Page 1 of 7

Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:06 am UTC
by '; DROP DATABASE;--
Epic fail. :(
Obama Sides With RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Music Track
By David Kravets | March 23, 2009 | 1:12:29 PM

The Obama administration for the first time is weighing in on a Recording Industry Association of America file sharing lawsuit and is supporting hefty awards of as much as $150,000 per purloined music track.

The government said the damages range of $750 to $150,000 per violation of the Copyright Act was warranted.

"The remedy of statutory damages for copyright infringement has been the cornerstone of our federal copyright law since 1790, and Congress acted reasonably in crafting the current incarnation of the statutory damages provision," Michelle Bennett, a Department of Justice trial attorney wrote (.pdf) Sunday to a Massachusetts federal judge weighing challenge to the Copyright Act.

The position -- that the Copyright Act's monetary damages are not unconstitutionally excessive -- mirrors the one taken by the Bush administration and should come as no surprise.

Two top lawyers in President Barack Obama's Justice Department are former RIAA lawyers: Donald Verrilli Jr. is the associate deputy attorney general who brought down Grokster and fought to prevent a retrial in the Jammie Thomas case. Then there's the No. 2 in the DOJ, Tom Perrilli. As Verrilli's former boss, Perrilli argued in 2002 that internet service providers should release customer information to the RIAA even without a court subpoena.

Presidential administrations often intervene in lawsuits in which the constitutionality of a federal law is in question. This case concerns a former Boston University student challenging a peer-to-peer file sharing case.

Still, parts of the government's brief sounded as if it was taken from the RIAA's public relations playbook.

"Congress sought to account for both the difficulty of quantifying damages in the context of copyright infringement and the need to deter millions of users of new technology from infringing copyrighted work in an environment where many violators believe that their activities will go unnoticed," Bennett wrote.

The RIAA has sued more than 30,000 individuals for file sharing the last five years. It is winding down the campaign and is lobbying internet service providers to discontinue service to copyright scofflaws.
So much for change.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:17 am UTC
by The Reaper
Epic fail :(

I'd just like to point out that a CD of songs costs 15$, which is well above the cost to make the CD, so the RIAA needs to be firebombed.

If you have trouble going from idea (a) to idea (q), shoo.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:52 am UTC
by Jahoclave
Well, he's off the Christmas Card list.


However, since I am required by liberal media bias to have Obama do no wrong. Consider yourself smeared, and an excuse made as to why this is a good thing.

Now, excuse me, I have to go vomit and cry for a couple of hours.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:19 am UTC
by JoshuaZ
This brief was filed before Kagan became solicitor general so it may yet be withdrawn.

Also note that this may not reflect favoring the RIAA so much as a general trend by the Obama administration to favor a very strong federal government. They've gone so far as to endorse many of Bush's worst positions. See for example this article in Salon. Restrictions on statutory damages would thus be something the administration would not favor. Either way this isn't a good thing, but it may be premature to conclude that this indicates any particular bias towards towards the RIAA.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:44 am UTC
by Delass
Two top lawyers in President Barack Obama's Justice Department are former RIAA lawyers
What...the...hell...?

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:00 am UTC
by GourdCaptain
JoshuaZ wrote:This brief was filed before Kagan became solicitor general so it may yet be withdrawn.

Also note that this may not reflect favoring the RIAA so much as a general trend by the Obama administration to favor a very strong federal government. They've gone so far as to endorse many of Bush's worst positions. See for example this article in Salon. Restrictions on statutory damages would thus be something the administration would not favor. Either way this isn't a good thing, but it may be premature to conclude that this indicates any particular bias towards towards the RIAA.


You know, during the election I joked to my (Republican) father that he shouldn't worry too much about Obama, he'll turn out completely different once he's in office.

Pessimism - the only thing keeping my mood up regarding politics.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:02 am UTC
by quintopia
Delass wrote:Two top lawyers in President Barack Obama's Justice Department are former RIAA lawyers
What...the...hell...?


Verrilli and Perrilli. It's like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. . .which one's which?

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:36 am UTC
by TheSkyMovesSideways
The Reaper wrote:I'd just like to point out that a CD of songs costs 15$, which is well above the cost to make the CD, so the RIAA needs to be firebombed.

