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 Taps a 5th Lawyer From the RIAA

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the are-you-worried-yet dept.

Government 587

risingfish writes "Looks like Obama did what many organizations have asked him not to do. In a disappointing move, he has tapped a fifth RIAA lawyer to a top spot in the Justice Department."

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

Well I'll say this for Obama (4, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573405)

Once he's been bought off, he STAYS bought off.

I wonder how much "donation money" we'd need to offer him to get this policy to "change."

Re:Well I'll say this for Obama (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573435)

Worst. Nerd. Relations. Move. Ever.

Re:Well I'll say this for Obama (4, Insightful)

iMac Were (911261) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573465)

Because. Nerds. Like. Totally. Matter.

Re:Well I'll say this for Obama (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573749)

I'll tell you this -- that's the last time I come over to his house to fix his computer. Next time he accidentally installs some spyware app he's on his own.

Last post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573929)

I'll tell you this -- that's the last time I come over to his house to fix his computer.

Achievement or it didn't happen.

Next time he accidentally installs some spyware app he's on his own.

Nonsense, Obama uses NinnieOS! It doesn't have any spyware.

One other thing: this is the last post in this thread. Anyone posting past this point will have to answer to Vladimir Putin and his army of rabid, communist chiwawas!

Re:Well I'll say this for Obama (1)

Chaymus (697182) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574093)

It's a good point. There's a difficulty with most groups to understand/relate to the nerd culture. I'm not surprised that a politician went with a slick greasy lawyer over someone who could accurately represent us but was out of touch with the administration.

Cut off the money supply (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573707)

You don't like the fact *AA cronies now occupy the highest offices in the land? Instead of hitting iTunes and Netflix for your entertainment needs, close your wallet and head on over to The Pirate Bay. Change happens when people are pushed over the edge and many famous instances of civil disobedience proves it.

Re:Cut off the money supply (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574027)

Don't forget to donate your music allowance to the EFF and TPB.

Re:Well I'll say this for Obama (1)

skeeto (1138903) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573853)

Once he's been bought off, he STAYS bought off.

Look on the bright side: at the very least he's being consistent!

Re:Well I'll say this for Obama (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573989)

Here's an interesting discussion on whether Obama's gift to the Queen violated the law: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/first-sale-president-obama-and-queen-england [eff.org] . It's an interesting proposition. If he is in RIAA's pockets, would he not be more concerned about illegal distribution of copyrighted works? There are three possibilities here:
- he just sucks at gift-giving, and picked up something he had laying around the house.
- he wants to give what is most precious to his donors: intellectual property and entertainment.
- he wants to put the spotlight on how absurd it is that his gift to the queen is potentially illegal.

Now, granted, the last point is really grasping at straws, and it is highly unlikely that this was a conscious decision.

But really - what if people start to point out that not only was the gift pretty lame, but it might or might not be illegal? Could the RIAA be forced into making a public statement on whether this stuff is legal or illegal? This could be RIAA's biggest marketing fiasco yet....

Re:Well I'll say this for Obama (3, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574045)

You saw the gift exchange between Obama and Gordon Brown, I expect.

Suffice it to say, Obama is just a sucky gifter.

Re:Well I'll say this for Obama (4, Insightful)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574099)

That's the definition of an "honest politician". Of course, being from the Chicago political machine, he probably learned that early in his career.

new tag (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573423)

!surprised

Lawyers represent their clients (4, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573427)

OJ was able to get off because he hired an incredibly talented set of lawyers.

It makes sense that those with a lot of money would hire the best lawyers. Now that Obama chooses the cream of the crop, suddenly these guys are somehow no good?

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (1, Insightful)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573485)

Excellent point. Plus, with all the suing they were doing, they had to have an incredibly large pool of lawyers working for them. Plus really, we all have that past job we aren't proud of...

Preach on, brother! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573669)

I'd like to think that despite my youthful spitting into the local Orange Julius mixer, I can't get a government job spitting into everyone's Orange Julius mixer plus a pension.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573679)

we all have that past job we aren't proud of...

