Obama DOJ pick: RIAA lawyer who killed Grokster

Obama DOJ pick: RIAA lawyer who killed Grokster

news.cnet.com

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

While some may wish to spin this into a partisan discussion, I urge restraint.

There is a deeper issue here. An issue of the evident bias of government toward corporate protectionism. This transcends political boundaries and somehow seems to play out regardless of party. I find this disturbing.

In essence it is a demonstration of 'non-change' (I mean no facetious disrespect for the rallying cry of the campaign.)

When business paradigms fail, I think (or at least would have expected ideally) that our government should be the first to motivate the recognition of reality in the corporations who wish time could stand still for them. Instead the government seems to coddle and promote stagnation and inertia (presumably this is a function of bureaucracy and status quo).

All industries which exploit mediums and media MUST at some level be cognizant of the fact that theirs is at best a transient hold on commercialization; technologies change, cultures change, and it is not the place of commercial interests to be allowed to stunt that change.

Well, what's your take? Are you like most people - still stubbornly focused on petty partisanship, or nonsensical notions of the poor companies who's practice of exploiting the market for intellectual property is threatened by a new age of communications capabilities?

news.cnet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

After reading the article I believe I would stand with those who protect artistic and intellectual protection. After all I have copyrights myself that I feel the need to gaurd and I feel that after all the work placed into certain projects with little or no return during that period protecting what will be proceeding from a copyright or Patent is much needed.

On the other hand we need to protect the right of free flow of ideas and information. This is why sampleing in my books was good back in the early rap days. It allowed a new generation to hear a lot of hooks which in turn brought a revival to many old artists whose work had been sampled.

The awareness of the relationship was climatic in the publics frame of mind with the whole RUNDMZ/AREOSMITH redo...Walk this WAY!!

Yep...and DMZ really had no clue who AREOSMITH was!! Chew on that and think about the various subcultures in America!

So..by the time we all groked the sampling hiphop deal music had already moved way beyond that thresh hold to the degree that even those who at first copied or sampled the FAMOUS JAMES BROWN VAMP with the perfect kick n bass beat ya ever heard need protection to protect the sampled version of the various famous hooks.



[edit on 5-2-2009 by whiteraven]

I wish I were more educated on the subject because I'd like to answer this. But from what I know, Grockster was being used to share and download copyrighted information, such as movies and music. They weren't doing anything wrong, but their clients were using it illegally, to violate copyrights. So, the Supreme Court cracked down on them for illegal practices and they went out of business. Is that right?

If so, I don't see the problem. I have long been against copyright infringement and illegally downloading the work of people without their permission. Those people, no matter how much money they make, have a right to sell their work and not have it taken from them just because technology allows it.

We have the technology to break into a bank and steal other people's hard earned cash or to break into homes and take people's things, but that doesn't make it all right. It's still illegal.

Sounds to me like this Verrilli guy was protecting the people. From other people stealing their stuff. What's the problem there?

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Grokster was a medium of exchange of information. They had no control over the legality of the material. The internet is also a medium of information exchange. So perhaps you are right and they should shut down the internet. Grokster is basically an virtual internet post office system. So, they should also shut down the US postal service as they could be used to distribute files in the same way.

The guy is scum for getting Grokster shut down. If people are distributing information against the law then you go after the responsible distributors of the information not the mail men who are delivering it!

Its a violation of privacy for mail carriers to be looking at my mail, and so it is a violation of privacy to force file-sharing clients to be snooping on on what files are being shared.

Most people who do in-depth research on just about anything find P2P clients like Grokster to be useful tools for finding information. I also don't know a better way to transfer Gigabytes worth of information to another individual.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by truthquest]

Well thier you go. I never really understood Grockster but if it is as you say...an internet postman....then it is the messenger boy.

How do you balance intellectual property? When does hacking cross the line from adding substance toward stealing ideas?

I may be ignorant of this whole culture! No awareness of the political and monetary realities of the people behind the internet.

Originally posted by truthquest
perhaps you are right and they should shut down the internet.

I suggested no such thing.

The guy is scum for getting Grokster shut down.

Grockster actively promoted copyright infringement, according to the Supreme Court ruling.

