Obama is apparently the RIAA's bitch.

[LouCipherr]

Ok, so hot on the heels of our discussion about Pirate Bay being blocked in the UK, I bring you this American stupidity: Source: Feds Seized Hip-Hop Site for a Year, Waiting for Proof of Infringement - That Never Materializes Partial text from link (with highlights provided by me): Federal authorities who seized a popular hip-hop music site based on assertions from the Recording Industry Association of America that it was linking to four “pre-release” music tracks gave it back more than a year later without filing civil or criminal charges because of apparent recording industry delays in confirming infringement, according to court records obtained by Wired. The Los Angeles federal court records, which were unsealed Wednesday at the joint request of Wired, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the First Amendment Coalition, highlight a secret government process in which a judge granted the government repeated time extensions to build a civil or criminal case against Dajaz1.com, one of about 750 domains the government has seized in the last two years in a program known as Operation in Our Sites. Apparently, however, the RIAA and music labels’ evidence against Dajaz1, a music blog, never came. Or, if it did, it was not enough to build a case and the authorities returned the site nearly 13 months later without explanation or apology. Cindy Cohn, the EFF’s legal director, said the site’s 13-month seizure by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau highlights the RIAA’s influence over the government. President Barack Obama has tapped at least five former RIAA attorneys for senior positions in the Justice Department. “Here you have ICE making a seizure, based on the say-so of the record company guys, and getting secret extensions as they wait for their masters, the record companies, for evidence to prosecute,” Cohn said in a telephone interview. “This is the RIAA controlling a government investigation and holding it up for a year.” ICE, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, has the power to seize web domains engaged in infringing activity under the same forfeiture laws used to seize property like houses, cars and boats allegedly tied to illegal activity such as drug running or gambling. But seizing a domain name raises First Amendment concerns — though nothing in the court records show that the government or the court was concerned about the prolonged seizure of the site that is akin to an online printing press. In the Dajaz1 case, the authorities seized the site in November 2010 on the word of the RIAA that four songs linked to on the site were unauthorized, the records show. Yet nearly a year later, in September 2011, the government was secretly seeking yet another extension to build its case, ostensibly because it was still waiting for the recording industry to produce evidence, the records show. All the while, the site’s owner and his attorney were left out of the loop, as the court record was sealed from them and the public. The Dajaz1 site was redirected to a government landing page saying it was seized by customs officials. ...more at the link posted above... Why do we continue to let stuff like this happen over and over again?? And Obama? Hiring FIVE former RIAA attorneys for senior positions in the government?! You gotta be shitting me! This is the idiot who swore before he was elected that he would "not take money from" nor would the white house be "run by" lobbyists. Too late for that I guess. Go to google and search "lobbyists hired by obama" - it's flat-out scary. What a hypocritical prick.

[shootemindehead]

Obama is just a president. He'll do exactly what he's told to do by the people who pull the actual strings, just like every other president has. Shows how powerful the IRAA is though. That they can get somebodys site blocked for over a year with mere allegation.

[acealive1]

exactly. someone else blaming obama for EVERYTHING. presidents veto or approve things......thats it.

[EvilNed]

We're rapidly approaching the point where somebody (i.e. the people) need to do something (i.e. I'll let you figure it out) to stop this oncoming coorporate takeover of our politics. Soon everything will be run by the money shots. Classes will be defined as those with money and those without and the american dream will be gone and dead (as if it isn't already).

[shootemindehead]

The "American Dream" was always just a dream and politics have always been run by powerful business interests. This won't change, regardless of who is in charge. But, it does seem to be getting worse, hence my surpirse at how powerful a flippin music association can be. One could at least understand Oil interests getting the ear of political establishments...but fuckers who want to sell Lady Gaga cds??? If that's they way things are, then it's no wonder the war in Iraq went ahead despite public opposition.

