Former RIAA Lawyer At DOJ Will Only Avoid RIAA Issues For A Year

from the ethics? dept

Fri, May 1st 2009 11:37am — Mike Masnick

Plenty of folks have noted that the Justice Department has been the landing place for a number of RIAA lawyers. Some have suggested not to get too worked up about this, given that the Obama administration's ethics rules supposedly forbade those lawyers from being involved in issues related to their former work. However, it looks like the limit on these guys is actually quite narrow and for a very short period of time. We'd already noted that the highest ranking former RIAA lawyer, Thomas Perrelli, in his Senate confirmation hearings, said he hoped to use his position to increase intellectual property enforcement from within the Justice Department.

Now, Pro Publica, an online investigative reporting operation, has published the ethics agreements signed by Obama administration appointees, including Tom Perrelli's agreement, which appears to only preclude him from working on issues that impact his former clients for one year. Also, it seems pretty narrowly focused on the specific clients he worked for, but not other aspects of the same industry. In other words, in less than a year, he can certainly start helping the RIAA from within the Justice Department -- and his Senate testimony suggests he's interested in doing so. That's not quite the ethical separation we were led to believe would exist in the administration.

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: ethics, justice department, thomas perrelli
Companies: jenner & block, riaa

47 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Steve R. (profile), 1 May 2009 @ 12:08pm

Souter’s Exit to Give Obama First Opening
Well the Washington Post says that Souter will be leaving the US Supreme Court. So who will Obama nominate?

TechDirt could run a contest, the winner gets a cheap prize from EFF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan, 1 May 2009 @ 12:11pm
  
  Re: Souter's Exit to Give Obama First Opening
  Maybe they could pick a few choices and change the poll. That seems offtopic, though, unless they appoint some industry lobbyist or lawyer. Obama didn't say anything about not appointing industry to judicial positions, did he?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve R. (profile), 1 May 2009 @ 12:13pm
  
  Re: Souter's Exit to Give Obama First Opening
  Oops. That was the New York Times. My apologies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 1 May 2009 @ 12:40pm

Surprise
*sigh*

Did anybody think it would be any different? Especially once Biden was aboard?

The political major league in the USA has two teams. And both are owned by the same people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tgeigs, 1 May 2009 @ 12:46pm
  
  Re: Surprise
  Couldn't agree more. The only difference is that this one is a smoother talker than the last one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tgeigs, 1 May 2009 @ 12:46pm
  
  Re: Surprise
  Couldn't agree more. The only difference is that this one is a smoother talker than the last one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lynn, 3 May 2009 @ 2:29pm
    
    Re: Re: Surprise
    He's only a smoother talker because he's always using a teleprompter..have you heard him without one? Yikes! he stumbles all over the place....he's somebody's robot..but whose?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nathan, 1 May 2009 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re: Surprise
  Change has come to America.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 1 May 2009 @ 12:54pm

the RIAA
Why buy laws when you have have most of the DOJ written off to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- thomas, 3 May 2009 @ 8:20pm
  
  Re: the RIAA
  Sad to see that the DOJ is becoming a tool for the **AA. The **AA doesn't give a **** if terrorists kill millions, as long as people don't copy their junk. Having *AA lawyers running DOJ is a huge boon to terrorists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The infamous Joe, 1 May 2009 @ 12:59pm

Sad Panda
So, let's say I wanted to live in a place with all the rights and freedoms that America was supposed to have-- where would I move to?

It's that, or revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tgeigs, 1 May 2009 @ 1:04pm
  
  Re: Sad Panda
  Australia, maybe? Maybe Japan? What does Japanese law look like? I don't hear as much about they're government pissing on their citizens foots, but maybe I'm just not paying attention.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greg G, 1 May 2009 @ 1:17pm
    
    Re: Re: Sad Panda
    Nah, Australia would be nice to visit, but they don't have nearly the rights there (they are not legally allowed to own guns, for one) that we have in the States.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greg G, 1 May 2009 @ 1:17pm
    
    Re: Re: Sad Panda
    Nah, Australia would be nice to visit, but they don't have nearly the rights there (they are not legally allowed to own guns, for one) that we have in the States.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Yeebok (profile), 1 May 2009 @ 5:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Sad Panda
      Err .. no we're entitled to own guns we just don't think we need one when we're walking the dog. The gun obsession is one thing I really dislike about Americans. You have enough ammo and people to keep yourselves busy for ages - yet you keep invading other places to kill the people there.. What gives ?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Tgeigs, 3 May 2009 @ 4:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad Panda
        The right to ownership of guns was written into the constitution as a way for the people to protect themselves against OUR Government, not for use in invading others. In the revolutionary war, the only reason we were able to hold our own until we received support from the French was because of our ARMED colonial militia.
        
