Obama DOJ Sides With RIAA Again In Tenenbaum 528
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Despite having had some time to get their act together, Obama's Department of Justice has filed yet another brief defending the RIAA's outlandish statutory damages theory — that someone who downloaded an mp3 with a 99-cent retail value, causing a maximum possible damages of 35 cents, is liable for from $750 to $150,000 for each such file downloaded, in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. The 25- page brief (PDF) continues the DOJ's practice of (a) ignoring the case law which holds that the Supreme Court's due process jurisprudence is applicable to statutory damages, (b) ignoring the law review articles to like effect, (c) ignoring the actual holding of the 1919 case they rely upon, (d) ignoring the fact that the RIAA failed to prove 'distribution' as defined by the Copyright Act, and (e) ignoring the actual wording and reasoning of the Supreme Court in its leading Gore and Campbell decisions. Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department's 'oversights' to the 'eye-popping number of people [in its employ] who worked for, and/or are directly connected with, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music's RIAA.'"
Really?! (Score:2, Interesting)
just returning the favor (Score:3, Interesting)
A quote comes to mind... (Score:2, Interesting)
Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department's 'oversights' to the 'eye-popping number of people [in its employ] who worked for, and/or are directly connected with, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music's RIAA.'
"I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences."
--Garak, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine "Cardassians"
Re:Hope and Change, baby! (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah Depublicans! Beat the Remocrats!
It's all so different when the communists control the USA instead of the fascists.
I'm not pessimist. I'm an optimist. I am right in the middle of a real change -- a return to small, Constitution-sized government. It's exciting and fascinating to watch it unfold. If you'd like to see it too, click the link in my sig.
Re:Obama was a Constitutional Law Prof. (Score:2, Interesting)
Obama taught, was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and graduated top of his class. .
Upon what do you base the assertion that he graduated "top of his class"? I was unaware of any of his college transcripts being released to date.
Sad thing is, the Dems are infringers! (Score:1, Interesting)
I really wish they'd crack down on these blatant infringers [necn.com] before getting all sanctimonious about copyright. Don't they know better than to publicly perform a copyrighted song [snopes.com]?
Re:Really? Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm having that "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" moment that I really didn't want to have.
I wasn't expecting to agree with everything Obama did, that would be simplistic. I just wasn't expecting to find so little to agree with. The same agenda advanced under Bush is advanced under Obama. And it's kind of clear that this isn't Obama's agenda, possessive, implying ownership, any more than it was Bush's -- they're the pitchmen.
Money = Speech so they say (Score:3, Interesting)
I still don't get why it is legal in the US to bribe politicians.
It has something to do with Buckley v. Valeo [wikipedia.org] in which the Supreme Court ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. I tend to think of speech as speech which each person can do in a similar way, but when you spend money you can basically make your voice louder than anyone else which seems a bit slanted toward people with money.
I think national funding of each campaign would be more fair. Same amount of money, no "donations" allowed. I'm sure there are drawbacks to this way too, but I'm not sure what they are... thoughts?
Re:Hope and Change, baby! (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect that distinction is largely irrelevant, too. Yes, Hollywood finances Democrats noticeably better. I'm sure you can find an industry treating Republicans similarly better.
But here's the kicker: all those industries have some overlap when it comes to capital holders, board members or CEOs. It's just that they tunnel lobbying founds in a way that has a chance to appear more, in each case, to those who are tricked into existence of real two party system.
Re:Hope and Change, baby! (Score:5, Interesting)
That is patently false. If you look at political donations from Hollywood, it overwhelmingly favors Democrats. If one looks at executives of RIAA and MPAA companies the imbalance is even greater.
Pay one cop $1M each month to look the other way. Pay the other cop $2M each month to look the other way. Which cop turns you in? Answer, neither, because both want the money, and killing the goose that lays the golden eggs is no way to make money.
Re:Hope and Change, baby! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hope and Change, baby! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hope and Change, baby! (Score:3, Interesting)
Campaign Finance Reform Idea: No one organization may donate to more than one political candidate at any given time.
Pick your racehorse, kind of a thing.
Re:The reason for the large fines (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Money = Speech so they say (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually I think the lawmakers shutting down is an indicator of government working as it should.
Theoretically you should have two opposing views on any issue, so you'd only get a majority vote approving something that was actually necessary/worthwhile. Obviously the parties are way too friendly in the US - they seem to constantly be passing new useless laws and pork projects. Normally this sort of behavior would be an indication that we need to oust them and get fresh meat in the system, but lately the American people have been extremely apathetic. Bread and circuses.
Another idea that might help are expiring laws by default... Something like:
- All laws expire after 5 (or 10) years if not renewed
- Laws can be made permanent on the third renewal if they are passed with an overwhelming majority (90%?)
That would allow 15 years to prove a law is actually valuable and necessary, and remove the effort of trying to get the votes to take bad laws off the books.
Re:The reason for the large fines (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hope and Change, baby! (Score:3, Interesting)
The influence of insurance companies is a big reason why costs for the uninsured are so high; because they cannot take part in the collective bargaining, they get the prices that make up for what hospitals lose to insurance. Yet because the costs are so high and so few can afford it, most uninsured patients simply don't see a doctor until it's an emergency, and they go to ER where they won't be turned away. And ER care is the most expensive kind of care. But since the patient obviously can't pay or they wouldn't have been stuck in that situation to begin with, they default on the medical bills and the cost gets reflected on the insurance providers anyway, but then multiplied by their overhead before turning into you or your employer's insurance premium.
In a way you hit the nail on the head -- few people can afford un-amortized medical costs. It's just that private insurance is a terrible way to do the amortizing.
At least making provisions for everyone to have insurance means everyone benefits from some kind of amortization and collective bargaining. If we can't do any better than that, then at least most people won't have to deal with the joke that is "you're free to pay out of pocket for medical care."