*sigh*

Yeah, because creating an album is as simple as just pressing a CD, isn't it? Here's a response I made on another forum to this ridiculous suggestion.

Me, elsewhere, wrote:
It is stealing, but if both sides are stealing from each others pockets then is it not fair?

I would like to highlight the fact that during the 90's cd's cost on average $30 when it costs less than a dollar to produce and distribute the cd's for sale. For over a decade the music industry has been ripping people off, everyone knew this, just no one knew how to change this.


Yes, stealing from each other's pockets is still unfair, especially when it's just one side doing the stealing and then falsely claiming that the other side is stealing too. ;)

Even if it did cost less than $1 to produce and distribute a CD, there's a hell of a lot more than that involved in it. Here are a few of the costs that I can think of that would be involved in producing a CD:
- Finding the musicians/singers/whatever that are worth investing in. (Not easy.)
- Hiring composers and studio musicians where necessary.
- Recording. (Studios aren't cheap.)
- Production.
- Photography and artwork.
- Marketing.
- Music video production.
- Royalties for the musicians.
- Retail margin. (Probably about 1/3 of the end cost.)

I really don't think there's any reason to believe that record companies are ripping people off, despite how much a lot of people would like to believe this. There's no monopoly on record production, and so if it were really possible to make a record more cheaply, someone would do it and make a lot of money by undercutting the other record labels.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:37 am UTC
by Jahoclave
quintopia wrote:
Delass wrote:Two top lawyers in President Barack Obama's Justice Department are former RIAA lawyers
What...the...hell...?


Verrilli and Perrilli. It's like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. . .which one's which?

So on the plus side they'll both end up dead before the end of Obama's term?

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 7:46 pm UTC
by GoC
I'm wondering how you justify a fine of that magnitude. :|

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:45 pm UTC
by luketheduke
No, TheSkyMovesSideWays. You are wrong, and your calculation does not apply.

Damages are meant to compensate for the losses incurred by the offending party's behaviour.

If one album costs $15, then if you copy the CD and give it to a friend, you can argue that the record company has just lost $15.
You cannot say it also lost $100,000 in marketing. Because that's just nonsense.

Now if I rip that album and make a torrent and distribute it to 1000 people - and you can prove that in front of a court - then aww shucks, you can argue that I should have to pay $15,000 in damages.
And a few grand for the work you had to track me down.

Now, how many of those people who downloaded that album from me didn't buy the album, but would have bought it if they couldn't have torrented it from me?
This should be the core question, and a lot of people argue that that number is rather small. There are even people who say that piracy actually makes the sales go up.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:52 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
luketheduke wrote:No, TheSkyMovesSideWays. You are wrong, and your calculation does not apply.
I think TheSkyMoviesSideWays was just responding to the idea that a CD only costs $15 to produce; obviously, like any product you market, there are other costs involved. It costs millions to build a factory, to pay people's salaries, etc - and you can't even produce one of these things without all of that infrastructure set into place first.

That being said, if the implication was that $150,000 is a reasonable figure of compensation for stealing one song for yourself, then they are Wrong.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:24 am UTC
by luketheduke
Yes, Hippo. But we are currently concerned with damages alone. Average production cost doesn't come into play here. Only how much damage somebody did by violating copyright.

Of course, I don't know if this would refer to a maximum of $150,000 even if you distribute 250,000 copies of one song (estimate 1 song at $1; would be - oops - $250,000 in damages - you'll be glad to have it capped at $150,000 ) or how this will actually be applied to typical cases of filesharing, so I cannot say if this is good or bad.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:59 am UTC
by dosboot
You know, I always wondered about the following hypothetical situation: If I make a copyrighted work like a movie and sell it for a million dollars per copy, does that mean I can get at minimum a million dollars back from a single person who knowingly and willingly pirates it?

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:10 am UTC
by luketheduke
In theory damages are only about what damage the piracy did to you in fact. So if nobody would buy it either way, you wouldn't be able to get any damages (the pirates might still be caught in criminal law).
In practice, this has to be figured out. And the music labels and hollywood studios are the ones who can afford lawyers who convince the court that their figures are correct.

This also raises questions as to the punitive properties of such damages, because in nature they aren't punitive. In theory, you should have just about made the profit that the owner of the IP should have made, and you should just have to hand it over.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:45 am UTC
by MrGee
Read the Copyright Act. Prosecution may choose to sue for actual damages and profits OR a statutory damage award of $750 to $150,000. The RIAA does not have to prove that they actually suffered lost sales.