[LouCipherr]

For the record, in case any of you don't know where I stand, I dislike republicans and democrats evenly across the board. Hell, almost every politician for that matter. exactly. someone else blaming obama for EVERYTHING. presidents veto or approve things......thats it. Wow. Who's blaming him for "everything"? Certainly not me, nor the people in this article. So the presidents "veto or approve things, that's it" - then why didn't he say no to this particular situation? It's blatantly obvious there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute, so why was the site taken down? What happened to "innocent until PROVEN guilty" in this country? Isn't that how it's supposed to go? He had the opportunity to stand up to the RIAA and didn't and he should have (more evidence this government is run and ruled by corporations). If his job is to say "yes" or "no" to everything, then when he's presented with a situation like this with insufficient evidence, then he should make the correct decision, which would've been to leave the website alone. His simple "approve" or "veto" can carry a shit-ton of weight, so we shouldn't over-simplify those decisions when they're made. The "American Dream" was always just a dream and politics have always been run by powerful business interests. Ah, you are correct - in fact, the "American Dream" has been redefined by Obama: "In the end, the folks I hear from in letters or meet when I travel across the country, they aren't asking for much. They're just looking for a job that covers their bills. They're looking for a little financial security. They want to know that if they work hard and live within their means, everything will be alright. They'll be able to get ahead, and give their kids a better life. That's the dream each of us has for ourselves, and our families. And so long as I have the privilege of serving as president, I'll keep fighting to put that dream within the reach of all Americans. Have a great weekend everybody." – President Obama’s weekly radio address, June 11, 2011 So, according to Obama, the "American Dream" has been redefined as "Just getting by." I'm not sure about you guys, but the last time I checked, that was not the definition of the "American Dream"

[shootemindehead]

I'm not entirely sure though, Lou, that it's Obama that's doing the redefining. It's due to the current state of your nation (and many others. My own included). People are defining their basic needs, ie, a decent job and the ability to pay their way. In the current times of recession, that alone becomes the dream for a lot of people. I personally think it would have been disingenuous of Obama to have put it any other way, in the light of the recent downturn in many people's lives. Like yourself (if I read you correctly), I pay no heed to the pretence of a dividing line in America's political system. I believe that "Republican" and "Democrat" are two sides of the same coin.

[LouCipherr]

I'm not entirely sure though, Lou, that it's Obama that's doing the redefining. It's due to the current state of your nation (and many others. My own included). People are defining their basic needs, ie, a decent job and the ability to pay their way His speech, his words. You said "basic needs" - he refers to the "American Dream" - big, big difference IMO, my friend. The way I see it, regardless of the economy, the "American Dream" remains a constant. It hasn't changed for me, regardless of the economy, even when I was laid off work for 14 months. Sure, when times get tough you want to make sure you can "get by" but that is not the definition of the "American Dream." Like yourself (if I read you correctly), I pay no heed to the pretence of a dividing line in America's political system. I believe that "Republican" and "Democrat" are two sides of the same coin. Sort of. My view on politics is this: they're all snakes in the grass, thieves, liars, and cheats. There's only one politician I'd vote for as president, and I doubt that will ever come to fruition due to the stupidity and the pig-headedness of the sheep-like masses of this country who just go along with whatever they're told. Put it this way, I agree with the words of James Madison: "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted." But hey, what do I know. I'm just one idiot "living the american dream" of "just getting by." Ugh.

[Sammich]

Here is an example of the type of people that Obama is talking about "just getting by": Hint for wealthy lawmakers: don’t seek pity from voters I’ll never understand why well-paid members of Congress say things like this in public. Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) appeared on MSNBC with Chris Jansing this morning to attack President Obama’s new deficit reduction plan, which includes some tax increases on the wealthy. Taking up the typical GOP talking point, Fleming said raising taxes on wealthy “job creators” is a terrible idea that kills jobs because many of these people are small business owners who pay taxes through personal income rates. Fleming is himself a business owner, so Jansing asked, “If you have to pay more in taxes, you would get rid of some of those employees?” Fleming responded by saying that while his businesses made $6.3 million last year, after you “pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment, and food,” his profits “a mere fraction of that” — “by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over.” The conservative congressman’s $400,000 post-expenses profit would suggest he makes roughly eight times the average U.S. household income. It’s unclear if this “$400,000 left over” also includes his generous, six-figure, taxpayer-financed salary. What’s more, I can’t quite wrap my head around Fleming’s arithmetic. If his businesses made $6.3 million, and he has 500 employees, and has a variety of expenses, and he still has “maybe $400,000 left over,” it would suggest he pays those workers about $10,000 a year. These people are so out of touch that it is the equivalent of them telling everyone not in their congressional inner-circle of legalized insider trading "let them eat cake".