political machine elsewhere.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (3, Insightful)

Palpitations (1092597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892497)

Oh come on. I'm so sick of that argument. Every vote matters. I'm as fed up with mainstream Democrats and Republicans as anyone, both tend to have major flaws... That said, do you really think that McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are equal? Even if I don't agree with them on many issues, I'll take someone with a constitutional law degree over a senile old man and a far-right nutjob any day.

That said, I've voted for a third party all of my life. I've never lived in a swing state, so my vote won't change the outcome anyway. Does that mean my vote was wasted? Absolutely not! I vote for the third party that is most likely to get 5% of the vote, a requirement in order to receive matching funds during the next cycle (see the Public Funding of Presidential Campaigns Brochure [fec.gov] ). I recommend that everyone who lives in a solid blue or red state does the same. More voices and more opinions brought to the table will only help us.

Saying that every vote is wasted is absurd. If you don't care to educate yourself on the issues or involve yourself, that's one thing. By all means, stand aside and let those of us who do care take care of things. But if you give a damn, either stand up and be counted or shut the hell up.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (5, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892659)

That said, do you really think that McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are equal?

Of course I do. They both had critical flaws which made both of them unsuitable to be our next president. Once we get past that, it doesn't matter what else you can say about them. They were both equal: really bad.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892737)

That sentiment is quite obviously absurd. Fearless Leader would also be unsuitable to be our next President. Does that make him equivalent to Obama or McCain?

The chief driver for me was Palin's open contempt for scientific research combined with the fact that McCain is a 72 year old cancer survivor.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892683)

But if you give a damn, either stand up and be counted or shut the hell up.

I'd like to shut the hell up AND be counted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-voting [wikipedia.org]

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892703)

Saying that every vote is wasted is absurd.

I would argue that saying every vote counts is even more absurd:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (2, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892173)

Not yet. Obama has lots of things to worry about, a big economic crisis, making government more open, a couple wars.......on the scale of importance of things this one is rather low. Heck, on my scale I'd rather have Obama worrying about the high rates of murder in Oakland, CA than worrying about an industry whose music isn't that great anyway.

So, we don't know if Obama has even looked at the issue at hand yet. All that has happened so far is that they've asked for more time to look at the issue, which is totally fine in my book. The ultimate tests will be what he eventually decides (assuming he actually looks at it; if he doesn't look at it, then we can't conclude anything about Obama except about his priorities), and who he lets work on it. If he lets the two DOJ officials who are RIAA lawyers take the lead in the case, then we can know he's a tool.

Which we should have already known. How likely is it that the Illinois political system can produce a politician untainted by corruption? We chose Obama because he is a step in the right direction, a step towards openness, a step towards making friends with the rest of the world, and I would even say a step towards cleaning up corruption (that's the point of openness, right?). We knew he wasn't perfect, that's not why we chose him. We chose him because we wanted a change in direction; that can take time, and won't all happen with one man.

open -- how about RIAA's new treaty? (5, Insightful)

r00t (33219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892551)

What do you think of that treaty that is being negotiated in secret? (the one that has popped up in 2 or 3 slashdot stories over the past half year)

Obama isn't being open about that one.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (2, Funny)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892599)

Obama worrying about the high rates of murder in Oakland, CA than worrying about an industry whose music isn't that great anyway.

Obama is 2-faced. He's all against torture at Gitmo, but then turns around and allows the RIAA to torture us with incessant doses of Brittany Spears and Lady GaGa. When will he end this madness?

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (5, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892675)

We chose Obama because he is a step in the right direction, a step towards openness, a step towards making friends with the rest of the world, and I would even say a step towards cleaning up corruption (that's the point of openness, right?). We knew he wasn't perfect, that's not why we chose him. We chose him because we wanted a change in direction; that can take time, and won't all happen with one man.

Thank you.

He's made some very good pledges about openness and anti-corruption measures, so now's the time for him to live up to them.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (4, Insightful)

LameAssTheMity (998266) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892217)

Voting for either "side" in this broken two party corporate governance is a waste, the best you can hope for is that the guy who wins will fuck you less than the other guy.

that is unless we take control of our federal government by utilizing our state power, but who really paid attention to the local elections? Last time I checked, they were installed by the same corporations/banks that paid for McCain AND Obama!

Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself at opensecrets.org [opensecrets.org]

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (2, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892729)

Indeed. A system such as IRV [instantrunoff.com] would do this country wonders - especially for local and state elections.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (4, Interesting)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892225)

Let me get this straight. Obama, the man of the people, has a Dept. of Justice filing an amicus brief in order to HELP the extortionate RIAA win their case?

No, the Obama Administration's DOJ is considering filing an amicus brief supporting statutory damages even when they greatly exceed demonstrable actual damages. While that theory being struck down in the instant case might be bad for the RIAA and no one else immediately, if such a precedent were established, it would greatly limit the use of statutory damages in most of the places where they are used, which are often in places where the easily quantifiable portion of direct harms is very small, but the diffuse impact may be very large. This does not benefit only, or even primarily, big corporations, its very common in laws that principally benefit individuals against big corporations (like many consumer protection laws) and other powerful interests (civil actions under many civil rights laws).

Amicus briefs are often filed by parties whose interest in legal precedent that could be set is largely tangential to the interests of the parties in the case; if parties have a direct interest in the case, they probably ought to be intervenors, not amici.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892621)

No, the Obama Administration's DOJ is considering filing an amicus brief supporting statutory damages even when they greatly exceed demonstrable actual damages.

Not just any statutory damages - they're specifically looking at the statutory damages of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 504(c), not some other set of statutory damages. It says so in the linked PDF.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (1, Redundant)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892849)

Yes, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the millions of $ in campaign contributions the movie and music studios gave Obama during the election. I'm also sure that all those no-bid Halliburton military contracts didn't have anything to do with the Vice President being a former CEO and major shareholder of the company. And, of course, I believe that O.J. didn't kill his wife and that Barry Bonds didn't do steroids.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892309)

Obama, the man of the people

When was President Obama ever a man of the people? Or are you talking about his marketing campaign?

I commend you for admitting it (1, Insightful)

r00t (33219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892431)

You're only the second person I've seen admit that he was fooled by Obama. That takes a bit of bravery, a willingness to swallow some pride when called for, and probably some intelligence. Good job!

BTW, tag these stories "messiah" please. :-)

Re:I commend you for admitting it (2, Interesting)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892821)

"fooled" is a silly word for it. I voted for him, and I'm a (moderate) republican! I know he'll do stuff I don't like.... but shit, McCain/Palin was just too scary... When the republicans hoist up someone who has a plan for their office besides attacking abortion and gays I'll vote for them again. Besides, the boundaries between the parties are put up by the parties anyway. There's little real difference there when you look at the actual politicians and not at the stances they hold up for the media.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892467)

Oh Lord, I wasted my vote.

Surprise!

Your First Premise WRONG: +1, PatRIOTic (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892585)

There is no DOJ. There is no U.S. Federal Government.

The U.S.A. has collapsed economically. The U.S.A. is now in political collapse. [youtube.com]

Good luck suckers.

Cheers,
Kilgore Trout

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892799)

Oh Lord, I wasted my vote.

I told you it would be like this, but you weren't listening. You chose to follow the Pied Piper.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892839)

Change that you believed in.

Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26891893)

Come on, really?!? Believing Obama isn't in the pockets of Hollywood (incl. the MPAA and RIAA), trial lawyers, and the unions is as naive as believing Goerge Bush wasn't in the pockets of Wall Street, big oil, and the bible-thumpers.

Every politician is someone's bitch. Hollywood most assuredly produced the carton of cigarettes to buy Obama. And you can bet that they expect results.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26891997)

Given that Obama was elected almost entirely based on hype that the media companies created...

Yeah, you better believe he's going to be bending over backwards for them. He wouldn't have been elected if they hadn't convinced everyone that he's some perfect saint who is incapable of error.

It's the same media who's played down the tax scandals that have plagued Obama's picks and who have been spinning Obama's blatantly partisan politics as being "the GOP's fault."

