Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Jan 2011 22:38 UTC, submitted by brewmastre
Legal "President Barack Obama on Monday nominated former Recording Industry Association of America lawyer Donald Verrilli Jr. to serve as the nation's solicitor general. The solicitor general is charged with defending the government before the Supreme Court, and files friend-of-the court briefs in cases in which the government believes there is a significant legal issue. The office also determines which cases it would bring to the Supreme Court for review. Verrilli is best known for leading the recording industry's legal charge against music- and movie-sharing site Grokster. That 2003 case ultimately led to Grokster's demise when the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the RIAA's verdict." Cough.
Order by: Score:
Wow...
by leech on Thu 27th Jan 2011 01:13 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

Time to sit back and watch the feces strike the rotating oscillator.

Edited 2011-01-27 01:14 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Wow...
by Radio on Thu 27th Jan 2011 13:04 UTC in reply to "Wow..."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Time to sit back and watch the feces strike the rotating oscillator.
More like "oscillating rotator", no?

Reply Score: 3

LOL
by WorknMan on Thu 27th Jan 2011 01:52 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Verrilli is best known for leading the recording industry's legal charge against music- and movie-sharing site Grokster. That 2003 case ultimately led to Grokster's demise when the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the RIAA's verdict."


And a whole lot of good that did them.

Reply Score: 4

Figures...
by mdoverkil on Thu 27th Jan 2011 02:00 UTC
mdoverkil
Member since:
2005-09-30

This isn't surprising considering VP Joe Biden is a shill for the MPAA/RIAA

Reply Score: 6

RE: Figures...
by bassbeast on Fri 28th Jan 2011 03:23 UTC in reply to "Figures..."
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

What amazed me was how many actually bought the whole "hope & change" bit. The simple fact is without multiple parties here in the USA voting is pretty much Coke VS Pepsi anymore.

After all BOTH sides are for more government spending, BOTH sides are for more power to the government and less freedom for the individual and BOTH sides kiss the corporate booty like it is going out of style, the only difference is which corporate booty they smooch. The Ds like the saucy taste of big media and union booty, while the Rs prefer the delicate bouquet that comes from the rears of the defense industry and big oil/gas/pharma/agriculture tushy.

Sadly both progressive liberals and fiscal conservatives simply don't have a party anymore, being driven out by pro nanny state and big media shills on the left, and the NeoCons and ultra-religious on the right. The era of conservatives actually conserving or being for personal responsibility and the Dems being for the working poor is over, as in TFA it is about about the big fat checks(TM).

I'm sure before Obama leaves office we'll have some more draconian IP laws like DMCA, maybe yet another extension to the copyright (when is Mickey Mouse due to be public domain again?) while we continue to lose manufacturing to China and innovation is stifled by big media. Don't forget if big media had gotten their way we wouldn't have even been allowed to have VCRs or cassettes.

Reply Score: 2

3rd tier educations
by dayalsoap on Thu 27th Jan 2011 07:07 UTC
dayalsoap
Member since:
2010-05-19

This is why people with educations from 3rd tier universities shouldn't be allowed to vote. You people actually think there's a difference between the 2 parties? Please. There's a difference in rhetoric, but no difference in implementation. Good job at being brainwashed partisan hacks. Go get some trivial programming books and pretend you're well educated.

The reason our country is in shambles is because you 3rd stringers vote these scumbags into office.

Reply Score: 4

RE: 3rd tier educations
by acobar on Thu 27th Jan 2011 07:31 UTC in reply to "3rd tier educations"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

May you please enlighten me about, between the well known almost same 2 candidates with real chance because the election is not direct anyway, options Americans have?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: 3rd tier educations
by Soulbender on Thu 27th Jan 2011 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE: 3rd tier educations"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Revolution.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 3rd tier educations
by kaiwai on Thu 27th Jan 2011 17:25 UTC in reply to "RE: 3rd tier educations"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

May you please enlighten me about, between the well known almost same 2 candidates with real chance because the election is not direct anyway, options Americans have?


How about getting involved politically with the parties - if the majority of Americans are sane then how come the politics don't reflect it? they don't reflect it because Joe and Jane Sixpack just don't get involved thus they have the parties controlled by wingnuts and ideologues rather than real people offering real solutions. Do you really think if there was decent civic engagement in the United States that people like Christine O'Donnell would actually become a candidate for a major party? Come on - you've only got yourself to blame if the two only choices makes a decision being the vote for the lesser of two evils.

