Browse by topic

News

Obama appoints RIAA lawyer to Department of Justice

10 January 2009 2:10 by Rich "vurbal" Fiscus | 61 comments

Earlier this week US President Elect Barrack Obama announced his selections for some key positions at the Department of Justice. One of the names on his list drew a lot of attention among people who have been watching the RIAA's lawsuit campaign against file sharers.That's because his choice for Associate Attorney General happens to be a long time RIAA lawyer who has worked on some of their highest profile P2P lawsuits.

Tom Perrelli has been working with the RIAA as far back as the Napster lawsuit. He was involved in the landmark 2002 case in which the RIAA attempted to write their own subpoenas without any judicial oversight. He's also done work for SoundExchange, and seems to have been instrumental in pushing through draconian internet radio royalties.

It's entirely possible that the appointment has nothing to do with Perrelli's work for the recording industry. He was already a well respected Washington DC lawyer before he began working on RIAA cases and even worked in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration.

However it's also worth noting that Obama's Vice President, Joe Biden, is on the record in favor of involving the Attorney General in file sharing cases.

In any case it seems somewhat ironic that Perrelli's responsibilities will include being the top civil rights official in the US.

Permalink to this article | Topic: Lawsuits & Legislation

19 US Representatives find time to fight for radio royalties (5 February 2009)

Comcast, AT&T to help RIAA? (28 January 2009)

Apple to sue Palm? (25 January 2009)

The truth about RIAA lawsuits: A look at the Joel Tenenbaum case (24 January 2009)

Judge tells RIAA no damages without proof (19 January 2009)

Update: RIAA fires MediaSentry (5 January 2009)

RIAA denied appeal (31 December 2008)

RIAA to stop lawsuits, will instead pressure ISPs (20 December 2008)

P2P subpoenas under scrutiny (16 September 2003)

US government supports RIAA against Verizon (21 April 2003)

RIAA puts legal pressure on Verizon (21 August 2002)

