Justice Department Increasingly Looking Like The RIAA/MPAA's Legal Team

from the change-the-riaa-can-believe-in dept

Thu, Feb 5th 2009 6:25am — Mike Masnick

It seems that the Obama administration is basically hiring the entire RIAA/MPAA/BSA legal team these days. It started off with the RIAA's favorite lawyer, then it hired the BSA's antipiracy enforcer, and now it's brought on two more of the entertainment industry's favorite lawyers, including Don Verrilli, who was one of the main guys arguing the entertainment industry's side in the infamous (and terribly decided) Grokster case. He also was the guy who argued the RIAA's case that the Jammie Thomas verdict shouldn't be thrown out (on that one, he lost, thankfully). Of course, if you're thinking things would have been any better had McCain won, just note that one of his legal advisors is gleefully cheering on these appointments. Still, as Ray Beckerman notes, Obama's own rules should preclude these guys working on issues related to those they used to represent. We'll see if that actually happens, though.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: don verrilli, justice department, obama
Companies: mpaa, riaa

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Phillip, 5 Feb 2009 @ 7:24am

Is anyone actually surprised by this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
REB, 5 Feb 2009 @ 7:37am

Change We Can Count On
Hollywood and the Big Entertainment paid lots of money to get Obama elected and are getting their payoff. Why should anyone expect anything different. You didn't think that Justice Department was going to be for the little guy did you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bikey (profile), 5 Feb 2009 @ 7:39am

DOJ
No more surprising that a recent report in EU observer on the President of China's recent visit to the EU where the topics discussed were: online piracy, climate change and the world financial crisis (in that order). These RIAA/MPAA people are like tapeworms in the gut of democracy (corny, yes?).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MATT, 5 Feb 2009 @ 8:03am

Surprise, Surprise (not)
He was accused of "pallin' around with terrorists."

Turns out he was "pallin' around with entertainment industry money"... and the industry is now well on its way to getting its pound of flesh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Obama Supporter!, 5 Feb 2009 @ 8:07am

CHANGE!
Change! Change! Change!

Change Baby!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yogi, 5 Feb 2009 @ 8:07am

Yes we can...
screw our voters!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2009 @ 8:10am

I see a large dip in public opinion coming
Not that I know how to do it or anything.

What? You hire cheeseballs, and pretty soon, people think you are one. It's simple fact!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Evil Mike, 5 Feb 2009 @ 8:11am

"Justice"
Usually, any building/organization which has the word "Justice" in the title does so in order to explain to people what it is for; as anybody looking to discover the purpose of said building/organization would likely never equate the concept of "Justice" with what goes on there.

In short: If it's got the word "Justice" in the title, there's none to be had there.

Perhaps, if they spelled it "Just us" it would be true, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2009 @ 8:23am

Hope for change, or a book deal.
We can only "Hope" that they represented these cases for the money, and not principle.

Wait a second. That's not good!

I guess David Plouffe was a sock puppet!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jon, 5 Feb 2009 @ 8:25am

A bit of optimism
In trying to keep optimist about a situation that is not very appealing to the average citizen. Is it possible that these people who's profession is Lawyer and is paid to litigate for their client, would litigate as their boss, Pres. Obama and Co., directs?

It is pretty common for people to perform their trade in the manner requested by their employer. Yes there is a bit of moral ambiguity in there, but who said lawyers, or anyone for that matter, are for all that is good, just and right?

In other words, it is possible that Obama is selecting the best lawyers for his staff and that staff is expected to forward his agenda, not their own. Obama doesn't appear to be blind to the consumer's side of the issues so far and he is not a pushover, so why would you expect him to take legal advise without consideration of his own position?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2009 @ 8:30am

Re: Hope for change, or a book deal.
Don't forget the other merchandise.
Obama Coins, T-shirts, Mousepads, Hoodies, Sasha and Malia Dolls, and bumperstickers, Oh my!

http://impeachobamastore.us
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2009 @ 8:42am

Re:
I hope not! yeah..."Change"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2009 @ 8:43am

Re: A bit of optimism
Keep hope Jon...I know i've lost it. :(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DB, 5 Feb 2009 @ 8:44am

What do you expect?
Democrats sell us out to hollywood and the republicans sell us out to everybody else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser, 5 Feb 2009 @ 8:49am

Re: A bit of optimism
Jon, I was thinking along the same lines. If there's any room for optimism it's in the fact that lawyers are basically hired guns for their clients. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say from first hand experience, but I'm sure that there's a tendency for lawyers to gravitate towards causes in which they believe. But in theory anyway, they're paid to work on and win the case given to them by their clients, regardless of their personal beliefs.

