These Supremes answered the wrong question. They were asked to validate or repudiate the lower court's opinion. Which was [eff.org] that when Grokster does not promote criminal use, the software has has "substantial legal use", Grokster does not know when an illegal transaction occurs, and Grokster does not even itself have the power to bar a specific person from making a transaction, Grokster cannot be liable for a criminal transaction by a user. And, by extension, neither can any other provider of software meeting those conditions. The lower Grokster decision did not explicitly state that Grokster must not promote criminal use, though that seems implicit in "has substantial legal use", when such a condition is nowhere mentioned explicitly. You know, like how "possession of encryption implies criminal intent" [schneier.com].
I suppose that Grokster also must not "force users to commit crimes, including at gunpoint or through hostages or nuclear blackmail", but the Supremes did leave us all thrashing in ignorance of that detail. Likewise, we still can't be sure that Grokster can avoid liability when they do not promote crime, because we can only infer that state - which costs a lot of money for lawyers to do, with Hollywood now making an industry out of propagandizing that implication.
Perhaps the lower court, to which the Supremes' decision returns the case for a new decision with their "advice", will find that Grokster is not liable, because it did not promote criminal use. Then MGM will take the case back to the Supremes (the 2008 remix). And perhaps the Supremes will reject hearing the new case, having heard it already. Then, like the Schiavos, MGM will keep their case under reconsideration for years. Grokster and the rest of us in the lower courts will spend a lot of money defending under this ambiguous ruling, and the entire P2P and streaming industries, not to mention software in general, will operate under the uncertainty that an ax could fall on our necks any June for the next decade. Thanks, you cranky ancient prima donnas with lifetime immunity from accountability! The rest of us have to live with your work for our entire lives, without that guaranteed paycheck. We really spend a lot of money on these Supreme Court justices, for them to produce such a shabby product.
Now, on the heels of that blatantly criminal "eminent domain" ruling [slashdot.org], Conservatives will be screaming for new Supremes who "respect property rights" and "hold individuals responsible for their actions". When Bush appoints the most corporate Supremes we can imagine, and puts Clarence Thomas in charge of the court, we'll be stuck with the most corporate court ever, with the most corporate Congress ever, and the most corporate White House possible. Unless Democrats can take back the House and Senate next year, and deliver at least some of the competition with teeth that checks and balances our mechanical government, this country is doomed. And everyone else within its reach - which means everyone else. Funny how that particular blockbuster movie won't be coming out of MGM studios this Summer.
Ummm.... In case you didn't read, your so-called evil conservatives were the ones writing the dissent on the emminent domain ruling. Yes, Clarence Thomas, Rhenquist, Scalia, and O'Connor all felt strongly that the government should NOT be allowed to seize your property - whilst all the liberal judges (yes - some of the liberal judges were appointed in compromise by Republican presidents) voted that the government should be allowed to take your property under any circumstances.
Therefore - your post makes no sense - in the first sentence you laud the ruling as blatently criminal, and then go on to criticize those who voted against it. Usually when liberals talk out of both sides of their mouth, they reserve it for at least a seperate paragraph - not the next sentence.
Also, it was the conservatives that tried to uphold the rights of medical marijuana patients to grow pot for their own personal use when it is legal in thier state.
The liberals ruled that it fell under federal law and was therefore illegal.
This is a mis-representation of the case and decision. The Court ruled that federal law trumped state law, based on the Interstate Commerce clause. It had nothing to do with personal rights, but federal vs. state rights.
That's what I said. Legal in their state, liberals ruled that it fell under federal law, due to a very weak, far removed, link to interstate commerce (potentially slightly reducing the interstate trade in illegal drugs).
Bit by bit they've expanded federal power, and this most recent ruling shows just how weak the link to interstate commerce need be.
If the federal government wanted to ban public libraries, they could easily do so now, as they obviously reduce the interstate demand for books.