« Previous news article
RealNetworks confident it will win 'RealDVD' lawsuit

Next news article »
New Intel TV chip is backed by Disney

Post your comment

Discuss this article!	There are more user comments available, read them here
bomber991 (Newbie) 11 January 2009 17:19
*Originally posted by zztrevd:* Neither is the way to go, I think that's clear...please vote Ron Paul I still wear my "Ron Paul 2008" sticker on my jacket. [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 11 January 2009 17:26
*Originally posted by varnull:* You have already joined with Mexico.. and Canada.. Check out the "amero" and see how far these lies go XD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_an...f_North_America Purple is for people like me Zipp.. The fascists only believe in red and black.. or more likely red white blue and black. In the states you have the 2 parties, red and blue, reaper and dim, they color the world in "purple" disarray :P [ + quote]
wabashman (AfterDawn Addict) 11 January 2009 17:49
*Originally posted by L-Burna:* My question of concern is do they really need to manufacture all these gas guzzlers. sorry, but i will take my gas guzzling 13 mpg truck and my 20 mpg suv over my some-what non gas guzzler 30 mpg car. i would much rather drive something where i can see whats in front, behind, to the side of me, and if God forbid, i get into a wreck, i know i will survive and not be killed in. but i do agree with you that no-one should have been given bailouts, especially ones they aren't going to pay back. and my theory on the whole situation is the fact that banks and lending companies had to make all these ridiculous loans out to people that they knew werent ever going to pay them back due to not having a job that makes anything, but God forbid you tell them , hey sorry, your to poor to get the loan, or we know you wont have the money to pay us back down the road; and get sued or violating the equal opportunity lending act. as racist, evil, or rude as that may sound, oh well, some people are just not meant to own a house, or a car, or whatever they wanted the load for. that is why we have people with rental houses, or apartments, and car leases instead of purchases. [ + quote]
gnovak1 (Junior Member) 12 January 2009 10:38
*Quote:* *Originally posted by L-Burna:* but i do agree with you that no-one should have been given bailouts, especially ones they aren't going to pay back. I agree and what really pisses me off is when i read about these damn corporations using the bailout money to finance vacations in lush hotels such as AIG did. Yet AIG asks for more mmoney and gets it too. I also read that our money is being used to pay bonuses to employees. Yet we, the middle and low class americans get nothing. [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 12 January 2009 10:50
*Quote:* *Originally posted by L-Burna:* My question of concern is do they really need to manufacture all these gas guzzlers. sorry, but i will take my gas guzzling 13 mpg truck and my 20 mpg suv over my some-what non gas guzzler 30 mpg car. i would much rather drive something where i can see whats in front, behind, to the side of me, and if God forbid, i get into a wreck, i know i will survive and not be killed in. but i do agree with you that no-one should have been given bailouts, especially ones they aren't going to pay back. and my theory on the whole situation is the fact that banks and lending companies had to make all these ridiculous loans out to people that they knew werent ever going to pay them back due to not having a job that makes anything, but God forbid you tell them , hey sorry, your to poor to get the loan, or we know you wont have the money to pay us back down the road; and get sued or violating the equal opportunity lending act. as racist, evil, or rude as that may sound, oh well, some people are just not meant to own a house, or a car, or whatever they wanted the load for. that is why we have people with rental houses, or apartments, and car leases instead of purchases. Unfortunately the car companies can not afford to build such things anymore, at least not with the 5-10 year life span they have in mind, mind you I realize these vehicles can last 20 years but for the first 5ish years they cover the warranty and the short life span they focus the build quality on them the more money they will have to spend to repair them. This creates the need to build more to be able to keep up with the up keep. The car companies are going to have to focus on cheap 2-4 seaters that max out at 60-80MPH and can use 50-80MPG, they need to be easier to repair and cost no more than 5-20K. The current liens of larger more feature rich vehicles need to be their limited secondary product line and priced at 40-70K or 50-100% more than they are now. With the blue collar base losses in the US it can not sustain any car company in the coming years that builds larger inefficient vehicles. [ + quote]
wabashman (AfterDawn Addict) 12 January 2009 10:53
gnovak1 when quoting people, make sure to quote the correct person, as l-burna did not state that, i did. [ + quote]
windsong (Junior Member) 12 January 2009 21:54
*Originally posted by mike.m:* After people like Bush, & Palin, isn't it obvious by now that any bozo out there can be in politics, especially some prick from the RIAA; who are known for their stupid actions like suing 9-year olds and old grandma's? Heh, now thats funny. Obama's RIAA fatcats will make the Bush legacy look like Doris Day and Mary Poppins. Think it is bad now..just wait. While Bush was an oil-chasing MBA from Harvard..Obama and the RIAA are ALL filthy lawyers who would gut your spouse in their sleep without batting an eye. [ + quote]
