View Single Post
Old 03-16-2011, 06:38 AM   #38
rogue_librarian
Guru
rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
rogue_librarian's Avatar
 
Posts: 973
Karma: 4269175
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Europe
Device: Pocketbook Basic 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga View Post
Considering that their basic premise (as related by Giggleton, at least) runs counter to multiple rulings ...
Nothing in law is ever really fixed. Courts frequently change their opinion; the US Supreme Court certainly does (about a 150 times since WW II, in case you were wondering) and particularly in cases "involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible" (Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406–407, 410. Brandeis, J., dissenting).

As they so aptly put it: "When convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions. (Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665)

It's usually legal scholars' work that discusses and criticizes courts' decisions that bring about such change. In that light this book raises a few very interesting questions and makes good points; nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H. View Post
I haven't read the book, but to the extent that the authors are claiming that the 1st amendment trumps copyright as a matter of law, they are simply wrong.
They are merely voicing an opinion. There is no "wrong" as long as you're internally consistent in your arguments.

Last edited by rogue_librarian; 03-16-2011 at 06:46 AM.
rogue_librarian is offline   Reply With Quote