After being chastized (more or less) by lawyers/teachers when this was posted on the Yale discuss list yesterday, I give you this:
This isn't as big of a deal (at all) as it may seem. Lawyers should be separated from their cases (blah blah historical examples blah). Also, Grokster was 9-0 for a reason. Marvin Ammori has more: http://ammori.org/2010/05/20/three-cheers-for-don-verrilli/ -Adi On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Rich Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > From > http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/riaa-lawyer-solicitor-general/ : > > President Barack Obama nominated former Recording Industry Association of > America lawyer Donald Verrilli Jr. on Monday to serve as the nation’s > solicitor general. > > If confirmed by the Senate, Verilli, now the White House deputy counsel, > would assume the powerful position left vacant by Elena Kagan, who was > elevated to the Supreme Court. Obama said he was “confident” Verrilli, one > of five former RIAA attorneys appointed to the > administration<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/>, > would “serve > ably<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/24/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts> > .” > > 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 will bring to the Supreme Court for review. > > Verrilli is best known for leading the recording industry’s legal > charge<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokster>against music- and movie-sharing > site Grokster. That 2003 case ultimately > led to Grokster’s demise, when the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a lower > court’s pro-RIAA verdict. > > Until recently, Verrilli also was leading Viacom’s ongoing and flailing $1 > billion copyright-infringement fight against > YouTube<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/dmca-protects-youtube/> > . > > A court dismissed the case last year, a decison Viacom is appealing. Viacom > claims YouTube committed copyright infringement because it did not police > the video-sharing site for copyright works uploaded by its users. > > And in 2008, Verrilli told a federal judge in Minnesota that merely making > copyright works available on file sharing networks amounted to copyright > infringement <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/judge-hints-at/> — > and that no proof of somebody else downloading those files was required. > > That argument came in the first of three iterations of the infamous Jamie > Thomas file sharing case brought by the RIAA. The judge eventual declared a > mistrial of the first jury’s $220,000 civil judgment for sharing 24 songs on > Kazaa. > > Two more trials later, a third jury has rendered an almost $2 million > verdict against Thomas for sharing the same two dozen tracks. > > > > No surprises there then. > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