No, you are the one who either didn't read my post, didn't understand the point about Conservatives packing the court, or (most likely) are just joining the Conservative chorus and blaming the "liberals". I said that that ED ruling would be used by Conservatives to demand Bush "balance" the court by appointing Conservatives. As you have just neatly done.
In further support of the kind of deep contradiction between language and effect that Conservatives have begun to monopolize, "laud" [google.com] means "praise" - not t
No, Anonymous defensive Coward - it is you who is the incoherent, angry Republican, if you'll forgive the redundancy. I said that the resulting screams for "property rights" and "individual responsibility" will be used by rightwingers (like you) to demand Bush appoint new righwing justices, "for balance". Who will hand every possible decision to corporations, just like the kleptocratic Eminent Domain decision last week, and today's P2P decision for Hollywood media corporations, which promote all kinds of cr
You don't have to be some imaginary "devil incarnate" for me not to tolerate you. You come out with instructions that I should calm down and see it your way. You make false dichtomies that you expect me to swallow, in order to "negotiate" with you. You have nothing that I want. Why should I "compromise" on facts? "Bloodlust"? You know nothing of war - I suggest *you* turn off your TV, your blogs, whatever other tawdry little dreamworld you've crammed yourself into. Then you might appreciate the difference
Yes, Clarence Thomas, Rhenquist, Scalia, and O'Connor all felt strongly that the government should NOT be allowed to seize your property - whilst all the liberal judges (yes - some of the liberal judges were appointed in compromise by Republican presidents) voted that the government should be allowed to take your property under any circumstances.
This is an amazing misreading of the court's opinion. In general none of the court's members held that it was not OK to buy property for eminent domain use. The
Come now. Obviously eminent domain, the taking of real property for *public use* does not require that *private developers* should be allowed *government powers*. It's disingenuous to claim that it does. That ruling gave the government the right to take anyone's land for any purpose. That is not a limited right, as eminent domain is stated to be in the constitution. No, this is a new right, being taken from the people, and given to the government. A right to redistribute property.
I don't think you understand the court case. The SC ruled that private property may be seized and given/sold to another private entity.
This wasn't the case of the government tearing down some houses to make a new highway or public resource, it was tearing them down so a corporation could build a development.
This case is most onerous because it allows the government to seize your land if they think they can make more money from it. Have a nice plot of forest? The govt. can now seize it for a logging compan
Also, the only disagreement was with respect to how broad an interpretation the terms "public benefit" was WRT earlier eminent domain cases.
The liberals got you. The question was what the term "Public Use" means, not "public benefit". The majority opinion continually used the term "public benefit", but as Clarence Thomas pointed out in his dissent, the term used in the Constitution is "Public Use".
Although I sympathise with the owners who are being forced out of their long-time homes and I don't like
No, but it's apparent that you didn't read the dissenting opinions. Both make the same blurs between "public use" and "public good"
Where does the Thomas dissent do this? Actually it seems to me his dissent is essentially an argument against this blurring:
The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for "public necessity," but instead for "public use."
Grokster does not know when an illegal transaction occurs, and Grokster does not even itself have the power to bar a specific person from making a transaction, Grokster cannot be liable for a criminal transaction by a user
They ruled on that. They said that because grokster specifically promoted illegal use, with tons of evidence such as emails that said "we need more illegal music on our network than our competitors", that they were liable.
Another major part was that Grokster specifically sought to capt
The lower court must decide whether internal email constitutes promotion. Which it does not. And "intent" is the kind of thing that lawyers get paid to invent from actual evidence and metaphysical argument.
Perhaps the lower court, to which the Supremes' decision returns the case for a new decision with their "advice", will find that Grokster is not liable, because it did not promote criminal use.
Except, the courts feel they did - if you read the text of the ruling, they come down pretty hard on Grokster and StreamCast for going after the old Napster users and pushing it as a way to download illegal files. Grokster will likely get pounded, but current & future p2p software that does not push itself as
The evidence of their promotion was their internal emails. The lower court can decide that they might have "intended" to do so, though the lawyers can yank that metaphysical argument either way. But where's the "promotion", the actual messages to the market?