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

Source

Its a violation of privacy for mail carriers to be looking at my mail, and so it is a violation of privacy to force file-sharing clients to be snooping on on what files are being shared.

If the US Postal Service was promoting itself as the best way to "share" illegal drugs to all your friends, then yeah, I'd think they be in some trouble.

I also don't know a better way to transfer Gigabytes worth of information to another individual.

That may very well be true, but it's irrelevant as to why the Supreme Court decided against them. A company like Grockster could transfer your gigabytes just as easily without expressly promoting copyright infringement, while making sure their site wasn't being used to break the law. And under the unique circumstances, it is my belief that the rights of the artist should be protected and should trump your right of access to the best way to share your gigabytes with another individual.

I can't deny that ownership rights are in fact transferred to the companies that mass produce music (or other media). My objection however is that the solution, ranging from civil to criminal action seems to be unsuited to deal with the problem itself.

After all, if a crime is committed in a subway, we don't shut down the subway so criminals can't use it. If drug dealers are young enough to be in school, we don't close the school.

Media sharing - or plainer still, any data sharing, is one of the entire purposes of the medium to begin with. When we start oppressing the enablers of the exchanges because of those who abuse the service, you punish everyone, innocent along with guilty, by eliminating the tool.

And it's all because the time came when it was no longer commercially viable to control the distribution of the data. Rather than accept the challenge as a call to evolve, they instead wish to clamp down on the freedom to use the medium as it was intended.

Just seems like the real solution os to accept that intellectual property must be managed differently, and there are several who have done quite well without the methods government and corporate concerns have adopted. The government is serving the corporations to the detriment of the people. Why is that? Why is this always the first and apparently only option they will consider?

Copyright law was meant to protect the creator of content, not the middleman.

Originally posted by Maxmars
I can't deny that ownership rights are in fact transferred to the companies that mass produce music (or other media). My objection however is that the solution, ranging from civil to criminal action seems to be unsuited to deal with the problem itself.

After all, if a crime is committed in a subway, we don't shut down the subway so criminals can't use it. If drug dealers are young enough to be in school, we don't close the school.

If the subway was policed by no-one, we most certainly would shut down the subway as it would become a haven for criminal activity. And if no one policed schools, we would also shut them down as they would become overrun with drug dealers.

The bottom line is that there is an organization in place, law enforcement, local police agencies and the FBI, to enforce laws and prosecute offenders in the places you mentioned.

So what about Grockster? Who was enforcing copyright laws to make sure no content creators' rights were infringed upon? The answer is, no one was. Best case scenario, Grockster forces everyone to agree to a EULA to let them have access to the program and then people do what they want. Worst case scenario, as BH said, Grockster was encouraging people to illegally share content via its own service probably to generate ad revenue.

I can't feel sorry for Grockster, Napster, Limewire or any other file sharing service that doesn't police the activities of those who use it. There is no such as a right to privacy in the constitution, you know.

But, just for the sake of argument, if someone sends me a bomb in the mail, I can't take action against the post office, can I? If someone laces a media file with a computer virus, are they guilty of anything?

If I download a file that is named as one of the latest releases, although it is actually garbage, or something else, have I 'violated' anyone's ownership? If I download something I think ISN'T copyrighted but it turns out to be different copyrighted data, another song or move or something, am I still guilty.

Doesn't this reduce the matter to make it illegal or 'wrong' to share files at all? And if it is, what is the internet for? We're sharing content right now.

Can we realistically control the medium? I don't think so. It's like the war on drugs, terrorism, or any other faceless concept. Faceless like the corporations who sue you, or the organizations that push the government to prosecute. All in the name of 'ownership' rights that seem to have been wrenched from the creators with the implicit threat of - "our way or the highway."

Perhaps I haven't formulated the thought well enough to express it meaningfully. Sorry I ramble....

Originally posted by Maxmars
But, just for the sake of argument, if someone sends me a bomb in the mail, I can't take action against the post office, can I?

No, But the post office didn't promote using its service as a bomb courier. If they did, then they would be liable for those using it for sending bombs.

If someone laces a media file with a computer virus, are they guilty of anything?

I don't think so. Unless they propagate it in some way.

