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This discussion has been archived.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.
Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.
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."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bird of a feather, flock together as they say.
Pretty much every politician up there is a slick greasy lawyer.
Re:You're just asking for this one (Score:4, Informative)
Right, Bush is one of those slick greasy MBA types. Completely different I'm sure...
Re: (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:Well I'll say this for Obama (Score:4, Funny)
Bill Shatner. On. Slash. Dot?
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:Cut off the money supply (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cut off the money supply (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cut off the money supply (Score:5, Interesting)
For every band who gets "rich" due to the record labels there are dozens who are poorer than when they started with the label.
It's a cliche at this point but http://www.negativland.com/albini.html [negativland.com]
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.
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.)
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.
Re:Cut off the money supply (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (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!
Re: (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.
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-(
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
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.
new tag (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Funny)
we all have that past job we aren't proud of...
Yeah, I was a lawyer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You wouldn't hire an ex prostitute to teach your children would you?
Well, that depends... Is she hot?
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm... maybe Obama is actually pro-P2P, and he's hiring all of the RIAA's lawyers away from them, so they'll fail in court?
Well they're already failing in court.
But you may have a point there. The 6 RIAA lawyers who are now in the DOJ are legally recused from working on any matters involving the RIAA, EMI, Vivendi Universal, SONY BMG, or Warner Bros Records or any of their affiliates. So by appointing them to DOJ, perhaps he's taken the DOJ -- which has recently acted like a fawning toady of the RIAA -- out of the game. The 2 briefs the Obama DOJ has filed in RIAA cases, in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum [blogspot.com] and SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Cloud [blogspot.com] read like they were drafted by the proverbial monkeys let loose in a room of typewriters. When the judges actually read the cases the briefs cited, and the authorities they deliberated failed to cite, they will be appalled that our nation's legal department could be so irresponsible.
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Insightful)
A vote makes you a constituent, but a huge donation makes you a client.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless by "no good" you mean "potentially evil."
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:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets look and find out!
http://www.jenner.com/people/bio.asp?id=222 [jenner.com]
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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.
Re: (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: (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: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)
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)
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
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lawyers represent their clients (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, that's common sense. Now let's hope this example is a sign of things to come:
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.
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.
Re:a new culture of arrogance and incompetence. (Score:5, Informative)
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. (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:You do want to start a flame war. (Score:4, Interesting)
It isn't a conspiracy theory but a matter of public record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton [wikipedia.org]
You should check the names of the list (almost 200 strong).
Many were members of mafia families who donated directly to Bill Clinton, also a matter of direct public record which you can fact-check within 30 seconds.
Next time, instead of living in fantasy land, try Google.
Re: (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 dangerou
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you've read both linked Wikipedia entries, you would have noticed a stark contrast in the first paragraph:
"George W. Bush used this power only to eliminate the collateral effects of conviction (e.g., prohibitions on felons voting or owning a gun). He did NOT pardon anyone who had NOT SERVED A FULL SENTENCE pursuant to a conviction."
(emphasis mine)
I didn't like George W. OR Billy Cigar Clinton more than anyone else, but on the singular issue of pardoning criminals as presented in really really well cited
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not defending Republicans. I'm saying you can't assume one party is evil and one party is perfect. You're missing my message completely.
And for the record, for the past two years, Democrats have controlled the House, Senate, and most of the Governor seats, and I have always maintained that most of the power is in Capitol Hill. Yet most people I talk to insist Republicans were controlling the government, and should be blamed for all the problems of the past two years.
Both parties voted for the Patriot
Re: (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:Withdrawing nomination != Forced to Resign (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a right-wing loon if I think criminals shouldn't hold cabinet positions? The company Hillary was running was found to have broken the law. Everyone else went to jail. A judge ordered her to turn over court documents, she refused, and everyone let the matter slip because why should she be held accountable to the law?
And Obama isn't holding people to higher standards. He has been appointing people with known corruption issues, and then in many cases standing behind them.
Obama made a campaign promise not to appoint any "Washington politicians or lobbyists" to cabinet positions. He appointed Daschle, who not only didn't pay taxes, but is a Washington lobbyist, who lied about being a Washington lobbyist. Obama said that he supported the appointment either way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The blog (which I haven't updated since my computer died) does not run merely conservative points. My wife is a Republican and I disagree with her all the time. Most of my friends are registered Democrats are I disagree with them a lot of the time.
The primary reason is because neither party really upholds the beliefs they are supposedly based on.
I am a liberal because I subscribe to political beliefs of individual civil rights and freedoms. I get upset when Democrats in office don't uphold those rights t
Re: (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 actua
Now let the RIAA find replacements (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Disappointing... (Score:2)
Very disappointing.
Ethics is a 4-letter word (Score:2)
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.
What's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (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: (Score:3, Informative)
it is the people who are being sued by the RIAA/MPAA that are doing questionably legal things.
You've got to be kidding.
it's been made pretty clear that if you get caught downloading
Nobody has been sued for downloading.
you can and most likely will get sued. (and lose.)
The RIAA has not won a single one of these cases.
And, as far as I've read, the laws and precedents support this.
Apparently you have not read very far (or at all).
Re: (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.
He's lost my vote in next election (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize these lawyers no longer support the RIAA, right? They have a new client.
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.
He is so awesome ! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well... (Score:2)
Obama Taps a 5th Lawyer (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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.
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.
Ugh (Score:2)
I thought he was *against* lobbying groups?
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: (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 fro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
disappointing but not really surprising (Score:2)
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
So who here is with the press? (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be nice to see this question directly asked to Obama in a press conference.
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (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?
Scary precident (Score:5, Funny)
Now that Obama has given the order to shoot pirates...
Obama The Liar..... (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Lawyers do their clients' bidding. (Score:3, Insightful)
Solution as usual is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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.