Also, any good law not only restores damages but makes the expected value of illegal action negative. If breaking law X had a $100 fine, but I would make $100 by breaking it, then I would just break it anyway if there's the slightest chance I wouldn't get caught.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:46 am UTC
by TheSkyMovesSideways
The Great Hippo wrote:
luketheduke wrote:No, TheSkyMovesSideWays. You are wrong, and your calculation does not apply.
I think TheSkyMoviesSideWays was just responding to the idea that a CD only costs $15 to produce; obviously, like any product you market, there are other costs involved.

Correct (s/\$15/$1/), I was responding to Reaper's suggestion that the record companies are ripping us off by making us pay $15 for a CD which costs less than $1 to produce. That post wasn't meant to be related at all to the ridiculously high punitive damages being levelled at file sharers.

So luketheduke, I agree with everything you said after "You are wrong, and your calculation does not apply." :wink:

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:58 am UTC
by The Great Hippo
MrGee wrote:Also, any good law not only restores damages but makes the expected value of illegal action negative. If breaking law X had a $100 fine, but I would make $100 by breaking it, then I would just break it anyway if there's the slightest chance I wouldn't get caught.
...explain to me exactly how I'm going to make money by stealing music. Especially since my 'customers' could steal it just as easily as I did.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:16 am UTC
by Marquee Moon
The Great Hippo wrote:
MrGee wrote:Also, any good law not only restores damages but makes the expected value of illegal action negative. If breaking law X had a $100 fine, but I would make $100 by breaking it, then I would just break it anyway if there's the slightest chance I wouldn't get caught.
...explain to me exactly how I'm going to make money by stealing music. Especially since my 'customers' could steal it just as easily as I did.

You don't make any money by stealing music, but you do get a "good" that's usually worth money. So if I want a CD worth $30 and I decide instead to download it for free, I'm $30 better off cause I have $30 I can spend on something else.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:26 am UTC
by The Great Hippo
Marquee Moon wrote:You don't make any money by stealing music, but you do get a "good" that's usually worth money. So if I want a CD worth $30 and I decide instead to download it for free, I'm $30 better off cause I have $30 I can spend on something else.
Right, but exactly how does "I've stolen 30 dollars worth of product from you" translate into "So we're going to seek compensation by the tune of 150,000 dollars from you"? It sounded like MrGee was claiming the insanely high penalty was an attempt to prevent people from making a profit off of other's works, but I don't see how that applies here.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:09 am UTC
by scikidus
Question: why do people still pay for music anymore? Just internally record it. It applies the radio recording exception clause in the DMCA, so you can record whatever music you want from sites like Last.fm and keep it on your computer "for personal use only". As long as you don't play the music publicly, you can load up your iPod for free.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:21 am UTC
by Marquee Moon
The Great Hippo wrote:
Marquee Moon wrote:You don't make any money by stealing music, but you do get a "good" that's usually worth money. So if I want a CD worth $30 and I decide instead to download it for free, I'm $30 better off cause I have $30 I can spend on something else.
Right, but exactly how does "I've stolen 30 dollars worth of product from you" translate into "So we're going to seek compensation by the tune of 150,000 dollars from you"? It sounded like MrGee was claiming the insanely high penalty was an attempt to prevent people from making a profit off of other's works, but I don't see how that applies here.

Well, they're sort of making a "profit" by downloading music, cause they have a $30 good without having to pay anything thing. I don't see what's so important about then selling that good on to another person to make a conventional $30 profit. I think what MrGee is saying is that we want this law to have an impact on peoples behaviours. So if you could get a $30 benefit from downloading a song, but there's only a 0.01% chance of getting caught, the fine needs to be huge to make you think twice about downloading. But, I agree that a $150,000 fine is too much to dump on one person, so I think we should look at more intelligent ways of dealing with the problem.