        If we attempted a revolution today, it wouldn't work. They say things like, "we have to outlaw certain weapons and ammunition, because the only thing they're really used for is to kill policemen and armed forces". They seem to forget that that's the entire point (not ADVOCATING killing cops, but the rather the right to protect ourselves from our government).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
zcat, 1 May 2009 @ 1:06pm

Revolt please. We (the other 96% of the planet) are heartily sick of America pushing it's fucked-up ideals onto every other country through "free trade" agreements, secret treaties or outright military aggression. Stay at home and sort your own shit out. We don't want you here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg G, 1 May 2009 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re:
  Ok, we will. Just tell me what country* you're in so I know never to visit there.
  
  *void if you live in Belgium, as I do plan to go there just for the beer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tgeigs, 1 May 2009 @ 1:19pm
  
  Re:
  Awesome. We'll remember that the next time a Hitler show's up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Azrael, 2 May 2009 @ 6:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Please do, Hitler would have been far better than the jews who now rule the planet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tgeigs, 3 May 2009 @ 4:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      BWA HAHAHAHAHA, Jews, ruling the planet?
      
      Did they just sleep through that whole Holocaust thing? And why are they allowing the Disney Corp. & Ford to continue existing, w/such deep-rooted anti-Sematism? I have to tell you, if there IS a Jewish Cabal ruling the world, they are some of the most idiotic rulers of all time, leaving all of these dissenters around.
      
      Or maybe there is no cabal. What do YOU think, Skeeter?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dan, 1 May 2009 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re:
  I would rather just see us nuke assholes like you... Fuck you..
  
  Free Trade agreement. I like this one from jack offs like you. We should just put high tarrifs on products from other nations and let them sell their shit to the chinease... Fuck you asshole....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- me, 6 May 2009 @ 12:42am
  
  Re:
  why don't you go live in a real country were you actually have a say in the world, instead of moaning about how much your country sucks, if your so upset about it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beefcake, 1 May 2009 @ 1:16pm

ATM
Makes Schwarzenegger's concern during the primaries that California was nothing but an ATM stop for contributions look a bit silly. It's clear today that an industry largely centered amongst his constituency is reaping the rewards, at a cost to the entire world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 1 May 2009 @ 1:19pm

To those talking about armed resistance, keep something in mind. Who do you think the government will send to fight the homegrown militias that would be formed to oppose them? Our own US troops, fellow Americans who grew up in the same towns, ate the same food, and went to the same schools and so on as we have. Thus, it would not be a revolution, but a civil war. And I don't think I need to remind you all how brutal the last one was. Just tread carefully and keep that in mind, is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tgeigs, 1 May 2009 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re:
  Per my country's beloved Constitution, that's exactly what is supposed to happen. And yes, the last one was bloody. And worth it. No one said freedom was easy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 1 May 2009 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re:
  I certainly DON'T feel motivated in any way toward armed conflict. But in view of your ridiculous hypothetical:
  
  If they don't give a rat's ass about freedom, then they're not fellow Americans at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2009 @ 1:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "If they don't give a rat's ass about freedom, then they're not fellow Americans at all."
    
    They don't and they're not. We need to take our country back. Unless it happens one way or another, we can pretty much kiss our Freedom goodbye.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2009 @ 4:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The common grunts would only be following orders because that's all they know how to do. Questioning such orders isn't really taught much, I don't think. It's their superiors who are the ones who don't care about freedom and who have the silver tongues to make grunts who should know better follow their orders. The grunts are just pawns to them on their big board. That's all I meant.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tgeigs, 3 May 2009 @ 4:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Outstanding mis-generalization of the lower grades of the armed forces. Yes, those of us that never made it past E6(US Navy) are mindless, idiotic drones that can't be bothered with things like thought and morality.
      
      And FYI, grunts? Did you ever serve? When you talk about US Armed Forces, it isn't a damned video game. They are PEOPLE.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2009 @ 1:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, those of us that never made it past E6(US Navy) are mindless, idiotic drones that can't be bothered with things like thought and morality.
        
        And that's why you aren't held responsible for participating in unjustified wars. Otherwise it would it could be said that you were individually morally responsible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Tgeigs, 4 May 2009 @ 6:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you, sir, were clearly never in the service.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- zev goldman, 2 May 2009 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: TDR
  Great, a distinction without a difference. Our civil war wasn't an attempt by the south to change the form of government,a revolution. It sought to form a union of slave states through secession.
  No matter what name a war is known by one is just as dead in a civil war as in a revolution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2009 @ 1:51pm

You are talking about politicians and lawyers and expecting ethics? I hate to burst your bubble, but with little exception, there are NO ethics in those groups.

