Obama Nominates RIAA Lawyer For Solicitor General 463
Xiph1980 writes "President Barack Obama on Monday nominated former Recording Industry Association of America lawyer Donald Verrilli Jr. to serve as the nation's solicitor general. The solicitor general is charged with defending the government before the Supreme Court, and files friend-of-the court briefs in cases in which the government believes there is a significant legal issue. The office also determines which cases it would bring to the Supreme Court for review. Verrilli is best known for leading the recording industry's legal charge against music- and movie-sharing site Grokster. That 2003 case ultimately led to Grokster's demise when the US Supreme Court sided with the RIAA's verdict."
Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Interesting)
I can understand the argument that he wants the most vicious shark in the tank to be his attack dog. I might could even buy the argument that this WASN'T just another in a long line of examples of Obama prostrating himself before his Hollywood and entertainment industry patrons. But, it seems to me that he could have found an attack dog that was just as vicious who didn't come with RIAA baggage. To hire someone whose such an obvious enemy of much of the online community and such a lapdog of the entertainment industry seems specifically designed to send a message to his patrons that he's definitely in their pocket. It's the judicial equivalent of Eddie Cicotte hitting the first batter in the 1919 World Series [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
You assume people stop being corrupt greed-mongers when they switch jobs. Funny guy!
Re: (Score:3)
You assume people stop being corrupt greed-mongers when they switch jobs. Funny guy!
This is a non-sequitur. Does his past mean that he's going to start suing copyright infringers on behalf of the US government?
yes it does (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not much hope nor change in aligning with the RIAA, Barack O'Quisling
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I still believe that he honestly thought he would be able to accomplish everything he was saying on the campaign trail in 2007-2008...but then once he was elected, he realized how impossible that would be.
Not saying that's right, I'm just saying that he did seem truly genuine back then.
Re:yes it does (Score:4, Insightful)
As a foreigner watching US politics with interest, I have to agree. What bothers me is that he doesn't even seem to be trying to improve things. He hasn't fought very hard for anything, and he's backpedalled (preemptively!) on many HUGE issues like closing Guantanamo Bay.
It's an uphill battle, no doubt, and he's facing some relatively popular whack-job Republicans, but dammit, he needs to FIGHT a bit.
Re: (Score:3)
"Sincerity is important for a politician. Once he can fake that, he's got it made."
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm telling you that I was aware that HE thought he could do all those things...that's very different than BELIEVING he could.
You don't have to be an asshole, dish...it's possible to have a civil discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh. Nevermind. You are right. Politicians do not make promises that they do not at the time intend to keep.
Do you have some kind of comprehension problem, or are you purposely being an ass? I didn't say politicians don't make promises they don't intend to keep, and I didn't say they don't lie. I said he wouldn't make that many promises, nor promises of that magnitude, if he was being purposely deceiteful.
Seriously, Dish. You need to stop responding to what you want to read, and start responding to what you actually read.
Re:yes it does (Score:4, Informative)
The Chicago Mafia's power to extort was limited to Chicago.
Re:yes it does (Score:4, Interesting)
What's the difference between the Chicago Mafia and the MafiAA again?
The Chicago Mafia's power to extort was limited to Chicago.
Not after we elected its Don to the Oval Office.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not, but that doesn't prevent him from steering the gov't even further into corporatism, on behalf of his old "pals" who haven't stopped their regular deposits into his retirement account.
Re: (Score:3)
You assume people stop being corrupt greed-mongers when they switch jobs. Funny guy!
This is a non-sequitur. Does his past mean that he's going to start suing copyright infringers on behalf of the US government?
So when you're doing shit toward citizens at your previous jobs, you should be appointed a new job with a huge responsibility towards million of citizens, and the said citizen should "give you a chance"?
I call that madness
This reminds me of OSS117 Cairo nest of spy, a french comedy:
the nazi: that's funny, it's always the NAZIS who are the bad guys. We're in 1955 herr Bramard, we can have a second chance thanks ?!
Re: (Score:3)
I think in terms of how he will sell out. How will he sell out the people of the US? Maybe the RIAA will start suing the US for some crazy reason, and he'll just give in. I don't understand the system, but it will cost the tax payer. I guarantee it. The consumer will lose also.
