And So It Begins.....

From Slashdot

"In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Cloud, a Pennsylvania case in which the RIAA's statutory damages theory — seeking from 2,200 to 450,000 times the amount of actual damages — is being tested, the US Department of Justice has just filed papers indicating that it is considering intervening in the case to defend the constitutionality of such awards, and requesting an extension of time (PDF) in which to decide whether such intervention 'is appropriate.' This is an early test of whether President Obama will make good on his promises (a) not to allow industry insiders to participate in cases affecting the industry they represented (the 2nd and 3rd highest DOJ officials are RIAA lawyers) and (😎 to look out for ordinary citizens rather than big corporations."

English please.

Hope this is not going to end in favor of the ?/$&%$¿ RIAA and the State intervenes in favor of its ppl, the folks, that it should protect of being abused by wealthy ruthless giants.

The DOJ has decided to intervene in this case to argue that the damage costs of 2200 to 450000 times the price of a song is constitutional. They are going to support the RIAA's argument that this damage award is justified.

The crutch of this whole thing is the #2 and #3 leaders of the DoJ were lawyers for the RIAA's litigation against file traders. High ranking members of the teams that are prosecuting these cases.

In case you missed it, Joe Biden is bought and owned by the MPAA, RIAA and BSA.

WTF! I thought the DoJ worked for the people and not corporations. This really f'ing pisses me off.

OK thanks.
And that sucks, but no NOTHING in the government is FOR THE PEOPLE any more, and not just the present administration. I would say around Nixon/Carter time frame is when they stopped being US and - think of it when we went off the gold standard.

What gets me is how can they call it Constitutional?
Where doe music royalties fit in?

If I recall the 8th amendment is No excessive bail & fines or cruel & unusual punishment.
How is damage costs of 2200 to 450000 times the price of a song constitutional?


Bastards.

Duck wrote:OK thanks.
And that sucks, but no NOTHING in the government is FOR THE PEOPLE any more, and not just the present administration. I would say around Nixon/Carter time frame is when they stopped being US and - think of it when we went off the gold standard.

What gets me is how can they call it Constitutional?
Where doe music royalties fit in?

If I recall the 8th amendment is No excessive bail & fines or cruel & unusual punishment.
How is damage costs of 2200 to 450000 times the price of a song constitutional?


Bastards.

👍

And now it starts for us too.....

Eric Holder announced the Dems will move quickly for a new — and assumably permanent — AWB, this time under the guise of helping Mexico. From ABC News:

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Obama administration will seek to reinstitute the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004 during the Bush administration.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S

I'm going to say this again, ...if you ever planed on owning a semiautomatic rifle, semiautomatic pistol or magazines that hold more than 5 rounds buy them now!