They're pretty different, though they're both bad. It just depends on which corporations (including unions) are signing their checks. The question is which party's spokesmodel will do the least damage. I'd rather a disorganized group of competing interests (Democrats) run the bureaucracy, than a fine-tuned gang of fascists with a Christian face (Republicans). If there were a possibility that Democrats might control all 3 elected sections of the Federal government, I might have to come up with a better strat
Who says the Democrats would "make it all better"? One possibility is that Republicans will keep all elected houses - they'll certainly make it worse, especially by installing Supremes without "obstruction". Another possiblity is that Democrats will take one house - of Representatives, say (because it's more possible), and things will possibly get some checks on their slide to hell. What's not possible? A third party taking the House 18 months from now. Or a successful "revolution" that leaves us without pr
Don't count on the Democrats to help fight corporatism; they're even closer to Hollywood, the RIAA and Big Copyright than the Republicans (who have enough of a suspicion of the coke-snorting hot-tubbing secularists of Hollywood not to give them everything they ask for automatically). Basically, the MPAA/RIAA are to the Democrats what the oil industry is to the Republicans.
When the Democrats next win power, expect DRM mandates and copyright extensions and expansions aplenty.
There's no way around these corporations, with their position as first-class citizens atop the political bribery foodchain. And which corporations are more dependent on the "will of the people" in their audience: the "secularist" (what? they're also "human", and all kinds of other normal things) Hollywood corporations, or the "faith based" devils running oil companies like Enron, Exxon and Halliburton? Which one is sending people to die in the name of Jesus, robbing the Treasury in the name of "fiscal conse
These Supremes answered the wrong question. They were asked to validate or repudiate the lower court's opinion. Which was that when Grokster does not promote criminal use, the software has has "substantial legal use", Grokster does not know when an illegal transaction occurs, and Grokster does not even itself have the power to bar a specific person from making a transaction, Grokster cannot be liable for a criminal transaction by a user.
Maybe you haven't read the Opinion of the Court yet so I'll go ahea
For "evidence" of promoting criminal use, the Court found "intent" in the internal emails (not promotion), and a marketing strategy to promote the service to people never found to have committed any crime, though they were certainly the best customers for any P2P system. Which is why the undisputedly legal, relaunched Napster markets to that same group even more aggressively. From that nonevidence of promotion - conspicuously lacking an example like, say, an ad saying "ignore the copyright laws" - they addu
The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.
Directors Cut (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose that Grokster also must not "force users to commit crimes, including at gunpoint or through hostages or nuclear blackmail", but the Supremes did leave us all thrashing in ignorance of that detail. Likewise, we still can't be sure that Grokster can avoid liability when they do not promote crime, because we can only infer that state - which costs a lot of money for lawyers to do, with Hollywood now making an industry out of propagandizing that implication.
Perhaps the lower court, to which the Supremes' decision returns the case for a new decision with their "advice", will find that Grokster is not liable, because it did not promote criminal use. Then MGM will take the case back to the Supremes (the 2008 remix). And perhaps the Supremes will reject hearing the new case, having heard it already. Then, like the Schiavos, MGM will keep their case under reconsideration for years. Grokster and the rest of us in the lower courts will spend a lot of money defending under this ambiguous ruling, and the entire P2P and streaming industries, not to mention software in general, will operate under the uncertainty that an ax could fall on our necks any June for the next decade. Thanks, you cranky ancient prima donnas with lifetime immunity from accountability! The rest of us have to live with your work for our entire lives, without that guaranteed paycheck. We really spend a lot of money on these Supreme Court justices, for them to produce such a shabby product.
Now, on the heels of that blatantly criminal "eminent domain" ruling [slashdot.org], Conservatives will be screaming for new Supremes who "respect property rights" and "hold individuals responsible for their actions". When Bush appoints the most corporate Supremes we can imagine, and puts Clarence Thomas in charge of the court, we'll be stuck with the most corporate court ever, with the most corporate Congress ever, and the most corporate White House possible. Unless Democrats can take back the House and Senate next year, and deliver at least some of the competition with teeth that checks and balances our mechanical government, this country is doomed. And everyone else within its reach - which means everyone else. Funny how that particular blockbuster movie won't be coming out of MGM studios this Summer.
