Version: 2008

Comments on: Obama DOJ pick: RIAA lawyer who killed Grokster

President's latest pick for a senior Justice Department post is Donald Verrilli, the lawyer who pulled the plug on Grokster, sued Google on behalf of Viacom, and represented the RIAA in a file-sharing case against Jammie Thomas.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (38 Comments)
by Nocturnex February 5, 2009 2:02 AM PST
Did anyone expect obama to change anything for the better, if you did you should be getting committed...the government strips more and more rights and butchers the constitution constantly.


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.
Reply to this comment
by gerrrg February 5, 2009 2:33 AM PST
1998 DMCA passed on a unanimous vote, including McCain's.
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.
by James7777777 February 5, 2009 4:44 AM PST
Why not vote libertarian? If you don't believe in the candidates stance why vote for him?
by Pete Bardo February 5, 2009 10:03 AM PST
Vote Libertarian? You've got to be kidding! They ran a Republican for President. I didn't agree with any of the candidates, so guess who I voted for? Nobody!
by PhaseDMA February 6, 2009 6:44 AM PST
Pete Bardo -

Since when do you have to vote for someone on the ballot? Vote for you father. Vote for anyone. It's your legal right.
by 3rdalbum February 5, 2009 4:22 AM PST
You Yanks voted for him... next you'll be yearning for the carefree days of George W Bush when the RIAA and MPAA weren't in the White House!
Reply to this comment
by shootthecops February 5, 2009 5:25 AM PST
the democrats need to face it, the only reason they voted for this guy is because he is half-black. since his time in office, obama has shown there will be no progression, marriage for homosexuals? no. decriminalization of marijuana? "we do not support marijuana". the internets? all ur bandwidth r belong to us.
Reply to this comment
by clr36 February 5, 2009 5:33 AM PST
Just another Obama blunder. This is going to be the worst White House group we have ever seen. Course after he put a Tax Cheat in charge of the tax system what did you expect for the rest of the cabinet. I can say told you so in a year or two, I didn't vote him the man. I don't have to respect the man only the office. The RIAA will be a thing of the past one day, I have not purchased a music CD since they started their attacks. Our country is in a sad state being ran by crooks, cheats and lawyers. I think I just used 3 words that mean the same.
Reply to this comment
by Remo_Williams February 5, 2009 5:57 AM PST
Irrelevant picks. He's probably a very, very good lawyer, and he'll have a caseload with more variety than music sharing problems.

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
Reply to this comment
by martinaxman February 5, 2009 1:51 PM PST
You can bet he's a good lawyer. Anything that comes across his desk that tweaks his interest will get special attention. The idea of protecting the constitution is not to support the theiving corporate entities because they provide cool perks, it's to support the people who fund this government because we are paying them. I totally agree with you. Years ago I could walk into Caldors on a Friday and spend $25 for four or five LPs of really good music. I would even chance selections that I wasn't sure about. No problem spending the money. Then came CDs and at $7 each they were about twice the cost. Ok, assuming when technology catches up they price will go down, it's all good. Today the cost has dropped through the floor at about .25 per item, and we are paying upwards of $20 per.

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.
by dascha1 February 5, 2009 6:24 AM PST
There are more groups to 'boost' besides RIAA folks. There's BMI, ASCAP, SESAC (oops, international group), and of course the timely RAC with huge DC presence. I mean, RIAA and MPAA is getting old in the news....
Reply to this comment
by thelemurking February 5, 2009 6:26 AM PST
Oh no! All this hope and change was just a lie! Maybe next week he will be on CNN telling America how his promise of CHANGE was a "mistake" because it's clear we now have more of the same.

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 :)
Reply to this comment
by karpenterskids February 5, 2009 12:34 PM PST
I feel exactly the same way!


If the next four years are as bad as the past couple of weeks...I'm gonna have to move to Canada.
by rapier1 February 5, 2009 6:54 AM PST
Declan, why are you being so blindingly obtuse lately? If a defense lawyer represents a murderer are we to assume that this lawyer condones murder? Lawyers are bound by a code of ethics (you are familiar with those aren't you?) which require them to zealously represent their client's interests. This means that if the RIAA is a client of a firm then the lawyers are required, under threat of forfeiture of their license, to do everything they can to forward the interests of that client. The lawyer's personal opinions about the merit or validity of the client's position is simply not a consideration. The guy worked for a corporate law firm - ergo he's going to represent corporate interests and many times that includes IP. You know this because I know, for a fact, that you aren't an idiot. I just don't know why you are playing at one lately.
Reply to this comment
by AaronMK February 5, 2009 7:26 AM PST
No one is questioning Verrilli's adherence to the ethics of his chosen profession. (Not yet anyway, although I am sure he will be getting a lot of questioning soon enough.) If the ethics of a lawyer are what he wants in his cabinet, there are people with many different backgrounds that he could have chosen. One RIAA top attorney might allow me to give the benefit of the doubt, but two looks very suspicious.

