Hollywood Nervous About Kagan's Fair Use Views 239
Of the many commentaries and analyses springing up about Obama's Supreme Court nominee, this community might be most interested in one from the Hollywood Reporter. Reader Hugh Pickens notes that Hollywood may have reason to be nervous about the nomination of Elena Kagan to be the next US Supreme Court justice. "As dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009, Kagan was instrumental in beefing up the school's Berkman Center for Internet & Society by recruiting Lawrence Lessig and others who take a strongly liberal position on fair use in copyright disputes. And Kagan got an opportunity to showcase her feelings on intellectual property when the US Supreme Court asked her, as US Solicitor General, to weigh in on the big Cablevision case. 'After Cablevision announced in 2006 that it would allow subscribers to store TV programs on the cable operator's computer servers instead of on a hard-top box, Hollywood studios went nuts, predicting that the days of licensing on-demand content would be over,' writes Gardner. Kagan's brief compared remote-storage DVRs to VCRs (PDF), brought up the Sony/Betamax case, and lightly slapped Cablevision on the wrist for not making fair use a bigger issue. 'It sounds to us like Kagan would love the Court to determine when customers have a fair-use right to copy, which should cheer those on the copy-left at the EFF, and worry many in the entertainment industry.' On the minus side, Kagan has surrounded herself with entertainment industry advocates in the Justice Department."
Finally (Score:3, Interesting)
A story on the Supreme Court appointment that's actually News for Nerds rather than Republocrat propaganda!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You have the fair-use right to watch the TV Show at the time the station broadcasts it, on the devices they choose to enable you to view. And you have to stay and watch the commercials, otherwise you're stealing candy from the network executive's babies!
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like both Dem's & Rep's aren't exactly thrilled with everything Elena Kagan stands for. It always sounds like a good choice when neither side is happy with the possibilities.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The corporations only have themselves to blame. If they're unwilling to respect the populace's common-law rights like fair use, then those rights will need government protection, which means oversight. They're going to be like the kid who keeps stealing lunches, whining that the teacher's constantly watching what they're doing. Mark my words.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
It always sounds like a good choice when neither side is happy with the possibilities.
That's a refreshing bit for me right there. I'll admit that I don't follow politics much and don't really know anything about this person. But if neither dominant party thinks she's toeing the line enough then that's _exactly_ the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
But if neither dominant party thinks she's toeing the line enough then that's _exactly_ the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.
Your logic is broken. I presume neither party would like bin Laden, but I don't think that would make him a good nomination. Have you heard why people don't like her? Here's some of her thoughts on the first amendment [firstamendmentcenter.org]:
Someone who feels that freedom of speech is overrated - spare me the "fire! in a theater" exceptions we already know about - is not someone who I want deciding freedom of speech cases.
She also argued [reason.com] that prosecutors who deliberately manufacture evidence to convict (by definition) innocent people should not be civilly liable for their actions. I don't have great hopes that she'd side with individuals when it most matters.
It seems like there's something for everyone to dislike about Kagan, unless you're already a person in power and seeking to extend your powers. Then she'd be the woman for the job.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Your logic is broken. I presume neither party would like bin Laden, but I don't think that would make him a good nomination.
Granted, I could have elaborated more. But I assumed any reader would know what I meant.
Have you heard why people don't like her?
And how much of that was actually her? Or how much of it was her job as Solicitor General? It's a far cry from arguing the position of one's employer to actually holding one's own position on such matters.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, I could have elaborated more. But I assumed any reader would know what I meant.
I know what you meant, but still disagree with your conclusion.
And how much of that was actually her? Or how much of it was her job as Solicitor General?
I don't think that's a good excuse because it removes all personal responsibility. Compare with "Bush didn't really think we should invade Iraq, but he only did so because it was his job." Or more recently, "Obama really wanted to close Gitmo, but he kept it open because it was his job." I don't think either of those statements are more outlandish than the executive's top lawyer arguing that speech is too free.