Is there actually a serious chance of a single person being fined $150,000? I must say I don't know much about this issue.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:27 am UTC
by MrGee
The penalty for a law should always be greater than the expected benefit. If you steal $30 worth of music, and you MIGHT have to pay a fine of $30, then there is no real penalty for stealing.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:44 am UTC
by The Great Hippo
Marquee Moon wrote:So if you could get a $30 benefit from downloading a song, but there's only a 0.01% chance of getting caught, the fine needs to be huge to make you think twice about downloading.
The penalty for littering (Do you have eyes? Do you have ears? Do you have a brain? Congratulations, you possess all you require to never be caught littering) is something to the tune of $150 around these parts. I've heard of places going all the way up to $500.

For the crime of stealing music, the RIAA wants an upper cap of... $150,000.

The explanation of "It's really hard to catch these people, so we need to financially devastate them beyond any and all capacity for them to ever even consider recovering because they downloaded a crummy U2 song" does not cut it. Stealing music might be wrong, but it is not wrong to the tune of one-hundred-and-fifty-fucking-thousand-dollars.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:58 am UTC
by Malice
The Great Hippo wrote:
Marquee Moon wrote:So if you could get a $30 benefit from downloading a song, but there's only a 0.01% chance of getting caught, the fine needs to be huge to make you think twice about downloading.
The penalty for littering (Do you have eyes? Do you have ears? Do you have a brain? Congratulations, you possess all you require to never be caught littering) is something to the tune of $150 around these parts. I've heard of places going all the way up to $500.

For the crime of stealing music, the RIAA wants an upper cap of... $150,000.

The explanation of "It's really hard to catch these people, so we need to financially devastate them beyond any and all capacity for them to ever even consider recovering because they downloaded a crummy U2 song" does not cut it. Stealing music might be wrong, but it is not wrong to the tune of one-hundred-and-fifty-fucking-thousand-dollars.


Actually, I believe the explanation is a variation on that--specifically, deterrence. The point is not so much the utter destruction of anyone found guilty but to make ordinary people go, "Well, shit, there's a small chance of getting caught, but if I do I'll be financially destroyed."

Maybe if the fine for littering was 100,000 dollars people would stop fucking littering, don't you think?

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:08 am UTC
by '; DROP DATABASE;--
Related article. I don't really think it's worth a thread of its own because it's nothing new, unfortunately.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:19 pm UTC
by luketheduke
And the part relevant to this thread suffers of grammar failure :x
Or can anyone explain this to me:
The RIAA proposal aims to make music fans stop trading pirated material, while limiting industry lawsuits that target individual offenders who face court damages of as much as $150,000 an infringement.


Anyway, yeah, a single file of a single song cannot be worth $150,000.

The Great Hippo wrote:For the crime of stealing music, the RIAA wants an upper cap of... $150,000.


Is copyright infringement not a criminal offense in the USA? Because here in Germany, we have civil lawsuits, where you sue somebody for the damages, e.g. get back the loss of profit you incurred, and criminal courts,and you can file charges with the police if you suspect somebody of copyright infringement.

This whole "punitive damages" thing only occurs because it is nigh-impossible to prove bittorrent filesharing with the standards of a criminal court.

Marquee Moon wrote:You don't make any money by stealing music, but you do get a "good" that's usually worth money. So if I want a CD worth $30 and I decide instead to download it for free, I'm $30 better off cause I have $30 I can spend on something else.

Yeah, "stealing". Stealing music is a criminal offense. Unless it isn't in the USA. I doubt that.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:24 pm UTC
by psyck0
Malice wrote:Maybe if the fine for littering was 100,000 dollars people would stop fucking littering, don't you think?

No. That's stupid. The fine for stealing music is as high as $150,000 and people still steal music.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:49 pm UTC
by luketheduke
People aren't educated and trained in risk management with big numbers.

$150,000 is just a "big number", and while any model of risk assessment will come to the conclusion of "don't do!" when the projected profit is $15 and the projected risk is $150,000 even at a, let's say, 10% chance of the worst case scenario playing out, people don't think that way. People will think "this is ridiculous, no sane judge would award that sum of damages for copying a single album".

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:39 pm UTC
by The Reaper
I'd just like to point out, most people aren't stealing music. They're copying it, and not making a profit off of it afterwards. Fuck the RIAA.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:41 pm UTC
by luketheduke
I'm not saying I don't do it, but it's still stealing. If you think it's too expensive, live your life without it.
Now if you want to say that 70 years of copyright after the artist's death and separate copyright for recordings is too darn long, then say that. DOn't say "it isn't stealing".