It could be that the very people who came up with the ridiculous legal arguments used by the RIAA are the best choices for countering those arguments. Sure, I think it would have been a much better sign if Obama had put in place more pro-consumer advocates, but time will tell if it's really as bad as we think now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch, 5 Feb 2009 @ 8:57am

Re: Re: A bit of optimism
Maybe he's more devious than we give him credit for. Is he hiring the best talent from the RIAA etc so that the government now has the best lawyers familiar with IP law, instead of the content providers?

Yeah, I don't think so either, but it's an interesting thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robyn, 5 Feb 2009 @ 9:06am

Deviousness
What if this was a carefully chosen suite of lawyers, picked specifically to get them out of IP? The new rules on what people can work on suggests that he could pull people from anywhere he wanted them to not continue.

Not saying that's how it is, just pointing out it could be a truly sweet legal hack.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
deadzone (profile), 5 Feb 2009 @ 9:10am

This is stupid
This has the appearance of being a bad thing but the fact is that we don't really know what will happen or what they are going to do until they start to actually do the job they have been appointed to do.

It seems too obvious and brazen for them to use the Justice Department to push for the RIAA/MPAA agendas. Do I think they aren't going to use the Justice Department in some way to forward their agenda? NO, I do not. It's all about pushing agendas in politics and in Washington, how is this any different?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2009 @ 9:44am

Observations
Government must be competent and reliable. Those are the basic requirements that our social compact is made on.

Mike noted that the Justice Department is being filled with IP protectionists, and have an odd set of previous experience. Taking into consideration that people generally receive appointments on the basis of their previous successes, which can dramatically skew direction of the department as a whole.

But I'm not worried.
Remember this is Government, and Government's larger role is focused on service delivery to the people. In my mind this is what education, security, health care, infrastructure are all about. These remain services that can't be facilitated by private interests, and only government can deliver.

A person would believe that good Government doesn't permit or stand for windfalls which will distort long term plans and create bigger problems down the road. What this requires is private interests own and solve their own problems, and focus more upon innovating their business to satisfy the customer needs, absent of government or legalistic intervention.

Sure, Business crisis are at the forefront right now. But they're all experiencing the same birthing pains. It's just that ours is such a visible and noisy one, and thanks to people like Mike, it seems to be the only one. DoJ is going to have a lot to mop up after the past 8 years of Bush.

Whether it's a local medical/fire emergency or a national economic crisis; we want a "firehouse" whether a real brick and mortar one, or a virtual one like the US Treasury or Justice Department to be able to intervene in the emergency and hopefully mitigate the damage, while also gauging social impact. That's the reality that has been brought home for everyone.

Hopefully these folks realize this, and will focus on their service to The Country, not their previous employers. If not, it will be a short 4 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TK-421, 5 Feb 2009 @ 9:58am

In the words of the great Admiral Ackbar: "IT'S A TRAP!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bowerbird, 5 Feb 2009 @ 9:59am

these are not good signs. i'll be paying attention to developments.

i would have had some _hope_ -- does that word sound familiar? --
that all the people associated with the r.i.a.a. would have such a bad
stink around them that obama would have declined to hire them on
_symbolic_ grounds, if nothing more. so this is very disappointing...
and, as i said, i'll be very attentive to how this plays out down the line.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 5 Feb 2009 @ 10:17am

Can't win
This is why I had a problem with "Joe B" when Obama chose him. But then I did some research and even if mcCain had won we would be facing the same thing. So I went with Obama for other reasons. I did send them a nasty letter concerning the RIAA. seeing the RIAA was the first party they went to after swearing him in, I'm guessing it didn't phase them much...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2009 @ 10:30am

Re: Change We Can Count On
its a change alright from bad to worse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2009 @ 10:57am

Re: Observations
In the way our Republic worked, not in the way our "Changed" country will work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jonnyq, 5 Feb 2009 @ 11:12am

Re: A bit of optimism
In general the president doesn't micromanage the AG or the AG's staff. They generally go out and *do*, not just give advice to the president.

