

Obama Nominates RIAA Lawyer for Solicitor General - yanw
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/riaa-lawyer-solicitor-general

======
fingerprinter
I came here with 18 comments in the thread expecting to see people talk about
why this person is not a great candidate and, honestly, am quite shocked to
see people defending this pick. I assure you, had Bush made this pick it would
be lampooned as being too corporate etc etc etc.

I understand that people want to give lawyers the benefit of the doubt and not
judge them by who they represent, but honestly, I find that logic appalling.
Would we really be saying that for a lawyer who defended the Catholic church
in the sex abuse scandal? No, b/c anyone with _any_ integrity would likely
walk away from that...or anyone with any political smarts. Same in this case.
It seems clear this man is not about ideals or principles but rather money and
privilege. Is that who we want in arguably one of the most important non-
supreme court law positions in the country?

Even if he _is_ about that, he hasn't proven it with his judgement by taking
those cases. This should also count in the decision. I'm sorry, but I cannot
find the silver lining in this nomination. Perhaps someone can educate me....

~~~
Prisen
_Would we really be saying that for a lawyer who defended the Catholic church
in the sex abuse scandal? No, b/c anyone with _any_ integrity would likely
walk away from that...or anyone with any political smarts._

Very poor example... The right for everyone to have a proper defense in
criminal trials is a cornerstone of the legal system, and I'm really surprised
anyone would argue against it.

~~~
mbesto
I understand your point, however the role of the Solicitor General has a
specific function that leads one to wonder - "The office also determines which
cases it will bring to the Supreme Court for review" This is a very dangerous
role for someone who has engrained themselves in such a controversial topic.
Not to mentioned (according to the article) hasn't been able to argue a
consistent punishment for such crimes. I would imagine in the same token
anyone else involved in another highly controversial law topic should receive
the same scrutiny. Where Obama is heavily criticized is the fact that the
general populous has a lynching out for big corporate media companies that are
trying to fill their pockets with more money by simply "suing the shit" out of
anyone that dares cross their path.

------
redthrowaway
Disheartening, but not surprising. Obama has made it clear where his
priorities lie, and that's with Big Content. Look to see more ICE takedowns of
"infringing" sites and more COICA-like legislation.

~~~
chopsueyar
I am curious to see how this will affect his Administration's relationship
with Google and YouTube.

------
rst
FWIW, this doesn't _dis_ confirm what we already knew about the
administration's affection for Big Content, but what we already knew was a lot
more important.

Look at the ACTA talks. It was something of a tipoff that drafts of the
agreement were shared with a panel of "big content" lawyers[1], but hidden
from the general public, supposedly on grounds of national security. As to
substance, leaked drafts required DMCA-type legislative provisions and
strongly encouraged "three strikes and you're out" policies for kicking
infringers off the net, (they weren't mandated, but were, IIRC, explicitly
listed in one draft as a "best practice", with no stated alternatives). And
while current drafts back off of that, and some of the other more draconian
positions, that's largely due to push-back from other parties, particularly in
Europe.

The problem with a two-party system is that whichever you pick, they're going
to support _something_ that you really don't like. For me, with the Democrats,
this is one of the biggies: on these issues, the party positions have been
largely dictated by Hollywood for a fairly long time. (Sonny Bono copyright
act, anyone?) Then again, the Republicans haven't been all that great on this
either; ACTA started under Bush....

[1] The list is here: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/news/2009/10/these-42-peo...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/news/2009/10/these-42-people-are-shaping-us-internet-enforcement-
policy.ars) The White House was, for a time, trying to keep even the names
secret, again claiming "national security". (How does it compromise national
security if people know these drafts are going to lawyers for eBay? I have no
idea...)

------
kingkilr
There are few things that irk me more than judging a legal appointee based on
the clients they've represented.

~~~
AJ007
Donald Verrilli Jr is replacing Elena Kagan. Elena Kagan is now sits on the
Supreme Court. That should shed some light on how important this position is.

If the RIAA/MPAA/old media (Donald also represented Viacom in its case against
Google/Youtube) wrote its own laws the internet would be a sliver of what it
is today. Many entities, for profit, not for profit, corporation, or
association work to crush individual rights. Few do so to the degree that the
RIAA has pursued.

Its sickening and disturbing that any representative, former or current, for
such an organisation would be even nominated for such a powerful role in the
United States government.

Clearly this guy has had a vested interest in crushing innovation and personal
freedom in the United States. And you are irked that anyone cares.

~~~
jacquesm
> The internet would be a sliver of what it is today.

The American portion of the internet would be a sliver of what it is today.

Keep in mind that the world is a bit larger than just the US and that whenever
the US decides to shoot itself in the foot like this some other entity will
take its place.

This will likely continue until the US wises up to that and starts to move
with all the resources they've got directed at recovering the lost ground,
which I'm sure they'll be able to do fairly rapidly.

Software patents, the situation around copyright, it's all the same thing, a
temporary disturbance. On a human lifespan scale it looks like things are
moving with glacial speed but since the web as we know it is not even two
decades old you can bet that given the changes it has already brought about
you won't be able to recognize the information landscape in another hundred
years or so.

This is just a delaying action, in the long run it won't mean anything. Now if
we could make it not mean anything in the short run is up for grabs, vested
interests will always fight to the death to keep their gravy trains rolling.

When Gutenberg made the printing press it took another 100 years or so before
the implications were really felt far and wide give it some time.

Incidentally it only took very little time after the printing press was
invented for the first primitive copyright legislation to follow.

~~~
AJ007
You would be comfortable with YouTube's alternative hosted in Russia connected
to the web by a likely mob influenced ISP?

Laws the United States makes have a more wide reaching affect that you seem to
realise. Your outlook of online freedom is quite optimistic. Smaller countries
follow the lead of larger ones and for profit corporations generally do their
best to follow (or write) the laws of the United States. What happens here
influences the behaviour of many. After all, no CEO wants to be arrested on a
layover in the United States because their company happened to break a US
(this has happened.)

The reality is that organisations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation
have been fighting hard against our own government, the United States, since
the early 1990s to keep the internet as free as possible. Had no one decided
to take up that fight your internet would be under control of such gems as
1998's COPA, along with who knows what garbage the RIAA and MPAA would dream
up.

The rising influence of authoritarian states such as China dim the prospect of
an open and free world generations to come. While they may flaunt intellectual
property law today, make no mistake when it is their own intellectual property
being infringed upon they will happily add infringement to one of their 68
crimes punishable by death.

Make no mistake, what happens today will have a decisive impact on how free
the world is 50 or 100 years from now.

Nominating Donald Verrilli Jr as the Solicitor General of the United States
sends a clear message that the Obama administration seeks the same expertise
in chilling internet freedoms as the RIAA and Viacom did when they hired him.