Yeah, I was a lawyer.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573499)

The same can be said of assassins for hire. "Because CAPITALISM!" these guys are somehow good?

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (5, Insightful)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573507)

So do politicians.
A vote makes you a constituent, but a huge donation makes you a client.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (3, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573561)

Now that Obama chooses the cream of the crop, suddenly these guys are somehow no good?

They were RIAA scum. Obama picking them has nothing to do with them being considered no good.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (1)

GMFTatsujin (239569) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573651)

Unless by "no good" you mean "potentially evil."

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27574069)

Perhaps Obama found the Good/Evil switch on these lawyers?

Simpson's Tree House of Horrors III [snpp.com] (Episode w/ Krusty doll shipped with the switch in the evil position).

Mij

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574043)

Were they RIAA scum or scum the RIAA hired? They're lawyers and now politicians, so they're scum obviously, but let's keep things straight. If they only were paid to do the legal legwork for the RIAA suing college kids for sharing Brittney Spears songs, that's bad but only means they have no morals AKA they're lawyers, which we already knew.

If they were actually part of the RIAA that made the decision in the first place to claw at everyone who didn't fall in line, no matter how small the offense, then yes, this is worse.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (5, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573607)

OJ was able to get off because he hired an incredibly talented set of lawyers.

It makes sense that those with a lot of money would hire the best lawyers. Now that Obama chooses the cream of the crop, suddenly these guys are somehow no good?

I'm sure these are excellent lawyers, but that won't make them "good".

Do you think these guys are suddenly going to change their tune after arguing against freedom for years? (Free as in information, not as in beer.)

Something else to note: These guys have been defending using extremely questionable methods to gather "evidence" for years. I'm sure that experience goes a long ways in the Justice dept. You think pulling an old lady who doesn't own a computer up on charges for sharing music over the Internet was bad... wait until they have the power of the NSA/CIA/FBI behind them.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (5, Funny)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573943)

You think pulling an old lady who doesn't own a computer up on charges for sharing music over the Internet was bad... wait until they have the power of the NSA/CIA/FBI behind them.

Trust me, next time she will have a computer, and the files in question will be there!

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574009)

You think pulling an old lady who doesn't own a computer up on charges for sharing music over the Internet was bad... wait until they have the power of the NSA/CIA/FBI behind them.

Trust me, next time she will have a computer, and the files in question will be there!

The smart money is betting that she'll also be a NRA member and have a Rush Limbaugh newsletter subscription.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (5, Insightful)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573631)

While their past actions in the employ of the RIAA might make them good lawyers, the complete disregard for both justice and the standard of law in this country pretty much makes them crappy appointments for the JUSTICE department.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (0, Offtopic)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573697)

The RIAA are beginning to have their asses kicked in court because more and more people are standing up and speaking out against them, thanks to the guidance of the EFF and Beckerman types. Obama could have installed them as a favor for campaign contributions, but how long they stay after that is fair game. And if they piss off enough people, they won't stay long. That's why we must keep fighting to have the ACTA revealed.

RIAA lawyers are not necessarily the "cream of the crop", it's just that men will kill their own grandmas if you throw enough money at them. Look at the way Microsoft tries to shove Silverlight down our throats!

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (5, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573705)

I have a very hard time believing that the best lawyers in this country all specialized in the same subset of the law, let alone were all hired by a single entity. While these folks certainly have studied other aspects of the law, and have had other clients, the bulk of their recent experience is all the same.

Even if all the lawyers Obama appointed used to work for the EFF & FSF I would still be concerned, because the DOJ needs a wide base of experience, not just IP law.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (3, Insightful)

skathe (1504519) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573721)

I totally agree. These guys represented the RIAA because they were paid to, not because they necessarily have some sort of moral conviction one way or the other in the argument. And the RIAA isn't exactly a poorhouse, so it can afford the best lawyers.

I mean, you wouldn't say Johnnie Cochran is pro-murder, would you?