There's a time and a place to go along with work duties you disagree with, but there's also a time to stand up and say "this is wrong and I can't do this in good conscience." In my opinion, lobbying the Supreme Court for a position you disagree with is poor form if you eventually want people to trust that you don't agree with that position. It's bad morally, and it's bad politically.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the duty and responsibility of a lawyer to put forth the best possible case for their client, independent of their personal feelings. Saying otherwise is the same as saying it is OK to deny legal representation to some. Fortunately, the legal system doesn't work like that.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
She had a boss. Her boss sets the tone of what he wants and why. Also, she was supposed to reflect the interests of the US government as best she could (which is broken in itself, as she should represent the US people, but that's not how it works) and did so.
The president doesn't bow to the will of the people. He is to do what's best regardless of what others think. He can't be fired. He answers to no one (assuming no laws are broken). And for him to do something "because it's his job" stops when the oath is taken. No one could ever argue it was Bush's job to invade. If Congress declared war (and they didn't) then one could argue that it was his job. But there was no declared war, so he had no job related duty to invade.
There's a time and a place to go along with work duties you disagree with, but there's also a time to stand up and say "this is wrong and I can't do this in good conscience." In my opinion, lobbying the Supreme Court for a position you disagree with is poor form if you eventually want people to trust that you don't agree with that position. It's bad morally, and it's bad politically.
That's why it's so hard for senators to go on to president. They made fun of Kerry for "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." But that's exactly what happens. For political, personal, or financial reasons, people change their minds. The bills get a rider or are changed such that you were on the fence yes, then on the fence no, so you flip-flopped. That's politics. The Senate is much more an old-boys network where votes change that way (smaller and with more longevity than the House). Lawyering is the same way. If you ever defend a guilty person (and there isn't a defense lawyer that doesn't) you are arguing to release someone who is guilty. That takes a dedication to the system above the dedication to the truth or justice. That's how our system works. To fault someone because they do their duty to the system as required seems absurd. If she didn't take the position that's "wrong" and run with it, she'd have been fired. And taking the position she did, even if she doesn't agree with it, is still considered ethical and the proper thing to do. From your statements, you'd exclude all public defenders, all defense lawyers, and almost all prosecutors from ever serving just because they did their job as expected and required.
It sounds like you either hate the adversarial judicial system we have, and are taking it out on her because she's in the public eye right now, or that you don't like her for some unrelated reason and are using this as an excuse when it applies to almost every lawyer universally and you aren't applying it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
She's the new Harriet Miers, I think. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers)
I'm leery of anyone who has no experience at being a judge serving as a judge.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think most SC justices had never served as judges prior to joining the SC, so this isn't an oddity. As far as I know, neither Rehnquist or Warren served as judges, so there's precedent for both liberals and conservatives :). It would be hard to describe either's tenure as incompetent, so obviously the lack of judicial experience is not necessarily a hindrance to being a SC justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the current court gave freedom of speech rights to *corporations*, I'm willing to gamble on someone with a less sanguine outlook on it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I presume neither party would like bin Laden
I dunno... they both are using him as an excuse for the largest power grab and rights-trampling stampede in American history.
The US government is currently in the process of pre-trial hearings for an illegally detained child soldier in Guantanomo Bay, which demonstrates the New American Empire's power to ignore the American constitution whenever it feels like it. And the illegally detained child soldier is a native-born Canadian citizen, so it is pretty clear that the New American Empire intends to extend
Re: (Score:2)
Kagan and Prosecutorial immunity... (Score:4, Interesting)
She also argued that prosecutors who deliberately manufacture evidence to convict innocent people should not be civilly liable for their actions.
Before you use her participation in support of the Pottawattamie prosecutors to extrapolate her entire character, I recommend reading the Pottawattamie County v. McGhee [scotuswiki.com] article over at SCOTUSWiki. Among other things, you'll find out that even the McGhee and Harrington side of the case agrees that prosecutors "enjoy immunity when they knowingly introduce false testimony during trial" based on the 1976 SCOTUS decision in Imbler v. Pachtman. All the legal wrangling was over drawing lines across contiguous situations, like whether or not that immunity extends to pre-trial conditions. The central idea of immunity for prosecutors during trial apparently wasn't even really being questioned, because much of the lawyering world apparently believes that if you open prosecutors to liability, it'll have a "chilling effect" on their ability to pursue justice even in situations where the defendant is guilty as sin because of the threat of being buried under lawsuits.
