Slashdot Log In
Obama Picks RIAA's Favorite Lawyer For Top DoJ Post
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:05 PM
from the paging-mister-lessig dept.
from the paging-mister-lessig dept.
The Recording Industry of America's favorite courtroom lawyer, Tom Perrelli, who has sued individual file swappers in multiple federal courts, is President-elect Barack Obama's choice for the third in line at the Justice Department. CNet's Declan McCullagh explores the background of the man who won the RIAA's lucrative business for his DC law firm: "An article on his law firm's Web site says that Perrelli represented SoundExchange before the Copyright Royalty Board — and obtained a 250 percent increase in the royalty rate for music played over the Internet by companies like AOL and Yahoo," not to mention Pandora and Radio Paradise. NewYorkCountryLawyer adds, "Certainly this does not bode well for CowboyNeal's being appointed Copyright Czar."
Related Stories
[+]
IT: White House To Appoint "Internet Czar" 205 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post reports that President Obama is set to appoint a 'Cybersecurity czar with a broad mandate': 'The adviser will have the most comprehensive mandate granted to such an official to date and will probably be a member of the National Security Council but will report to the national security adviser as well as the senior White House economic adviser, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are not final.
The announcement will coincide with the long-anticipated release of a 40-page report that evaluates the government's cybersecurity initiatives and policies. The report is intended to outline a "strategic vision" and the range of issues the new adviser must handle, but it will not delve into details, administration officials told reporters last month.' Cynics are expecting the appointee to be a lawyer for the RIAA."
[+]
News: Obama DoJ Goes Against Film Companies 321 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot, I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism. Well here's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism. Chalk one up for those who like to point out that, occasionally, the system does work. You may recall that the US Supreme Court has been mulling over whether to grant the film industry's petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the important Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. This was the case which held that Cablevision's allowing its customers to make copies of shows and store them on Cablevision's servers for later viewing did not constitute a direct copyright infringement by Cablevision, there being no 'copy' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory' duration. The Supreme Court asked the Obama DoJ to submit an amicus curiae brief, giving its opinion on whether or not the film companies' petition for review should be granted. The government did indeed file such a brief, but the content of the brief (PDF) is probably not what the film companies were expecting. They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ. Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Is this really a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
To the Obama Koolaid drinkers (Score:5, Insightful)
Between that and this pick [time.com], will all the Slashdot Obama koolaid drinkers who thought he was supposedly pro-tech please stand up and be heard now!
Re:To the Obama Koolaid drinkers (Score:5, Funny)
Between that and this pick [time.com], will all the Slashdot Obama koolaid drinkers who thought he was supposedly pro-tech please stand up and be heard now!
He is pro-technology. After all, DRM is tech.
Parent
Re:To the Obama Koolaid drinkers (Score:5, Funny)
He is pro-crapology. After all, DRM is crap.
There. Fixed it for you.
I was trying to add a small degree of subtlety to the proceedings.
Parent
Oh boy this should be fun (Score:5, Insightful)
If Chimpy McBushitler had done this, it'd be business as usual on
But now that his O'ness has done it, I'm looking forward to a really entertaining read.
#ifndef MOD_FUNNY (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part is, I think you struck a nerve. If Bush had done it, oh hell yes we'd hear all about how that eeevil Booosh is taking one more step towards total world domination.
I do wonder how this one is gonna get spun, though...
Parent
Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part is, I think you struck a nerve. If Bush had done it, oh hell yes we'd hear all about how that eeevil Booosh is taking one more step towards total world domination.
Well, so far, most of the comments have been about how evil Obama is for doing this, so what's the difference?
Parent
And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless. Obama is being surrounded by the same assholes that have been driving this country into the ground for decades. No matter how good his intentions may be, he'll believe his trusted advisers and they will believe the lobbyists, cause they just don't know any better.
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Clue-stick for the clueless -- no matter who is in the White House, no matter who is on Capitol Hill, change happens in Washington very, very slowly. The government is a big bureaucracy, run by bureaucrats. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Oh, and as a result -- the changes are usually for the worse, not the better.
Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.
Parent
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Interesting)
Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.
Things will have to get pretty fucking bad before the average American bothers to turn off American idol and vote -- let alone come up with the wherewithal to alter or abolish the Government.
