Obama's Administration sides with RIAA on filesharing
 

More of the same...

It's a small part of the administration. But I have to ask, how is Obama different from the direction that Bush wanted to take when more and more of his administration is doing the SAME things over and over?

Yeah..because this is a huge indicator things are going pear-shaped...

I'd say first few signs.

When he comes out with angel wings and a pitchfork, that's when I'll start worrying.

Ok..are you sure you linked the right Article? Are we seriously arguing that the RIAA has no right to persue and seek action against people that illegally access music they have copyrighted? THAT is the first indication that Obama and his friends have gone bad to the dark side?

He supports an industries rights to protection of their product?

It would be great to have at least a brief synopsis, so I'll provide one. Some part of the Obama administration, not even necessarily the two people cited as former RIAA honchos, weighed in that the fines of $750 to $150,000 per track of pirated music, based on various individual factors, was not excessive to the point of being unconstitutional. The goal being to repay damages to the holders of the copyright and to deter intellectual property theft in a market where people feel safe due to their insignificance.

I really don't see a problem with this. Mostly because I fail to see how $750 isn't on par with federal fines in general and because I'd LOVE to see them try to make a person pay $150,000 for owning a pirate copy of a single song straight-faced. Seriously, the more ridiculous the amount per song, the bigger the hit to RIAA's credibility as a serious organization defending the rights of musicians.

I personally think that organizations like RIAA and the ESA are amusing in that they think they actually deter piracy. They make life hell for a few unlucky individuals, but piracy overall is so widespread that to me it's like watching a small dog growl at every passerby and maybe nip the occasional ankle, then sit and bask in how proud he is of himself as a guard dog.

I'm pretty sure affirming ridiculous-but-legal statutes isn't exactly the same level as having the same foreign policy, tax policy, economic policy, domestic policy, etc. as Bush.

You can't do everything completely different from Bush. Why Obama's opponents like to point out everything he does similar to Bush in an attempt to obscure the vast majority of things he does differently, I don't know.

Bush and Obama both also breathe oxygen, for one thing. Well, I think Bush breathes oxygen. He may have gills with which he removes oxygen from water. We're not sure.

There's a difference between affirming your willingness to enforce a law and explicitly agreeing with the reason and purpose of that law.

Like this lady didn't say "look the RIAA is clearly out of their ding-dang minds but it's the law so hey if you want it changed call your Congressperson and tell him to get on that shit." She affirmed the legal reasoning and intent behind the law which is more like saying "Yes massive awards for filesharing are the law which is awesome and we totally love that being the law and it's gonna stay the law for as long as we have anything at all to say about it."

It's an issue particularly in areas where Obama has made cosmetic changes that make it look like he's changing course from the Bush era's policies while actually actively supporting for the substance of their approach. Like how they made a big show about how Gitmo will be closed but legally advocating that the president does have the power to unilaterally abduct people from their homes and then transport them anywhere in the world to be tortured by US personnel.

I supported Obama electorally because I felt that he was the less-bad option compared with his predecessor or either of his major opponents but I certainly don't remember agreeing not to criticize any legitimately wrong shit which he might subsequently do.

(Frankly I would have spent a lot of time even during and in the aftermath of the election criticizing him except any time a discussion came up on the subject there was always some even worse position than Obama's that I felt obligated to argue against so, well, there you go.)

As a writer I follow copyrights closely myself. The copyrights and the belief that they have to be enforced for maximum penalties for 30,000 old ladies is a little ludicrous. As I've been watching since the Clinton administration on this, it seems that it's not necessarily changing at all in ~16 years. That's a long time. The RIAA already makes money on every CD sold in the US through a $1 fee charged for potential abuse from the use of CDs. As well, with the advent of Twitter, Myspace, and Facebook, more artists are more closely connected to fans than ever. As blues is saying, their validity and their livelihood are in danger. I just wish it were more a quick fry than a slow boil with disproportionate penalties.

I'd talk more about Obama, but... It's early in his administration and I'm still seeing how he plans to get all of the programs supported that he wants.

I thought they were now arguing that based on international law instead of executive power? Or is that a different related issue? Of course, regardless the consequence would be the same, I guess. Except I don't believe this administration would ever sanction torture. They would flout the extradition laws of international law but not the torture statues. So they're slightly less evil overall.