You're asking a question like, "Well, why would oil tycoons get involved in politics? How do they benefit the taxpayer?". I don't understand why they are supposed to benefit the taxpayer.
I know that I made my point in the first paragr
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Informative)
The Solicitor General does way more than that. As another post in the thread pointed out, a big part of the job is filing Amicus Curiae briefs with the Supreme Court. that means when the RIAA/MPAA or big media goes before the Supreme Court, guess who will be asked to file a friend of the Court brief saying "We support these guys"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But the fact that he's a former RIAA lawyer has nothing to do with that. If, as you claim, the US government will be pushing their solicitor general to file amicus curiae briefs in support of the RIAA (a contention that I strongly disagree with, but will support for the sake of argument) then whoever gets put in that job will be asked to do so. Hiring an ex RIAA lawyer really doesn't speak to that point at all. The fact is, he was hired for the exact same reason the RIAA hired him, he's a damn good lawye
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't hate the RIAA's plumber, their lawyer should really be no different.
Ha ha HA. Very funny.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering recent international treaty negotiations (ACTA) I think it's fair to say the US Government has strong feelings on issues re: RIAA.
I think this appointment supports that premise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama is better than W only because he has a normal IQ. As to his politics, he's a corporatist who's broken enough campaign promises (close gitmo! Stop military tribunals of suspected terrists! Get out of Iraq! End welfare for the rich!) to lose 3 re-election bids. Nonetheless, I'll probably have to vote for him because the other side will be running some jackass like Palin, Pawlenty or Bachmann, and letting them get within 3 miles of the White House would be disastrous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(ah, our 'morning rage' article. alright, lets get on with it.)
you are correct that obama has a significantly better IQ, speaking ability and also does not wear his religion like a badge of honor. he had potential and we looked forward to the upgrade from the bumbling idiot to a well-spoken thinking person.
so, what happened? did the office corrupt him (obama)? is it the case of 'the office makes the man' and no matter how well-intentioned you may be, maybe so much power corrupts and no one can say no.
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel the same way and would only vote D just to keep the R's away. I do NOT want D's; I want less R's.
Wow. If people think this way, then I've just thought of a way it could be exploited. All I would have to do would be to pick what I wanted to happen and have it supported by group A, and then just make sure that alternative B was horribly worse. For added refinement to stop people getting wise to it, I could divide up what I wanted to achieve between both A and B and alternate which appeared worse.
Phew. I'm glad no-one else has ever thought of that. Can you imagine what America would be like if they had...?
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Interesting)
What is funny, is that you think there is substantial difference between (D) and (R), to the point of thinking one is less dangerous than the other. The problem is that both are extremely dangerous to Liberty, just in different areas. You may not care about what liberties the (D) are taking away, but I do. I'm equally concerned with the Liberties that the (R) are talking away.
When you overlook the deficiencies of one group (D) because you fear the deficiencies of the other (R), you're equal to those you despise on the other side, who do the exact same things in reverse.
Lets look at the TSA under Obama and his leadership, which is, as far as I'm concerned 10 times worse than anything Bush did, not that Bush wasn't dangerous (he was). The real danger is that Obama is only 1/2 though is first term, and has potentially six more years to screw with us. Bush is no longer here, and no longer scares me.
By Focusing on how horrible Bush was, while ignoring that Obama has for all intents and purposes kept Bush Era rules around and even extended them, does us all a great disservice.
Suffice it to say, Obama scares me more than Bush does. And if he doesn't scare you more than Bush you're living in a delusion. One last point, I love how people think Bush was an idiot, while simultaneously thinking he is brilliantly evil and draconian. I see the left making the same mistake with Palin, while ignoring how stupid Pelosi / Reed seem to be at times. NONE of these people are stupid, they are all just Evil.
To Flip a saying I use occasionally: Any sufficient level of malice is indistinguishable from incompetence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Obama is better than W only because he has a normal IQ.
By which you mean he agrees with your politics.
Bush graduated from Yale, earned a Harvard MBA (the only president with an MBA), and few fighter jets for the military. Say what you want, but nobody was in the cockpit with him flying for him. Apparently he was also an avid reader [washingtonpost.com]. Although it is a bitter pill, Obama is carrying on a number of Bush policies since they make sense given the alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Both Yale and Harvard kept him as a student WELL after the would have let other student go.
