State Senate Republicans in Copyright Flap

Right-wing nanny state reveals bankrupt nature (4.00 / 3)

Your are right about RT being on a roll.  This is really interesting stuff.

Knowing Kuhl and Winner as I, unfortunately, do (both having failed to effectively represent me as my State Senator), it doesn't surprise me that they are stealing material-- neither one seems to have an original or creative bone in his body, and both have staffs that seem to be made up of "good soldiers" saluting Unc Joe (now, Kuhl salutes The Shrub-- "like a rock, only dumber").

What I find interesting is the internal right-wing contradictions here-- and, while it is ironic that Spitzer and Cuomo are involved, that part seems in some way ordinary: "all lawyers are whores," in that they represent their clients needs, not their own views; as AG, either of them needs to defend their clients, that is the job.

The conservative gospel says that it is OK to globalize all our primary and manufacturing sector employment, as strict controls over intellectual property regimes will allow us to develop new, innovation-based replacement employment in emerging industries.  The conservative gospel also has it that the political system is not an appropriate direct support to families or individuals (the much-criticized "nanny state" rhetoric) and should steer clear of too much intrusion into people's private lives.  So, let me get a clear picture of this product: it is "baby's first ID card," which happens to also sport a picture of, not Lenin or Chairman Mao, but "great-hair" Randy Kuhl?  And, they stole some entrepreneur's intellectual property, and produced these in a socialist print shop in the LOB?

The "gospel" that these guys promote is smoke and mirrors, utterly bankrupt.  They are a gang of marauding privateers, ready to pounce on Junior like a press gang, and start indoctrinating him or her with their state-manufactured propaganda while he or she is still a toddler. Run, baby, run! The real predator is your State Senator.

---

by: robinia @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 14:58:37 PM UTC

ha! (0.00 / 0)

They are a gang of marauding privateers, ready to pounce on Junior like a press gang, and start indoctrinating him or her with their state-manufactured propaganda while he or she is still a toddler. Run, baby, run! The real predator is your State Senator

well put.

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 15:27:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

maybe (0.00 / 1)

we should be careful when we talk about, as you say "public money being used for overtly political purposes."  after all, troopergate isn't going away, maybe we should start accepting that spitzer will be a lame duck governor before the end of his first year.  someone tell cuomo there might be a job opening up.

---

by: Racer X @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 17:25:34 PM UTC

um, (0.00 / 0)

whatevs.

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 17:27:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just a Couple of Quick Notes (4.00 / 2)

1)  This lawsuit is but one of a series of similar cases that Student Lifeline Inc. has filed in various federal courts across New York State.  The others are:

* Student Lifeline, Inc. v. The Senate of the State of New York, 04-cv-05484 (E.D.N.Y.) (filed Dec. 16, 2004);
* Student Lifeline, Inc. v. Johnson, 06-cv-03781 (E.D.N.Y.) (filed Aug . 2, 2006);
* Student Lifeline, Inc. v. Velella, 06-cv-01856 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed March 8, 2006); and
* Student Lifeline, Inc. v. Bonacic, 06-cv-05867 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed Aug. 3, 2006).

2)  Although I don't know the specific circumstances here, based on my years in litigation support it does not strike me at all odd that for now the depositions would not be publicly available.  Given that it was Spitzer's office which had raised the original objection to the videotaping (after the first 28 depositions in the case were recorded only by stenographer) and the likelihood that plaintiff might attempt to use them for purposes outside the litigation, the custodial arrangement does not strike me as beyond the pale.  (Note:  the tapes are technically not "under seal", but held in the custody of a former judge of NYS Court of Appeals, Hon. Howard Levine.)  From the State's request:

Please consider this letter as Defendants’ motion seeking a protective order, pursuant to FRCP Rule 26(c), barring Plaintiff from conducting videotaped depositions of the Defendants and a non-party witness, in order to protect Defendants and the non-party witness from harassment, embarrassment, and the misuse and/or abuse of the product of those videotaped depositions, in furtherance of collateral purposes having nothing to do with the subject of this litigation.
  -- --  --
Counsel initially stated in our telephone conversation on September 8, 2006 that he wanted these particular witnesses videotaped so that he could provide the tapes to Plaintiff’s jury consultant, and then stated that he had “stronger reasons” for videotaping Senators Bruno, Alesi and Hannon. Counsel refused to explain the nature of the “stronger reasons” that would induce Plaintiff to incur the added expense of videotaping their depositions.
  -- --  --
For the past several years, Plaintiff’s principal has engaged in actions that appear to bear little relation to advancing Plaintiff’s copyright or trademark infringement claims, but rather, seem primarily designed to embarrass and ridicule Defendants, and to damage their personal, professional and political reputations.
  -- --  --
However, should the Court decline to bar the videotaping of depositions in this case, Defendants respectfully request the Court to severely restrict the use of the resulting videotapes and access to those tapes, to prevent Plaintiff from abusing the judicial process in order to “‘gratify private spite or promote public scandal,’ with no corresponding assurance of public benefit”.

Please note, however, that the severe restriction imposed by the court appears to apply only to the videotapes themselves, and not to the transcript of the depositions.  I am guessing, however, that the transcripts themselves have otherwise been designated "Confidential" under the terms of the stipulated entered into by the parties in July 2006.  This would restrict this discovery material to use solely for purposes of this lawsuit (and the related matters listed above) and its disclosure only to people with involvement in the litigation, not the general public.

Okay, maybe these weren't so "quick".

If I had a way to post links to PDF files, I would put these various documents up, but they're all stuck behind payment walls at the courts' websites.  Phillip, let me know if there's anything you could do with them if I e-mailed them to you.

---

by: The Maven @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 19:28:23 PM UTC

if you email the pdfs (0.00 / 0)

i can upload and link them.

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 20:38:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Randy Kuhl (0.00 / 0)

Do you think Randy Kuhl's involvement in this could lead Massa to bite with a press release etc?

I mean, this looks like an emerging ethics scandal that could do a number on the NYS GOP, but it's gotta gain traction somehow. Any ideas? (RT folks, work your magic?)

Peter King writes me Nasty Letters.

---

by: tzfoley @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 22:53:38 PM UTC