Former RIAA Lawyer At DOJ Will Only Avoid RIAA Issues For A Year

from the ethics? dept

Plenty of folks have noted that the Justice Department has been the landing place for a number of RIAA lawyers. Some have suggested not to get too worked up about this, given that the Obama administration’s ethics rules supposedly forbade those lawyers from being involved in issues related to their former work. However, it looks like the limit on these guys is actually quite narrow and for a very short period of time. We’d already noted that the highest ranking former RIAA lawyer, Thomas Perrelli, in his Senate confirmation hearings, said he hoped to use his position to increase intellectual property enforcement from within the Justice Department.

Now, Pro Publica, an online investigative reporting operation, has published the ethics agreements signed by Obama administration appointees, including Tom Perrelli’s agreement, which appears to only preclude him from working on issues that impact his former clients for one year. Also, it seems pretty narrowly focused on the specific clients he worked for, but not other aspects of the same industry. In other words, in less than a year, he can certainly start helping the RIAA from within the Justice Department — and his Senate testimony suggests he’s interested in doing so. That’s not quite the ethical separation we were led to believe would exist in the administration.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: jenner & block, riaa

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Former RIAA Lawyer At DOJ Will Only Avoid RIAA Issues For A Year”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
46 Comments
Yeebok (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Sad Panda

Err .. no we’re entitled to own guns we just don’t think we need one when we’re walking the dog. The gun obsession is one thing I really dislike about Americans. You have enough ammo and people to keep yourselves busy for ages – yet you keep invading other places to kill the people there.. What gives ?

Tgeigs says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Sad Panda

The right to ownership of guns was written into the constitution as a way for the people to protect themselves against OUR Government, not for use in invading others. In the revolutionary war, the only reason we were able to hold our own until we received support from the French was because of our ARMED colonial militia.

If we attempted a revolution today, it wouldn’t work. They say things like, “we have to outlaw certain weapons and ammunition, because the only thing they’re really used for is to kill policemen and armed forces”. They seem to forget that that’s the entire point (not ADVOCATING killing cops, but the rather the right to protect ourselves from our government).

Tgeigs says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

BWA HAHAHAHAHA, Jews, ruling the planet?

Did they just sleep through that whole Holocaust thing? And why are they allowing the Disney Corp. & Ford to continue existing, w/such deep-rooted anti-Sematism? I have to tell you, if there IS a Jewish Cabal ruling the world, they are some of the most idiotic rulers of all time, leaving all of these dissenters around.

Or maybe there is no cabal. What do YOU think, Skeeter?

TDR says:

To those talking about armed resistance, keep something in mind. Who do you think the government will send to fight the homegrown militias that would be formed to oppose them? Our own US troops, fellow Americans who grew up in the same towns, ate the same food, and went to the same schools and so on as we have. Thus, it would not be a revolution, but a civil war. And I don’t think I need to remind you all how brutal the last one was. Just tread carefully and keep that in mind, is all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The common grunts would only be following orders because that’s all they know how to do. Questioning such orders isn’t really taught much, I don’t think. It’s their superiors who are the ones who don’t care about freedom and who have the silver tongues to make grunts who should know better follow their orders. The grunts are just pawns to them on their big board. That’s all I meant.

Tgeigs says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Outstanding mis-generalization of the lower grades of the armed forces. Yes, those of us that never made it past E6(US Navy) are mindless, idiotic drones that can’t be bothered with things like thought and morality.

And FYI, grunts? Did you ever serve? When you talk about US Armed Forces, it isn’t a damned video game. They are PEOPLE.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Yes, those of us that never made it past E6(US Navy) are mindless, idiotic drones that can’t be bothered with things like thought and morality.

And that’s why you aren’t held responsible for participating in unjustified wars. Otherwise it would it could be said that you were individually morally responsible.

Anonymous Coward says:

Filling childrens minds with man made laws..

I’m down with the armed conflict I think it would do us (America) some good and that good would bleed (no pun intended) off to the rest of the world I’d hope. Just too bad that “we the people” have let things get as bad as they are. We just sit back on the sidelines saying.. “We’ll if that ever happened to me I’d……..” Well just wait long enough and it will be YOU. You, me, and everyone else for that matter. Get the torches and pitchforks out (equated to MP5’s, and AK’s) out and let’s do this! (Or you could just go VOTE and be heard!!)

Chargone says:

heh, in NZ, if memory serves, you can own a tank or ICBM if you really want. ammo and warheads are another story. and you need special dispensation to drive tanks on the roads. [basically, they damage the road a lot more, even with their rubber track cover thingies, so you need to pay more than the normal fuel cost for road maintenance, or some such]

i don’t think you’re going to find anywhere where you have all the rights you’re Supposed to have in the USA. actually, i think you’ll have a hard time finding anywhere where the mentality is such that the majority of people find a few of them to even be legitimate rights.

[NZ, for example, has had a lot of success with the whole ‘guns are heavily regulated’ thing. also, Australian(i believe?) and NZ occupation of various places? high on the agenda is a ‘gun hunt’. ie: taking every single weapon not currently in the hands of the occupying military OUT of the area. … the result is a lot more peaceful than arming large numbers of people]

why is it we never hear such tales of stupid conflicts of interest here, anyway? closest i ever remember was that recent thing with the minister going to India.

news flash folks: the American constitution mostly serves as yet another angle the lawyers can take in arguing their clients stupid positions. there’s not a Lot it’s actually protecting you from, at least as seen from outside.

admittedly, it IS nice to have such an absolute document to refer back to. saying anything about NZ having a constitution is a bit of a joke 🙂 nearest we have is some variation on tradition. [Technically we actually have constitutional documents and all sorts of things, but… legally the only thing making them different is that they’re entrenched. and the entrenching laws are NOT entrenched, so it just makes it a two step process rather than one to change anything.]

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

admittedly, it IS nice to have such an absolute document to refer back to. saying anything about NZ having a constitution is a bit of a joke 🙂 nearest we have is some variation on tradition. [Technically we actually have constitutional documents and all sorts of things, but… legally the only thing making them different is that they’re entrenched. and the entrenching laws are NOT entrenched, so it just makes it a two step process rather than one to change anything.]

The US constitution can be amended and has been several times. So if the government wants to make a law that is against the constitution, it too is a two step process (first amend the constitution, then pass the law).

Malcom Reynolds (user link) says:

A-1 Mini Storage | Mini Storage Tucker, GA

Yeah, of course Obama is a turncoat. Is anybody really surprised by this? The only reason he won the election was because he is black. Everyone was so hyped to have a not-white president that they completely forgot that he was really qualified in any way to be our nation’s leader. Hopefully they’ll remember this lesson when old Hillary decides to take a stab at the white house.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...