borhan9 (AfterDawn Addict) 13 January 2009 19:59
I wonder how this whole thing will play out. I hope that the people the Obamha elects in position do not cause his downfall that is the only thing that i will see that would work against president elect. [ + quote]
DXR88 (Member) 15 January 2009 1:23
He's a lawyer he's paid to lie, twist the truth,or do whatever it takes to see his clients win,there is no such thing as an honest lawyer. It's win or lose. for a Soldier its kill or be killed, Just because they have blood on there hands doesn't make them evil. The number one issue is are non-conservative approach to everything like What happens to old totaled cars, instead of striping the usable steels we crush it and stick it in a land fill. are old Military items they dumped 30 Usable F-4 phantoms off a ship into the ocean. Same with old tanks instead of reusing valuable resources we waist them. Steel may be the next Wootz ore if we don't stop waisting it. the number two problem in America is they don't know when to stop making new stuff, the automotive industry is the number one all time contender to this problem every year the make a supposed new Automobile when in fact there has been no major Automobile improvement Since 2005's new fuel efficiency models. America is in deep Crap, other Non-NATO Nations are gearing up for something and it ain't gonna be pretty. [ + quote]
Tarsellis (Newbie) 16 January 2009 14:41
If there were any doubts left, this should prove we're quickly headed towards a nazi germany style fascism. Only this is likely to end up on a global scale, not merely national or continental. And don't forget, Hitler got elected the same way, and lead with the exact same charismatic style and misdirection. If you doubt, read: http://www.freep.com/article/20090115/NEWS07/90115015 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=1 Can we say thought police, brown shirts, and confidential informants? [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 16 January 2009 17:13
Tarsellis Not just yet no.... And Hitler ran on a Xenophobic Nationalism beat more like Bush.co did...only...he was not as inept..... [ + quote]
Mez (Senior Member) 20 January 2009 8:05
Well Yanks get it while you can! The RIAA was able to relax its law suits because they knew happy days are here again. Obama will throw money at the detroit crooks. The greedy unions have them unprofitable and management was only interested in how big they could make cars. The Hummer is a good example. [ + quote]
DXR88 (Member) 20 January 2009 11:41
=offtopic= the Hummer was an icon, the H1 was based on the HMMWV. some of the older H1's still had the armor mount points for the armor kits deployed by the military. H2 and H3 are horrific examples of trying to make a great vehicle smaller. H1's are diesel and make a great bio diesel vehicle. =on topic= you people must see the future, Obama this Obama that. y'all weren't tooting the same tune when George dubya Dumbass went into office. you haven't even given this man a chance yet, when he does do something stupid your free to bitch moan and groan all you want. [ + quote]
Mez (Senior Member) 20 January 2009 13:03
DXR88, I thought that was the jest of this thread. We were complaining about him electing a lawyer from the RIAA for the justice dept. AD members like to complain. He has taken a very thankless job. Even if he gets it mostly right there will always be people to complain. You need to get used to it. I personelly, will figure he did a great job if we don't get into a bigger depression than we are now. [ + quote]
DXR88 (Member) 20 January 2009 13:19
i suppose, but i see present tense flying around like he Screwed up some how when he's just walking threw the door. The thing is its just a lawyer, hell every well established lawyer, is bound to have some nasty little secrets and politics love there little secrets. the depression is going to get worse, you can bet your shiny silver ring on that. i foresee a lot of dead thief's in my life. [ + quote]
Mez (Senior Member) 20 January 2009 14:07
Remember, even greatest Presidents in history were mocked all the time in office. The truth of it is no one is smart enough to know how good a president is until 15-20 yrs after they are out. Remember Obama like most presidents are politicians. The last non politician we had was Ike in the 50s. He sucked as a president because he wasn't slippery enough to out - fox the congress and senate. [ + quote]
kapkirk (Newbie) 20 January 2009 20:04
*Quote:* funny, those are the 2 reasons why I think he's great. By the way, you forgot to add his belief in climate change and better access to healthcare....I'm assuming you're against those things as well. 1. Stem Cell can be done with out killing babies- no problems with that. 2. I thought it was 'Global Warming'? Oh that's right, the scientific community can not agree on weak scientific facts so we have to call it something else because the empirical data does not back it up. Most of our meterorologists can't even predict the next 24 hours accurately for snow/rain. They can't strongarm the true scientists who won't play the fascist fearmongering with that piece of contrived crap. 3. Better access to healthcare. Hahahahahah. I've got three letters to sum up when the government gets involved in something for you- T.S.A. The last thing anyone should want is our government handling healthcare. It's accessible and it's the best on the planet. I.E. Canada and England have socialized healthcare and the people that can, come here to get well. Otherwise, if it costs too much, your going to die sucker. Unless of course you want to get your healthcare in Cuba. Now there is some cutting edge medical research going on there baby. 4. RIAA lawyers in the Dept. of Justice. Wow! Now isn't that an oxymoron. They should be able to wipe ALL of the 'fair-use' clauses out now that they are right there on site. Wait until the jackboots kick in your door for ripping 'The Dark Knight' off your new BlueRay 10 minutes after you've finished. WTF?! I wish Obama all the best of luck, he's going to need it to lead the sorry bunch of media brainwashed idiots we got around here. Good luck with all that blue, red, purple-gay $#!^ you indocrinated-lazy-socialist-tards. "Hahaha, your all gonna' die and you voted for that guy" Keith Morris, 1983. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20 January 2009 20:08