If I download a file that is named as one of the latest releases, although it is actually garbage, or something else, have I 'violated' anyone's ownership?

No. It's the content of the file that's relevant. Not the name.

If I download something I think ISN'T copyrighted but it turns out to be different copyrighted data, another song or move or something, am I still guilty.

Is it the downloading of files that's illegal or the providing of them for others to download? Or both? That's one thing I'm not clear on.

If downloading copyrighted materials is illegal, then yes, you're guilty. It's the content of the file that's relevant. Not the name.

Doesn't this reduce the matter to make it illegal or 'wrong' to share files at all?

No! We "sign an agreement" when we join ATS that stipulates the copyright agreement. In essence, we are giving permission for people to freely read and enjoy our "creations".

Can we realistically control the medium?

Not completely. But that doesn't mean we should give up all hope of having standards and practices. Your argument is starting to sound like you'd support child porn sites... I don't say that as an attack. It's just that not having complete control doesn't mean that we should just give up having any kind of control at all.

All in the name of 'ownership' rights that seem to have been wrenched from the creators with the implicit threat of - "our way or the highway."

The creators freely enter into their agreements with whatever media company they deal with. They are not forced. The ownership rights are not "wrenched" from them.

reply to post by Maxmars


I am not impress I am right out Angry and upset, Obama trash picking of butt kissing corporate whores is just to much for me to even talk anymore about it.

Change my butt, it seems that the perpetuation of the sell out of the nations and its citizens for corporate greed and corruption is already too cemented in this Nations government that nothing short of a revolution will clean the corrupted system of government that has take over our nation.

Yes we the people has been run down by a whole bunch of crocked politicians in this nation that get to be recycle every presidential term.

All we get from our "government" is nothing but a tab of trillions of dollars to keep bailing out their lavish standards of living and those of their pimps.

Many of Obama appointees are either tax evaders or corrupted butt kissers that has taken million of dollars for great done jobs against the American citizens.

Tell us how you really feel marg.

Why do you guys think this Verrilli guy is scum? Aside from the fact that he's a lawyer (a good thing to be in the Justice department) and he effectively shut down Grockster?

Cause maybe I'm missing something, but he doesn't sound that bad to me.

Supreme Court Veteran and Renowned Litigator Donald Verrilli to Join DOJ as Associate Deputy Attorney General

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Jenner & Block Partner Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., recognized as one of the nation's preeminent litigators and Co-Chair of the Firm's Appellate & Supreme Court practice, will be joining the Department of Justice as Associate Deputy Attorney General.
...
Mr. Verrilli has been repeatedly recognized by Chambers, Best Lawyers, and Super Lawyers as among the top attorneys in the country. He was honored for his contributions to the equal justice community in 2006 with The Equal Justice Award from the Southern Center for Human Rights. In 2004, Mr. Verrilli received The Arthur von Briesen Award from the National Legal Aid and Defender Association for his volunteer contributions to the equal justice community.

Considering he's a lawyer, he sounds pretty spiffy to me. What am I missing?

BH, the problem is that once this trash hold place of power they will step all over the people for the opportunity to serve those that brough them to the positions they are right now.

It's not a conspiracy is a fact, we have seen this same trash been recycle over and over again from one presidential party to the other and all they do is crap on this nations citizens.

Look at this other appointee of Obama.

Obama Deals Another Catastrophic Blow,

President Barack Obama dealt another catastrophic blow to American workers recently by announcing Diana Farrell, to his National Economic Council where she will serve as a deputy economic advisor, according to computerworld.com.

Farrell is the former director of the McKinsey Global Institute, McKinsey & Co.'s economics research arm, and is a notorious proponent of outsourcing and further expanding the job-killing H-1B visa worker program. In fact, she has made millions advising companies to offshore production as a cost-saving measure.

www.economyincrisis.org...

Whoever is helping Obama chose this people is trying to sabotage his presidency or either finish screw the nations wealth being.

I am right outraged and angry.



[edit on 5-2-2009 by marg6043]

reply to post by marg6043


Oh, I understand there's a problem with some of the appointments and I agree, although I don't think they'll be implementing their own policies, but Obama's, and he campaigned against outsourcing. I just wondered about this Verrilli guy.