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? (4, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892229)

It's the same media who's played down the tax scandals that have plagued Obama's picks and who have been spinning Obama's blatantly partisan politics as being "the GOP's fault."

Look, I know it's the summer of '94 all over again for conservatives, and your juices are flowing with insurgent glee, but the "liberal media" myth has been pretty thoroughly debunked and is, in fact, as old as the nostalgia you're currently experiencing.

Oabama's got enough real deficiencies and faults that we don't need to be wasting time making shit up. Thanks for playing! Sign in next time.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892391)

but the "liberal media" myth has been pretty thoroughly debunked and is, in fact, as old as the nostalgia you're currently experiencing.

Debunked by whom? And if you say, "Eric Alterman," go to the back of the class.

Sorry Cap, but that's a load of crap. The "news" media in this country carried water for The Savior in every way they possibly could the last two years--and they're still doing it. You could repaper half the White House using just the Obama covers from Time and Newsweek in 2008.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? (0, Troll)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892743)

LOL, I have no idea who Eric Alterman is. Do you know who Richard Mellon Scaife is? He's much more germane to this discussion.

You could repaper half the White House using just the Obama covers from Time and Newsweek in 2008.

You say that like it means something. Hint: It doesn't. Two more things. If these claims of liberal media here on slashdot were backed up by any kind of evidence, I'd be more courteous, but it's just the same old fucking gut check.

Second, the media, for whatever liberalism it possessed when the term start gaining currency so many decades ago, is a lot less liberal now. See, it doesn't matterif you're right or wrong. I just know you're backing yourself into the irrelevancy corner.

So, to recap: "liberal media" was a bogeyman created almost whole cloth from billionaire money and incipient prejudice, and whatever actual value the term used to contain is even more meaningless in this internet age.

But keep bleating. Nothing important going on these days anyway, so you'll be OK.

XKCD always relevant (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892527)

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? (3, Insightful)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892047)

The thing is, he is president right now, he could say "Thanks for the donations...SUCKERS" and then vote for the people. A popular president not getting re-elected is highly unlikely - even if he doesn't have a huge donation base...he has the WH megaphone for free (or at least free for him).

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892325)

No he can't. He not only needs those donations for his reelection in 2012, but his party needs them for Congressional elections in 2010, 2012, and 2014. Thumbing his nose at them would not only jeopardize his election efforts, but the future of his party's long-term relationship with that particular sugar daddy.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892115)

Every politician is someone's bitch. Hollywood most assuredly produced the carton of cigarettes to buy Obama. And you can bet that they expect results.

Hollywood bought Obama? Hardly. Hollywood and the press were playing the role of Monica Lewinsky with Obama starring as Bill Clinton in a production of "I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman."

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892893)

| "I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman.

So giddy with adolescent glee at the chance to use this quote,
you left out a little something called ACCURACY, junior.

He said "sexual relations", not "sex". What's the difference?

Well, one is what he said and the other is NOT. And you did the quoting.

But the other difference -- in case you ever grow up and become old enough
to have sex yourself, remember this now -- is that sexual relations can
create a baby. Quite possibly the most important moral distinction one
can draw between one kind of fooling around and another.

There are bigger thrills out there than the adolescent kind that runs up
Chris Matthews's leg.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician? (2, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892331)

> Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

80% of Slashdot bought into HopeyMcChange's schtick. It is going to be fun (in a tragic comedy sense) watching the disillusionment after a couple of years of increasingly violent denials that Yup, he is just a politician.... and while possessing great oratary skills not all that bright in the end.

But to put off that awakening watch the NewSpeak in the media as they try to explain away the fast breaking campaign promises. Bipartisan, open, new politics turned out to be inviting the opposition over to watch the Super Bowl while Nancy is writing the biggest pork bill in history behind closed doors and then passing it on a straight party line vote before anybody could read it. "Welfare check" has been redefined as a "tax cut" even though many of the people who will be getting checks already pay no taxes. And we aren't even at the one month point yet, this train wreck still has 47 months to go, wait until foreign policy disasters start piling up. Iran is likely to be the first, but several more are racing for the honor.

stop the religious intolerance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892757)

... Goerge Bush wasn't in the pockets of Wall Street, big oil, and the bible-thumpers.