Parent
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrats have always been fairly cozy with the media industries in particular, so it wouldn't surprise me if Obama is likewise fairly cozy with them.
My question is whether the RIAA stuff is the sum of what this lawyer has done with his career, or if there are other achievements, perhaps more noteworthy. It could be that the lawyer in question is indifferent to the RIAA's ideology and was simply representing them in a professional manner. It definitely doesn't make Obama's pick any less questionable and the lawyer any less scummy, but it would at least assuage my fears that the appointee would be pushing the RIAA's agenda from a position of power.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Make no mistake, I am not trying to support Obama's decision. Especially considering that his second pick was Ogden who, according to TFA, "...was responsible for organizing the defense of the Child Online Protection Act..." and "...successfully defended the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act before the U.S. Supreme Court."
I did a bit of research using Google and Wikipedia. Wikipedia has some light information on Tom Perrelli. It seems he is most well-known for his copyright litigation, but did do work for the United States Department of Justice [wikipedia.org], including tobacco industry litigation. Also he was "... defending the constitutionality of federal statutes, defending federal agency action and regulations, representing the diplomatic and national security interests of the United States in courts of law, and conducting significant Title VII, personnel and social security litigation." That's a pretty sanitized summary, and its hard to find out if he was doing good work or bad, but the bit about defending federal agency actions, regulations, and statues against constitutional question leaves me with a bad feeling in my gut. There's a lot of unjust and unconstitutional laws out there, so I'd place my bets on him defending bad laws rather than good ones.
I couldn't find much on David Ogden, other than his firm's bio page, [wilmerhale.com] and fluff pieces. [upi.com] Apparently he was already involved with Obama's transition team and worked for Clinton's administration. He also has experience at the federal level. There's a lot of juicy stuff in the firm's bio page, but he seems to be pretty cozy with media and big corporations. Without a lot of detail, a casual reading suggests that he tends to represent the big corps over the little guys. The only two bright spots seem to be "Obtaining summary judgment and affirmance ... rejecting the claims of a major tobacco company seeking to shut down the .. nationwide counter-marketing campaign to discourage young people from smoking", and "Representing a US media company with respect to the detention and threatened prosecution by US Forces and the Iraq government of the company's Iraqi employee."
Overall, not much to be happy about. It looks like he picked two big-business, media-friendly lawyers. They have a lot of federal-level experience, but not the kind I would have wanted.
Parent
One character makes all the difference (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot headline:
Obama Picks RIAA's Favorite Lawyer For Top DoJ Post
Original headline:
Obama picks RIAA's favorite lawyer for a top Justice post
Quibbling over a single letter might seem pedantic - and /.'s headline is misleading rather than incorrect - but in this case, that's one very important letter. *sigh* The news lately is like a game of blogger's telephone.
Re:One character makes all the difference (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Lawyers are paid to represent clients (Score:5, Insightful)
Some noble attorneys take lower paying positions as public defenders, or take on cases pro bono to help a political cause. However, many (most?) take cases based on the financial benefits to be gained. Mr. Perrelli is paid by the RIAA to represent them, he doesn't represent them because he hates file sharers or technology. And he's done a pretty good job for his clients, so hopefully he will do a good job for his new client, the DoJ.
Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. I could stomach a person that defended cases that I disagreed with based on the case that everyone deserves fair representation in court, and carries out that representation ethically. The RIAA cases, however, have been pretty unethical from top to bottom, disregarding whether you agree or disagree with their position.
Parent
And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't wait to watch all the hardcore supporters roll back expectations, deny all the claims they made about change, and finally blame the system itself for any failures on the chosen ones part.
And the rest of us who maybe had a little hope for change are just going to be disappointed with more "new boss".
Not Suprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm laughing to myself, because anyone who thought there was going to be serious change in DC was only deluding themselves. Now the truth is becoming apparent, Obama is no different then any other politician except he has a greater personal charisma.
Dear Mr. President: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a man who has represented an organization that has hunted down and victimized children and college students using the legal system as a weapon. He has knowingly and willingly attacked America's supply of future skilled labor, and potential doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, and more have all been forced to go into debt to pay off what they have been blackmailed out of.
And all of this was not done in the name of profit, but of control. Proof has been shown that the RIAA has done nothing but lose money by attacking their customer base, calling them pirates and thieves, violating their rights, and leveraging out of court settlements out of families who do not believe that they have what it takes to fight this injustice in court.
