Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Beyond Eldred v. Ashcroft

Posted by michael on from the don't-get-mad-get-even dept.

I thought I'd grab up some of the many commentaries and responses to the Eldred decision. If you read only one of these links, see Lessig's blog. Jack Balkin, another law professor who contributed to the case, is discussing it in his blog. The NYTimes has two distinct news stories on the decision (NYT1, NYT2), plus a biting editorial about the decision. Copyright scholar Siva Vaidhyanathan has a piece in Salon. The LA Times posts one of the very few stories to present the decision in a positive light. Reason is one of several to mock the mouse.

2 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Who is the public domain? All of us. by uncoveror · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You will just scoff at these links, but here they are. You didn't think so? Think again. http://www.bushneverwonflorida.com/ http://www.9types.com/wwwboard/messages/23616.html http://www.gorewon2000.com/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4 109842,00.html I could provide dozens more, but I will let other posters do that.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  2. Lessig is Hopelessly NAIVE! by dilute · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Did you read THAT? Lessing was shooting for the votes of Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and O'Connor on some "limited federal government" bullshit ("Enumerated Powers")! Give me a break!

    Does this man really believe that these justices are driven by pure principle? Did he ever read Bush v. Gore? Remember, these are the same justices that bent over backward to overrule a State supreme court on "Equal Protection" grounds - something only liberal judges ever paid much attention to (unless the issue is reverse discrimination).

    Get real, folks. Abstract principles usually bend at the end of the day in the face of politics and economics.

    And besides, as Lessig himself acknowledges, under the better principle of constitutional law, he SHOULD have lost this case anyway.

    One thing for sure, is that I don't want anyone this naive as MY lawyer, and neither should you.

    It was unfortunate indeed that this case was brought as it was in the first place, giving the Supreme Court the opportunity to cement this terrible policy into the fabric of constitutional law.

    An in addition there are horrible statements in the majority opinion as to what the purpose of copyright protection is (essentially to make money for copyright owners).

    A total disaster from beginning to end.

    This stuff needs to be better thought through in advance by people with more sense, or we'll end up with no rights at all.