Religious intolerance has caused a lot of human suffering.
Time for it to stop.

Everyone needs to speak their piece on this (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26891929)

Going to various Obama web sites where public submission of comments are facilitated is exactly where people should go to voice their view on these matters. If it is clear to Obama that people are watching and responding, he will have a much more difficult time ignoring the situation and the people and will have an even more difficult time going back on his word. People are still up in the air about Obama's credibility and one negative is worth more than a hundred positives and I know he is well aware of that fact. This early in his presidency, he cannot afford to let his credibility slip. He can't make excuses. He has little choice but to respond as he would be expected.

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892057)

Going to various Obama web sites where public submission of comments are facilitated is exactly where people should go to voice their view on these matters.

Exactly. Here [whitehouse.gov] 's the one I know of. If there are others, would appreciate the links.

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this (0, Redundant)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892575)

Even better:
Same thing, but secure [whitehouse.gov]

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892731)

Here's what I wrote to them using your link - thank you NYCL...

Are you going to allow ex-RIAA lawyers, now members of your Department of Justice staff, intercede on behalf of the RIAA in cases where they are finally being brought to task in regard to their unconstitutional attacks on ordinary citizens?

You did know that the RIAA hired companies to act as Private Investigators in states they held no credentials to act as such, right?

You did know that the RIAA has brought copyright infringement cases against 80+ year old grandmothers who never had a computer?

You did know that the RIAA has brought copyright infringement cases against deceased people, then tried to get the 10 year child of said deceased individual alone to scare them into saying they did something, when they may or may not have?

You did know that the RIAA has continuously cried about losses (to piracy) during years that they've made their highest levels of profit, which was mostly due to people who have lent songs for others to listen to (much like yesterday's radio)?

You did know that the RIAA has (as a conglomerate of Recording Companies) continually raises the flag that piracy hurts the recording artists, which habitually it's the recording companies that immorally force contracts onto artists that strip them of most of the money they could make - such as charging them for media, distribution (shipping) fees and breakage - for ELECTRONIC downloads of their songs - which have NO media, NO distribution fees, and NO breakage?

The RIAA (and it's movie industry equivelent, the MPAA) are abominations to the citizens of this country, whose outdated business models leave them gasping for breath, trying to find any way they can possibly survive, which has led them to file law-suit after frivolous law-suit (nearly every time someone has stood up to them with any merit whatsoever, they've dropped the cases), tying up the court systems, in an effort to get the government to force the public to keep funding these dinosaur business relics which are better off extinct.

Thanks for your time and patience.

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892219)

Snicker. Suckers.

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892459)

If it is clear to Obama that people are watching and responding, he will have a much more difficult time ignoring the situation and the people and will have an even more difficult time going back on his word.

What planet do you live on? That is extremely naive. "O" has already broken several promises:
* He was going to take public financing of his campaign.
* He was not going to have lobbyists working in his administration in the very departments they were lobbying.
* He was not going to write legislation behind closed doors.
* All bills were going to be posted online for a _minimum_ of 5 days before he signed them.
There are more, but my fingers are getting tired.

take your punishment like good kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26891939)

You got suckered into voting for the Democrats, the party of big media. Now you will just have to live with the consequences of your foolishness for at least the next two years.

I have no sympathy.

Re:take your punishment like good kids (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892051)

When its between the party of big media and the party of big oil what else can you do?

Re:take your punishment like good kids (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892243)

Maybe you can do your best to clean up your own back yard first instead of waiting for the government to do something. If all these supporters who voted for Obama refused to play either big oil or big media's game than the issues involved would cease to exist. It's only going to take a small portion of the population to take an active (read: economically fueled) interest in these problems and a shift will start to happen.

It's a shame that under Bush we were starting to see a swing away from oil by ethanol use (granted, it's a minor step but it's more than most naysayers ever did) but today ethanol is a dying market. People must get behind this with their voices and with their dollars or it will not work. It's that simple. If you let the economy fuel your voice in these matters the powers that be will be sure to do what they have to to maintain control.