I understand that Obama values having opposing viewpoints in his cabinet. Maybe giving Fred von Lohmann a position would achieve this for him.
by Penguinisto February 5, 2009 8:24 AM PST
Problem is, the lawyers in Capitol v. Thomas have shown themselves to be less than ethical, and less-than-adherent to procedure and rules. You may want to look up what happened there (hint: "mis-trial")...

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...
by DJFrankNJ February 5, 2009 8:32 AM PST
Also, with the case being currently appealed, Verrilli does have an interest in seeing the RIAA come out victorious. When you've been paid handsomely by the RIAA, you maintain some loyalty. I'm sure he's very close to most of the RIAA leaders. He won't be in public office forever either. He's not going to alienate these huge corporations.
by rapier1 February 5, 2009 10:59 AM PST
@DKFrankNJ,

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.
by mpitogo February 5, 2009 7:46 AM PST
Dam what a bozo that VP is, didn't like him from the get go.
Reply to this comment
by sierra_117 February 5, 2009 7:51 AM PST
Hey internet - you helped get this guy elected. Pat yourself on the back for shooting yourself in the foot.
Reply to this comment
by MaggieRed February 5, 2009 8:27 AM PST
This country will be lucky to survive for four years of this bozo in charge. He is accelerating the transition to socialism and most of these people who voted for him can't spell socialism much less understand what it means.

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.
Reply to this comment
by ballmerisanape February 5, 2009 8:34 AM PST
BIden is the poster boy for the RIAA. If people didn't see this coming.. they deserve what they get.
Reply to this comment
by man_w_balls February 5, 2009 8:54 AM PST
so many of the things Obama is doing, now that he's in office, are just blatantly schitty!

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.
Reply to this comment
by Geekoid February 5, 2009 8:57 AM PST
Are you people really this short sighted?
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.
Reply to this comment
by martinaxman February 5, 2009 2:09 PM PST
These are sleezeball lawyers who make a whole lot more money than most of us put together. Change copyright law? Are you kidding? Let's see I work in computers. I'll take a year off from work (i'm sure they'll still pay me) and run down to Washington to lobby for reform against the thousands of lawyers and lobbyists being paid huge amounts of money to coerce our ethical elected officials. Yea, that should do it.

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.
by Spartanicus February 5, 2009 8:11 PM PST
I agree heartily with Geekoid. Don't like the current copyright laws? Make a stink. You don't have to go to Washington - hound your representatives. That's why they're there.

On the other hand, copyright law isn't that bad... (I'm much more concerned about patent law...)
by Voice_Of_Logic February 7, 2009 7:37 PM PST
You havent seen unrest yet....... Three words: Boston Tea Party, part deux.....
by syberlink February 5, 2009 9:28 AM PST
Being in the DOJ, he will be able to see the damage done from corporations who sued people they knew were innocent. It is illegal to sue a person you knew to be innocent then gain from such a suit. As a person sued falsely by Directv, the DOJ was asked several times to investigate the false suit. DOJ had no interest at all. What comes around here is that when I am called for jury duty, I will be ignoring Justice just like justice did to me. Jury nullification is not a good thing but it is even worse when Justice ignores a crime victim. It is worse when Justice supports falsified lawsuits by companies like Directv and the RIAA. Justice should never support someone filing a lawsuit they know to be false and then profiting from it.
Reply to this comment
by DoubleVI February 5, 2009 9:34 AM PST
oh folks please. If you want change, commit to action, be active in the community or cause you're for.and QUIT being internet gangsta complainers. I'dcomplain too, except I too busy being productive, I used to vomit about other ppls actions but then I was forced to decide who I wanted to become. kick your soapbox habits and create the tools and answers that bring justice otherwise your just a pitiful tool to the problems you love to hate.
Reply to this comment
by mooney101 February 5, 2009 9:35 AM PST
I am seeing a patten here. Everyday Obama does another stupid thing it reminds of why I didn't vote for him.
Reply to this comment
by LuvThatCO2 February 5, 2009 10:03 AM PST
I cant wait until this guy starts tossing 'hope and change' t-shirt wearing college kids behind bars for sharing downloaded copies of the Daily Show.
Reply to this comment
by Spartanicus February 5, 2009 10:14 AM PST
The cnet comments seem (lately?) to be full of righty trolls; you folks are ridiculous in your stance on this issue:

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....
Reply to this comment
by melvinspeed February 5, 2009 10:43 AM PST
Spartanicus is right on.
by Dylan_Wisor February 5, 2009 3:07 PM PST
The music industry has had more than enough time to sort itself out. They chose to be the crotchety old men of the world and are now paying the price, as is everyone else.

It's the creator's responsibility to sell a product, not the consumer's responsibility to buy it.
by Nocturnex February 6, 2009 6:31 PM PST
this isnt a political issue "righty trolls" this is people more or less laughing about the "change" motto when if anything for copyright and ip law its going down the crapper.

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.
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 2 pages (38 Comments)
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About Politics and Law

News at the intersection of technology, politics, and law, ranging from intellectual property to censorship to tech policy.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Politics and Law topics

advertisement
advertisement