Re:Directors Cut (Score:4, Interesting)
Therefore - your post makes no sense - in the first sentence you laud the ruling as blatently criminal, and then go on to criticize those who voted against it. Usually when liberals talk out of both sides of their mouth, they reserve it for at least a seperate paragraph - not the next sentence.
Re:Directors Cut (Score:2, Interesting)
The liberals ruled that it fell under federal law and was therefore illegal.
Re:Directors Cut (Score:2)
Re:Directors Cut (Score:1)
Bit by bit they've expanded federal power, and this most recent ruling shows just how weak the link to interstate commerce need be.
If the federal government wanted to ban public libraries, they could easily do so now, as they obviously reduce the interstate demand for books.
Re:Directors Cut (Score:1)
Except there are no liberals on the SC. Merely not being a super-conservative like Rehnquist or Scalia does not make you "liberal".
Re:Directors Cut (Score:2)
In further support of the kind of deep contradiction between language and effect that Conservatives have begun to monopolize, "laud" [google.com] means "praise" - not t
Re:Directors Cut (Score:2)
Re:Directors Cut (Score:2)
Re:Directors Cut (Score:2)
This is an amazing misreading of the court's opinion. In general none of the court's members held that it was not OK to buy property for eminent domain use. The
Re:Directors Cut (Score:2)
Re:Directors Cut (Score:1)
This wasn't the case of the government tearing down some houses to make a new highway or public resource, it was tearing them down so a corporation could build a development.
This case is most onerous because it allows the government to seize your land if they think they can make more money from it. Have a nice plot of forest? The govt. can now seize it for a logging compan
Re:Directors Cut (Score:1)
Also, the only disagreement was with respect to how broad an interpretation the terms "public benefit" was WRT earlier eminent domain cases.
The liberals got you. The question was what the term "Public Use" means, not "public benefit". The majority opinion continually used the term "public benefit", but as Clarence Thomas pointed out in his dissent, the term used in the Constitution is "Public Use".
Although I sympathise with the owners who are being forced out of their long-time homes and I don't like
Re:Directors Cut (Score:1)
No, but it's apparent that you didn't read the dissenting opinions. Both make the same blurs between "public use" and "public good"
Where does the Thomas dissent do this? Actually it seems to me his dissent is essentially an argument against this blurring:
Re:Directors Cut (Score:1)
Except there are no liberals on the SC. Merely being to the left of a super-conservative such as Rehnquist does not make you "liberal".
Re:Directors Cut (Score:1)
They ruled on that. They said that because grokster specifically promoted illegal use, with tons of evidence such as emails that said "we need more illegal music on our network than our competitors", that they were liable.
Another major part was that Grokster specifically sought to capt
Re:Directors Cut (Score:2)
Re:Directors Cut (Score:1)
Except, the courts feel they did - if you read the text of the ruling, they come down pretty hard on Grokster and StreamCast for going after the old Napster users and pushing it as a way to download illegal files. Grokster will likely get pounded, but current & future p2p software that does not push itself as
Re:Directors Cut (Score:2)
Re:IMO (Score:2)
Re:Directors Cut (Score:2)
The Democrats (Score:2)
When the Democrats next win power, expect DRM mandates and copyright extensions and expansions aplenty.
Re:The Democrats (Score:2)
Re:Directors Cut (Score:2)
These Supremes answered the wrong question. They were asked to validate or repudiate the lower court's opinion. Which was that when Grokster does not promote criminal use, the software has has "substantial legal use", Grokster does not know when an illegal transaction occurs, and Grokster does not even itself have the power to bar a specific person from making a transaction, Grokster cannot be liable for a criminal transaction by a user.
Maybe you haven't read the Opinion of the Court yet so I'll go ahea
Re:Directors Cut (Score:2)