Add t that there are plenty of people with average IQ the graduate from both institutions. And getting an MBA? not exactly a tough trick.
His piloting skills where mediocre, when he bothered to show up. and again, flying a fighter takes training, not supreme IQ.
Avid reader? so what. I know a lot of avid readers. It's a pretty meaningless statement in an era where every topic has 1000 authors. Yeah, you have to be a gen
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative to viewing Bush as bumbling idiot is to view him as an utterly evil malevolent genius manipulating everyone and getting away with it. I find that easier to believe for Dick Cheney, than for pot smoking, hookers and blow, c average student (after the standard graft and cheating for his class) that got to a cushy guard assignment from daddy while being groomed for an office he was never qualified for.
Re: (Score:3)
The Ivy League has a long and sad history of...ahem..."exceptions" made for the wealthy, politically-connected, and famous. Basically--if you're a movie star, the son or daughter of a well-known U.S. politician, or the son or daughter of someone with a lot of money to donate to the school--you're in. They probably don't even check your SAT's. If you ever want proof of how stupid you can be and still get into the Ivy League, go listen to Brooke Shield's commentary track on "The Blue Lagoon" sometime. She's a
Re: (Score:3)
You think Natalie Portman (and all those other ditzy celebrities) and most of the Kennedy himbos and bimbos actually EARNED their way into the Ivy League?
With many celebrities you'd have a point, but Natalie Portman? You're picking on one of the few celebrities who has an Erdos number.
Re: (Score:2)
FFS, if he's no good then don't vote for him. If the other celebrity politician is no good, don't vote for them either. Vote for someone else! As long as everyone keeps voting for the same shite politicians, you get the same shite politicians. Is that so hard to understand?
And, as for the argument "But if I don't vote for D, then R may get in office", it's totally moronic and possibly something they invented to narrow down their chances to 50%. Other parties are running for office. People better start payin
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll probably have to vote for him because the other side will be running some jackass like Palin
There's more than one other side. You can vote Litertarian, Constitution, or Green. If you buy into the unintelligent argument that voting for any other party besides Reps and Dems is a wasted vote, than all those votes for McCain were wasted, because HE LOST and you voted for a loser!!! See the idiocy here?
If you smoke pot you're a fool to vote Democratic or Republican; they both want you in jail. If you're a foe of the media cartels you're almost as much a fool to vote for them, because the MAFIAA owns both parties. A vote for a Democrat or Republican is a vote for multinational corporation control of the government.
Now, if you're a corporatist, Republicans and Democrats are both good choices. If you're for human liberty, neither is.
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
If people start voting their principles, then third parties may only get 5% this year, but that makes it easier to get 6% next year. When people see it's rising, more people vote for it. Then you've got 7%, which encourages more people to vote. Then one year, you wake up and you've changed things.
If America is worth fighting for, then accept it's going to take more than one battle. If you lose a few, it doesn't matter because you're gaining ground. You have to try.
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
The only logical ways out of the trap are either break the two party lock by voting for someone else, or reject the current democratic process.
False dichotomy. You can also work within the system to any number of varying degrees, which involves being willing to compromise.
I actually think your post is indicative of a huge problem in American politics today. More and more people are advocating a rejection of democracy when they don't get their way.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter. The only logical ways out of the trap are either break the two party lock by voting for someone else, or reject the current democratic process.
Personally, I reject the current democratic process. Emphasis, probably, on current, but still.
I said in another comment on another story that democracy isn't a meritocracy. That is literally the elephant in the room; everyone knows, nobody says anything or cares. I believe it comes from the founding of america when preventing the union from dissolving into warring states was a billion times more important than ability to govern; considering we only had one civil war instead of becoming another Europe, I
Re: (Score:2)
I should make this a moment for my 'I hate dubya, but he's not dumb' speech, but maybe another time.
