Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Courts United States News

Obama Taps a 5th Lawyer From the RIAA 587

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the are-you-worried-yet dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Taps a 5th Lawyer From the RIAA

Comments Filter:
  • by Moryath (553296) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:39PM (#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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Worst. Nerd. Relations. Move. Ever.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by iMac Were (911261)
        Because. Nerds. Like. Totally. Matter.
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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.

      • by blueZ3 (744446) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @02:43PM (#27575539) Homepage

        Bill Shatner. On. Slash. Dot?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:52PM (#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.

      • by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @01:11PM (#27574027) Homepage Journal
        Don't forget to donate your music allowance to the EFF and TPB.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          I'd rather send my music allowance (one dollar) directly to the singers. That's more than they normally get (~5 cents per album). The annoying thing about the record companies is they expect us to hear a song like "Paralyzer" and immediately run out to buy the Nine Fingers CD. Me, I'd rather wait until that one-hit wonder is released to a Greatest Hits CD than spend $12 for one measly song.

          Yeah I know I could buy the song on Itunes, but that site only exists because of the pressure exerted by torrents.

        • Also, why not send a check directly to the artists? Include a note explaining why you've cut out the middle man, and ask why they haven't yet.
          • by sexconker (1179573) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @02:45PM (#27575569)

            Because

            "Hi Britney! I love your new album! You're like, totally back!
            So like, I didn't BUY your cd, I downloaded it off of thepiratebay. I still totally want to support you, I just hate the record companies! Don't you hate them too? Like, OMG they're so mean! Here's a check for $1.

            Love your BFF,
            Tiffany
            XOXO"

            Is basically a signed confession to a crime, with your bank account details to boot.

            "Donating" money (not admitting to any crime) wouldn't work because the labels won't allow the artists to set up a electronic payment method people can easily use. Paper checks, and people dumb enough to send cash through the mail, will barely be worth handling, and processing. Hell, the overhead for postage is ridiculous by itself.

            If the volume becomes great enough to actually be profitable, the labels will get their lawyers on it and demand their "fair share".

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by h3llfish (663057)
              One way to cut the RIAA out of the mix while still supporting your favorite artist is to just buy their t-shirt. Many artists retain merchandising rights, so the record company sees none of this money. Or, if they did manage to con the artist into giving up these rights, the artist will still probably see a lot bigger chunk of change than if you had bought the CD. You don't have to wear the shirt if you don't want to. You could always use it to wipe up your spills!
      • by Svartalf (2997) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @01:51PM (#27574725) Homepage

        Don't even go there... TPB is part of the problem- RIAA and the associated companies use that as an excuse for more evil crap inflicted upon us. While you're "cutting off their air supply", they're well off enough that they will do lots of damage on the way down and the only way to minimize that is to not give them ANYTHING to use as a rationale for their actions.

        Don't.
        Use.
        Their.
        Crap.

        If you want music, there's quite a bit of indie (honestly so...) stuff on places like payplay.fm and others like it. Send a robust message- you don't want ANYTHING to do with the RIAA members or those that do business with them. Videos aren't there yet, but in the same vein, all it'll take is the same sort of movement- videography gear has gotten into the same basic space as the audio gear and software and should be following suit as people figure this out.

      • by Duradin (1261418) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @01:58PM (#27574847)

        Or you could do something *legal* and support non-??AA artists.

        Supporting iTunes, Netflix, eMusic and friends shows that there are people that will pay for content delivered digitally.

        Hitting up TPB for things available through legal outlets just shows that you're some whiny brat who wants to eat his cake and have it too, for free. You want ??AA backed artists but you don't want to pay for them. Not downloading anything, anywhere would be better than giving the ??AA the finger and setting a course for Scandinavian trackers.

        (And generally civil disobedience only works when it isn't a convenient thing to do for the protester. Sitting in the white only section of a bus with a good risk of getting ejected, beaten or both is civil disobedience. Getting music for free, not so much.)

      • by MaWeiTao (908546) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @02:31PM (#27575367)

        No... The way you protest is by having some principles and acquiring this entertainment illegally or otherwise. All you're doing is showing that there is demand for this content. Downloading content illegally is telling the entertainment industry that all they need to do is keep working towards more stringent DRM.

        All they need to do is make it so difficult to find and use illegally obtained content that most people will just give in and start paying for it.