DXR88 (Member) 21 January 2009 1:19
i got a question for you KapKirk. its a simple one really. did you sign up to Afterdawn just to post your rant? Stem cell research can be a bloody nightmare, or a cure. killing babies in an already overpopulated world, its not such a bad idea. orphanages are already full to the brim. if you don't want dead babies don't drop your trousers to every tom dick and hairy. and Forget the fact he worked for the RIAA, Whats that make him still the lying for trust and justice they all bring to there clients. yeah, he'll need it. Don't dis the colors, if you don't like them thats too dame bad why don't you go back to your own country if there really that bad. [ + quote]
Mez (Senior Member) 21 January 2009 11:12
The scientific community is in agreement that the CO2 is way up. In the last 50 year the CO2 has risen 10 times faster than it did the previous 50 years. CO2 concentration and the sun's strength are the two most powerful forces that shape how hot the earth is. They are not in agreement with the exact details of how severe the effect will be. Some sientists believe we may see a decrease in the sun's heat like the ones that produced the ice ages. The sun's strength is not constant. There are other factors that effect global heat as well. Still 9 out of 10 of the hottest years for the last 100 were in the last 10. It would take a indocrinated-lazy-tard to laugh that one off to just chance. [ + quote]
Tarsellis (Newbie) 23 January 2009 11:27
1) Xenophobia : did we not see how the conservatives, or anybody who disagreed with the messiah obama was the enomy that must be defeated? 2) natoinalism : did we not see how the nationalism turned into globalism? did we not see his majesty campaigning for president of the world in europe? did we not see the turn to nationalism just before the election in a last ditch grab for votes? These, however, are not the main points. It's the lies and mirror syndrome (this 'hope and change' that is whatever YOU want it to be) coupled with incredible charisma for the sole purpose of gaining power and serving himself that I compare obama to hitler. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51kAw4OTlA0& I pledge to serve the president?!?!?!?!?! Since when do the people serve the man? Is it not the job of the position of office to serve the people? Did I read the wrong constitution? Come on sheep, time to wake up while we can. you're not going to like it when you wake up in the new world, and find out that obama is not in fact the messiah. Oh, and Global Warming?! Um, actually, the temperature has gone DOWN the last 10 years. Did we not see these records set all over the earth this year for COLD! And as if the meager 1/100th of 1% of co2 that we contribute to the atmosphere makes a difference. Especially when 0.03% of the atmosphere is c02 anyways. Lets also just ignore that every year volcanos put out a thousand times more co2, sulpher, etc than man does. Let's also ignore that the ocean leaks out 1000 times more methane than we and our animals make. Lets also ignore that every year 6 times more crude oil seeps into the sea naturally than all of our tanker and oil spills combined. Sure, I suppose I'm willing to destroy the american and world economy and pay trillions a year more in taxes to save the earth from this man made global warming. After all, the prophet al gore says its true, and silences any dissent [ + quote]
Mez (Senior Member) 23 January 2009 13:39
Tarsellis, global warming is not like religion where you can just make things up to suit your self. CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by over 30% since 1700. That is a far cry from meager 1/100th of 1%. Did you get that info from a complete moron or did you just make it up because you assume the world is a stupid and as uninformed as you? You must have gotten this from that same source. *Quote:* Oh, and Global Warming?! Um, actually, the temperature has gone DOWN the last 10 years. Did we not see these records set all over the earth this year for COLD! As for Obama, he DOES make me nervous but the US has been going downhill since the 50s, I'll give him 4 years. He can�t do much worse than Bush. The war with Iraq was a world class blunder. Even though Saddam Hussein was a truly evil man, he stabilized that part of the world by constantly waging war with Iran. Getting rid of him was the biggest blunder a president has made since WWII. In that part of the world they appear to be consumed with so much hate they have to be killing someone. Iran and Iraq balanced one another. Iran has no counter balance. I assume they will make atomic bombs and they will be set off in the US. Thanks GWB! Now someone else has to deal with Iran. I certainly hope there can be piece in the Middle East but I do not expect to see it any time soon. Oh, by the way you ought to look up the meaning of xenophobia. It means the fear of outsiders. It has nothing to do with the echonomy or Obama unless you figure he is a Foreigner. He couldn't be one and be president. That is the law! Oh thats right, you make up EVERYTHING as you go along! What do YOU think xenophobia means? [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23 January 2009 13:48