Now, from an ethical and liberty-focused perspective, I completely agree that a lot of this is ridiculous. I think that fabricating evidence is flat-out simply beyond the job description of any state officer, and so by definition, whether or not it happened pre-trial or during the trial, it's outside of official prosecutorial duties and can and should incur criminal and civil liability. But there are beings who walk the earth who see court cases very differently than a normal citizen does, who don't operate directly on matters of ethics and policy and justice and liberty, but instead on the law as the instrument which serves those matters, and who apparently see a prosecutors role as such an important one in actually pursuing justice that it's deserving of considerable latitude. I disagree and I think there's a cultural problem here that needs to be addressed by legal means: we're apparently going to need a law stating that fabrication of evidence is explicitly outside any public duty and that no immunity of any kind applies.
I'm unimpressed by Kagan's advocacy, and think everybody should contact their Senator -- particularly if they've got one that's on the judiciary committee -- if for no other reason to highlight this issue, which hasn't received anywhere near its due attention, but flogging Kagan in particular for it probably isn't going to address a systemic problem.
False copyright claims (Score:2)
Dude, you're saying this in the middle of the largest financial crisis ever.
Compared to the overall size of the U.S. or world economy, is this depression bigger than the one that started in AD 1929?
Hollywood goons look like amateurs compared to Goldman Sachs.
Companies like Goldman Sachs can use spurious copyright claims to suppress those who expose the high crimes and misdemeanors of said companies. Sure, it's perjury, but businesses that have been deemed too big to fail have gotten away with worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad on software patents (Score:4, Informative)
Her name is on the Bilski brief submitted by the Obama administration:
No extant field of technology or industry--including software and diagnostic methods, the two fields addressed by numerous amici--is wholly excluded from patent protection under that approach;
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's her acting in capacity as Solicitor General, which doesn't really count. She's required to argue in favor of all current laws in that position, regardless of personal beliefs.
Is this Groundhog Day or something? We run through this every time we talk about any administration's Solicitor General.
but, there is no law (Score:2)
The USA has no law on software patents. The relevant law was written before anyone was manufacturing computers: Legislation in the USA [swpat.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The USA has no law on software patents. The relevant law was written before anyone was manufacturing computers
By that token, the USA has no law on internal combustion engine patents, direct current electronics patents, or any other type of invention. Go back to the 1790 Act. They left it explicitly vague because otherwise, every time an inventor came up with something new, it would be unpatentable until Congress added a specific exemption. Inventors move faster than legislators.
Re: (Score:2)
Two congress men talking in a hallway. One looks down and sees a snail crawling near his foot. He stomps on it, grinding it under his shoe.
"Why'd you do that?" asks the other in surprise.
"That damn thing's been following me around all day."
A new and useful process (Score:2)
The USA has no law on software patents.
From 35 USC 101 [bitlaw.com]: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." A software patent covers an allegedly novel method of information processing; how is such a method not a "new and useful process"?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In Gottschalk v. Benson [wikipedia.org], SCOTUS ruled that a "process" does not include mathematical algorithms. Methods of information processing are mathematical algorithms.
Re:Bad on software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
If she is nominated, Kagan will have to be recused from all the cases that she handled as Solicitor General of the United States. That could be a few dozen cases. The reason is that as Solicitor General, she does not have the power to come up with her own viewpoints; she represents the President's interests. This isn't an indication of what she thinks, but she's just the person in charge of arguing the President's position.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The people with common sense on these issues are not that uncommon, it is not like they would be hard to hire in an official position !
I think the most "common" sense on this topic would be that copyright infringement (and many instances of fair use) = stealing.
The common / lay opinion is not always the correct-by-the-law or correct-by-founders-intent opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd tend to agree with you. Virtually everyone who sees the "you wouldn't steal a car" baloney, laughs at it as it is clearly NOT the same.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And he was a on cable news yesterday speaking in favor of her nomination and confirmation.
let's work that through (Score:5, Insightful)
Kagan: Hey, Barack. This software patent's issue is a real head scratcher. I can't find your stance on it. Can you remind me of it?
Obama: Elena, Elena, I'm busy. To be a patentable process, innovations should involve significant extra-solution activity i.e. activity central to the purpose of the claimed method. And don't forget that no patent can wholly pre-empt the use of a fundamental principle - and I don't just mean that a field-of-use restriction will suffice, I want to be sure that the algorithm can still be used for other purposes even in that same field.
Kagan: Thanks, I'll go fluff that out and add references. (done [swpat.org]) Sorry to have bothered you, I simply don't have the power to come up with my own viewpoints, so I wanted to clarfy what yours are.
(...or just maybe it's not a purely clerical role and there's a bit of Kagan in the document she wrote and got approved by the president.)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not understanding the process. The Solicitor General is the office responsible for representing the US Government in the Supreme Court. Like US Attorneys, they do not have much discretion to decide what position to take on issues. The President can tell his US Attorneys to bust people for marijuana use that is legal under state law to make a political point. The President can also tell his US Attorneys to try to conjure up a voting fraud case right before elections to get votes. The US Attorney doesn
Re:Bad on software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it is. She's the Solicitor General.
But there's a big difference between when your job is to be the lawyer for the United States (in regard to SCOTUS at least) and when you are actually sitting on that highest court. We've seen lots of conservative people move Left once they get to the Supreme Court. I don't remember anyone who has ever moved to the Right.
Re:Bad on software patents (Score:5, Funny)
That's because Democrat Presidents tend to nominate moderates (with an occasional joke Marxist stalking horse so that they can then put forward a "compromise"), while Republican Presidents offer the Senate a choice between Ghengis Scalia or Attila the Thomas.
Re:Bad on software patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that the justices who have moved most to the Left have been the ones appointed by Republicans.
John Paul Stevens is an example of that. He was appointed by Gerald Ford and sold as a conservative. He is arguably the furthest Left of any Justice currently sitting on the Court.
But maybe you have a point. Recent Republican presidents have appointed justices so far to the Right that there's really no place for them to go but Left.
Robert Bork would almost certainly be considered not conservative enough by today's Republicans because he took the 2nd Amendment literally and believed it only applied to "well-regulated militias" and did not give everybody the right to pack heat.
Re: (Score:2)
Robert Bork would almost certainly be considered not conservative enough by today's Republicans because he took the 2nd Amendment literally and believed it only applied to "well-regulated militias" and did not give everybody the right to pack heat.
As long as the right of the people to form "a well-regulated militia" is not infringed, I don't see how this would keep gun nuts from forming clubs and keeping and bearing arms. And given the historical classification of high-grade encryption as a munition, I can even see a Second Amendment argument against the DMCA's device bans (17 USC 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are free-speech advocates called "speech-nuts", are press advocates called "news-nuts" or are folks who hang out in groups called "assembly-nuts"? Of course not, rights spelled out in the Constitution are generally held up and honored, and things not in the Constitution like privacy and marriage are also generally up held and honored.
Except right to bear arms, if you support that you are a "gun nut".
The Supreme Court threw out the need to form clubs and established that firearm ownership, ammunition ownersh
Re: (Score:2)
As John Paul Stevens said: I didn't move the the left, the supreme court moved to the right.
/Paraphrased
technology trumps law (Score:5, Insightful)
technology changes law. technology does not fit into the confines as defined by law, law adjusts and accommodates to new technology
and when law pits itself against technology, law always loses. technological progress has destroyed and swept aside so many legal, social, and political structures in this world
why does anyone believe hollywood stands a chance? the internet has permanently changed media distribution, in favor of the consumer. all that media companies can do is adapt, or die. of course, in the adaptation period, plenty of absurd attempts at preserving the legal status quos of past dead technological eras will be attempted, but this is just denial
in the end, we, the consumer, win. because technology empowers us to route around the old status quo. and if the law is pitted against the technology, then it also empowers us above the law (in this one narrow issue)
Re: (Score:2)
So law has lost against technology such as explosives?
Or has that technology been massively restricted?
Has law lost and changed when faced with technology such as radar detectors?
Or has that technology just been more heavily restricted.
plenty of technology is restricted or stunted by law.
you're not thinking about the problem correctly (Score:5, Insightful)
think about the changes the gun wreaked on the feudal system
think about the changes the printing press wreaked on traditional religious/ monarchical power structures
think about the changes the nuclear bomb wreaked on warfare and international relations
now think about the internet and its effects on copyright law
the technology came, and changed everything. time and time again
i'm not talking about civilian restrictions on dynamite or radar guns, these are tiny dots. i'm talking about the larger technological themes: the introduction of electronics, the introduction of sailing ships, the introduction of the cotton gin, etc. surely you can see how technology alter society and the law in ways no one can foresee or even understand when the technology is introduced. its not like the guys fiddling with the arpanet in the 1960s said "hey, lets destroy the recorded music industry", but that's what their invention is doing
surely you can see technological change trumps existing law, and law must alter itself and adapt
Re: (Score:2)
There's a massive selection bias there.
Any technologies which are sucessfully suppressed or regulated/controlled into obscurity by definition don't get much attention.
such as what? (Score:2)
dynamite? plutonium? rocket propelled grenades? weaponized anthrax?
obviously these technologies need to be controlled
otherwise, what technologies can you possibly be talking about that has any merit on this subject matter?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point.
We can't know.
I'm not even talking about malicious suppression etc.
Perhaops well meaning regulations on radioactive isotopes have prevented/delayed the discovery of some really novel tech.
If the whole betamacs case had gone another way technology around digital recording/playback may have been massively stunted.
Hell the current biotech industry is looking very interesting but I'm wondering if fears about people cooking up viruses will cause it to be regulated to the point that advancement i
your point is absurd (Score:2)
no one is going to outlaw biochemistry, no one is going to outlaw physics
people ARE going to outlaw, and rightfully so (surely you can't say otherwise), working with SMALL SUBCLASSES of technology that only result in death and destruction
otherwise, you get stupid morons like this:
http://www.timw.com/2007/08/06/weird/radioactive-boy-scout-charged-in-smoke-detector-theft/ [timw.com]
i understand your point completely, and your point is completely without merit
you apparently cannot tell the difference between large overal
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
every large overall class has started out as a minor subclass.
Pleanty of currently available tech can make people dead yet is accepted because of it's benefits.
Pleanty of old tech if it were developed today would be stopped in it's tracks before it's benefits could be shown.
I know academics who work in drug trials who just love to point out that penecilin would almost certainly not even make it through the early stages of trial were it invented today because so many people are severly alergic to it.
It would
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the end, it is not going to be a question of whether or not the law can defeat technolo
Re:there will always be a legitimate war on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
What about alcohol? Withdrawal effects from alcohol are worse than from opiates -- in fact, they can be deadly without medical supervision. We sell tobacco to teenagers, yet tobacco dependency is more easily formed and more difficult to break than cocaine dependence.
"its not a war, its a maintenance function of civilization, like taking out the trash every thursday"
Well, let's see. Cocaine was first made illegal because people thought that when black men used cocaine, they would become unstoppable even with a gun. Yes, that sounds like a maintenance function of civilization to me...except for the racism part. Opiates, like heroin? Made illegal because of a belief that Asian immigrants would bring their habits with them to the USA -- even though heroin could be legally purchased over the counter, as marketed by Bayer. Yup, more maintenance, if we ignore the whole racism thing.
Unlike you, I actually know the history of the war on drugs, and it is not pretty. It is one racist act of congress after another, mixed with corporate lobbying, and recently we can add a profit motive for police departments. We are not talking about drug regulation here, nor are we talking about efforts to keep people healthy -- this is an effort to imprison people on a mass scale, particularly immigrants and black people. People are serving longer prison sentences for non-violent, drug related crimes than would be typical for a murder case.
The goal is not to "win," at least not as President Reagan defined victory (a "drug-free generation"). The goal is to increase the profits of pharmaceutical, alcohol, tobacco, prison, and firearms companies, and to keep an ever expanding police force employed. Racism is a convenient means to this end: you can arrest scores of black people for drug offenses (in some localities, one third of the black men are incarcerated), and nobody in the middle or upper classes will oppose it, especially not after seeing one image of a dangerous black man after another.
Regulation and health are things I am all for. You can regulate drugs without throwing millions of people in jail or creating police forces that are as heavily armed as the military. You can protect the general health of the population without propaganda and racism. The war on drugs is not helping our society, and I hope you understand that.
Man, you're deluded (Score:2)
When has a bag of heroin kicked in someone's door and shot family members? When has a 8 ball of cocaine taken someone's house, car and any other property that can be confiscated without recourse?
There is no drug worse than the drug war. Drug addicts need treatment, not incarceration (unless they did crimes which weren't the use of the drug). Drugs remaining illegal means that the prices are sky high, and people willing to do the illegal work can make lots and lots of money (so do the police intercepting the
As do I.. (Score:2)
I'm not lumping them all in together though.
You say cocaine and meth destroy lives, how much of that is due to the illegality?
Can't work if you're a user (no money).
Drug is expensive, but you have no job.
Drug comes before everything else in life.. life ruined.
or
Police come in arrest person for use of drug, take away family, throw person in jail.
Would it be different if the drug was legal, and this person could work in a minimum wage job to pay for the drug, and have plenty of opportunities to enter treatmen
Re: (Score:2)
To save this subset of fools, you throw away basic rights, create a police state, and a have incarcerated more people than any other democratic nation (per capita and per percentage wise).
To save these fools, you've given a huge funding source to criminals, you've created billionaires in the rest of the americas who corrupt governments, own private armies and kill with impunity. This money also goes to fund war efforts for people like the taliban (heroin from afghanistan) FARC (cocaine) and countless others
Re: (Score:2)
So, when I was talking about propaganda, this is basically what I was referring to.
Do you know anything about the drugs you are talking about, or are you basing your argument on rumors and Hollywood movies? Let's clear a few things up:
Re: (Score:2)
"but for the highly inebriating+highly addicting, you have a substance that overrides willpower, causing you to want to do nothing except zone out for hours, unable to maintain a job or relationship, and become caught in a biochemical feedback cycle that overwhelms all other desires in your life save one: more, more, more... you can't cope with any joy or depression in your life without resorting to the substance. nothing in your life becomes possible without the substance. you are now a slave. "
Alcoholics
Re: (Score:2)
Wow.
Just wow.
It's rare to come across people outside politics and thwe church choir who are so utterly utterly blinkered.
It's particularly funny because you use the example of the mafia.
free and unfettered access to the most addictive/inebriating drugs leads to a reasonably stable population of people who freely choose to take drugs.
So for the sake of saving lives from the hell of addiction, and preserving civilization from this infection, there will ALWAYS be a war on alcohol, forever. the war on alcohol i
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No. They aren't. The destruction of freedom wrought by the War on (Some) Drugs is far, far worse than the effects of any drug.
No, it doesn't. Look at all the cocaine and opiate addicts and u
Re: (Score:2)
circletimessquare, that is one insightful post.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, to double-post here, but the more I think about it, the is one of the most significant comments I've read on Slashdot.
The only question I have is whether or not there is a boundary condition when corporations become so powerful that are able to make nations bend to their will. Yes, the internet has permanently changed media distribution, but corporations are exerting
Heh... (Score:2)
Usually, if the movie industry opposes a view or a law, that's because it benefits their customers more than it benefits them :-)
Re: (Score:2)
So you usually support views and laws that benefit someone else to your detriment?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you usually support views and laws that benefit someone else to your detriment?
If I'm being a douche about something, yes, I do support laws that benefit someone else at my expense.
Sending Youtube and other websites takedown notices to remove five minute clips from movies (i.e. free advertising) is a douche move. Not allowing me to show a movie to my family because it has too many members and qualifies as a "public performance" is a douche move.
Laws protecting fair use are appropriate and needed.
And I'M nervous about Kagan's fair-use views... (Score:2)
Re:And I'M nervous about Kagan's fair-use views... (Score:5, Informative)
Elena Kagan doesn't run the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I am not overly concerned about Kagan's fair-use views, whatever they may be (ultimately I think that problem will and should have a legislative solution), but I think there is a snowball's chance in hell that she will be as or more liberal than Stevens on executive power. Until being appointed Solicitor Gener
Wonderful! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, it's refreshing to hear of any public official actually being in favor of Fair Use.
I don't know how it'll play out, but considering the pro-corporate stance most have taken, I'm encouraged by the fact that she even knows Lawrence Lessig and has apparently some understanding of the issues involved.
Most of the Justices would just call up Jeff Bewkes and say "Whaddya think, Jeffie? You got it! Now can you get Seth Rogan to do standup at my nephew's birthday party"? (or, in Clarence Thomas' case, "Do you really know Jenna Jameson?")
Good for Nerds, I think. (Score:5, Informative)
A great HuffPo Piece [huffingtonpost.com] by none other than Lawrence Lessig, Mr. Creative Commons himself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, much of Lessig's argument is based on his personal knowledge of her, and lacks evidence about what her political positions/ideology actually is. He even concedes at the end of the article that by replacing stevens, she will move the court further to the right, which wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that the current court is already pretty conservative.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/27/lessig/index.html [salon.com]
liberal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see what's "liberal" about fair use.
I think people should stop trying to shoe-horn every single issue into a liberal/conservative spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
Granting humans rights in lieu of giving the complementary power to a business is liberal, at least as liberal/conservative are defined today.
I just refuse to define myself in terms of liberal/conservative, personally. My opinions do not live on a one dimensional scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Granting the government power in lieu of giving the complementary right to humans is liberal, at least as liberal/conservative are defined today.
I don't see where you're disagreeing with me.
Again, issues do not fall on some liberal/conservative graph which has some moral value associated. Life is more complicated than that, and besides, lib/cons have been loaded with so much baggage by political meme engineers as to be worthless.
Re:liberal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
More precisely: conservative means: "do whatever the oil industry wants", and liberal means: "do whatever Hollywood wants".
Or, as a slightly more serious addition to this discussion: "liberal" comes from "liber", which means "free". You'd expect liberals to defend liberties, and I think fair use counts.
Re: (Score:2)
More precisely: conservative means: "do whatever the oil industry wants", and liberal means: "do whatever Hollywood wants".
The oil industry likes Democrats just fine [politico.com]. It's a mistake to believe otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal. Noun.
4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible,
5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action
11.
not strict or rigorous; free; not literal
Mind you, the meaning of the word isn't as politicised out here.
Re: (Score:2)
That's all very true etymologically, but it does not accurately describe current American usage, which is much more complicated. At some point in the US, liberals became enamored of the use of state power to achieve equality, even at the expense of individual freedom. And an important component of American 'conservatism' is the preservation of American liberal values against the encroachments of the state. On issues related to copyright, there is no clear alignment of pro- and con- with 'conservative' and '
Re: (Score:2)
It is however the most accurate terminology for non-American speakers, and is unambiguous from context. There is no clear "Liberal" stance on fair use as in many other issues, just a "liberal" one. There's plenty that's liberal about fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it depends on where you see the greater threat to your personal liberty...
The government, with laws and regulation...
OR
Corporations and/or other people, with economic coercion.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
liberal –adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with resp
Poor Hollywod (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Could it be? (Score:5, Funny)
You refer to the prophecy of The One who will bring balance to the Copyright. You believe it's this girl?
well, maybe not too nervous (Score:2)
Question (Score:2, Interesting)
If they're worried about Kagan... (Score:5, Insightful)
... they should love Obama's pick for her replacement as Solicitor General [salon.com].
Summary totally misguided; read Glenn Greenwald (Score:5, Informative)
2) As the Solicitor General, you are a lawyer for the government. You argue their cases. We should not confuse positions she took as the Solicitor General with her own personal opinions on the cases.
If anyone wants the real story on Kagan (she's woefully unprepared for the Supreme Court) please read what Glenn Greenwald has recently been writing about her http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan [salon.com] and a debate yesterday http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/10/progressives_divided_over_obamas_nomination_of [democracynow.org]
Not necessarily her views. (Score:4, Insightful)
> And Kagan got an opportunity to showcase her feelings on intellectual
> property when the US Supreme Court asked her, as US Solicitor General, to
> weigh in on the big Cablevision case.
Not her views. She was repersenting the adminstration. He personal views may or may not be the same as those she presented on behalf of her employer.
Re:It's a bit early to say this is a good choice . (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm failing to see where she would be influenced by 'payola'. It's true that politics play a role in getting onto the Supreme Court. Once on the Supreme Court the only way she can lose her job is if the House of Representatives impeaches her, the Senate tries her, and she is convicted by a super-majority vote. Her salary can never go down. She will not have to face election. She will be guaranteed employment for life.
The only way she could accept payola is if she took an outright bribe. That's not unheard of as Clarance Thomas accepted a $1 million advance [slashdot.org] on his biography one week before issuing his ruling in Eldred v Ashcroft. Nevertheless, accepting a bribe is one of very few things that could ruin a Supreme Court justice's career.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, the best word you could think of that means "pressure" was "payola", not "pressure"? O.o
Re: (Score:2)
Not going to happen.
Kagen has spent a career making her position as ambiguous as possible. The Republicans are attacking the former Dean of Harvard law school on experience, not on substance, which should tell you something.
When this goes to the senate the confirmation is going to hinge on democrats deciding whether they trust Obama or whether they ought to make sure that Steven's replacement doesn't shift the balance of power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's certainly a point worth of discussion. If the GOP or anyone else want's to say that supreme court justices have to have had judicial experience, they're free to make that case. Historically, judicial experience has not been a requirement. Some of the most effective justices have come from politics, not the court room, including John Marshall, Thurgood Marshall, and Hugo Black, and William Rehnquist. Qualifications, like the confirmation proce
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a pair of neat tricks called, "reporting" and"journalism."
Re:Can we mark TFA as troll? (Score:5, Informative)
SCOTUSBlog posted a nice, hysteria-free overview [scotusblog.com] of Kagan's career a few days ago. It's well worth a read, and the authors seem to know a thing or two about the courts (unlike most reporters and pundits who have been covering the story).
If you read up on her career, you'll see that she has a great deal of respect for existing precedent, and doesn't seem to have allowed her own personal opinions to interfere with her past jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually thought this was pretty good as a slashdot article since, hey, current events, but with a decidedly "stuff people argue about here all day long" take on it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
First, you gotta come up with what you want the acronym to be. For the act in question, PETLOVE would seem to be a good one.
Next, you gotta come up with words that reduce to that acronym.
Protecting
Everyones
Timely
Lust
Of
Vertebrate
(rear)Ends
Apologies to those with invertebrate pets, I didn't want to spend any more time on this.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the closest I can get to formulating what exactly the "liberal" opinion is on fair use and copyright.
Heaven forbid anyone protect content providers from pirates who seek to profit off of the works of others.
That being said though, ripping your CD and DVDs and occasionally letting one of your friends get a copy isn't a threat to the RIAA and MPAA. I wish they'd realize this and go after the guys who are selling bootlegs on the street and tracking down the guys who are bulk importing pirated copies o
Re: (Score:2)
The Libertarian position is, protect the individual.
Unfortunately, that term has been hijacked as well, and carries very little meaning today. In fact, most Libertarians today are simply oligarchical states-rights activists (including Ron Paul).
Also, the "protection of the individual" argument actually forms the basis for classical liberalism, which does not necessarily advocate for a small government. (For instance, a government formed under this philosophy would ban smoking in public, and hand out tickets to drivers who aren't wearing seat belts. Taxati