        Being principled means being able to sacrifice your entertainment needs to make a message. If people want to make a statement they need to be more vocal. They need to set up protest sites, not download content illegally. They need to organize demonstrations.

        Otherwise you're part of the problem.

      • by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @06:03PM (#27579279) Homepage
        So your idea of civil disobedience is to rip off artists and support a site that makes millions from porn ads? Ghandi and King are spinning in their graves around now...
    • by Amazing Quantum Man (458715) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @01:15PM (#27574099) Homepage

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

    • by Icegryphon (715550) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @01:16PM (#27574129)
      You assume he did not have this stance before he got elected.
      I seem to remember Hollywood and Obama going hand in hand,
      gotta love a $28500 a plate for Barbra Streisand.
      But I already knew this he was like this before hand, because I didn't fool myself.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        But I already knew this he was like this before hand, because I didn't fool myself.

        Yes. Instead of being controlled by the oil industry he's controlled by Hollywood. Change you can believe in.

        John Q. Public, be not so bold!
        BO, thy master, is bought and sold!

  • new tag (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    !surprised
  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:40PM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mc1138 (718275)
      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...
    • by Shatrat (855151) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:44PM (#27573507)
      So do politicians.
      A vote makes you a constituent, but a huge donation makes you a client.
    • by Sir_Lewk (967686) <sirlewk.gmail@com> on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:46PM (#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.

    • by ArcherB (796902) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:48PM (#27573607) Journal

      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.

      • by mdielmann (514750) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @01:05PM (#27573943) Homepage Journal

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DragonWriter (970822)

        Do you think these guys are suddenly going to change their tune after arguing against freedom for years?

        Its possible that some RIAA lawyers are ideologues, though I doubt many of them are. I suspect most of them are zealous advocates of the interests their paying clients communicate to them. So, yeah, their tune will change when their client changes if their new boss communicates a different set of interests from those that were communicated by their old boss.

    • by internerdj (1319281) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:50PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        ... the complete disregard for both justice and the standard of law in this country pretty much makes them crappy appointments for the JUSTICE department.

        Well that depends on just HOW Obama wants the justice department run, doesn't it?

    • by pavon (30274) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:52PM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by skathe (1504519)

      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?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Duradin (1261418)

        At least we know the price for their morals and ethics.

        I mean, who could turn a high paying job where you twist the letter of the law to murder the spirit and intent of the law of the land? It's a high paying job, so it must be the right thing to do!

    • by should_be_linear (779431) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:54PM (#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?
    • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:54PM (#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.

      • by Shakrai (717556) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @01:01PM (#27573869) Journal

        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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rolfwind (528248)

      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

    • by canajin56 (660655) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:56PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Shakrai (717556)

      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.

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

    • 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.

  • by Old97 (1341297) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:44PM (#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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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.

      So we should be even more upset. Because not only do they have a record for representing their clients in some very vile ways, they didn't see

  • Very disappointing.

  • 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.

  • by EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:46PM (#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?

  • 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.
  • Matter of time (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tsstahl (812393) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:47PM (#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.
  • Change.... people its....Change..... Hey Obama you're so fine,you're so fine you blow my mind! Hey Obama! Hey Obama!
  • witty quip about change here.

  • If you voted for him, behold your creation.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:51PM (#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)

    • by Red Flayer (890720) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @01:21PM (#27574215) Journal
      Injustice Department
      Enchantment
      Cost: 2UUBB

      Sacrifice a lawyer and pay U: place a +1/+1 RIAA Kraken token in play.
      Tap a lawyer and pay UU: RIAA Kraken gets +1/+1 until end of turn.
      Tap five lawyers and pay UUBBB: RIAA Beast gets +5/+5, protection from white, and trample until end of turn.
      Sacrifice RIAA Kraken: all Pirates gain phasing(1).

      Color text: Arrr, we was sailin' to Pirate Bay when out of the Sea rose a toothsome creature of many arms -- I feared 'twas Cthulhu, but we weren't that lucky -- we had run across the RIAA Kraken.
  • 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.

  • I thought he was *against* lobbying groups?

  • by S7urm (126547) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:52PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hazydave (96747)

      I agree.. the fact that a lawyer worked for a firm employed by the RIAA, on RIAA cases, hardly makes that person good or evil, qualified or unqualified.. the devil (or angel) is in the details.

      There are plenty of tech jobs of questionable morals as well. Should the fact I worked four months at General Electric, in an division that did work on nuclear weapons (and perhaps other death machines), on a simulator that was almost certainly going to be used for this nefarious kind of work, have disqualified me fro

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Since when is the very path of one's profession & career considered "social standing?" You make it sound like he defended the RIAA from his mother's basement. Also, not sure where you got the idea that he's being excluded from a group (the definition of ostracizing). He's not being excluded from anything. He's ALREADY in, and if anything, we the people are the ones being ostracized / not recognized.
    • by CodeBuster (516420) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @02:47PM (#27575621)

      I say if this lawyer has talent, and is worthy of the appointment, what does it matter if he did work with the RIAA?

      Agreeing to work for an organization that many of us find morally and ethically repulsive calls into question the ethics and judgment of the lawyers who do so. A lawyer is supposed to be an officer of the court (albeit one in private employ) who is obliged to represent his or her client(s), yes, but to do so within the framework provided by the law and according to the rules. The RIAA lawyers, by their abusive tactics, willfully and knowingly flouted the rules (rising in some cases to the level of rule 11 sanctions [wikipedia.org]) and did damage to the law in service of their clients and that is what is so morally and ethically reprehensible, because without the rule of law and fair justice in this country, we are no better than any other politically motivated two-bit dictatorship on this planet.

      Another factor in the special ire reserved for the RIAA by the nerds is the potential and actual collateral damage caused to the computer hardware, software, and technology industries in general by the ongoing RIAA litigation and their lobbying for particularly onerous and abusive new legislation when they are unable to enforce their will in court under the existing laws (i.e. if you don't like the way the game is playing, then cheat...change the rules). In their attempts to defend the business models of last century they are doing considerable damage (witness the DMCA) to the practice of free computing and open source software development and they couldn't care less. It is this casual and wanton attitude regarding aggrieved third parties and wrongly accused people that singles them out as being especially vile.

      So you ask us why we are unable to separate the individual lawyers who agreed to work for them from the larger RIAA agenda? There is your answer

  • 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 pan

  • by JerryLove (1158461) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @12:58PM (#27573827)

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

  • So what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Dancing Panda (1321121) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @01:00PM (#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).
    • ... is that Washington is full of "revolving door" groups which work in the private sector for a specific company, then go into the government and work for a department in charge of regulating that same portion of the private sector. They then leave when the administration leaves and go back into the same industry. While they were in the government, they create policies, procedures, and precidents which give their industries an advantage. Obama seems interested in reform in general, but still, there are

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192)

      They've shown themselves to be without ethics. We want people in the DOJ who will stand up to the administration. Bush came to the DOJ and said "Find a legal justification for torture". A good lawyer would have said "Sorry there is none, torture is illegal". That's what we want. If these guys can't even tell the RIAA that their practices are illegal and unethical, what chance do they have to stand up to the president?

  • by night_flyer (453866) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @02:02PM (#27574903) Homepage

    Now that Obama has given the order to shoot pirates...

  • Obama The Liar..... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by IHC Navistar (967161) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @02:16PM (#27575147)

    Wow..... Obama, the precious little thing of the Democratic Party, has changed masks and broken SEVERAL firm campaign promises in the first 3 months of being in office.

    He has broken his promises and shown the country the hard on he has for Big Brother that he managed to hide the whole election.

    Where's the change?! It's still the same corrupt, two-faced, lying, promise-breaking, Orwellian bullshit that we had to put up with during the Bush years.

    Obama: What a fucking joke.

  • Taps? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Facetious (710885) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @02:16PM (#27575149) Journal
    I really hope "taps" doesn't mean what I think it means.
  • My karma's going to burn for this thought, but lawyers generally do what's in the best interest of whomever their client is... if the *AAs said, "make a rock-solid contract that essentially screws the artists while ensuring we rake in the dough," then that's what the lawyers will (and do) do. Who's to say those lawyers will maintain their practices when not in the employ of the labels anymore....... never mind, who am I kidding?
  • by laughing rabbit (216615) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @04:29PM (#27577645)
    ...turn off, tune out. Don't buy music, don't steal music, let them have their own world and do not participate in it. Get together with friends, make music on your own, share with your family and on and on. If you can't do that, STFU, you are part ot the problem. Only by cutting them off will you win. Otherwise, you fail.

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn

Working...