im not so thrilled about this.

Quote
Obama Taps 5th RIAA Lawyer to Justice Dept.

Monday's naming of Ian Gershengorn, to become the department's deputy assistant attorney of the Civil Division, comes more than a week after nearly two-dozen public interest groups, trade pacts and library coalitions urged the new president to quit filling his administration with lawyers plucked from the Recording Industry Association of America.

The move makes it five RIAA lawyers Obama has appointed to the Justice Department.

Gershengorn, left, a partner with RIAA-firm Jenner & Block, represented the labels against Grokster (.pdf) and will be in charge of the DOJ Federal Programs Branch. That's the unit that just told a federal judge the Obama administration supports monetary damages as high as $150,000 per purloined music track on a peer-to-peer file sharing program.

In addition to Gershengorn, the other Jenner & Block attorneys appointed to the Justice Department include:

*Donald Verrilli, associate deputy attorney general — the No. 3 in the DOJ, who unsuccessfully urged a federal judge to uphold the $222,000 file sharing verdict against Jammie Thomas.

*Tom Perrilli, as Verrilli's former boss, the Justice Department's No. 2 argued in 2002 that internet service providers should release customer information to the RIAA even without a court subpoena.

*Brian Hauck, counsel to associate attorney general, worked on the Grokster case on behalf of the record labels.

*Ginger Anders, assistant to the solicitor general, litigated on the Cablevision case.

the best comment on the page:

Quote
Posted by: iain | Apr 14, 2009 5:39:11 AM

YES WE CAN = YES, YOU'RE FUCKED!!!

"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2009 02:31PM by Gravis.

There's so many lawyers at the DOJ, that his past representation really won't overwhelmingly sway public opinion here. Jenner & Block is a good firm and we should be thankful we're not plucking talent from Ashcraft & Jerel or another personal injury shop. I trust that Obama won't staff the caliber of right-limiting dolts that Ashcroft did.
Attachments:

seriously, nobody wants to comment on the fact that he's hired five of the lawyers that's stepped all over civil liberties, privacy, preyed upon the weak and broken laws just to get a conviction? they've prosecuted children (12-years-old!) and circumvented the legal system by dropping cases right before they were judged on that they knew they would lose so that a precedent would not be set. all this and none of you idiots who can do nothing but say how great obama is will even say anything because it's negative?

he's hiring people that could very well qualify as the antichrist and you wont say a word.

pathetic.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Book he has written. When did he ever get the chance to practice law?

"Lingering Uncertainty," The National Law Journal, August 3, 2005.

"Winship on Rough Waters: The Erosion of the Reasonable Doubt Standard," 106 Harvard Law Review, 1093, 1993.

Co-author: "A Comment on United States v. Alvarez Machain," Criminal Law Forum, Spring 1993.

Co-author: "Pursuing Justice Respecting the Law: The U.S. Experience with Extraterritorial Statutes," Criminal Law Forum, Autumn 1991.

"The Fall of the FCC's Personal Attack and Political Editorial Rules," Communications Lawyer, Spring 2001.

"What Role Does 'Medical Necessity' Play in the Enforcement of Federal Marijuana Laws?," Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases, March 13, 2001.

"Is an Award of 'Front Pay' Under Title VII Subject to the Cap Imposed by the Civil Rights Act of 1991?," Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases, April 10, 2001.

"When May Police Conduct a Warrantless Search Pursuant to a Probation Agreement?," Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases, October 22, 2001.

"When Is a Warrantless and Suspicionless Search of a Bus Passenger 'Consensual'?" ABA Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases, April 2002

"Does 50 Years to Life for Shoplifting $153.54 Worth of Videotapes Violate the Eighth Amendment?," ABA Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases, October 30, 2002

"When Does the Conviction of a Federal Prisoner Become 'Final' for Purposes of Collateral Review?," ABA Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases, December 31, 2002

Gravis-

Treading on the intellectual property rights of others is not "a civil right," no matter how much fun or how easy it is to do. If the government stops RIAA from getting access to IP addresses, etc, for illegal downloaders over "privacy" issues, then it must also do the same when it comes to hackers, identity thieves, pedophiles and child pornographers.

But I agree that appointing five lawyers from the same industry association isn't very smart on Obama's part.

FWIW, this administration's ethics rules would prohibit these appointees from directly working on copyright issues, since they had represented the RIAA in the past few years. It's sorta strange that five were picked, but I'm not going to be ticked off unless I hear an agenda or policy I don't like.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FWIW, this administration's ethics rules would
> prohibit these appointees from directly working on
> copyright issues, since they had represented the
> RIAA in the past few years. It's sorta strange
> that five were picked, but I'm not going to be
> ticked off unless I hear an agenda or policy I
> don't like.