The man you have chosen for this position is the wrong choice. Please revert this decision. I and others are deeply afraid of what it means to see you appointing him.
Republicans=oil, Democrats=Hollywood (Score:5, Insightful)
Years ago, I wrote Saint Wellstone that I thought it was ridiculous that I could buy a DVD and be a felon for playing it on a linux machine. The reply I got from Saint Wellstone's office said the DMCA was a great thing and he would vote for it again if he had the chance. Just look at where the money comes from.
Re:Republicans=oil, Democrats=Hollywood (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
He's unworthy (Score:5, Informative)
So far the only questionable selection that concerns me.
The RIAA have been misusing the DMCA for the longest period of time. The person that drafted the law even admits that the RIAA is abusing the law.
Now we have a lawyer, however intellectual, that has acted utterly un-smart, being appointed from "a lobbying organization"; which are supposed to be an antithesis to the Obama adminstration.
I mean, really, listen to those videos that made it to the net from those lawyers that were part of the RIAA; those that lobbied to convince law enforcement that copying music is contributory to money laundering. And now you have Obama appointing one of those crazies to an important position.
I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, I am not an American, so please forgive me for any mistakes that I am about to make here.
From the outside looking in, at least to myself, it appeared to be more a case of who could amass, and consequently spend, the greater amount of political donations.
I could be wrong here, and I am perfectly willing to accept that, but that is how it appeared to be to me.
Political donations, or more accurately "bribes," (because that is what they are, regardless of what your government tells you) are used during the campaign to pay for speech writers, spin doctors, and also to pay off the media so that they are cast in a favourable light.
Then once the vote has been carried out, and the winner decided, all of those people who have donated substantial amounts of money to the campaign, then start demanding their dues. After all it was they who ensured victory, therefore they should be rewarded for their assistance.
$712M (Banking on becoming President [opensecrets.org]) dollars was spent on the Obama campaign, and you can rest assured that very very VERY little of that was given by your average citizen. So once again, the corporations have elected a president, and now they want something in return.
I know that democracy is "government for the people, by the people," and I believe that that is what the intention was. However in recent times it has wavered from that ideal, and we are all having our freedoms stripped by our governments on the behest of the corporations (lobbyists, etc) who financially support the campaigns of the political parties.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
It sickens me how blinded people are by partisan politics.
Then why do you engage in it?
Your first post presupposes *way* too much to be anything other than partisan.
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Interesting)
On what basis do you abhor this appointment?
I can't speak for marc.andrysco, but personally I abhor it because this particular counsel has shown that they are not above outright lying to the court.
A lawyer's first responsibility is to the court, not the client. They are supposed to represent the client to the best of their ability, but not at the expense of the court. The simple fact that this particular lawyer has had at least one of the judges recommend sanctions speaks volumes about just what kind of morals they have.
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, that was the insightfull part.
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure he doesn't want to burn through all his change in his first term. He's probably starting slowly, pacing himself. I'm sure that's it.
Honestly, I lost all hope when he won the election. Now I'm laughing at all the drones here that fell for the Messiah's clever PR campaign. Here it comes geniuses, are you ready for it?
Hehehe. It's going to be a spectacular four years. I have no faith left at all, so it's all for entertainment value now.
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I'm laughing at all the drones here that fell for the Messiah's clever PR campaign
I think it had less to do with his PR campaign and more to do with Republican incompetence. Independents in this country have historically broke Republican in Presidential elections -- Katrina was probably the point at which the GOP lost them.
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
There - fixed that for you.
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust me, you would not want a federal government that could simply decide to go into a state and take over. "Aw, heck - there's people suffering there and we can help!" No, that would not be a good way to run things. States' rights are there for a reason.
And every level of government in Lousiana failed the people.
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how Bush "going to bed" didn't seem to affect the people in other places that were hit just as hard, like EVERY county in Mississippi.
The clear difference between Mississippi and Louisiana was that one place heeded the warnings and didn't wait for the government to hand-hold them out of town while the other still thinks government is the answer to everything.
I guess when one grows up depending on government handouts, it's hard to make choices on their own even when their lives depend on it.
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
but I feel exceptionally taken by Obama's bait and switch.
