Obama hires #5 RIAA member in the DOJ.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
This is ridiculous. Obama now has appointed a total of 5 people that have worked to help the RIAA agenda.

So now we have a $750 -$150K fine per song.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstrok...3/obama-sides-wit.html
The Obama administration for the first time is weighing in on a Recording Industry Association of America file sharing lawsuit and is supporting hefty awards of as much as $150,000 per purloined music track.

The government said the damages range of $750 to $150,000 per violation of the Copyright Act was warranted.


"The remedy of statutory damages for copyright infringement has been the cornerstone of our federal copyright law since 1790, and Congress acted reasonably in crafting the current incarnation of the statutory damages provision," Michelle Bennett, a Department of Justice trial attorney wrote (.pdf) Sunday to a Massachusetts federal judge weighing challenge to the Copyright Act.

The position -- that the Copyright Act's monetary damages are not unconstitutionally excessive -- mirrors the one taken by the Bush administration and should come as no surprise.

Two top lawyers in President Barack Obama's Justice Department are former RIAA lawyers: Donald Verrilli Jr. is the associate deputy attorney general who brought down Grokster and fought to prevent a retrial in the Jammie Thomas case. Then there's the No. 2 in the DOJ, Tom Perrilli. As Verrilli's former boss, Perrilli argued in 2002 that internet service providers should release customer information to the RIAA even without a court subpoena.

Presidential administrations often intervene in lawsuits in which the constitutionality of a federal law is in question. This case concerns a former Boston University student challenging a peer-to-peer file sharing case.

Still, parts of the government's brief sounded as if it was taken from the RIAA's public relations playbook.

"Congress sought to account for both the difficulty of quantifying damages in the context of copyright infringement and the need to deter millions of users of new technology from infringing copyrighted work in an environment where many violators believe that their activities will go unnoticed," Bennett wrote.

The RIAA has sued more than 30,000 individuals for file sharing the last five years. It is winding down the campaign and is lobbying internet service providers to discontinue service to copyright scofflaws.


http://blog.wired.com/27bstrok...4/obama-stop-fill.html
Nearly two dozen public interest groups, trade pacts and library groups urged President Barack Obama on Thursday to quit filling his administration with insiders plucked from the Recording Industry Association of America.

The demands came a week after the Justice Department, fresh with two RIAA attorneys in its No. 2 and No. 3 positions, announced the administration's support of $150,000 in damages for each music track purloined on a peer-to-peer file sharing program. The administration, moreover, has just declared as classified the inner workings of worldwide intellectual property trade pact. And Hollywood is urging Obama to embrace internet filtering as the content industry seeks to cut internet access to repeat copyright violators.

Still, Obama has yet to fill the all-important role of copyright czar, a new cabinet-level position approved by Congress late last year. Other unfilled vacancies dealing with intellectual property rest in the Patent and Trademark Office, the United States Trade Representative and the State Department.

Groups such as Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Wikimedia Foundation and, among others, the American Library Association, are demanding Obama to look outside the content industry when filling up his administration.

"In selecting these officials, we ask you to consider that individuals who support overly broad IP protection might favor established distribution models at the expense of technological innovators, creative artists, writers, musicians, filmmakers, and an increasingly participatory public," the 19 groups wrote (.pdf) Obama Thursday. "Overzealous expansion and enforcement of copyright, for example, can quash innovative information technologies, the development and marketing of new and useful devices, and the creation of new works, as well as prohibit the public from accessing and using its cultural heritage."

The group are: American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, Center for Democracy and Technology, Computer and Communications Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, Consumers Union, EDUCAUSE, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Entertainment Consumers Association, Essential Action, Home Recording Rights Coalition, Internet Archive, Knowledge Ecology International, NetCoalition, Public Knowledge, Special Libraries Association. U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Wikimedia Foundation.


 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Haven't the $150k damages per violation been the law for many years? :confused:

In reality, no one ever pays that much.
 

Shawn

Lifer
Apr 20, 2003
32,236
53
91
Should be fined however much the song is worth plus 50%. So $1.50 per song?
 

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
118
116
Don't illegally download and you will not have anything to worry about. /Ns1

KT
 

Babbles

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2001
8,253
14
81
I don't necessarily support illegal downloading, but I do not think those sorts of penalties fit the crime. If you were caught and convicted of stealing an entire CD (what, ~$14?) how much would the fine be? I do not know myself, but I would tend to think it would not be pushing the $150k mark.
 

ggnl

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2004
5,095
1
0
So I would owe somewhere between $4,500,000 and $900,000,000...

That's pretty awesome, I guess.

 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Don't illegally download and you will not have anything to worry about. /Ns1

KT

this

Originally posted by: Babbles
I don't necessarily support illegal downloading, but I do not think those sorts of penalties fit the crime. If you were caught and convicted of stealing an entire CD (what, ~$14?) how much would the fine be? I do not know myself, but I would tend to think it would not be pushing the $150k mark.