Yes, but it is another needless distraction that creates more in headaches than it adds in value.

So this guy is pot smoker!

"What Role Does 'Medical Necessity' Play in the Enforcement of Federal Marijuana Laws?," Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases, March 13, 2001

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Treading on the intellectual property rights of
> others is not "a civil right," no matter how much
> fun or how easy it is to do. If the government
> stops RIAA from getting access to IP addresses,
> etc, for illegal downloaders over "privacy"
> issues, then it must also do the same when it
> comes to hackers, identity thieves, pedophiles and
> child pornographers.

wow, you really are clueless when it comes to the RIAA prosecutors. that aside, "hackers" (you mean to use the term crackers), identity thieves, pedophiles are all committing crimes. copyright infringement is a civil matter.

anyway, if you think the RIAA goes about getting information and using it legally. you are wrong and not everyone they sue are guilty which includes people that are dead, people without computers and people being in the hospital during such alleged "crimes".

their tactics are so insane that they have even been brought up on RICO charges: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/21/1644213
and they have even fought tooth and nail to stop a broadcasting of a major trial, one can only presume why: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/17/1713227

you know nothing of the unethical and illegal acts of RIAA lawyers.

---

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FWIW, this administration's ethics rules would
> prohibit these appointees from directly working on
> copyright issues, since they had represented the
> RIAA in the past few years. It's sorta strange
> that five were picked, but I'm not going to be
> ticked off unless I hear an agenda or policy I
> don't like.

dude, they are the most unethical lawyers in the business who will do anything to win which includes breaking every law they have to. it's foolish to think their behavior will change just because they are in a different department.

would you hire Litsa for a position because she wont be working with money? i know i wouldnt.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2009 02:03PM by Gravis.

"wow, you really are clueless when it comes to the RIAA prosecutors. that aside, "hackers" (you mean to use the term crackers), identity thieves, pedophiles are all committing crimes. copyright infringement is a civil matter."

It isn't any different than someone walking into a Best Buy and walking out with 100 CDs without paying for them. That's a crime and so is illegal downloading (hence the term 'illegal.')

I'm no fan of the music industry, and I know the RIAA has been overly aggressive in alot of cases. But I haven't read any accusations of wrong-doing on these appointees.

And yes I would hire Litsa if the job required the ability to consume massive portions of food.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "wow, you really are clueless when it comes to the
> RIAA prosecutors. that aside, "hackers" (you mean
> to use the term crackers), identity thieves,
> pedophiles are all committing crimes. copyright
> infringement is a civil matter."
>
> It isn't any different than someone walking into a
> Best Buy and walking out with 100 CDs without
> paying for them. That's a crime and so is illegal
> downloading (hence the term 'illegal.')

and what about the rest of my post? i really dont care what the cases are about, im talking about the lawyers and their tactics.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis,

You have a valid point, but I would personally rank them somewhere between #6-10 on the lawyer ethical violation list behind lawyers who practice personal injury (read: ambulance chasers), white collar criminal defense, entertainment/sports agents, M&A and tax areas. IP just doesn't warrant the sense of urgency or standard of care.

Anyway, let's all have a laugh now.
Attachments:

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "wow, you really are clueless when it comes to
> the
> > RIAA prosecutors. that aside, "hackers" (you
> mean
> > to use the term crackers), identity thieves,
> > pedophiles are all committing crimes. copyright
> > infringement is a civil matter."
> >
> > It isn't any different than someone walking into
> a
> > Best Buy and walking out with 100 CDs without
> > paying for them. That's a crime and so is
> illegal
> > downloading (hence the term 'illegal.')
>
> and what about the rest of my post? i really dont
> care what the cases are about, im talking about
> the lawyers and their tactics.


This is all new legal territory. It's not up to the attorneys to establish the limits. That is the responsibility of the judges and juries. I can't blame lawyers for trying everything they can to get "justice" for their clients.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is all new legal territory. It's not up to
> the attorneys to establish the limits. That is the
> responsibility of the judges and juries. I can't
> blame lawyers for trying everything they can to
> get "justice" for their clients.

wow, that's incredibly naive.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This is all new legal territory. It's not up to
> > the attorneys to establish the limits. That is
> the
> > responsibility of the judges and juries. I
> can't
> > blame lawyers for trying everything they can to
> > get "justice" for their clients.
>
> wow, that's incredibly naive.

It's also the way the judicial system works! If prosecutors weren't concerned with testing the limits of the law, there would be no need for higher courts!