Thurgood Marshall didn't care about civil rights (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573957)

Those cases just happened to make up most of his private career.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (4, Insightful)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573739)

Following same logic, bin Laden should be named as anti-terrorist chief of operations. Who knows better how terrorists plan their attacks on innocent people?

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573755)

I'm pretty sure there are incredibly talented lawyers out there who haven't made a living off of suing their customers, lying in court, using fraudulent evidence discovery mechanisms and bad evidence. Like, I don't know, some justice clerk [lessig.org] or even a slashdot poster [slashdot.org] .

I've got to admit, this is one of two areas where Obama is worse than Bush. While he hasn't proven he can out-Bush Bush in this particular area (see warrantless wiretaps and Internet security), he's certainly not deviating either from a course of action that will take him there.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573869)

While he hasn't proven he can out-Bush Bush in this particular area (see warrantless wiretaps and Internet security)

Obama voted for the legislation that ended any possibility we had of discovering the Bush abuses in this area. I'd say that he's at least his equal and will probably "out-Bush" him in the years to come. No reason to oppose expansions of Executive Power if you are the Executive, is there?

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (1)

GNUbuntu (1528599) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573871)

I'm pretty sure there are incredibly talented lawyers out there who haven't made a living off of suing their customers,

The RIAA lawyers sued the RIAA? Huh?

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (2, Informative)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573775)

OJ was able to get off because he hired an incredibly talented set of lawyers.

It makes sense that those with a lot of money would hire the best lawyers. Now that Obama chooses the cream of the crop, suddenly these guys are somehow no good?

How naive you are:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html [cnet.com]
http://www.osnews.com/story/21190/Obama_s_DOJ_Sides_with_RIAA [osnews.com]

It's cute defending your man to the last. I still have my Ron Paul sticker proudly displayed and can proudly say I did not vote one democrat or republican the last election. Yeah, my candidates lost, but at least I didn't buy into bullshit. Like George Carlin says, the people who run this country just don't give a fuck about you.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (5, Insightful)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573785)

Also this guy used to be in the Justice department until the changing of the guard in 2001. I wonder if the RIAA was as worried about hiring a firm that employed a pro-civil-rights lawyer, as alarmists are now that he's back in the Justice department...

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (2, Funny)

3.1415926535898 (969600) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573809)

BadAnalogyGuy is right. We need people that know how to bend the law every which way in order to fight these corporate crooks and their armies of lawyers that know how to trample the law.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573837)

It makes sense that those with a lot of money would hire the best lawyers. Now that Obama chooses the cream of the crop, suddenly these guys are somehow no good?

What the hell makes you think that the RIAA lawyers are the "cream of the crop"? Their whole stragety seems to be based more on superior resources and intimidation. There isn't any legal brilliance at play here. In fact, based on the number of times they've been caught lying and all those times they've employed unlicensed investigators, I'm inclined to think that they are morons.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573859)

I'm complaining, but I'm not complaining because I don't think that they are competent lawyers. I'm complaining because they had long standing associations with a school of thought that I oppose. They still have friends and connections within, and possibly draw benefits from, the RIAA. Their decisions will still be influenced by the school of thought that thinks DRM is the best thing ever and that fair use is soft terrorism.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573903)

Lawyers represent their clients
This cannot be repeated enough until people really understand it. Yes, there are certainly some lawyers out there who engage in sleazy practices. And who knows, maybe the lawyers the RIAA had hired really do believe the RIAA's cause. But, tarring a lawyer with the same brush as his client is a horrible thing to do, and ultimately detrimental to everything good about our legal system.

I realize that in some cases, the guilt of the accused is pretty obvious. And that the idea that someone is defending them just rankles. It still needs to be done. And the lawyer doing it needs to do so in the most vigorous fashion. The reason is simple: to keep the government honest. If we fall into the trap of allowing the government to railroad someone, even the guy caught with blood on his hands, we risk allowing the government to start locking people away without a trial at all.

