Obama DOJ pick: RIAA lawyer who killed Grokster
President Obama is continuing to fill the senior ranks of the U.S. Department of Justice with the copyright industry's favorite lawyers.
Donald Verrilli announced Wednesday that he had been named associate deputy attorney general. Verrilli is the lawyer who pulled the plug on Grokster, sued Google on behalf of Viacom, and represented the Recording Industry Association of America against a Minnesota woman named Jammie Thomas who's accused of illicit file sharing.
This follows a string of other pro-copyright industry picks that Obama has made. Last month, there was Obama's selection last month of a top RIAA lawyer--currently squaring off in court with Harvard University's Berkman Center--to be third-in-command at the Justice Department.
Donald Verrilli, the lawyer who pulled the plug on Grokster
(Credit: jenner.com)Vice President Joe Biden has long been an ally of the recording industry, urging the criminal prosecutions of copyright-infringing peer-to-peer users and trying to create a new federal felony involving playing unauthorized music. And another senior Justice Department post has gone to the top antipiracy enforcer for the Business Software Alliance, a strong supporter of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention rules.
Obama's latest choice, Verrilli, is a senior litigator in the Washington, D.C. offices of the Jenner & Block law firm.
In technology circles, he's probably best known for arguing the Minnesota case called Capitol v. Thomas. In that case, the RIAA convinced the judge to accept jury instructions saying that the "making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network" violated the law, even if none had actually been transferred.
Verrilli won the first round, with a federal jury saying in October 2007 that Thomas had to pay $220,000. But then the judge threw out the verdict, concluding the jury instructions he approved were misleading; the RIAA is hoping to hold on to the initial verdict and is currently appealing.
One reason why this case is especially relevant to Verrilli's new job is that the Justice Department intervened in the Thomas case on behalf of the RIAA.
That has already caused some tech lobbyists to wonder privately about whether or not Verrilli will recuse himself from matters that affect their former clients. Another example of a relevant case involves the Supreme Court asking the Justice Department for input on a case involving Cablevision--another lawsuit that Verrilli was part of on behalf of copyright holders. (Disclosure: the film studios and television networks that brought the suit against Cablevision include Time Warner, News Corp., Walt Disney, and CBS, which owns CBS Interactive, publisher of CNET News.)
A Jenner & Block press release says that Verrilli "led the Jenner & Block team that is pursuing a $1 billion copyright case on behalf of Viacom Inc. against Google and YouTube, alleging massive violations of Viacom's copyrighted motion pictures and television shows." Last year, Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman even called YouTube a "rogue company."
The lawsuit filed in New York in March 2007 accuses YouTube of "massive intentional copyright infringement" and seeks more than $1 billion in damages. Other plaintiffs include Country Music Television, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Black Entertainment Television (all of which are Viacom affiliates).
From a legal perspective, Verrilli's zealous defense of large copyright holders reached its apogee in the Grokster case.
MGM had sued Grokster, saying that it effectively induced its users to commit copyright infringement. When the Supreme Court heard arguments on March 29, 2005 in the most important copyright case that decade, MGM chose Verrilli to represent its side.
"The recording industry has lost 25 percent of its revenue since the onslaught of these services," Verrilli told the justices. "And that's particularly critical, because, remember, this is really... a venture-capital business. Most of the records we put out don't make money. A few make a lot of money. Well, what do you think's getting traded on Grokster and StreamCast and the rest of them? It's the few that make all the money."
It worked, or at least worked pretty well. The Supreme Court ruled that operators of peer-to-peer networks could be held liable for copyright infringement, and Grokster quickly settled with Hollywood studios and the record labels.
During the campaign, when CNET News asked Obama for his views on copyright, he replied: "As policymakers, we are in a constant process of examining our laws to ensure that the protections we place on intellectual property are sufficient to encourage invention without hindering innovation that builds on previous work or unfairly limiting consumers from using the goods they purchase in a way that is fair to creators."
That was, unfortunately, rather vague. Now it's a bit more clear where he stands.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
i voted for mccain, not because im for anything that he stood for, but because any president so far that actually changes anything has been killed, ya a new America my left testicle.......you want change? good luck. and anyone who says they'll make a change or protect our kids or anything else in my opinion is full of horse crap.
2008 Pro-IP Act passed by unanimous consent.
Didn't matter who was voted into the White House, the RIAA and MPAA win on account that they have more paid lobbyists working Congress and the White House than most any other special interest groups on the Hill.
If Obama keeps this guy, the press will have a field day with articles attacking the conflict of interest, especially if the Jammie Thomas case moves up and the Viacom suit gains traction.
Since when do you have to vote for someone on the ballot? Vote for you father. Vote for anyone. It's your legal right.
I don't even worry about the issue any longer. It's clear that advocacy for a rational method of buying music cheaply is not possible, so I go underground or into grey markets to find what I want. I'm not willing to buy digital albums for $10, or physical CDs for $20, because the cost is too high and there's too much hit or miss with unheard purchases.