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's also the way the judicial system works! If
> prosecutors weren't concerned with testing the
> limits of the law, there would be no need for
> higher courts!

so much for change i can believe in. this administration is quickly looking worse than the last.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

There is no way that statement is even close to being accurate. That is, unless you are referring to this one, trivial subject matter of RIAA ethics. Comparing Litsa to this is like comparing Tighty Whitey to the word "COOL." It does not compute. We really need to think big picture here. Besides,
Attachments:

Lucille Ball Hammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no way that statement is even close to
> being accurate. That is, unless you are referring
> to this one, trivial subject matter of RIAA
> ethics. Comparing Litsa to this is like comparing
> Tighty Whitey to the word "COOL." It does not
> compute. We really need to think big picture
> here. Besides,

oh, so now you are saying, "think big picture" after finishing bitching about gw bush invading iraq? gee, think big picture there... oh wait. im not for either party but you democrats are being a bunch fucking hypocrites.

so curtailing the law and just ignoring ethics is just fine when you do it but if it's a republican they are damn liars that need to burn.

all you hardcore bush hating democrats need to go fuck yourselves because you dont have a problem when it's a democrat that doesnt uphold your own standards, only "republikans".

i noticed vince looked at this thread plenty but didnt post a damn word, gee, i wonder why.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Attachments:

I can't speak for Vince, but my message was one-quarter-serious, three-quarters-joking-around-as-usual. I posted a literal, not figurative, "big picture." Do you get it now?

I wouldn't take anything I post here that serious. In defense of my anti-Republican ranting, let's just say that I'm leveling the playing field for 8 years of gross mismanagement. Most of which are tongue-in-cheek and so over-the-top, that it should be obvious to most, if not all (well, except Tighty Righty, of course).

This doesn't mean that if my team screws up, that we shouldn't be called out on it. This also doesn't mean that if you make a statement such as "this administration is quickly looking worse than the last," that I'm going to agree. I think 70%+ of the general population would side with me on that one.

Anyway, enough of this serious internets talk. Let's make peace, yo...
Attachments:

So now you're tracking who reads what on here. How comforting...this is nothing more then Gravis's playground...what a comforting feeling. You can delete messages...you are accused of posting IP addresses...you are accused of planting malicious coding into other people's computers. And now you are worried about the law enforcement of copy righted material. Personally..I cant wait until they catch up with your fat ass and put you in jail.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2009 08:16PM by Vince(1).

It must suck being you.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So now you're tracking who reads what on here.
> How comforting...this is nothing more then
> Gravis's playground...what a comforting feeling.
> You can delete messages...you are accused of
> posting IP addresses...you are accused of planting
> malicious coding into other people's computers.
> And now you are worried about the law enforcement
> of copy righted material. Personally..I cant wait
> until they catch up with your fat ass and put you
> in jail.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So now you're tracking who reads what on here.

a) ive been able to track that for a LONG time
b) i didnt have to even check the logs because you will read anything with the name obama. it's really a no brainer.


> How comforting...this is nothing more then
> Gravis's playground...what a comforting feeling.
> You can delete messages...

love it or leave it, it's your choice.


> you are accused of posting IP addresses...

no, i outright did that, it breaks no law of any sort.


> you are accused of planting malicious coding into
> other people's computers.

this is something i did not do. as ive said in the past, it's not my style.


> And now you are worried about the law enforcement
> of copy righted material.

no, im worried about villainous lawyers that break the law to get a conviction getting appointed to prominent positions in the government. these lawyers are worse than dick cheny and he blew off his friend's face.


> Personally..I cant wait until they catch up with your
> fat ass and put you in jail.

put me in jail, for what? i have broken no laws and i have no plans of doing such. your illegal alien friends have a much higher chance of landing in jail than i do.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2009 02:01AM by Gravis.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 05:11PM by Alias.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So now you're tracking who reads what on here.
>
> a) ive been able to track that for a LONG time
> b) i didnt have to even check the logs because you
> will read anything with the name obama. it's
> really a no brainer.
>
>
> > How comforting...this is nothing more then
> > Gravis's playground...what a comforting feeling.
>
> > You can delete messages...
>
> love it or leave it, it's your choice.
>
>
> > you are accused of posting IP addresses...
>
> no, i outright did that, it breaks no law of any
> sort.
>
>
> > you are accused of planting malicious coding
> into
> > other people's computers.
>
> this is something i did not do. as ive said in
> the past, it's not my style.
>
>
> > And now you are worried about the law
> enforcement
> > of copy righted material.
>
> no, im worried about villainous lawyers that break
> the law to get a conviction getting appointed to
> prominent positions in the government. these
> lawyers are worse than dick cheny and he blew off
> his friend's face.
>
>
> > Personally..I cant wait until they catch up with
> your
> > fat ass and put you in jail.
>
> put me in jail, for what? i have broken no laws
> and i have no plans of doing such. your illegal
> alien friends have a much higher chance of landing
> in jail than i do.