Obama could be a micromanager, but it would be more logical to just hire people he trusts. I seriously doubt Obama will be guiding the justice department in a direction that contradicts the people in charge of it. That's just not what Presdients do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2009 @ 11:38am

Re: Re: A bit of optimism
I seriously doubt Obama will be guiding the justice department in a direction that contradicts the people in charge of it. That's just not what Presdients do.

You mean that's not what presidents used to do. You must not have been paying attention for the last eight years or so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2009 @ 12:41pm

Don't blame me...
I didn't vote for him. :)

HAHAHAHA gullible 0bamatrons..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Comboman, 5 Feb 2009 @ 2:26pm

Re: Don't blame me...
Oil and weapons companies paid for Bush's campaign and got exactly what they wanted. Entertainment companies paid for Obama's campaign, so guess what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2009 @ 2:40pm

Re: Re: Hope for change, or a book deal.
Actually, hoping you don't have any children.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2009 @ 6:02pm

Every voter should have known without a shadow of doubt that big media had a powerful ally in Joe Biden long before the primary election. All you had to do is listen to him for a few minutes on CSPAN to know he was sold out. The man preaches privacy concerns and customer rights but votes entirely opposing them both.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2009 @ 6:08pm

Re: Observations
"Government's larger role is focused on service delivery to the people. In my mind this is what education, security, health care, infrastructure are all about. These remain services that can't be facilitated by private interests, and only government can deliver."

National Security, and Interstate Infrastructure, and Federal Law are the business of Federal Government... local security, education, health care, financial security, and local/state infrastructure are NOT the business of federal government. The federal government should protect the interests of the states and citizens, it should not be a service provider.

No government can give (service) anything to anyone without first taking it from someone else. It is very alarming to hear you/people say something so in error as 'education and health care cannot be provided by private interests'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2009 @ 7:56pm

The RIAA is dead! They just don't know it yet!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ray Beckerman (profile), 6 Feb 2009 @ 9:56am

Optimism and patriotism
AC said:
"But I'm not worried. Remember this is Government, and Government's larger role is focused on service delivery to the people. In my mind this is what education, security, health care, infrastructure are all about. These remain services that can't be facilitated by private interests, and only government can deliver. A person would believe that good Government doesn't permit or stand for windfalls which will distort long term plans and create bigger problems down the road. What this requires is private interests own and solve their own problems, and focus more upon innovating their business to satisfy the customer needs, absent of government or legalistic intervention. Sure, Business crisis are at the forefront right now. But they're all experiencing the same birthing pains. It's just that ours is such a visible and noisy one, and thanks to people like Mike, it seems to be the only one. DoJ is going to have a lot to mop up after the past 8 years of Bush. Whether it's a local medical/fire emergency or a national economic crisis; we want a "firehouse" whether a real brick and mortar one, or a virtual one like the US Treasury or Justice Department to be able to intervene in the emergency and hopefully mitigate the damage, while also gauging social impact. That's the reality that has been brought home for everyone. Hopefully these folks realize this, and will focus on their service to The Country, not their previous employers. If not, it will be a short 4 years."
I have one thing to say.
I sure hope you're right.
Based on everything I learned in grade school, high school, college, and law school... you are.

Based on what I read in the papers... I'm not so sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ray Beckerman (profile), 6 Feb 2009 @ 10:01am

Re: Can't win
David said:
"the RIAA was the first party they went to after swearing him in"
That was an incorrect report on my part. My daughter had called to let me know that the RIAA was hosting one of the "inaugural balls". I assumed that the Obamas were present at the "inaugural balls". I later learned that it wasn't really an "inaugural ball" at all, it was just a party, and that the Obamas did NOT attend. They only attended the official "inaugural balls".
I corrected the report on my blog but of course couldn't send the correction to everybody who'd heard my incorrect report. Sorry about that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]