It is sad that we can't vote out someone who is as bad a liar as Obama because the alternative is Palin. Obama is a politician -- sneaky, and needing to do different from what he says for his own agenda -- but Palin and her ilk are beyond a joke. They've become a nightmare because people are so divorced from reality that they really think MILF status is enough to become leader of the country (and, historicall
Re: (Score:3)
Palin has on multiple occasions demonstrated that she has a profound misunderstanding of the First Amendment. I can respect someone I disagree with, but I can't respect someone who would swear to uphold the Constitution (had she been elected Vice President) yet gets such a critical part of it so fundamentally wrong.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/10/31/palin/index.html [salon.com]
If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/05/14/palin-backs-miss-calif-blasts-liberal-onslaught/ [foxnews.com]
I applaud Donald Trump for standing with Carrie during this time. And I respect Carrie for standing strong and staying true to herself, and for not letting those who disagree with her deny her protection under the nation's First Amendment Rights,
https://twitter.c [twitter.com]
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonetheless, I'll probably have to vote for him because the other side will be running some jackass like Palin, Pawlenty or Bachmann, and letting them get within 3 miles of the White House would be disastrous.
People who keep voting for the "lesser of the two evils" are exactly why we keep ending up with politicians who are only slightly better than their competition, but still tremendously corrupt. It is the "third parties have no chance" (not that you necessarily displayed that in your post) attitude that prevents third parties from ever winning, not the fact that they are third parties. Instead of voting for the lesser of the two evils, vote for someone good, and encourage others to do the same so that hopefully we'll be able to break this cycle sometime in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
The Republicans might actually be playing this angle on purpose. Think about it. They've gotten tax cuts under Obama that they couldn't get under Bush, and if (or when) it causes a deficit meltdown Obama will take the blame. Running Palin or any of the other ... candidates is a complete win win for them. If Palin wins who knows what will happen. If Obama wins they can keep voting in reckless bills and have the Democrats take the blame for it.
Just wait and see what happens with Social Security.
Re:Bush spoke more intelligently (Score:4, Insightful)
You know: "I don't read,"
I don't know where you got that quote from since other quotes have him saying he was an avid reader. Indeed that seems like just the sort of out of context quote it's so easy to find about anyone if you go looking...
Obama has said things like "there are 57 states" (and even in fact repeated that "heckuva job" line himself referring to someone else). It's easy enough to cherry-pick moments in life where someone, even at the highest levels, misspeaks. Which is why it's far better to judge what they say on average then on specific statements highlighted by others specifically to sound stupid. And on average, as noted, Bush was overall a more intelligent and better informed speaker than Obama.
As for the credentials neither Bush's or Obama's credentials impress me BY THEMSELVES. That's the point I was making, and does not contradict anything I was saying (while at the same time also noting that Obama's credentials alone do not automatically make him smarter than someone without them).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
To hire someone whose such an obvious enemy of much of the online community
The "online community" now consists of just about everybody other than your grandparents. And actually in my experience, includes large numbers of grandparents at that. Don't think you're speaking on behalf of "the online community" when you take a position pro-copyright infringement. At least I assume that is the position you are taking when you refer to him as an "enemy"?
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, my position is more anti-DRM and pro-privacy. I buy every piece of my media legitimately, mind you. So it's not piracy I'm defending--it's my right as a legitimate consumer to be protected from big media companies intruding on my rights and my privacy because they assume I'm a pirate by default (and want to use the government to help them trample on my rights).
Re: (Score:2)
Problem: if you pay for your media, you are giving financial support to the pro-DRM, anti-privacy MAFIAA.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if he buys media from the major labels. He probably does, but he definitely does not say so explicitely.
Huh? I buy media from the major labels, but it doesn't come with DRM. My 320Kbps MP3 come down the wire and play on anything I care to play them on or can be burned to a CD no problem.
DRM was a response to piracy. It has stimulated piracy only the most modest of feedback loops. The huge majority of people who download aren't doing so because DRM is a problem to them - they do it because it's easy and they get stuff free that they'd have to pay for otherwise. If there's less piracy, there's less pressure
Re: (Score:3)
Piracy is the reason the rest of us have to put up with DRM.
Only if you consider it piracy to copy your CD's to your MP3 player, or using a TV to record a show to a USB stick and then moving it to your other TV to watch. Piracy limits how draconian DRM can be; eventually too many people go for the cracked unlimited content.
Paying for content affiliated with the big players means supporting this threat to our rights. The moral choices are either pirating, not watching such content at all, or buying second hand. The last option is a bit dubious because the existence o
Re: (Score:3)
DRM was a response to piracy.
DRM was a response to people not buying the white album again for every new audio technology. Police raids on warehouses filled with copied CDs were a response to piracy.