AND this
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,002
126
Here you go.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Yet Obama thinks up to $150,000 per stolen MP3 is ok...
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Originally posted by: Babbles
I don't necessarily support illegal downloading, but I do not think those sorts of penalties fit the crime. If you were caught and convicted of stealing an entire CD (what, ~$14?) how much would the fine be? I do not know myself, but I would tend to think it would not be pushing the $150k mark.

It is nowhere near that. I had a cousin who got caught shoplifting. $250 + cost of court $150.
$400 total.
 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Shawn
Should be fined however much the song is worth plus 50%. So $1.50 per song?

That's not much of a disincentive.

If someone has one or two thousand pirated songs that would mean they'd owe $1500-$3000. That's a fair disincentive, especially if you also have your hard drive confiscated and must buy your whole music collection in order to rebuild it.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: Juddog
Politics and News forum we can believe in.

If it goes to the cesspool, it ends up becoming something about Bush vs. Obama.

Agreed. I posted it here because I am more interested in what people think is fair than what party is responsible.
 

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
118
116
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: Juddog
Politics and News forum we can believe in.

If it goes to the cesspool, it ends up becoming something about Bush vs. Obama.

Agreed. I posted it here because I am more interested in what people think is fair than what party is responsible.

Then why do you bring up Obama in the OP? :confused:

Anyway, 150K is insane, but something like $100 per song, or something along those lines, would be reasonable.

KT
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: Juddog
Politics and News forum we can believe in.

If it goes to the cesspool, it ends up becoming something about Bush vs. Obama.

Agreed. I posted it here because I am more interested in what people think is fair than what party is responsible.

If it were imposed it would be unfair. As it stands, no one is ever fined that much. Nor does the RIAA actually want anyone fined that much, they just want the bargaining chip. The worst thing that could happen for the RIAA would be for someone to actually lose such a case where they pirated a 100 songs and have the judge fine them, according to the law, $15 million. I think the subsequent appellate court would quickly toss the $150k figure in the trash as proposterous.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: Juddog
Politics and News forum we can believe in.

If it goes to the cesspool, it ends up becoming something about Bush vs. Obama.

Agreed. I posted it here because I am more interested in what people think is fair than what party is responsible.

Then why do you bring up Obama in the OP? :confused:

Anyway, 150K is insane, but something like $100 per song, or something along those lines, would be reasonable.

KT

Because he has appointed 5 RIAA people that are relevant to the discussion.

I don't care who did it, just the fact that we have 5 people associated with the RIAA.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Shawn
Should be fined however much the song is worth plus 50%. So $1.50 per song?

That's not much of a disincentive.

If someone has one or two thousand pirated songs that would mean they'd owe $1500-$3000. That's a fair disincentive, especially if you also have your hard drive confiscated and must buy your whole music collection in order to rebuild it.

The reason the penalties are higher for piracy than for stealing the physical disc is that it's so easy to get away with piracy.

If the fine is $1.50 per song and you have a 1 in 100,000 chance of being caught and forced to pay the fine, then your expected outcome for pirating 1000 songs is paying $.015 (note to Verizon - that is between 1 and 2 cents).

If you pay a $300 fine for shoplifting a CD and you have a 1 in 5 chance of being caught, your expected outcome is paying $60 for the CD. Not good.

$150k per violation is way too high - but I don't think any individuals who have been caught pirating music have paid that much total, let alone per violation. $1.50 is way too high. An appropriate number is somewhere in the middle. The reality is that the fine isn't going to be a disincentive until the enforcement rate increases. As long as people believe that they're more likely to be struck by lightning than to be sued or prosecuted for copyright infringement, no amount of money is going to be a disincentive.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: amdhunter

Topic Title: Obama is a douche. #5 RIAA member in the DOJ.

Somebody call the WAHmbulance. :roll:

Harvey
Copyright and Patent Holder

Maybe you should start speaking out against the copyright violations in nearly every thread in this forum.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: amdhunter

Topic Title: Obama is a douche. #5 RIAA member in the DOJ.

Somebody call the WAHmbulance. :roll:

Harvey
Copyright and Patent Holder

Maybe you should start speaking out against the copyright violations in nearly every thread in this forum.

Creative artists, producers, publishers and distributors typically have contracts defining royalties for each licensed use of their works. There is no such defined fee or royalty for reposting text from news articles on a forum. Maybe you could provide some meaningful info about the amount of money lost in such posts.

Then, there's the question of "fair use" of freely available news information in discussion settings such as the forums. Most of us who cite articles include links to our sources so, if the question is about lost revenue, each such link brings more hits to the source page.

And if you still think such use is, or should be, prohibited, what makes you think two wrongs make a right? Are you one of those morons who thinks they can justify the Bushwhackos' war of lies in Iraq because Clinton didn't return his fly to its full upright position on landing? :roll:
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
For the record I'm not tring to come acrossed anti-Obama, my comments are simply some things I've noticed standing on the sidelines here. You may now continue on with blaming Bush for everything and holding Obama up as a minor diety.
Well I prefer a minor "diety" to a major douchebag

Well lucky you, with Obama you get both.