Consumer Interest Groups Ask Obama To Stop Appointing RIAA Lawyers
from the good-luck... dept
With the Obama administration appointing a whole bunch of copyright maximalists to various positions (despite an early indication that perhaps he recognized issues with copyright law), a bunch of public interest and consumer interest groups have gotten together to write a letter to Obama, asking him to recognize that he seems to be filling every open slot with a very heavily biased viewpoint which could do significant harm towards innovation. Some of the letter may be inspired by the rumored candidates for the IP Czar position -- all of whom also fall into the copyright maximalist camp. Though, the fact that it's taken Obama so long to appoint this position (upsetting the Senators who wrote the law requiring the position in the first place) suggests (at the very least) he isn't considering this to be a priority.Still, the EFF also took the opportunity to point out that it seems likely that Obama violated copyright himself, in giving a gift of an iPod filled with music to the Queen of England. It's almost impossible to know whether or not copyright was violated, but that's exactly the problem. Of course, this is likely to be of little concern to the President -- which is itself another problem. Too many people, who have little familiarity with copyright law, simply assume that "copyright is good" and that "more copyright is better," leading to the false belief that those who have a history twisting copyright to their own advantage are the best positioned to speak on copyright policy. That's regulatory capture at its finest -- something the Obama administration had claimed it was trying to avoid. Obviously, there are more important things for Obama to be focused on, but relying so heavily on copyright maximalists who have benefited from distorting the purpose of copyright is quite troubling.
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: copyright, intellectual property, ipod, obama, queen of england, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I think it's hilarious that he himself may have violated copyright. That was the first thing I thought of when I heard about the gift. I hope he gets sued personally for that. I really do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Talk about cranial posterior inversion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: idiots
Obama is gayer than AIDS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: idiots
I don't think it matters whose fault it is, only how we're going to get out of this mess. You can blame it on me for all I care if it will stop the blame game and get people to start working on the problem.
Obama is gayer than AIDS.
You say it like being gay is bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: idiots
Being gay is bad you freak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: idiots
Did Hegemon13 "do nothing" but bash Bush? He only wrote three lines...but your reading skills didn't detect the parts where he bashed both Bush AND Obama?
Love how YOU distort what he said because of your biased political view. So pathetic. Get a life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: idiots
Who said they were a Democrat? You sound like some kook who sees one under every rock or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hate to say it
He seriously needs to reconsider who he appoints to the rest of these positions. With as much into technology and sharing as my generation is, he can very easily destroy what was one of his biggest support groups if he lets the copyright nuts run loose. That whole image of change can very quickly be demolished, or simply be seen as a change for the worse. Stronger copyright, or stronger enforcement of it would look really really bad for him. Its moving in a backwards direction.
The internet is here, and they need to deal with it and stop whining. Adapt or die bitches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the wookie defense
How'd they do it? Easy, IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the wookie defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But that's not really true of copyright (and patent) law. All copyright lawyers are trained in the same pro-copyright dogma. They work in firms that follow and preach the same pro-copyright mantra. The more draconian law copyright is, the more work copyright lawyers get, so it's to their advantage to always push for more laws.
Sure there are civil and criminal defense attorneys which concentrate on fighting copyright lawsuits, but they are few and far between. And by their very nature, they are considered outsiders by the copyright industry. Sort of like those wacko tax attorneys who promise that you'll never have to pay income taxes again. They're labeled as pro-piracy, communists, and as being un-American because they don't respect property rights.
So of course the "sensible" thing to do is to hire from the mainstream, and that means hiring from the status quo, which means hiring a pro-copyright attorney.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both of them have diplomatic immunity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Both of them have diplomatic immunity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most important is that the people in the justice department / AG's office are law and order people. The last thing you want is and AG that is either operating on his own belief system. The Bush administration, example, allowed a religious zealot (John Ashcroft) to run the show, which lead to witch hunts against groups that put forth ideas that didn't match with his super conservative christian faith. Heck, they were even having prayer meetings in federal offices.
In the end, anyone who comes to work for the AG's office or as federal prosecutor needs to be law and order, and that does mean supporting existing laws, including copyright.