As for third party candidates in the US - the whole system needs an overhaul; it is amazing how the US government can always agree on spending more but it is like pulling out teeth with pliers when it comes to tax reform, cutting spending, agricultural reform and so on.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: 3rd tier educations
by aesiamun on Thu 27th Jan 2011 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 3rd tier educations"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

As someone who isn't from America, you may not know the extent at which the opposing party digs up dirt on someone. Most people have enough skeletons in their closet that running for office doesn't seem reasonable if they want to keep their privacy.

We've all made mistakes in the past, there's no reason why they need to be aired out publicly to the entire world. Unfortunately, smoking up in the past, having any sort of sex that isn't considered vanilla or having an extramarital affair inevitably winds up being revealed to all when running for office in the states...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: 3rd tier educations
by kaiwai on Thu 27th Jan 2011 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 3rd tier educations"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

As someone who isn't from America, you may not know the extent at which the opposing party digs up dirt on someone. Most people have enough skeletons in their closet that running for office doesn't seem reasonable if they want to keep their privacy.

We've all made mistakes in the past, there's no reason why they need to be aired out publicly to the entire world. Unfortunately, smoking up in the past, having any sort of sex that isn't considered vanilla or having an extramarital affair inevitably winds up being revealed to all when running for office in the states...


Sorry I should have been more clear, when I say "get involved" I am also talking about participating in the party at all levels - from voting for candidates to represent the party to getting involved with the policy apparatus to simply getting up and handing out brochures for someone whom you support. Getting involved needn't directly relate to actually running although I have run in the past when it comes to NZ elections - ran in the seat of Wigram for the ACT Party (Classical Liberal party). Is there mud raking in NZ politics? sure but people who do have it done to them tend to throw it around and are a lightening rod to such undertakings in the first place.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: 3rd tier educations
by aesiamun on Thu 27th Jan 2011 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 3rd tier educations"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Yeah I focused on one part of 'getting involved' when I should have known you could have meant on all levels. Actually, just getting a clear understanding of politics, understanding that what they say isn't true, and voting are all great ways of getting involved...

I am a strong proponent of our elective system, but I do understand the need for an overhaul. The government won't overhaul it, they exploit it. The only way is if the people demand it, and they won't until they learn. They won't learn because they either do not have the drive or the means (public education is just another outlet for the incumbent gov't) to do it...

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: 3rd tier educations
by kaiwai on Thu 27th Jan 2011 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: 3rd tier educations"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah I focused on one part of 'getting involved' when I should have known you could have meant on all levels. Actually, just getting a clear understanding of politics, understanding that what they say isn't true, and voting are all great ways of getting involved...

I am a strong proponent of our elective system, but I do understand the need for an overhaul. The government won't overhaul it, they exploit it. The only way is if the people demand it, and they won't until they learn. They won't learn because they either do not have the drive or the means (public education is just another outlet for the incumbent gov't) to do it...


When ever I look at the US system it seems to have all the flaws of the old system New Zealand used to have and what the UK current use (FPP) which ends up entrenching the two major parties and the spread of views so wide in each part that no legislation can get passed without the major butchering of it to the point of it being pointless (check out the Reagan tax reforms then over the years it was butchered to the point it has become the most complex tax code in the OECD).

Personally the best thing to happen would be to have MMP in congress, have a prime minister (parliamentary in other words), keep the senate as a check/balance but I'd have senators distributed according to population with each state having a minimum of 2 senators, and have the president nothing more than ceremonial from the point of view that if a government cannot be formed he can dismiss parliament and call for early elections.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: 3rd tier educations
by darknexus on Thu 27th Jan 2011 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 3rd tier educations"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

"May you please enlighten me about, between the well known almost same 2 candidates with real chance because the election is not direct anyway, options Americans have?


How about getting involved politically with the parties - if the majority of Americans are sane then how come the politics don't reflect it? they don't reflect it because Joe and Jane Sixpack just don't get involved thus they have the parties controlled by wingnuts and ideologues rather than real people offering real solutions. Do you really think if there was decent civic engagement in the United States that people like Christine O'Donnell would actually become a candidate for a major party? Come on - you've only got yourself to blame if the two only choices makes a decision being the vote for the lesser of two evils.