Tarsellis (Newbie) 23 January 2009 14:02
There's no point in arguing with brainwashed zombies who can't think for themselves. However, if anybody else wants to come to their own conclusions, try reading both sides of the argument, and stop depending on the lies and photo-shopping of "an inconvenient truth". Starting here are some small examples to get people thinking: (and still not on the extreme opposite side) http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mon...rticle10866.htm http://pesn.com/2007/03/19/9500463_Global_Warming_Swindle/ http://www.wagtv.com/programme/The-Great...er=type_Singles [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23 January 2009 14:03
Mez (Senior Member) 23 January 2009 18:05
Thanks for posting the articles I miss-judged you but it looks like you read some propaganda. I really thought you were nuts. I don�t now. Any smart person without a scientific background could be taken in by some of that malarkey. I can�t understand why someone would write trash like that but why do persons refute evolution. If you can �prove that� you can �prove� anything. I read all the articles to be fair. I can�t rightly argue with out reading them. The first article was a bunch of double talk. CO2 changes the reflectivity of infrared or heat waves. It acts just like glass that reflects hence the name greenhouse effect. The article claims it can�t be a green house because there is no physical barrier. The barrier is only part of why green houses are so warm. The other part is glass does not reflect visible light but reflects infrared (heat) waves. That article is like claiming breathing is bad for your health because no one can live after breathing for 150 years. The truth is you will die if you don�t breath much faster than that. The third drew faulty assumptions from valid info. The second and last did have their fact straight and did not make any miss statements I could catch not that I am all that much of an expert. Not valid - http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Valid - http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mon...rticle10866.htm Not Valid - http://pesn.com/2007/03/19/9500463_Global_Warming_Swindle/ Valid - http://www.wagtv.com/programme/The-Great...er=type_Singles The reality is, the energy from the sun is the most powerful force heating the earth. The heat is not always constant. We know there have been ice ages and mini ice ages. These have been due to the reduction of the sun�s energy. Just because the world was colder does not mean the greenhouse effect is bunk. The greenhouse effect still kept us warmer than if the CO2 levels were at 1700 concentration. This year the greenhouse effect was helpful. If we are going into another ice age the greenhouse effect will literally be a life safer. We may want to burn up more fossile fuel in that case. The reality is, man does not have as much control on his environment as many of us think. It is good debating with you. [ + quote]
KEN'S (Newbie) 25 January 2009 13:59
I dont usually post things here but "climate change"? It takes a big headed liberal to suggest that they can predict our climate when they cant even tell when its going to snow or not snow a few days in advance much less predicting the demise of Earth! And better access to health care, surely you jest! We have the best system in the world and you want to make a welfare state of it? Get a grip all of you kool-aid drinkers before it is too late! I liked the below quote. "Hahaha, your all gonna' die and you voted for that guy" Keith Morris, 1983. [ + quote]
Mez (Senior Member) 26 January 2009 10:06
Good point Ken. I am just about 'talked out'. I do like to take the other side and defend the 'idiots' if I feel like it. Predicting snow would seem to be easy but it is not since extreme cold does not allow for moisture in the air. A good snow fall usually occures at about the freezing point. Snowfall actually heats the air since creating ice from water vapor releases heat. The more is snows the warmer the air. This would be in fractions of a degree not in degrees. Still, snow can sabotage itsself. Predicting climate change is actually easier as long as only one factor, the CO2 contant changes. The heat from the sun has been fairly constant for centuries. The last time there was a major change was during the reign of Henry the VIII. That was short lived. The English channel froze. It is pretty safe to assume that the sun's heat would continue to hold steady. Anytime you assume something you are taking a risk however small. I am assuming that is why there was a drop in temperature this year. I guess there is some arrogance being so sure of your self. I think the weather is a safer bet than health insurance. What scares me even more, is making multiple major changes to the US at once. That scares me a great deal. [ + quote]
Mez (Senior Member) 27 January 2009 10:37
I re-read the valid articles. They were just more clever propaganda. For instance, yes, last year was the coldest year in the decade. However, what was not stated is it was still one of the hottest years in the century. It was only that the rest of the decade was so hot that 2008 looked cold in comparison. Here is information that appears to be neutral. Their temperature chart starts at 1850 not 2007. That alone is an eye opener unless you believe the World Meteorological Organization is out to destroy the world by tricking us into burning less fossile fuel. If you think that, what would be their motive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming [ + quote]