If you want to change copyright, take your protests to the people who write the laws, not those selected to enforce them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Weird Harold you have earned my respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
While he earns your respect, He earns something of mine too-- A bottle of Scorn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Plus, this gives the copyright extremists influence over the entire administration. If you need a favor from the copyright maximalist who works next to you, you're more likely do do a favor in return.
It's just not a good environment that they have created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The question isn't NEW laws, it is the application of current laws on the books. Do you have an indication of the current copyright laws that you fear will suddenly get used in more draconian ways?
Even if the AG asks for 101 new laws, those laws still must be written, reviewed, and passed by the three levels of government. The US isn't a dictatorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But (and it's a stonking huge but), they do manage the resources given them to prosecute cases. If the AG's office is handed 400 cases to work, and only has the resources to fully prosecute 200, they must prioritize some over others. I would prefer that the guys making those decisions not have serious financial ties to the people involved in the cases. The current round of RIAA crony lawyers that have been given Fed jobs have already proven that they still represent the cause they were paid to fight for. The worst of these (that we know of so far) is the brief filed in the Tenenbaum case by a Fed that used to be a lead counsel for one of the plaintiffs.
Also, while it's all well and good to say that their personal motivations don't apply because they are officers of the law, here in the real world personal biases are very relevant to the way the law is selectively applied and pursued. Janet Reno failed to keep her political opinions out of her business practices, while John Ashcroft failed to keep his nutty religious views from making him a public spectacle of bad judgment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
those laws still must be written, reviewed, and passed by the three levels of government. The US isn't a dictatorship.
No, the judicial branch has absolutely nothing to do with writing laws. They interpret them.
Main point:
Do you have an indication of the current copyright laws that you fear will suddenly get used in more draconian ways?
The justice department went out of their way to write an amicus brief or whatever its called, something to submit to a court case to say that they feel that 150K PER SONG was reasonable.
Are you telling me that they aren't biased about this?
That is fucking ridiculous man. You buy a song for 1$. Max infringement value should be like .. 10$.
That is still 10X the PRICE (not value) of what the person probably would not have bought in the first place (but is more likely to buy later).
So PLEASE tell me why you think them taking their time to support such a gawd awful number is a reasonable use of their time and not biased. They are trying to encourage horrible laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do not believe everything you read in blogs. The Justice Department did no such thing. It presented a brief, as is customary practice in cases challenging the constitutionality of a federal law, in support of the law. It specifically noted in its brief that it was expressing no opinion on the merits of either party's case.
Read the brief and not a blog. The former is much more informative and helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As mentioned, the AG and DoJ have the requirement to upload the law. The copyright rules are the laws of the land, and they are there to uphold them.
You might help yourself by reading the brief in question (and you can ask one of your teachers for help if you have a problem with the hard words). http://pub.bna.com/eclr/03cv11661_032209.pdf
Who knows? You might learn something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just like Ashcroft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Even if the AG asks for 101 new laws, those laws still must be written, reviewed, and passed by the three levels of government. The US isn't a dictatorship.
That all applied to Ashcroft too, didn't it? Nothing wrong there either, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ashcroft
Mr Harold, as much as one might find AG Ashcroft objectionable in theory, what are some concrete examples of the witch-hunts of which you speak?
"Heck, they were even having prayer meetings in federal offices." As long as these were not forced upon DOJ employees or in some way impeded the work of DOJ employees how is this remarkable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Were they blocking other people from using that valuable space during that time? Were there requests from other religious groups to use that space that were denied?
There was a religious homeschooling group that met in the library office last night, a new school group met in the City Council Chambers last week, and we have a local medieval reenactment groups that trains people in the use of modified medieval weapons in a middle school gym on Tuesdays. What's the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
These were prayer meetings run by Ashcroft himself. The boss.
If you can't see how that is bad, well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The last thing you want is and AG that is operating on his own belief system. We don't need a copyright zealot to run the show, which will lead to witch hunts against groups that put forth ideas that didn't match with his super zealous faith in copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ho Humm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So how isn't this an issue? Even if we realize afterwards that it was a mistake, any damage done during that time can't really be reversed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
excuse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
real sorry to have to ignore new Justice system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do as I say...
"Do as I say, not as I do."
That's Obama for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]