As for third party candidates in the US - the whole system needs an overhaul; it is amazing how the US government can always agree on spending more but it is like pulling out teeth with pliers when it comes to tax reform, cutting spending, agricultural reform and so on.
"

A good suggestion, but there are two problems with believing that just getting involved is enough. First, the fanatics and dishonest outnumber the rational people in the beginning. That's solvable, but it'll take a long time and, more importantly, would require people to care. Most of the general population here don't think; they're too damned lazy and prefer to have people do the thinking for them. It requires a change in mentality, and that will take time. Second, when it comes to voting, the people don't matter. It's called the electoral college, and it's one of the stupidest concepts the naive fools who founded our system thought up. I won't go into a full explanation, but it boils down to each state having a certain number of votes based on the population of that state. The state electors cast the vote and, while they're supposed to abide by the majority vote in their state, they do not have to and often do not. The votes the people get are an illusion, pure and simple, and one designed to make people content with the power to make a decision that they don't actually have. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good overview of this ridiculous concept at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States... if you want the dull details behind it. To summarize, it wwll take a change in mentality followed by a change in our electoral system itself before the general population truly has the power they believe they already have. Since they believe they already have the choice, they don't want to see otherwise and, so long as they get free over-the-air TV to distract them from what's going on, they just don't care.

Reply Score: 3

RE: 3rd tier educations
by aesiamun on Thu 27th Jan 2011 17:17 UTC in reply to "3rd tier educations"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

That's funny, I've had friends at MIT vote for Obama...didn't realize it was 3rd tier.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: 3rd tier educations
by kaiwai on Thu 27th Jan 2011 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE: 3rd tier educations"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

That's funny, I've had friends at MIT vote for Obama...didn't realize it was 3rd tier.


Unfortunately there are those who confuse knowledge for wisdom - one only needs to look at religious fundamentalism/extremism and the number who have degrees in the hard sciences as one example of that dichotomy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: 3rd tier educations
by aesiamun on Thu 27th Jan 2011 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 3rd tier educations"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

While I agree with you, I only brought up what he claims is a '3rd tier' university and someone who supported a particular candidate in a presidential election.

Knowledge does not equal wisdom, that is true.

*EDIT*
My point being, it doesn't matter what school you go to...if you vote the party line or only listen/watch to the political talking heads, you are not helping anyone.

Edited 2011-01-27 17:45 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: 3rd tier educations
by Soulbender on Thu 27th Jan 2011 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE: 3rd tier educations"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

That's because all your universities are 3rd tier ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: 3rd tier educations
by telns on Thu 27th Jan 2011 19:18 UTC in reply to "3rd tier educations"
telns Member since:
2009-06-18

You people actually think there's a difference between the 2 parties?


I agree with that it is basically a one party state.

I can't say I do about the universities. Larry Summers was head of Harvard. Bush went to Yale, and had ties there. Obama has strong ties to Columbia.

Whom do you think the faculty and alumni of most the first and second rung universities was voting for in these last elections? Ron Paul? You may believe that -- I have my doubts.

Edited 2011-01-27 19:20 UTC

Reply Score: 1

v What you people are overlooking...
by El_Exigente on Thu 27th Jan 2011 08:43 UTC
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You people seem to think that the idea that copyright should be abolished and that people should be allowed to infringe copyrights on a massive scale, is something like a mainstream opinion.
It isn't.


Abolish copyright? Where did you get that idea? I don't think I have ever argued we should abolish copyright.

Reply Score: 6

leech Member since:
2006-01-10

It's not the abolishment of copyright, but simply a reform.

Personally I think in some ways copyright should be more like patents, in that they have an expiration date.

I mean these publishers who are still making money off of books of long dead authors are basically scum, if you think about it in the respect that they are making money off of dead people.

Copyright should last for 15-20 years, then after that it should be considered public domain.

I'm all for that.

Reply Score: 5

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Agreed; if one can't make a profit off an idea within 15-30 years then quite frankly the idea mustn't have been all that good to begin with. I can understand protecting artists whilst they're alive - they've got to eat and pay rent but why should the gravy train continue long after the artist has died? both sides (artist and company) have well and truly made their investment back so I fail to see the point of the current status quo.

Reply Score: 2

polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

I could handle that in about 4 years. That's when music in the 90's started to get good again. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 27th Jan 2011 17:18 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

No matter how much things change they remain the same - anyone remember Obama's 'hope and change' message? how many people here have taken a stock take of what he said and what actually has happened in reality? I mean GWB was no saint but at least you knew where he stood on things - the danger, as far as I see it, are Obama fanboys who simply over look the obvious continuation of GWB policies but with a softer sweeter voice. The fact that Obama is more articulate doesn't change the fact that he is continuing on what GWB did, nor does the 10 years or so of growth under Clinton hide the fact that there was a corresponding decline in digital freedom under the ruse of 'protection of intellectual property'.

Edited 2011-01-27 17:20 UTC

Reply Score: 5

He had no choice
by fretinator on Thu 27th Jan 2011 19:59 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

The RIAA was responsible for booking the Angelic Choir that descended during all of Mr. Obama's primary speeches.

Reply Score: 2