Thread: U.S. Government blasts Google
View Single Post
Old 09-12-2009, 07:57 PM   #46
Kali Yuga
Professional Contrarian
Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Kali Yuga's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,045
Karma: 3289631
Join Date: Mar 2009
Device: Kindle 4 No Touchie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward View Post
Kali, I'm not trolling, just discussing...
No problem, didn't think you were. Although now that you mention it...


Quote:
Originally Posted by RSE
We ended our equivalent of apartheid via the courts. Abortion was legalized by the courts. Pornography laws were overturned by the courts. Busing of school children for forced integration was order by the courts. All of these had strong backing against changing these laws, and the courts overrode those constituencies. Google is trying to do the same thing.
Many of those rulings either built off of existing laws or existing Constitutional principles and rights. I.e. Brown vs Board, which may be interpreted as a work of judicial activism, had to ground its legal reasoning in the 14th Amendment.

Plus, those rulings do not alter the fact that a civil suit between private parties does not have the legal standing to overturn existing copyright laws, as long as those laws are consistent with the Constitution (which they are). Hence Marybeth Peters' objections.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RSE
To my view, the main effect, whether deliberate or accidental, will be to disrupt the "stockpiling" stranglehold on copyrighted works. And that's a good thing, IMHO.
How, by moving the stockpile into Google's vaults?

More to the point, I really do not see why just being the first person to convert these works into a new format suddenly ought to give you the rights to use it as you please. That isn't the case with music recordings, for example, which was able to pull tremendous amounts of recordings back into circulation -- while obeying existing copyright laws. I don't see why books should be any different or why Google (or anyone else) should receive some sort of special dispensation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CleverClothe
I don't get why people are acting as if this settlement is a law or court ruling. It isn't!
It's overturning major aspects of existing copyright laws, in that it grants Google all sorts of abilities without express permission of the true rights-holder. I.e. it acts like a new law, which is why it should be rejected and legislated instead.
Kali Yuga is offline   Reply With Quote