I don't. The bait [boingboing.net] and switch [senate.gov] was telegraphed months before the election. If you voted for him anyway you don't really have anyone to blame but yourself.
I actually took a week off work and campaigned for him during the primaries. Adding insult to injury was the fact that Hillary (whom I helped him defeat) had the spine to vote against the FISA "compromise". My response to his victory was to apply for my pistol permit before Albany or Washington decides that I shouldn't be able to do so.
Parent
Political expedience (Score:5, Insightful)
I can guarantee you that the votes would have been reversed had Obama lost the primary contest and Hillary been the nominee.
The only reason Hillary voted against the FISA bill was because she could (politically).
Obama is a political pragmatist if nothing else. His campaign didn't want to be painted as soft on terra or hamstringing intelligence efforts by the Repubs in the general.
It's still to early to REALLY know what Obama will do as president. We'll just have to wait and see.
I agree that his vote was pretty repugnant, but I have to believe that he KNOWS that immunity for the teclos is wrong. HE WAS A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! I have to believe that he felt this was a situation where the ends justify the means...
(But just you know know, I contributed probably a couple hundred dollars to the Obama campaign - until the FISA vote. That night I went to the ACLU's site and saw the headline "Senate passes telco immunity: ACLU sues", and I became a member. I voted Barr in the general. I want a president that respects the constitution with more than just flowery speeches...)
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
2nd worst is NOT best.
Parent
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Funny)
Throwing politicians at the problem won't solve anything.
It will if "problem" is a code-word for a very large furnace.
Parent
Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a friend that I truly believe was guilty of a crime who was acquitted. After having witnessed his lawyer's representation, I think the lawyer believed the same. He did his job to the fullest regardless of his own beliefs.
For the most part, criminal defense attorneys are a different breed than corporate attack attorneys. Criminal defense attorneys often need to believe in their clients, while corporate attack attorneys simply need to believe in the pay cheque.
Parent
I'll take that up and defend Obama. (Score:5, Insightful)
All right, I'll defend Obama. This really sucks but he's still the right man to be President.
It's pretty darned inconceivable that he was ever going to agree with us on everything. This particular issue is going to be a difficult one for us to win, even with reasonably enlightened political officials. Don't forget that NOBODY voted against DMCA.
I still feel wonderful that Obama's going into office rather than McCain. And you can't seriously believe that McCain was going to help us on electronic freedom issues.
I do hope that EFF, Lessig, etc. raise a platform on this issue that we can help them with.
I'll be in DC, and in front of some politicians and their staffers, next week. I'll be sure to put in a word about this. But that's going to be the first word, not the last.
Bruce
Parent
Re:There is a Silver Lining (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA types are allowed into the discussion, but they don't CONTROL the debate or its terms.
His picks for the Justice Department are pretty fucking scary. He picks a pro-gun control/pro-war on drugs person to lead it and a former RIAA lawyer for #3? Unless John Ashcroft is #2 I don't really see how this could be any worse.
Parent
Change? Sure.. there is change... (Score:5, Funny)
Here it is. Right there after the first refrain:
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, thats all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
See? Its there TWICE!
That is a whole lotta change, yes sir...
Parent
It does not work like that... (Score:5, Insightful)
WHat about that website Obama's been running? Does it have a way to mod this guy down?
It is very much different than here on Slashdot.
You get moderator points only once every 4 years.
Everyone gets moderator points at the same time.
You only get 1 moderator point.
It lasts only 1 day (half actually).
You get to moderate posts of only 2 posters.
Rest of those 4 years all your posts are automatically moderated as -1 Overrated+Troll, and nobody reads them.
But if you happen to have shitload of money - you can buy yourself golden undemoteable +5 Insightful+Informative posts.
Parent
Re:It does not work like that... (Score:5, Funny)
Have you meta-moderated lately?
Excuse me, that's something I prefer to do in the privacy of my own home.
Parent
Re:I guess (Score:5, Informative)
Can we pay back the trial lawyers by hiring one of their biggest hacks who sued teenagers for sharing songs on their iPods? YES WE CAN!!!
Please don't equate the RIAA with "trial lawyers". Who do you think have been fighting these vermin? Answer: trial lawyers.
Parent
Re:How everyone feels about this appointment. (Score:5, Funny)
Are you sure that isn't a perl program that generates the lawyer's name?
Parent