Court Finds Part of Copyright Act Unconstitutional

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "A US District Court in the Southern District of California has found the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act to be unconstitutional. That act is what removes the sovereign immunity for infringement that state workers have in their official capacity, something many argued would jeopardize universities with liability for faculty infringement, not to mention other state agencies. In a rather dense legal ruling (PDF), the Court found that the Clarification Act was not a valid exercise of congressional power under the 14th Amendment. For those of you who have absolutely no idea what I just said, I recommend either being glad that a small piece of copyright law may soon bite the dust, or hoping that NYCL will explain this better."

Comments

uh?

[z-j-y]

I have no idea what you are saying.

Re:How should I know....

[alshithead]

"I disagree. A cult is generally a group of people who follow a charismatic leader who has only his own best interests at heart. The followers themselves are usually unable to recognize the fact they're being hoodwinked, or even do much thinking for themselves. That does not in any way describe the people that follow NYCL's writings, or Ray Beckerman himself for that matter."

I can think of at least a couple of "cult followings" that don't meet your definition. I'll start you off with one and let you come up with some others.

The Grateful Dead...

Re:Ray's busy - cut him some slack

[overunderunderdone]

It's really such a simple proposition, they probably knew it was unconstitutional when they enacted it, but did it anyway to placate some big contributors and lobbyists from the RIAA/MPAA crowd.

If this can be shown to be the case (based on statements they made) for any congressman they should be impeached. The Courts are NOT supposed to be the only arbiters of constitutionality, all three co-equal branches of government take the same oath to uphold the constitution and are expected to do their bit. Congressmen are obligated to vote against a law that they consider unconstitutional, the president is obligated to veto it and the courts are obligated to find it unconstitutional and void it only if the first two checks fail. Arguably the courts aren't even the final arbiters of constitutionality since congress has the power impeach judges and to regulate and even make EXEMPTIONS to the court's appellate jurisdiction. so the most immediate check on a runaway judiciary is supposed to be those same congress-critters that are passing the buck because they think constitutionality is not their problem.