And big-scale piracy IS a problem.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:11 pm UTC
by Princess Marzipan
Except it's not stealing if I wasn't going to buy that product anyway. The analogy sort of breaks down at that point. I have a bunch of music that I acquired years ago in college, and listen to now and then. But I wouldn't have bought ANY of it. Period. There is no profit lost because I would just be listening to more OC Remix music instead.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:54 pm UTC
by luketheduke
Princess Marzipan wrote:Except it's not stealing if I wasn't going to buy that product anyway. The analogy sort of breaks down at that point.

You can argue that way, yes. But I don't think it's really accurate.

The way Intellectual Property is currently handled is clearly not optimal. But simply saying "Information needs to be free and the artists should earn their money with concerts and merchandise" doesn't solve the problem.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:32 pm UTC
by Princess Marzipan
luketheduke wrote:The way Intellectual Property is currently handled is clearly not optimal. But simply saying "Information needs to be free and the artists should earn their money with concerts and merchandise" doesn't solve the problem.

I guess it's a good thing no one said that, then.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:35 am UTC
by Malice
luketheduke wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:Except it's not stealing if I wasn't going to buy that product anyway. The analogy sort of breaks down at that point.

You can argue that way, yes. But I don't think it's really accurate.

The way Intellectual Property is currently handled is clearly not optimal. But simply saying "Information needs to be free and the artists should earn their money with concerts and merchandise" doesn't solve the problem.


Actually, it does. There's no evidence that piracy hurts sales; it may even help. Which means that the only actual problem here is that the industry thinks there's a problem and overreacts, with negative results all around. So redefining the problem as a good thing is really the best way to solve it, short of hanging recording executives up by their thumbs.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:07 am UTC
by Delass
I would say its not stealing because they don't lose anything. At all. If a song is downloaded, they don't lose that song. They still have it. Its the same thing as seeing a picture on a website, rightclicking, and saving it, and looking at it later.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:45 am UTC
by crzftx
Delass wrote:I would say its not stealing because they don't lose anything. At all. If a song is downloaded, they don't lose that song. They still have it. Its the same thing as seeing a picture on a website, rightclicking, and saving it, and looking at it later.


I agree. Stealing implies one person gains at another's expense.
If I would normally buy a product, it seems reasonable to call that theft.
If I would not normally buy a product, I don't see any loss. I actually see gain, since I have now become a commercial for their product. My logic breaks down when you use it against me saying something like "but you're also being a commercial for piracy to those that would normally buy the product."
If I tell someone I have CD X, without saying I've pirated it, and I don't seed, assuming I would not normally buy CD X, I'm really more of a help to CD X than an expense.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:12 am UTC
by Sockmonkey
It's not really the pirating that the RIAA fears, it's the big changes that downloadable songs force upon the industry itself. When music is sold online a lot of the middle-management types get made redundant and independant artists who offer their stuff for free or for cheaper than the big boys can directly compete with them.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:34 am UTC
by Magic Smoothie
Princess Marzipan wrote:Except it's not stealing if I wasn't going to buy that product anyway. The analogy sort of breaks down at that point. I have a bunch of music that I acquired years ago in college, and listen to now and then. But I wouldn't have bought ANY of it. Period. There is no profit lost because I would just be listening to more OC Remix music instead.

Yeah; nearly all the music I listen to is foreign and an import is upwards of $40. Do I want to spend all my money on an album with some kinda catchy songs, or on instruments and hiking gear? I do buy anything I can find for a reasonable price or used, though, and I go to concerts nearly every week.

$150,000 for one person is ridiculous, no matter how much the industry is suffering.

Re: Obama sides with RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Song

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:20 am UTC
by Iori_Yagami
Hahahahahahahahahaha! :lol:
It happened before, it happens now, and it will happen in the future!
I always make weird bets about how long the 'oh so new cool politician appeared. Now he's the smart one, not unlike 99% of others before - dumb, corrupted and incompetent. NOW everything will be fixed, finally!' will last.
Every time after elections there are about 1-2 months of complete euphoria with NEW power. And then - Kaboom! - everything is returning back to its circles, and mud-slinging begins again. :mrgreen:
The idea that this happens every friggin' time is so AWESOME. Some things never change. And some still wonder why many folks don't bother to vote. :mrgreen: