Obama Taps a 5th Lawyer From the RIAA 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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Obama Taps a 5th Lawyer From the RIAA
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
Well I'll say this for Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
Lawyers represent their clients (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Well I'll say this for Obama (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Insightful)
A vote makes you a constituent, but a huge donation makes you a client.
a new culture of arrogance and incompetence. (Score:2, Insightful)
sorry, Mr. President, but you're building another nest of evil, just like Bushie did, in hiring RIAA weasels.
Now let the RIAA find replacements (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Matter of time (Score:3, Insightful)
Potheads move over, there is another class of evil felons threatening to overthrow America in this decade's War On $VOTEGARNERINGTOPIC.
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Insightful)
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:He's lost my vote in next election (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize these lawyers no longer support the RIAA, right? They have a new client.
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Insightful)
Top layers for the RIAA or the U.S government? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
So their affiliation negates their talent? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Cut off the money supply (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Insightful)
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:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Cut off the money supply (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well I'll say this for Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the definition of an "honest politician". Of course, being from the Chicago political machine, he probably learned that early in his career.
Re:Well I'll say this for Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Well I'll say this for Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
Bird of a feather, flock together as they say.
Pretty much every politician up there is a slick greasy lawyer.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
The lawyers' jobs are to best serve their clients. Can you argue that they've done anything but that?
Finally, if you find me a lawyer that hasn't lied in court, I'll give you a gold star.
Re:a new culture of arrogance and incompetence. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to start a flame war, but again, if you think one party is evil and the other isn't, then you are probably naive.
I'm a liberal by political beliefs, but I am here to tell you that I have seen a disgusting media spin trying to tell you the past 8 years that all Republicans are evil, and all Democrats are perfect. I work for a newspaper, and I am saddened by the lack of any objective journalism is today's society.
How many cabinet members did Bush have with corruption issues? Bush was an idiot with hard-line values, but he wasn't evil.
The Clintons took money from mafia families and pardoned mafia members and large federal drug traffickers. Both Clintons took money from the Chinese government illegally. Both have shown a blatant disregard for the law.
You're saying Democrats aren't evil because they support welfare, but that view is extremely naive. Bush increased social spending programs, lowered the cost of medicare for senior citizens (which the Democrats fought him on until Ted Kennedy told Congress to drop the partisan bickering and try to do right by the citizens for once), and doubled foreign relief packages for impoverished nations (again which Dems in Washington fought him on because they didn't want Republicans to have an apparent political victory).
Furthermore, our current system of welfare is broken. I believe we need aid agencies, but welfare shouldn't be a lifestyle. That doesn't help anyone. We need massive welfare reform so that welfare becomes a transition program that addresses the issues that stop people from working (be it a lack of transportation, lack of affordable day care, drug addiction, lack of training, etc). Yet oddly enough, it only seems to be Republicans that try to push for said programs while Dems seem to advocate for constantly handing out blank checks.
And don't get me started on corporate welfare, which both parties are very guilty of as of late.
I am curious how and why you think only one party is evil. Again I think you are likely just woefully uninformed.
Re:Now let the RIAA find replacements (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 seem to be very good at it.
So we get guys who represented creeps poorly hired to represent the US. I'm not feeling too good about that.
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:So their affiliation negates their talent? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 from working on consumer electronics for the next 20+ years?
I would certainly question if the Obama Administration were hiring former RIAA lobbiests to set the administration copyright policies -- just as I questioned when Bush hired oilmen to set environmental and energy policies... they probably tainted, regardless of talent.
As well, if you're really being honest, it was the specific policies of the RIAA that made them "evil"... and I agree with that designation. But don't forget that, legally, they were in the right, at least before they started manipulating and in many cases breaking the law to intimidate grandmothers and thirteen-year-old kids. There were plenty of people who worked on RIAA cases at some time who were not instrumental in defining such policies.
I think it's important to know the difference. If the Obama administration really is hiring any of the real weasels from the RIAA, we (voters, particularly those like me who backed Obama) need to call him on it... but knee-jerk reactions to anyone who ever worked on an RIAA case (and in particular, is still highly qualified and grounded in a much larger body of good work) will simply be "crying wolf", eliminating much chance of anyone listening if/when it's really needed.
Fourth possibility. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Fourth possibility: The issue never crossed his mind or those of his advisers.
Note that it matters. Despite attempts to criminalize copyright violation this is all about CIVIL liability. So if the copyright holders are aware of the copying there's no foul unless they think there's a foul and claim it. Given the situation, and the value of keeping Obama in their pocket, they're no doubt quite happy to treat this particular set of copies as "authorized" and let it go. They'd probably have paid for them and gifted them themselves if it wasn't more legal trouble and protocol clumsiness than the current situation.
If they're concerned about the precedent they could explicitly announce they've authorized this particular set of copies, putting the issue to rest without waiving any other rights. But I'm sure they're more than happy to watch us all waste effort wringing hands about it. B-(
Re:Cut off the money supply (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The problem with that... (Score:3, Insightful)
... 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 tons of great lawyers out there who have ethics and believe the RIAA is a bad thing. Why tap 5 RIAA lawyers when there is a chance they'll go back to working for the RIAA or a similar organization when they leave?
Ability counts for a lot in government, but so does position and motivation. It's not a bad thing to question if these guys, given their background, will chose to go after the RIAA for malicious prosecution, or not help the RIAA go information scrounging and threaten organizations that don't submit to warrantless searches of personal information. If the government went after the RIAA, would the RIAA accept them back? Would they be willing to find a job somewhere else?
Re:So their affiliation negates their talent? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cut off the money supply (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
A very risky joke. (Score:3, Insightful)
i dunno... how much are bullets these day?
ha, ha, just a joke, folks! ;-)
A very risky joke at the best of times. But especially during the runup to fascism. It's right up there with waving at your friend Jack whom you've just noticed on the other side of the plane and yelling: "Hi, Jack!"
Security personnel are paid to have NO sense of humor. This is at least partly because REAL bad guys often talk about things as they work themselves up to doing them - and try to claim they were joking if anybody calls them on it.
Back during the "Vietnam Era" (it was undeclared so I STILL won't call it a war) there was a guy who wrote "P*ss on LBJ" on the outside of letters he sent. After a while he noticed that Secret Service agents were following him around. He confronted one and, upon finding out he was Secret Service asked him why he was being followed. Answer: "If enough people p*ssed on LBJ it would kill him."
Re:Now let the RIAA find replacements (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:a new culture of arrogance and incompetence. (Score:3, Insightful)
Listing facts is trolling, where as unfounded personal attacks with no facts to back them up is untrolling?
Please enlighten me how the parent list is untrue in any facet.
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (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?
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyers are not required by law to take cases except possibly as public defenders. You're right that we shouldn't paint lawyers who defend people with the same brush as their clients. However, when the client in question is filing the charges, when their lawyers are knowingly (or unknowingly and completely incompetently) introducing illegally-obtained evidence, etc., then yes, we should paint the lawyers with the same brush.
There's no grey area here. You either have a sense of morality or you don't. If you choose to represent somebody in suing a 66-year-old grandmother [boingboing.net], an 83-year-old dead person [theregister.co.uk], and a 12-year-old girl [foxnews.com] for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, then you have the morals of a jellyfish.
We're not talking about going after commercial music piracy---one corporation suing another corporation (or nearly so). We're talking about companies that maliciously use laws intended to prosecute commercial piracy against ordinary people, that frequently sue completely uninvolved people, that have gross disregard for the legal process, etc. The lawyers themselves either hired unlicensed investigators (in which case the lawyers behaved illegally) or accepted evidence from them without looking into the background of the investigators (in which case the lawyers are completely inept). Either way, introducing such evidence should be grounds for disbarment in and of itself, but instead of throwing these dirtbags out on the streets where they belong, Obama is hiring these leaches on society as the highest lawyers in our land....
There's a point at which someone shows such reckless disregard for the law, for right and wrong, and for humanity in general that we can no longer give them the benefit of the doubt. RIAA lawyers crossed that line many, many years ago and have been sinking progressively farther below that line with every passing day.... I'm appalled that Obama would choose people like this to head the DOJ. You cannot hire people who knowingly violate the law to win cases as our nation's highest lawyers. That's like hiring Hitler to head up the anti-defamation league. It just doesn't make sense, and it is this very sort of practice that causes sleazebags like Ted Stevens to be let off the hook due to prosecutorial misconduct. Unless Obama wants the same crap as the last administration, he needs to seriously rethink his hiring strategy.
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Re:a new culture of arrogance and incompetence. (Score:3, Insightful)
In many ways Obama may be a better president that Bush. All I'm saying is that Obama's early track record certainly doesn't meet the lofty expectations.
Again, he already rolled back on the campaign promises to appoint new faces and not Washington politicians and lobbyists. He rolled back on his promise for full transparency. He has appointed corrupt politicians with bad track records. He told the media to drop their investigation in Bush's missing email scandal. He signed a new executive order to actually EXPAND the domestic spy program. And while he ordered Gitmo shut down, Secretary Gates said that Obama has ordered for torture to be ramped up in Afghanistan.
Democracy isn't a matter of voting once every four years and then turning off your brains. Democracy is paying attention to what is actually going on in Washington and holding politicians accountable to the promises they made.
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Insightful)
The goal should be to make things better. Swapping out Bush's poor choice of appointees for equally poor choices doesn't really get us any where.
At some point Obama and his supporters will have to stop using Bush to justify their own poor decisions. Yes, Bush made horrible decisions. Yes, Bush was an idiot. Yes, Bush was a bad president. That's why everybody hated him and why so many people were excited about Obama changing things - it was implied that he meant change for the better. So it's a bit disappointing to see Obama make poor choices and then have those choices justified with "But look what Bush did," or "It's okay because we're no worse off than with Bush." Pointing out that somebody else did something stupid doesn't make their own choices any less stupid.
Re:You do want to start a flame war. (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that Bush also pardoned people doesn't prove that Bill Clinton didn't pardon mafia heads whose families donated to him, or major federal drug dealers.
Find me a name that Bush pardoned who was a known mafia member whose family donated to Bush, and then all you will have proved is my parent point, that both sides are dirty. But at the moment, all you are doing is diverting from the fact that you were spouting BS personal ad hominem partisan attacks while my point flies above your head.
It is dangerous to assume one party is evil and the other is perfect, which you are so determined to prove for me. Thanks.
Re:Cut off the money supply (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not hard to imagine these people trying to force, through legislation, everyone to buy music through them. Or that *any* music download should be charged.
Re:Cut off the money supply (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
even worse if he failed to report it (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, you don't really think he hired all those people because of some personal RIAA fetish, do you?
I'd bet on a front organization with a vague but nice-sounding name. It could be named something like "People for Democratic Change in America" or the "American Change 2008 Committee". This is the norm for fake grassroots fundraising and PR.
Re:You're just asking for this one (Score:2, Insightful)
There are alternatives. Everybody could have told you Obama's a demagoge 15 years ago.
Before he even held office? Or is that just your way of telling us you're full of shit?
Re:Cut off the money supply (Score:5, Insightful)
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:So their affiliation negates their talent? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:So what? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
The fact that lawyers work solely for whoever pays them is part of the problem. While in reality I realize that statement is true, they are suppose to do so only to the point it become unethical for them to continue. Its that second part that the most publicized lawyers fail to have, and what is most vital for someone appointed to the Justice Department.
They didn't sue students and grandmothers out of evil and malice, they sued them because that's what they were paid to do.
So, since they were doing it for money, that makes it okay?
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.
That depends on your definition of good. I would say the RIAA lawyers are fairly competent at earning the people they represent money, but that doesn't make them good.
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 argument entirely. Maybe we do).
I do want an efficient Justice Department, but I also want one the is ultimately accountable to me (and all other constituents). Assuming their association with the RIAA ends with this appointment (and to be frank, we have no real indication that will or will not happen as of this moment), their actions show they will ultimately only consider themselves accountable to the person who pays their paycheck. Obama's actions have show that so far he is not trustworthy (in the interest of full disclosure, I never considered him trustworthy, due to his actions in Congress, and his actions since becoming President have born out my suspicions).
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:1, Insightful)
Are you suggesting that age determines innocence? It makes no difference if a defendant is 12 or 83 (and dead), or whether or not they are a grandmother.
Lawyers do their clients' bidding. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well I'll say this for Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Solution as usual is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So, RIAA is top priority? Even top tech priorit (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess this community is what it is, but there sure seems to be an odd and misplaced anger over this.
I support and approve of President Obama generally.
But seeing him appoint 6 people from the same law firm to the Department of Justice, mostly to very high positions in that department, who were working on and supporting a legal campaign that was frivolous, meanspirited, unnecessary, based on nonexistent legal theories, and unsupported by evidence, and which represented an abuse of our federal judicial system, was a serious mistake on his part IMHO.
Re:Well I'll say this for Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
"over someone who could accurately represent us"
The justice department's position is not an elected representative. He's not supposed to represent us. Lawyers are mercenaries. They'll change their beliefs for whomever signs the paycheck. He'll do what he's told. Your problem is with the person running the show. Obama took record amounts of money to win, that probably means a lot of favors to pay back, and not to you and me.
Re:Now let the RIAA find replacements (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cut off the money supply (Score:5, Insightful)