Quote:
Originally Posted by spellbanisher
So you've basically decided to start your post with a simple straw man...
|
I've spent enough time on MR to know that there will be a lot of negative reactions to the ruling, based on personal preferences rather than actual understanding of the law or how the SCOTUS works.
And let's be realistic: Most people who disagree with a legal ruling don't bother to consider the actual laws or rulings in question, they just disagree with the results. For example, the
Citizens United ruling is roundly rejected on what may well be an excellent civic good (influence of special interests and big donors is bad for society) but ultimately has an insufficient Constitutional basis to overwhelm the requirement of Congress not to restrict speech.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by spellbanisher
you haven't read the whole thing?
|
Not yet, I've read about 1/3 of it so far.... and did not choose to hide it. It's long, complicated, and just came out. I'd like to read it more carefully, but have lots more on my plate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by spellbanisher
But you have no problem declaring that "The Requirement for for copyright to perpetuate "arts and sciences" was already thoroughly reviewed and found to be non-binding in Eldred V Ashcroft"
|
I've read
Eldred v Ashcroft. And yes, that ruling does review and reject the idea that the "promote arts and sciences" phrase is not binding on the powers of Congress.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by spellbanisher
This isn't just an honest mistake; you are appealing to a false authority....
|
Any more names of fallacies you'd like to throw out, rather than address the actual content of my post?
Ms Samuelson doesn't seem to say much more than "
Feist should have applied, and Lessig's argument was correct." (
Eldred did discuss
Feist, see p22 of the opinion.) Yes, other issues remain,
Eldred did not address everything -- which is why this case was heard, and I'm sure there will be more IP cases in the future.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by spellbanisher
"A substantial consensus exists within the community of American intellectual property scholars that the CTEA is unconstitutional...
|
Wow, that appeal to the vague authority of a "substantial consensus" of scholars, cited by a scholar with her own agenda, really showed me.
On a side note, while I understand there are some valid concerns (especially over perpetual copyright), IMO ultimately it is better to leave many of these issues up to Congress rather than the SCOTUS. It's a much more flexible option, since it's significantly easier to change a law than to override a Supreme Court ruling.
Of course we could start a wide-ranging discussion on the nature of US Constitutional law, the role of scholarship therein, etc etc but I'd say that's best left for a politics subforum.
[quote=spellbanisher]From "The Myth of Copyright's Fair Use Doctrine as a Protector of Free Speech"
http://www.chtlj.org/sites/default/f....Lockridge.pdf
I'll address this later, if/when I have time or inclination.