Yes, it means that sometimes a murder will go free. It means that occasionally, a crime will go unpunished. That is simply a cost of living in a free country.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573907)

How does total-lack-of-ethics translate to "cream-of-the-crop"? It sure doesn't in my book.

Re:Lawyers represent their clients (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27574049)

Yes, they're brilliant ... for their clients, who are in this case the RIAA, not the people of the USA.

a new culture of arrogance and incompetence. (2, Insightful)

swschrad (312009) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573509)

sorry, Mr. President, but you're building another nest of evil, just like Bushie did, in hiring RIAA weasels.

Re:a new culture of arrogance and incompetence. (4, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573677)

This is what I keep telling everyone. If you think one party is perfect, and the other is evil, then you are naive. Everyone in Washington is looking out for their own interests, and a good chunk of them are corrupt along both party lines.

Obama appointees who had to resign, the list so far:

      * Bill Richardson: grand jury investigation for influence peddling
      * Tom Daschle: tax evasion
      * Nancy Killefer: tax lien on home for failing to pay unemployment tax for household workers
      * Judd Gregg: political differences over stimulus plan
      * Annette Nazareth: reason unspecified
      * Caroline Atkinson: reason for withdrawal not specified
      * Sanjay Gupta: reason unspecified

People who haven't withdrawn, but have had major issues:

      * Hilda Solis: husband has 16 years of tax liens against his business
      * Tim Geithner: tax problems
      * Gary Locke: potentially-suspicious fund-raising history [michellemalkin.com]
      * Ron Kirk: failed to pay $10,000 in back taxes
      * Hillary Clinton: Whitewater (which apparently she is above the law on).

Will Vivek Kundra be next on the list? Kundra's company was just raided by the FBI.

Add to that how Obama promised to be transparent, but has yet to do so, how he is covering up Bush's email scandal, and Obama actually INCREASING the domestic spy program, and you see that so far Obama isn't much better than Bush.

Re:a new culture of arrogance and incompetence. (0, Flamebait)

squidguy (846256) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573841)

* Hillary Clinton: Whitewater (which apparently she is above the law on).

Add alleged Rose Law Firm billing improprieties and alleged connections to Vince Foster's murder err suicide

Re:a new culture of arrogance and incompetence. (-1, Troll)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574097)

I think the big difference is that the GOP is very, very evil, and doesn't even try to hide it. The Democrats at least pretend to care about the little people by throwing welfare and food stamps our way.

Now let the RIAA find replacements (5, Insightful)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573513)

If these guys are that good, then it is the RIAA's loss so that's good. Lawyer's are not usually paid to represent their own positions. They are hired by clients to represent theirs. A defense lawyer for a murderer isn't necessarily a murder or in favor of murder. The defense lawyer may even believe the client is guilty, but legal representation if still their right.

Bullcrop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27574047)

Becoming a {ri,mp}aa lawyer is a Nazgulian event. You don't suddenly turn into a gardener because the ring changed hands.

NO! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573533)

Noooooo! Obama! Noooo!!! Resist the dark side! Resist Obama! You were the chosen one!!!

Re:NO! (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574029)

You'll have to look like an EMO under a bed sheet with a camera to make it convincing.
Crying helps, too!

Disappointing... (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573541)

Very disappointing.

Change? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573543)

Where's my freakin' change?

Re:Change? (1)

strikeleader (937501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573833)

You mean from capitalism to socialism

Ethics is a 4-letter word (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573545)

I had so much hope. It's too bad I can't take my vote back.

It's not that it's simply a decision I don't agree with, it's an assault to impartiality and protecting civil arguments as civil arguments.

Everything about Obama was the example he set, it was all about making the US look good, inside and outside. This kind of action just tears it all down.

Re:Ethics is a 4-letter word (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574063)

As soon as he voted for FISA I knew we were in trouble.

Tapped (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573559)

just like he tapped sarah palin in teh butt!

What's the problem here? (5, Informative)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573565)

This guy is more than qualified. Here's a snip from his bio:

Before coming to Jenner & Block in 1997, Mr. Gershengorn served for two years in the U.S. Department of Justice, first as Special Assistant and Counsel to Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, and then as Assistant to Attorney General Janet Reno. At the Justice Department, Mr. Gershengorn worked on a variety of civil and civil rights matters, and also coordinated the Department's responses to the Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar Association, and other organizations on rules-related issues.

Full "bio" listing is here [jenner.com] .

Big name firms took the RIAA/MPAA cases, so it's not surprising that many of these top lawyers are getting positions in the Justice Dept. While I'm completely against the RIAA/MPAA tactics, how many lawyers would turn down the payday they were throwing their way?

Re:What's the problem here? (1)

The Moof (859402) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573761)

While I'm completely against the RIAA/MPAA tactics, how many lawyers would turn down the payday they were throwing their way?

So, you want people in the government who throw morals out the window and do things that are questionably legal at the first sign of a dollar?

Re:What's the problem here? (4, Insightful)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573925)

Short answer - no, because the public and private sector differ greatly.

And, from what I have read, it is the people who are being sued by the RIAA/MPAA that are doing questionably legal things. Until legislation changes things or a new legal precedent is set, it's been made pretty clear that if you get caught downloading or sharing movies/mp3s, you can and most likely will get sued. (and lose.) And, as far as I've read, the laws and precedents support this. (IANAL)

Re:What's the problem here? (1)

Everyone Is Seth (1202862) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573927)

You're right, I'm tired of having humans in charge of the government. The world focuses on money too much now. It's the primary goal. A pity primary goals aren't something nobler, like achievement.

Re:What's the problem here? (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574077)

Oh, I dunno - how about the ethical ones?

Who haven't, say, made a living off of suing their customers, lying in court, using fraudulent evidence discovery mechanisms and bad evidence.

He's lost my vote in next election (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573575)

I am extremely disappointed, to say the least. These scum have caused huge amounts of trouble to innocent victims. The **AA's are just bullies.
I have strong feelings on this issue -- I really don't care what else Obama does, this makes a future vote for him impossible.

Re:He's lost my vote in next election (4, Insightful)

Helios1182 (629010) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573625)

You realize these lawyers no longer support the RIAA, right? They have a new client.

Re:He's lost my vote in next election (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573901)

You don't understand, this is Slashdot, to us the RIAA is like Scientology to others, and in our twisted view anyone contaminated by the RIAA virus will for the rest of his life hell bent on being part of the "they" in Slashdot's collective subconscious "They're all out to get us!" cry.

Re:He's lost my vote in next election (1)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574035)

You realize these lawyers no longer support the RIAA, right? They have a new client.

Do they? Or are they just working a different venue? That's the big question today. Not saying I know the answer.

Matter of time (2, Insightful)

tsstahl (812393) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573587)

Federal criminal copyright statutes are right around the corner for casual filesharers.

Potheads move over, there is another class of evil felons threatening to overthrow America in this decade's War On $VOTEGARNERINGTOPIC.

He is so awesome ! (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573603)

Change.... people its....Change..... Hey Obama you're so fine,you're so fine you blow my mind! Hey Obama! Hey Obama!

Re:He is so awesome ! (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573671)

America, fuck yeah!

insert (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573637)

witty quip about change here.

Oh well... (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573661)

If you voted for him, behold your creation.

Obama Taps a 5th Lawyer (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573667)

Obama Taps a 5th Lawyer in order to summon a horrifying beast!

(Someone, please, make a better "Tapping" joke then mine. I haven't touched Magic for over 10 years)

Re:Obama Taps a 5th Lawyer (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574015)

Obama Taps a 5th Lawyer in order to summon a horrifying beast!

(Someone, please, make a better "Tapping" joke then mine. I haven't touched Magic for over 10 years)

Magic? I thought you were making a Captain Planet joke....
And the horrifying beast was going to be his next appointee: Al Gore.

Top layers for the RIAA or the U.S government? (2, Insightful)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573683)

Assuming these guys are among the best lawyers in the country, who would you rather they work for?

I guess it all depends on who you are. If you're a heavy internet user (downloading illegally or not), you probably would rather they work for the U.S. government. If you happen to fit the wrong demographic group, you might prefer that they work for the RIAA.

Ugh (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573691)

I thought he was *against* lobbying groups?

Re:Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27574007)

Really? BWAHAHAHA!

So their affiliation negates their talent? (4, Insightful)

S7urm (126547) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573693)

Since when has the "nerd" community ever bought into the concept of shunning someone based on their "social" standing as opposed to their talent? I remember being proud of the fact that this community used to think like I did, that talent and skill would always mean more than one's affiliation with a group. I say if this lawyer has talent, and is worthy of the appointment, what does it matter if he did work with the RIAA? Since when have "nerds" thought it was ok to ostricize people?

And I can already hear the replies, "Ohhh the RIAA is evil" and "Wahh the RIAA stolez my MP3's" and "OMG my 3m4cs p0wn the R144!"

Get a grip, if people do their jobs well, they deserve to be recognized, regardless of a minority's stance on the issues that said person was hired to work with.

Re:So their affiliation negates their talent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27574095)

And I can already hear the replies, "Ohhh the RIAA is evil" and "Wahh the RIAA stolez my MP3's" and "OMG my 3m4cs p0wn the R144!"

I can barely read those replies, let alone hear them.

'Change we can believe in'... (0, Troll)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573711)

I believe people heard Obama's campaign slogan correctly.... and it wasn't even a lie. People just interpreted it incorrectly.

They were thinking, 'change we can believe in' - because it's hopeful, optimistic change. It's the kind of change we want, let's go ahead and believe in it.

What he really meant was, this is the kind of change you can believe in your incumbent government parties implementing. That is to say, very little change, which consists of generally making lawyers and rich companies richer and more powerful.

That's the only kind of change from the incumbents that we can believe it. Get it?

Re:'Change we can believe in'... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573795)

I hate to break it to you, but Ron Paul lost.

Meet the New Boss. . . (0, Redundant)

MistaE (776169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573725)

. . . Same as the old Boss.

Re:Meet the New Boss. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27573911)

True but this ones a single-termer, the guy is a collasal tool. Everyone was overjoyed that Bush was going, and the Obama campaign sold itself on "change". I spent some time reading through his policies and came to the conclusion they were essentially more of the same. Nobody wanted to listen at the time.

http://diversitylane.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/hero-or-zero/ [wordpress.com]

disappointing but not really surprising (1)

StandardDeviant (122674) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573735)

It's a broad brush, admittedly, but generally entertainment and non-defense technology have their leashes on the Democrats and oil/defense/defense-tech have their leashes on Republicans. When GWB was elected I thought that I should have gone out and bought up shares in defense and oil, only I was a poor college kid at the time, and history I think well illustrates how those bets would have paid off 2000-2008. All things considered, yes it's disappointing that this Democratic administration will likely pander to the above corporate interests, but I'll take DRM and p2p stupidity over bloody oil wars and dreams of empire any day and twice on Sunday.

Wait (1)

valkabo (840034) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573747)

These lawyers are the very very top shelf of law. Need proof? How many laws have the RIAA broken and gotten away with?

So who here is with the press? (3, Interesting)

JerryLove (1158461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573827)

It would be nice to see this question directly asked to Obama in a press conference.

So what? (2, Insightful)

The Dancing Panda (1321121) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573847)

One thing any lawyer will tell you is that they work for whoever pays them. The RIAA was paying these lawyers, so they came up with arguements to prove that people owed them money. They didn't sue students and grandmothers out of evil and malice, they sued them because that's what they were paid to do. Lets not lie, the RIAA lawyers are VERY good; they have won a lot of cases and have a lot of experience in and out of court. I don't know why we wouldn't want someone like that working for the Department of Justice, so long as we don't want an inept Department of Justice (which is a different arguement entirely. Maybe we do).

Re:So what? (2, Interesting)

MrAl (21859) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574067)

So you want the Justice Department filled with people who's moral base changes depending on who signs their paychecks? The RIAA has been proven to use underhanded and illegal methods to try and come up with "arguments to prove that people owed them money". So if you get on the bad side of the DOJ it's okay for them to use illegal and immoral methods to prosecute you? You want a bunch of Eliot Spitzer's over at the DOJ? In my mind this is very scary.

idiot liberals & democrats (0, Flamebait)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573879)

they thought Obama was going to change everything in to a liberal socialist utopia, just look at what he has been doing = bailing out the same corporate entities with billions of tax payer dollars that have been in business long before Obama & his bullshit story he used when he was campaigning before he got elected, its the same old shit every politician uses to get elected - rinse & repeat every four years and the US voting population eats it up like candy. this Lawyer is just another shill of the established corporatocracy...

Re:idiot liberals & democrats (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574051)

Shouldn't you be at a "We Surround Them" party right now?

...and by "taps," you mean... (1)

mikewren420 (264173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573881)

The headline *really* implies that Hopey Changey is in bed with them.

We Got What We Asked For (1)

squidguy (846256) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573895)

How many of us are (1) against the RIAA's fascist-like tactics and (2) supported Obama?
Well, we got what we asked for with #2. How many of these shysters were all at Harvard Law together? Something smells fishy here.

Is there any doubt remaining? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573905)

The holder of the executive office is a complete sell-out. Let every person of every type know it. If there are any flag-waving african-americans remaining, you have to ask them why. I completely lost all doubt long ago.

Lawyers are generally mercanaries and/or whores. (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573965)

It is not required that they believe in or personally support the positions of their clients. Lawyers will gladly bite the hand of anyone who is NOT paying them.

A difficult exercise in crimethought avoidance (1)

levicivita (1487751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573983)

This strains even the very-flexible dialectic reasoning capabilities of the Obamamaniacs. Although some of them, from the early comments, appear to be doing rather well: 'the new hires were well paid, hence they must be talented attorneys; once elected, they will do a solid job furthering the Presidents Chosen Causes; the fact they worked for RIAA is irrelevant.' The reality? The industry lobby has managed to sneak this one in in order to further their 'copyright' protection agenda. This is not just a coincidence - to believe so would strain the imagination. Now excuse me while I go back to my daily self-flagellation exercises: WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH OBAMA IS THE SECOND COMING

Change... (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 5 years ago | (#27573993)

believe in it yet?

Much ado about nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27574037)

IAALS (I am a law student):

First: While Jenner & Block has represented the RIAA before, that does not make it a "RIAA law firm". It is a full service corporate firm- the RIAA is likely one of their smaller and less important clients.

Second: The cream of the crop of law school graduates are usually the ones that end up in large law firms. Large law firms are not going to be representing the people sued by the RIAA because those people can't afford their billing rates. The fact that they are representing the RIAA has nothing to do with their personal feelings towards copyright law. If Obama wants the most qualified people, he is going to end up with ones that have previously represented corporate entities such as the RIAA.

Third: Nothing I have seen indicates that any of these "RIAA lawyers" are going to have anything to do with the more unsavory aspects of copyright law. The DOJ does not have the time or the inclination to go after 13 year old children downloading Britteny Spears. The DOJ is only after the big boys. Is it really a problem if the DOJ goes after the more notorious pirates? (those making a profit off piracy).

Theft is still theft (0, Troll)

nmrtian (984245) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574053)

The current that runs through almost of the postings and comments on Slashdot is that music, once released, is in the public commons. It isn't. It never has been. Musicians are losing a lot of money because copyright is ignored and most need that money desperately. Grow up people. Pay for your entertainment and stop whining!

To be fair... (1)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574073)

There were probably a lot more organzations that asked him to do exactly this.

Here's a thought... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27574081)

...what if Obama is trying to shut the RIAA down by hiring all their lawyers away? Nahhh!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?