I REALLY like previewing songs and albums, and then deciding to back up my acquisition with a legal purchase later... usually of a used CD copy for archival purposes.
The real issue here is corporate disobedience. I lack a litigation team of their size and strength, so rather than fight on their battleground, I'll fight on my own.
-R
Add to that freedom of speach violations regarding individual interpretations of music played on the airwaves. Here's a couple of guitarists who like a particular tune. They use the internet to share their enjoyment and the website is closed down. Not because anyone was doing anything illegal, but because the RIAA lawyers have nearly unlimited funds and can bully the people of this country with threats of ruining your life. So you fold. Personally I'm tired of this and if Obama is going to support these bullies and attack the common man I'm considering him a non-candidate for re-election. What a dirty trick.
I too like to check things out now before buying. If I find something that I feel is worth the money I will buy the "official" package via the internet or in a store (if you can find one).
Make no mistake, these RIAA type organizations are not there to support the artists or the people who listen to the product. They are there to milk all they can and provide relief to the marketers who suck the public and the artists dry. Given an opportunity to buy from the artists webstore vs. through some major label marketing group,
I'll gladly support great artists. I have no interest in supporting the parasites who steal legally from them and us.
The only change was now there's someone in the White House with a little darker skin... other than that, it's looking like it's going to be the same old same old. Let's hope this RIAA idiot didn't pay his taxes either and has to drop out :)
If the next four years are as bad as the past couple of weeks...I'm gonna have to move to Canada.
I understand that Obama values having opposing viewpoints in his cabinet. Maybe giving Fred von Lohmann a position would achieve this for him.
This isn't just some corporate cog we're talking about. This is a high-octane sleaze getting more power than he really ought to be let anywhere near...
He'd likely have to recuse himself from any further involvement with the case assuming it actually becomes a DoJ matter. He he didn't then it would be grounds for dismissal.
@Penguinisto,
If you could provide some links to this I would appreciate it. It would be helpful if they didn't come from a partisan source.
Change you can believe in. I wonder what Hitlers tag line was....
Yep all it took was just 53% of the country's voters to dismantle what took over 200 years to create.
it makes me want to puke
and it unfortunately makes me feel smarter than all my dumb friends who voted for him
it's unfortunate, because I thought people were a little smarter
but the mass media mind-control machine works well, doesn't it?
think how the TV box spoke to you, in regards to the Obama election and inauguration... nothing but tears of joy from the world - but it was the world presented to you from inside the TV box, not the real world where people can actually think for themselves.
You act like they appointed the CEO of the BSA . These are lawyers and they did what their client asked.
In fact, these lawyers are good at their job.
Here is a clue: Get involved to change copyright law. Don't blame the people using it to protect their works.
No, I'm not happy with Bidden short sightedness regarding copyright. OTOH, it's a hell of a lot better then the Republicans stance on it.
And you people that think it wil 'destroy the country' are idiots who do nothing but cause unrest.
Back in reality we have no recourse. The law is opaque and the more clever the sleezeballs get the more opaque and misleading it is. Ethics in politics and law are subjective and vary with anyones opinion. These guys are almost as dirty as the oil baron team that just left the white house. We can't win. All we can do is complain till it gets bad enough for people to revolt. Problem there is we're all fat dumb and happy with our luxuries and can't get off our butts to do anything about it for fear of discomfort.
The country is already destroyed. The point with this election was to try and rebuild it. It's not starting out too well.
On the other hand, copyright law isn't that bad... (I'm much more concerned about patent law...)
There are ample opportunities for artists to make good on their creative works by marketing themselves today, and there's no doubt that some will freely share their work as a means to promote their business. More power to them. It's also no doubt the music industry has behaved badly and is having a most difficult time updating their production and sales model. This will all get worked out in time (free market and all...).
In the meantime, those of you who are complaining about paying for the works of others are a bunch of babies who respect neither the artists, the companies producing the works, or capitalism. If you don't like the price points, take action to make change and complain to the companies. Support the artists using different models.
In the meantime, the next time someone steals something you created (and perhaps marketed and perhaps were making some money on) that you blithely apply your existing logic to your own loss. Oh - but that's right... you're not creators are you? Just ridiculous consumers....
It's the creator's responsibility to sell a product, not the consumer's responsibility to buy it.
when i buy a cd im not "paying for the works of others"
im paying the record companies who then give a SMALL percentage to those others...
honestly i pirate all the time if i LIKE what i pirate, i actually hunt down a way to contact the artist or band and personally send them money(ive actually done this 4 times. and guess what i payed more than the 20$ that their cd costs want to know why it was quality work...)
as for stealing something i created...guess what you cant steal what i created its called open source...when a current business model goes to hell adapt, thats the main problem look at trent reznor he made a TON off his small quirky business ideas...
- by Voice_Of_Logic February 6, 2009 11:08 AM PST
- Change, my ass.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (38 Comments)