Re:take your punishment like good kids (1)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892513)

Ethanol isn't a viable alternative to fossil fuels as long as it's principally made from grains & high sugar saps/juices. Check the conversion rates between growing/processing the ethanol and the energy in the ethanol. Under current production methods, it's pretty close to break even.

If/when ethanol is commercially made from the woody biomass of existing crops, then it will be a potential contender since the growth portion of the cost is removed. Bio-diesel generally has a better net gain, but it's still not a wonder drug for the problem.

Re:take your punishment like good kids (0, Flamebait)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892845)

Don't forget that early electronic computers weren't "viable" alternatives to guys who knew how to really use an abacus either.

Killing a technology that is in it's infancy because it doesn't produce the exact results that you are looking for today is extremely short sighted. The bottom line is that ethanol production can be refined to make better gains but if the technology never gets off the ground? There will be growing pains with any alternative fuel, are we going to back down from each one because we can't get the bang out of them that we can out of oil? If that's the case than let's just drop this whole pretense of being willing to do what's needed and just let Detroit go about their normal business with the internal combustion engine instead of wasting money and time on alternative this and that.

Re:take your punishment like good kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892281)

big oil? Not as big as you think. Oil is now at $35/barrel, down from $140 or so. Sure, there's a recession, but the actual demand for oil hasn't dropped (If anything, the demand has increased since the price is lower). That $105/barrel difference is that Lehman Brothers and other speculators are no longer manipulating the oil future markets.

Re:take your punishment like good kids (1)

Celandro (595953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892199)

Oh yes, because the Republicans have done so much to help the little people from the big business RIAA.

Both parties are on the side of the RIAA. If you thought a vote for Obama would change the RIAA legal battles, you were sadly mistaken.

Re:take your punishment like good kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892269)

At least Bush didn't appoint RIAA enforcers to the Justice Department.

Re:take your punishment like good kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892727)

At least Obama appointed lawyers at the Justice Department.

Re:take your punishment like good kids (2)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892711)

Oh yes, because the Republicans have done so much to help the little people from the big business RIAA. Both parties are on the side of the RIAA. If you thought a vote for Obama would change the RIAA legal battles, you were sadly mistaken.

Well we know that the Bush DOJ was anxious to intervene on the RIAA's behalf. We don't yet know that about the Obama DOJ. This will be an interesting test.

Get real (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26891951)

While I still can't determine where Obama is going to stand on helping the citizens over the corporations my guess is that he's looking to do this in a case where th coporations are pushing the innocent around, not in helping a law breaker get away with theft.

The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises (5, Informative)

snarfies (115214) | more than 5 years ago | (#26891953)

You can track the progress of Obama's many campaign promises at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ [politifact.com] - its pretty interesting.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892205)

That is an awesome link. Thank you for that.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892327)

Yeah, it's a good way to keep track of things. Although, I can't help but think they're taking a swipe at Obama when they write "Of Obama's 510 promises, most are still rated No Action." Uh, give the guy at least a month, damn.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892581)

How is no action a swipe?

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892723)

Well I guess, but there's not really a better way of phrasing it. No action is no action, whether its because he hasn't had enough time, or because he just doesn't care. Hopefully we, as the voters, are smart and attentive enough to find out which is which.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892249)

And I think this site is maintained by our /. editor overlords. It has bill 234 listed twice as promises broken.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892445)

kdawson strikes again huh ?

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis (1)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892453)

And I think this site is maintained by our /. editor overlords. It has bill 234 listed twice as promises broken.

It's listed twice in "recently rated" section. There's still only 1 broken promise listed on the meter.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892603)

It's listed twice but there is only one promise counted as broken

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis (5, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892435)

politifact.com: owned by St. Petersburg Times

St. Petersburg Times: owned by the Poynter Institute

The Poynter Institute is a journalism school well know for its uncommon (in today's world) approach of unbiased reporting and the primacy of fact over sensationalism.

Gotta say, props to you for linking to a neutral site, when there are so many sites "Obama broken promises" sites maintained by partisan hacks.

Barack the Magic Negro!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26891959)

let me fuck the RIAA's Pooper!!