An attorney's view (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, as an attorney, we're hired to defend vigorously the position of our clients or their interests. That doesn't necessarily mean we advocate for that position as private individuals, or that we are incapable of striking a fair position. The only thing that should matter as a nominee for a Solicitor General position is whether she can diligently represent the government's position, and that is all.
Re:An attorney's view (Score:4, Insightful)
You're asking us to risk unknowable amounts of damage to the digital freedom of the entire nation for who knows how long on the _hope_ that Mr. Verrilli won't continue to assist his former industry if he becomes Solicitor General. I'm sure it's a sweet deal for Mr. Verrilli but what's the American public getting that makes this risk worthwhile to us?
Frankly, and please don't take this personally, your profession suffers from an image problem and for a variety of very good reasons people don't trust Attorney's. Why should Mr. Verrilli be any different?
No, Mr. Verrilli should be rejected and someone else should be found. Preferably someone without such strong ties to such a litigious and morally corrupt industry.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what you're supposed to behave like, yes. However, I can't shake the feeling that when you're so closely involved with a certain viewpoint for an important period of time, your own perspective is bound to be influenced.
Re: (Score:2)
Another one of those +1 Heartbreaking posts.
Instead we got the Alumnus of Sued By the Bell, now in The Government Years.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Second: do you think that RIAA lawyers do what they do out of some moral conviction regarding the evils of filesharing? I strongly suspect that they're like people everywhe
Re: (Score:2)
-1 Niemoller
First they came for the file sharers, but I didn't care because I wasn't sharing. Then the Copyright Brigade came for pictures in news articles ...
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I want a vicious shark to be an attack dog? It just seems like I either have a suffocating shark, or I was very confused about my requirements when I went looking for an attack dog.
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html [cnet.com] [cnet.com]
"By choosing Joe Biden as their vice presidential candidate, the Democrats have selected a politician with a mixed record on technology who has spent most of his Senate career allied with the FBI and copyright holders, who ranks toward the bottom of CNET's Technology Voters' Guide, and whose anti-privacy legislation was actually responsible for the creation of PGP."
Re: (Score:3)
So a former vice president gets credit for inventing the internet, and this vice president can get credit for the creation of PGP! Wonderful.
You know, I hear this crap a lot, and it really bothers me as someone who was actually involved in a lot of the process at the time. He certainly didn't invent the internet, but if it had not been his pet project, we would have never gotten to the point we are today, as it was quite a bit of his influence that led to much of the anti bell sentiment to the legislation and regulation, which if you look long term, is a significant aberration in the FCC / Congress historical record, and it certainly was reverse
Re: (Score:2)
I was writing my reply and was wondering if you would be offended if I didn't capitalize the "n" in grammar nazi.
Dare to hope... (Score:2)
...prepare to be disappointed.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, when he said it was "Time for a Change" he didn't specify that it was for your betterment
Equality in front of the law. (Score:2)
Whoever said "Justice is Blind" was a real idiot.
"The office also determines which cases it would bring to the Supreme Court for review. "
This'll surely stop moneysharks from randomly suing people without enough evidence.
Money for nothin' and your chicks for free (Score:2)
It would be super though if we saw more people in high government positions that didn't have such a strong history of supporting one view or another. On the other hand is does help the informed voter understand where our government's views are at.
A better choice than you'd think (Score:3)
He did no such thing (Score:2)
He was not RIAA's in-house counsel, responsible for all of their litigation strategy. He is a "generic" litigator with a wide-ranging practice. He did happen to represent the RIAA in the Grokster case, which was not, in any way, related to the verifiably insane suits against individuals.
In case you hadn't noticed, when somebody bring a lawsuit, they are going to be represented by somebody, and that somebody does not necessarily agree with the positions they argue on behalf of their client.
Inaccurate Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Verrilli was not, as the summary implies, a lawyer who worked exclusively for the RIAA. Verrilli worked for Jenner & Block [jenner.com], one of the larger law firms in the US. The recording studios were one client of many, and it does not appear that he had a habit of representing studios. Judging by his significant Supreme Court experience [google.com], Verrilli represented a wide variety of clients, including indigent criminal defendants, a federal employee who alleged he was discriminated against because of his age, insurance agent trade groups, wireless telecommunications companies (against the FCC), Coors Brewing Company (arguing against a state law forbidding the display of alcohol content on beer), citizens alleging violations of their voting rights, and the American Libraries Association (arguing against the Communications Decency Act of 1996) .