Sorry Gravis...your whaling and whining over lawyers chasing little kids who are stealing and other legal tactics just doesnt evoke a bit of concern from me. I picture a bunch of loosers like yourself are just sweating it out...and that's a good thing. Maybe you'll have to live a real life instead of in your cyber kingdom where you can intimidate and abuse others at will. There are consequences for these pirating actions.

I think I'll donate another $50 to the democratic party today just to show my support for the prosecution of these pirates. Pirates evereywhere...off the shore of Somalia as well as those within our mits need to feel the full prosecution of the law.

As far as illegals go...as tleast they contribute to society...you do not! You are nothing more then a whining hacker...censorship supporting...stupid little shit.

I think at this point it's pretty common knowledge that downloading music you don't own the license to is illegal. Pretty much the same way that everyone knows marijuana is illegal, but they do it anyway. They only complain about the laws when they get caught.

It was not the RIAA lawyers driving the action against people sharing music, it was the RIAA paying the lawers that wanted these prosecutions. Frankly, if Obama wants "good" lawyers, he made smart picks; being able to at least bring the RICO charges over some swapped Metallica songs is an impressive bit of legal-fu. Yes, they're slimy and unethical, but isn't that par for course with lawyers?

I'd be less worried about the lawyers and more worried about what Obama has the lawyers do.

I disagreed with Gravis, guess I'm going to have my personal info posted on the interwebs now. :(

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry Gravis...your whaling and whining over
> lawyers chasing little kids who are stealing and
> other legal tactics just doesnt evoke a bit of
> concern from me.

im not concerned about their legal tactics, it's their ILLEGAL tactics that concerns me. they have hired hackers to hack into websites which is highly illegal.


> I picture a bunch of loosers
> like yourself are just sweating it out...and
> that's a good thing.

LOL! they have calculated that you are more likely to die then be sued on any given day. if they do sue me, i will take them to court. they have only completed a handful of court cases out of the tens of thousands they have persecuted. im not worried at all.


> Maybe you'll have to live a
> real life instead of in your cyber kingdom where
> you can intimidate and abuse others at will.
> There are consequences for these pirating
> actions.
>
> I think I'll donate another $50 to the democratic
> party today just to show my support for the
> prosecution of these pirates. Pirates
> evereywhere...off the shore of Somalia as well as
> those within our mits need to feel the full
> prosecution of the law.

troll, troll, troll as hard as you can, you'll never get to me, im smart than you, man.

> As far as illegals go...as tleast they contribute
> to society...you do not! You are nothing more
> then a whining hacker...censorship
> supporting...stupid little shit.

what are you doing on the computer? dont you have a backlog of mexicans to jerk off?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2009 02:47PM by Gravis.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think at this point it's pretty common knowledge
> that downloading music you don't own the license
> to is illegal. Pretty much the same way that
> everyone knows marijuana is illegal, but they do
> it anyway. They only complain about the laws when
> they get caught.

incorrect sir, if they use the law to prosecute these people, i have no problem. the problem i have is they are using illegal and scare/unethical tactics. it's kinda like how rodney king was blantany murdered but the cops got away with it. the difference it, this isnt being televised, which is why the RIAA tried so hard to keep a single trial off the internet.


> It was not the RIAA lawyers driving the action
> against people sharing music, it was the RIAA
> paying the lawers that wanted these prosecutions.
> Frankly, if Obama wants "good" lawyers, he made
> smart picks; being able to at least bring the RICO
> charges over some swapped Metallica songs is an
> impressive bit of legal-fu.

no, RICO charges were brought AGAINST the RIAA because they are acting like the mob and even demanding "protection" money(seriously!).


> Yes, they're slimy and unethical, but isn't that par
> for course with lawyers?

actually, that's a stereotype. there are a lot of good honest lawyers. you might as well say every mexican in the US is an illegal alien that cant speak a word of english, constantly drives drunk (from drinking coronas no less) in his two colored pickup with a mexican flag bumper sticker, works construction, sprints across roads where there arent crosswalks, steals car stereos, is in MS-13, lives with 14 other mexicans in one house, has three broken cars in his front yard, has at least five kids and is jerked off by vince on the weekends. it's simply not true, vince's hand would be seriously chafing if it was.


> I'd be less worried about the lawyers and more
> worried about what Obama has the lawyers do.

how they do something is what im worried about. prosecuting people over copyright infringement is fine but the manner in which they did it was not. do you think they are above spying on people or carpet bombing people with legal action?


> I disagreed with Gravis, guess I'm going to have
> my personal info posted on the interwebs now. :(

nah, you have to be a serious douchebag to everyone to have that happen.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

That makes more sense.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.