Wheeeeeeee industry buttseks

Hope, change, a Politician needs not these things (2, Insightful)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#26891967)

I can only hope that Obama steps in, because this sets a dangerous precedent of things to come.

Meet the new boss. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26891985)

Obama took lots of RIAA money to get elected and then appointed two of their lawyers to Justice. Justice will argue that whatever the RIAA wants is Constitutional. So far no recusals either, so there go his ethics promises, too. This is about the same time into the first term that Bill Clinton's honeymoon ended, too.

This needs a goodluckwiththat tag. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892041)

Given all the worship directed at The One by /. commentors, reaction to this one ought to be a beaut. I can't wait to hear how cow-towing to the record companies and movie moguls is somehow all Bush's fault.

Re:This needs a goodluckwiththat tag. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892415)

Given all the worship directed at The One by /. commentors

OMG really? I've been looking all over for those, and am sooooo happy someone knows where to find a whole bunch of them!!!

Please reply with links so I can add them to my collection! Thanks!

-BIGOBAMAFAN6478

Re:This needs a goodluckwiththat tag. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892535)

Who are the enablers who rationalize Obama's lies? You know, it will be the same Slash sheep who twist themselves into pretzels rationalizing Apple's anti-consumer closed-source patent whores.

whether does not mean 'if' - some lawyers... (0, Offtopic)

djupedal (584558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892053)

"This is an early test of whether President Obama will make good on his promises (a) [[clip]] and (b) [[clip]]"

Learn how to form a question and I might consider a response to same...the only thing I'm convinced of at this point is your troll-wrath.

'whether' ~ conjunction ~ Expressing a doubt or choice between alternatives

Re:whether does not mean 'if' - some lawyers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892451)

The remarkable thing about English is that lots of stuff can be assumed.

In this case, mentally tack on an "or not".

In a word... (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892055)

No.

I am surprised they aren't getting a bailout as well. The RIAA are professional fear mongers. With the economy in shambles this is their time to shine. I expect it to get worse.

In fact I see this moving to the SCO model of business. They will just give up on music, and just sue people for money. It worked for them. We can only hope, as at least that way the RIAA dinosaur would go extinct and the music industry could move forward into the present reality.

Re:In a word... (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892109)

Or Yes.

Title confused me for a second. Whichever is corporate greed, and fear and using the system against the people, go for that one.

Promises? (1)

dmomo (256005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892191)

I agree this is a great concern. The article would do well to cite these promises, though. I do recall these being brought up, but it would be nice to post the evidence. Anyone have a link to support for these claims? So far I've found this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/ [politifact.com]

You inSsensitive clod... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892197)

Elimination of piracy calls for strong government (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892241)

I hope the entire force and power of the federal government will be placed into the global war against copyright infringement. The RIAA needs all the help it can get in this tough fight. They're only one organization expending millions of dollars to protect their rights. They are outnumbered by the pirates. Only a force as powerful as the federal government can give the RIAA the boost it needs to win this fight for the good of the entire population. In addition to providing this boost, new legislation is needed which will place a nationally mandated minimum price of $20 per song, $60 per movie under 90 minutes in length, $80 per movie 90 minutes or more in length and under 120 minutes in length, and, and $100 per movie 120 minutes in length or longer. There should also be a new tax to help fund the effort to fight copyright infringement. I think a 15% tax on the licensing price of all intellectual property will be adequate initially and will be embraced by an understanding public. This would be called the Intellectual Property Protection Tax, and would be charged in addition to regular sales tax and other taxes which may apply. This revitalized effort to fight theft of intellectual property will satisfy the needs of both content producers and consumers, stimulate the economy, and eliminate a substantial amount of the illegal piracy that is taking place.

Just one more opportunity (1, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892261)

For the naive to realize that Obama is nothing more than A LOT MORE of the same...

*sighs*

If you wanted change, you should have voted for Ron Paul.

NOT NOW NOT EVER. I WILL END YOU. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892279)

If the performers don't want you to listen to recordings of their stuff without paying, then either PAY THEM or DON'T LISTEN. (If you cheap/broke, then listen to other recordings by other performers who have so objections.) You shouldn't need a Law to help you decide whether or not to mess with recordings made by others.