That's a broad set of clients, including a lot of litigation against the government, which is what the Solicitor General handles. It is absurd to impute an agenda to an attorney based on one case, and Verrilli seems qualified for the job of Solicitor General.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks Grond! This is genuinely useful information. I am better for knowing it.
I have no mod points today and you're already at a (5, Informative), so this is all I can offer you for your quick and thorough work.
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, someone represented a company that has different ideas than you do...and that's a problem because? /.ers really believe that their employer is their sole identity defining characteristic?
Do
Are all of you who work for asshole-bosses also assholes?
It sure seems that that's what you're all saying when you go on these witch-hunts.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are all of you who work for asshole-bosses also assholes?
A lot of them are, yes.
What does this mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does this mean? (Score:5, Informative)
His specialty is copyright law.
Not particularly. As you can see from the Wayback Machine copy of his Jenner & Block profile [archive.org], "Mr. Verrilli concentrates his practice on Supreme Court and appellate litigation, telecommunications, and First Amendment and media litigation....Mr. Verrilli has argued many cases in the federal courts of appeals and in state supreme courts on a range of issues, including cases involving copyright, constitutional law (involving the First Amendment, the Takings Clause and the Bill of Attainder Clause), statutory construction, administrative law and criminal law....He is an adjunct professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he has taught First Amendment law for the past 14 years."
Copyright and media litigation were only a small part of a wide-ranging practice.
Re: (Score:3)
we REALLY need to be worried about his positions on the general public's First Amendment right's to free speech, assembly, and organized dissent.
Then you'll be happy to know that he worked for the American Library Association in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union to overturn the Communications Decency Act. Reno v. ACLU [google.com], 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
That said, trying to read anything into the particular clients that an attorney has represented in the past is pointless. The Solicitor General is an a
What is wrong with you people? (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy was NOT the RIAAs chief counsel, or responsible for their litigation strategy against individuals. He is a lawyer who has litigated a wide range of cases, most of which have absolutely bupkis to do with the entertainment industry. In fact, it is probably his broad expertise that led to him being appointed to the job. Yes, he was the litigator for the Grokster case, which he won. I don't see how this makes him a slave to the entertainment industry. Both sides of a case are entitled to be represented by counsel; in this case, he happened to be representing a side we, Slashdot, don't particularly like.
Just because a lawyer represents one side of a case does not mean they approve of everything (or even anything) a client does. Are we also going to claim the lawyer representing the maniac from AZ is on the side of "letting psychotic killers go free?"
Minor correction... (Score:3)
His specialty as a paid litigator is IP and Telecomm law. But most of his Supreme Court cases were on other topics, including those near and dear to Slashdot hearts like civil liberties.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again... (Score:2)
Yet more "Change I can believe in."
Don't confuse legal arguments with personal belief (Score:4, Insightful)
Lawyers are paid to represent their CLIENT's interests, not their own. This guy could have personally disagreed with the RIAA and the Supreme Court's ruling, but as an attorney you are obligated to represent your client in the best possible manner.
I'm pretty sure a defense lawyer for Jarad Loughner personally believes her client is guilty and should get the chair for his crimes, but she's still obligated to defend her client as best as possible.
Uffda, what a downstep... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What's the deal with Obama, anyway? (Score:4, Insightful)
I prefer to believe that he's a good guy, overwhelmed with work and following some very bad advice.
Why?
Re: (Score:3)
1, he's a politician, and 2, the corporate owned media doesn't hate his guts.
Those are your two biggest clues.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Does he have a hidden agenda?
All politicians have a hidden agenda.
Was he elected under false pretenses?
Although lying to your electorate has become standard procedure, you could argue that it is a "false pretense" when you do exactly the opposite of what you promised to do if elected.
Is he really a bad guy?
I've never met him. But anyone smug enough to think they deserve to run an entire country and vicious enough to win is not going to be a "nice guy" by default.
I prefer to believe that he's a good guy
Some
Re: (Score:2)
But anyone smug enough to think they deserve to run an entire country and vicious enough to win is not going to be a "nice guy" by default.
true words, my friend. very true words.