Sad but true...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2009 @ 2:18pm

Filling childrens minds with man made laws..
I'm down with the armed conflict I think it would do us (America) some good and that good would bleed (no pun intended) off to the rest of the world I'd hope. Just too bad that "we the people" have let things get as bad as they are. We just sit back on the sidelines saying.. "We'll if that ever happened to me I'd........" Well just wait long enough and it will be YOU. You, me, and everyone else for that matter. Get the torches and pitchforks out (equated to MP5's, and AK's) out and let's do this! (Or you could just go VOTE and be heard!!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Azrael, 2 May 2009 @ 6:23am
  
  Re: Filling childrens minds with man made laws..
  VOTE ? that's funny if you look how the last vote ended.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 1 May 2009 @ 4:48pm

Obama is a two-faced liar. He's a politician, why would would anyone expect him to be be anything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chargone, 1 May 2009 @ 7:03pm

heh, in NZ, if memory serves, you can own a tank or ICBM if you really want. ammo and warheads are another story. and you need special dispensation to drive tanks on the roads. [basically, they damage the road a lot more, even with their rubber track cover thingies, so you need to pay more than the normal fuel cost for road maintenance, or some such]

i don't think you're going to find anywhere where you have all the rights you're Supposed to have in the USA. actually, i think you'll have a hard time finding anywhere where the mentality is such that the majority of people find a few of them to even be legitimate rights.

[NZ, for example, has had a lot of success with the whole 'guns are heavily regulated' thing. also, Australian(i believe?) and NZ occupation of various places? high on the agenda is a 'gun hunt'. ie: taking every single weapon not currently in the hands of the occupying military OUT of the area. ... the result is a lot more peaceful than arming large numbers of people]

why is it we never hear such tales of stupid conflicts of interest here, anyway? closest i ever remember was that recent thing with the minister going to India.

news flash folks: the American constitution mostly serves as yet another angle the lawyers can take in arguing their clients stupid positions. there's not a Lot it's actually protecting you from, at least as seen from outside.

admittedly, it IS nice to have such an absolute document to refer back to. saying anything about NZ having a constitution is a bit of a joke :) nearest we have is some variation on tradition. [Technically we actually have constitutional documents and all sorts of things, but... legally the only thing making them different is that they're entrenched. and the entrenching laws are NOT entrenched, so it just makes it a two step process rather than one to change anything.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2009 @ 8:33pm
  
  Re:
  admittedly, it IS nice to have such an absolute document to refer back to. saying anything about NZ having a constitution is a bit of a joke :) nearest we have is some variation on tradition. [Technically we actually have constitutional documents and all sorts of things, but... legally the only thing making them different is that they're entrenched. and the entrenching laws are NOT entrenched, so it just makes it a two step process rather than one to change anything.]
  
  The US constitution can be amended and has been several times. So if the government wants to make a law that is against the constitution, it too is a two step process (first amend the constitution, then pass the law).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2009 @ 8:24pm

Turncoat
Obama is turning out to be a real turncoat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas, 2 May 2009 @ 6:32am

Lawyers loyalty..
is always to whoever pays the most. The RIAA owns those lawyers and will continue to pay they one way or another until they can actively help the RIAA in the DOJ. They get around ethics by giving the money to 'non-profit' organizations controlled by the people they want to benefit. Ethics is a dirty word for most of those lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Houston lawyer, 3 May 2009 @ 9:32am

I could not agree with you more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Myrdek, 3 May 2009 @ 11:59am

I think a lot of you would love to read this

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070430/30murphyqa.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2009 @ 10:33pm

pirate party
I find it rather funny that the "Pirate Party" endorsed Obama ( http://www.pirate-party.us/node/29 ). Could it possible that people now started paying attention to what is going on, instead of blindly voting for "change"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dentist falls church, 12 Oct 2010 @ 8:29am

Huh
That is interesting. Thanks for the article. I hadn't really heard about this until now and I am curious to know what has happened since then. Did he get what he deserved or was it all for not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Malcom Reynolds, 12 Oct 2010 @ 4:22pm

A-1 Mini Storage | Mini Storage Tucker, GA
Yeah, of course Obama is a turncoat. Is anybody really surprised by this? The only reason he won the election was because he is black. Everyone was so hyped to have a not-white president that they completely forgot that he was really qualified in any way to be our nation's leader. Hopefully they'll remember this lesson when old Hillary decides to take a stab at the white house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baby Roswell, GA, 13 Oct 2010 @ 4:15pm

I think it's a good rule of thumb not to have lawyers return to work that they have previously worked on. They bring biases with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]