Re:NOT NOW NOT EVER. I WILL END YOU. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892319)

Nobody listens to your crap anymore RIAA. Stop trying.

Re:NOT NOW NOT EVER. I WILL END YOU. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892577)

Maybe I'm not RIAA --maybe I'm just a performer who only has a few years to make all my money. So you can either have your fellow Slashdot peeps trying to rock you and your gf and pirate the crap out of their stuff knowing they can grow old and die doing nerd stuff --or you can have professional entertainers and respect their stuff so they have something to fall back on when they aren't so entertaining anymore.

Re:NOT NOW NOT EVER. I WILL END YOU. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892785)

Maybe I'm not RIAA --maybe I'm just a performer who only has a few years to make all my money.

      Then you are a shitty performer. People STILL listen to the Beatles. The Rolling Stones STILL write the odd song and pack concert halls, and Madonna is nowhere near broke and has no trouble selling $500+ concert tickets. If you need to bludgeon people to death with a law to make a living then maybe you're in the wrong line of work because your "music" sucks, you talentless piece of shit.

Constitutionality != Good (3, Insightful)

thirty-seven (568076) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892295)

Just because the US federal administration argues that something is constitutional does not necessarily mean that they think it is a good or fair policy.

Tsk, tsk (3, Insightful)

drquoz (1199407) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892307)

Obama repeatedly made sure that we knew that his campaign was funded entirely by us the citizens, not lobbyists or businesses. Therefore he should be using the DOJ to protect us from the RIAA, not the other way around. I sure hope he can fix the economy, because this is a strike against him.

H4W H4W (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892313)

You believed Obama. Suckers.

He'll pass the test with flying colors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892337)

...they'll just be the colors of green - envy of the perpetual hipness of music and movie industry, whereas his is transitory. Obama will continue the long-standing tradition of political corruption by hollywood and RIAA companies -- corruption far more substantial than their relatively small revenues would seem to dictate -- simply because of the glamor involved. You don't see this same scale of the corruption of long-standing law for the sake of companies like IBM, even though it's worth three times more than Sony and Time Warner combined (and that includes Sony's non-media businesses).

By the way, are there any public betting pools on when Obama will lose his demi-god status? I'd think some place in Vegas covers this, and I want in on the action.

Are they even RIAA lawyers? (3, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892359)

Yes I know they worked for the RIAA before. But do they still do so?

If they don't also still work for the RIAA are we sure these lawyers actually even give a damn about the RIAA? Unless they have stocks and shares or whatever in the RIAA companies then what's in it for them if they no longer work for them?

It is possible that these lawyers were just doing it for the money and don't actually give a damn about the company they were working for.

Does anything have anything more damning than that they used to work for the RIAA? do they still? are they receiving money or incentives still from the RIAA?

Implied conflict of interest... (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892899)

Doesn't matter, there's an implied conflict of interest in intervening on behalf of former employers.

hell, no. copyright law provides fair use. (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892383)

DOJ should intervene on the side of customers.

Re:hell, no. copyright law provides fair use. (1)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892493)

DOJ should intervene on the side of customers.

Let me correct that statement:
DOJ should intervene on the side of citizens.

How do you spell Mugabe? (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892455)

I sure he doesn't turn out that way!

Oh dear! (2, Funny)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892491)

A politician lied?

Why is anyone surprised?
You actually were dumb enough to expect different?

Sony v. Cloud (4, Funny)

castorvx (1424163) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892523)

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Cloud,...

So they've finally done it. The RIAA's legal expertise has lead them to sue the internet.

That's not even possible... (2, Funny)

need4mospd (1146215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892571)

...seeking from 2,200 to 450,000 times the amount of actual damages...

I've only seen up to 8000, anything over 9000 would just be ridiculous.

Crash/Burn/Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892739)

Another campaign promise bites the dust. This guy has been in office for about a month and he's already a train wreck.

Chaaaange, chaaaaaaange! (in a Randy Marsh voice) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892887)

Change... for the RIAA!

Yes we can... extort excessive damages!

Hope... we survive the next 4 years.

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>