I think of a dark-knight (movie) quote about 'it attracts personalities like that'. I do agree that anyone who would *want* to make a career of politics should not be *in* politics.
severe term limits may be the answer, along with removing all economic 'motivations' that come with the office. that would include limits on POST-offi
Re: (Score:3)
No he's a modern politician. That means that he has to spend most of his time fund-raising. And the entertainment industry are some of his biggest donors.
Re: (Score:2)
The people need to pick a government that works for them first, and there's no evidence that's going to happen in this century.
Re: (Score:2)
People like you should be banned from the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
But a government "for the people" should have an office filled with people who work "for the people", instead of for corporate interests.
There was once a line between Government and Corporation. This line is so blurry now in certain countries, that I think we crossed it a while back.
Re: (Score:2)
But a government "for the people" should have an office filled with people who work "for the people", instead of for corporate interests.
There was once a line between Government and Corporation. This line is so blurry now in certain countries, that I think we crossed it a while back.
I think that line got completely erased about the time the Feds starting bailing out corporations . . .
Re: (Score:2)
You could have said it was "for the greater good" if you believed in Trickle-down economics (which also gives us the right to laugh at you) - so there is always a bit of blurriness. Always a small hopefully/naive voice in the back of the head which says "The Government cares for us".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm stumped. Maybe Obama thinks this is what the voters want based-upon the November results, but I seriously doubt it.
If you listen to Glenn beck or Judge Andrew Napolitano (L), you'd know he's always been pro-business, dating all the way back to when Mr. Obama met with insurance companies on the campaign trail and promised to help them make a profit via Mandatory insurance requirements for all americans.
Also observe that most of his "czars" are either ex-financial agents of Bear-Sterns, AIG, and so on. This is Obama doing what he's always done.
Of course if you only listen to Rachel Maddow, then you were probably unaware.
Re:Why has Obama suddenly turned pro-business? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you think that Rachel Maddow doesn't hit Obama for this stuff all the time, then you're just as blindly partisan as you claim other people to be. Characters like Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, and Bill Maher have been giving Obama shit since be got elected - from hiring much of Clinton's economic team with their heavy ties to the financial industry, to his backdoor meetings with healthcare providers promising not to bargain for lower bulk rates if they would support the reform bill.
See, the funny part about all of this is that people like Glenn Beck think that Obama is a socialist, an evil plant of the far-left set out to destroy all American values, but then they turn right around and accusing him of being in the pocket of big business without the least bit of irony. The guy is a centrist, and he's clearly positioning himself to work with the Republican Congress to try and get some compromises and get some things accomplished over the next two-year period - much to the chagrin of his Rachel-Maddow-watching supporters.
Re: (Score:3)
I never thought I'd see the day in which a post referencing Glenn Beck* as an authoritative source would get modded up here on Slashdot of all places. Things must be bad...
* I did listen to him 'til they took him off the air here this year - I found him entertaining. Occasionally a bit liberal with his "facts" -- a true master of contextual contortions - but entertaining in spite (or perhaps because) of that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If you voted for Obama... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.
Re: (Score:3)
you are wrong.
many of us voted 'in his direction' but not FOR him.
we were not (none of us) given a true choice. a truer choice would be something like:
- vote *for* R
- vote *for* D
- vote *for* I1 (thru In)
and then the discrete complements:
- vote *against* R
- vote *against* D
(etc)
and so you would tally your vote sheet to say what you felt. you may not want to put D's in office, say, but you sure as hell don't want to see R's there. with this kind of multi-attribute ballot, you could do that
Re: (Score:3)
If nothing else, vote for yourself.
pardon my french, but WHAT THE FUCK does that prove?
the issue is how to stop horrible things happening. its often the best case scenario you can hope for.
voting 'for myself' is truly throwing my effective vote away; in fact, it does not even send any message at all!
voting 3rd party also throws your vote away IF the goal is to stop the worst of the worst from getting in.
if you have the luxury of saying 'none are too bad, so which one do I *like*' that's great. but that's
Re: (Score:2)
EVERYONE at the level has corporate ties, so the fuck what?
This is a good appointment for this position. What do you want? some dumb ass lawyer who graduated with Cs and pa barkers law school for the marginally competant.
I don't. Smart and savvy, thank you very much. Don't like the stance the government is taking regarding copyright? get involved. Otherwise and all your bluster is just hot air. Not getting involved makes you WORSE then the most incompetent, corporate dick sucking whore.