Slashdot Mirror
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."
what it means? You should have submitted it to "Ask Slashdot".
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
was passed with the intent to subject States to liability for copyright infringement. The CRCA amended 17 U.S.C. 511(a):
Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State [...] shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment [...] from suite in Federal Court [...] for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner.
So this ruling basically says you can't sue the state for violating your copyright.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The first article linked to sounds to me like if a state employee violates copyright as part of his job, the state can't be sued but will fire the employee who can *then* be sued. Sucks to be that employee...
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
The USA is a conglomerate of separate and independent governments. Each state has its own government that co-exists with the federal government. The federal government is a government of limited powers. It has only the powers that the states gave it when those states ratified the Constitution. The 11th Amendment to the Constitution specifies that states cannot be compelled to defend suits in federal courts.
States, as independent sovereigns with their own governments, enjoy sovereign immunity. No one can take legal action against a sovereign unless the sovereign gives permission to do so. Various Tort Claims acts allow those injured by states to sue the states to recover damages.
The US Constitution was amended in the 19th century to include the 14th Amendment as a response to slavery and its vestiges. Specifically, the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 amendments to the Constitution) specifically applicable to the states and allows the federal government to create legislation that abrogates sovereign immunity of the states if, and to the extent, necessary to abolish the vestiges of slavery. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted using Congress's powers under the 14th Amendment.
Therefore, what I presume the Court's ruling held is that Congress could not abrogate sovereign immunity of the states for copyright infringement because such infringement is not one of the vestiges of slavery. Also, I suspect that there is probably some discussion of states' immunity from suit in federal courts for copyright infringement. Since copyright infringement is a claim that can only be brought in federal court, you can see how a state could infringe at will by refusing to permit itself to be sued in federal court on a claim that is impossible to bring instate courts.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
OK: I'm a 2L at a law school ranked in the US snooze & world reports top 20. But more importantly I'm in Fed Courts and have my final in less than 2 weeks. This case has NOTHING to do with copyrights whatsoever. It instead involves an insanely complex topic called "state sovereign immunity". What I am about to say is hopefully accurate, but is by no mean a deep analysis of sovereign immunity doctrine. Many scholars actually think (and I agree) that the Supreme Court has massively overconstitutionalized Sovereign Immunity doctrine and that it should be much more rooted in common law which would allow Congress more flexilibility in abrogating it in some circumstances. Before going any further: This ONLY applies to dragging a state into a FEDERAL court, the state court systems have their own sovereign immunity that can be different:
What is state sovereign immunity? An ancient concept that basically says "you can't sue the state unless the state gives you permission to do so". It goes all the way back to the days of Kings, and was imported into the US too. In the Constitution the states have sovereign immunity from 1. a basic "postulate" of the structure of the constitution (this is extremely fuzzy and not well defined) and 2. The 11th amendment which ONLY created sovereign immunity in diversity actions (correcting a blunder put into the original Article III language). Now, there are still plenty of times that you CAN sue a state, the courts have carved out an exception for suing a named state official, and doing so only for future prospective relief (like I want the state to stop harming me, but I can't sue to collect big money from the state).
So you might say: What about all my rights, can the state get away with everything? The answer is no. It is possible for Congress to (in limited circumstances) abrogate or take away state sovereign immunity. The problem comes from the above "postulates": State sovereign immunity is INHERENT to the Constitution (not just to common law which would be easy for Congress to override with legislation). Think of this in programming terms: In the ORIGINAL base class (constitution) there is no real way for Congress to abrogate sovereign immunity unless there is an express exception in the base class itself. However, when the 14th amendment came along LATER and amended the constitution (think of the constitution as a new inherited class with slightly different properties) it DID give Congress a window to (sometimes) abrogate a State's sovereign immunity.
To abrogate you need 2 things that the Court in this case found lacking: 1. Congress has to very clearly state in statutory language that it is abrogating state sovereign immunity (not every bill relating to the 14th amendment abrogates, section 1983 of the civil rights act is a notable case); 2. (and this is where the act failed): The right granted has to PROPERLY be rooted in the 14th amendment section 5 grant of power to Congress. This law was not rooted in the 14th amendment even if Congress said it was. The Copryight power has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. There is one exception in the original Constitution that Courts have recognized, and that is the bankruptcy power (which has some funky text associated with it in ARt I), aside from that the Court has basically held that state sovereign immunity could be abrogated for bankruptcy).
Why have all this sovereign immunity? Well there are good reasons for it, the biggest one being that it would be way too easy to sue the states for petty money in federal courts. It should be no surprise that abrogation came with the 14th amendment which was passed after the Civil War when the trust of the states was at an all time low. Remember: In a federal democracy like the U.S. the states DO have trust and sovereignty, but not absolute sovereignty, and the level of trust they get has gone up & down over the years.
Now
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
The way I read this (and I'm a lawyer) through official action, a state can now, willy-nilly, appropriate intellectual property with immunity.
Yeah, that doesn't sound good at all, although it's one of those things that may cost them more in the long run.
Besides, the military has been doing that forever. My father worked on a number of major contracts for the Navy and Air Force back in the sixties, and anything they decided they liked and wanted to have built cheaper elsewhere they would just stamp "CLASSIFIED".
Once that was done, the original manufacturer/designer/inventor was basically screwed out of his rights (patents, copyrights, whatever) and couldn't even take it to court. After that happened to Dad a couple of times, he made damn sure that the patent apps and design specs left out crucial elements such that they'd eventually have to come back and buy it from his company. That, or invest a whole lot of time and money figuring out what he hadn't told them. They deserved it though: the Navy severely shafted his company on a number of contracts. Just outright stole years of work, and put them out on open bid ("classified", yeah, right.) Sleazy, and not what most people would expect from the service. A used car salesman, sure, but not from the world's most powerful military.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I know as a law student you probably know more law than I do, but as a practicing IP lawyer, I have to disagree with you. I don't think a petition for certiorari would be granted and if it was, I think the decision of the trial court would be upheld.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
Linux doesn't have an EULA. The GPL only applies to _copies_ of the software that you might make (including derivative works, which fall under the jurisdiction of copyright anyways), not how you use the software once you have it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The Eleventh Amendment gives the states sovereign immunity in absolute terms, and it controls over any Constitutional text that preceded it. Thus, any Congressional power to limit sovereign immunity must come from an amendment that was passed AFTER the Eleventh Amendment. It cannot come from the Copyright Clause.
Arguably, the only place to look for a Congressional power to limit sovereign immunity is the 14th Amendment, section 5. This text gives Congress the power to enforce the first 4 sections of the 14th Amendment through "appropriate legislation." But any Congressional action that relies on Section 5 must be geared towards enforcing Due Process, Privileges and Immunities, Equal Protection, or some other clause of the 14th Amendment.
Essentially, the court in this case says that the purpose of the Copyright Act is not to enforce the 14th Amendment. That seems pretty obvious to me. The purpose of the Copyright Act is to enforce the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, not the rights enshrined in the 14th Amendment!
The only argument that I can think of for the other side would look to the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. The 14th requires that states not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. So the argument would go like this: 1) The state is taking a person's property when it violates someone's copyright. 2) The Copyright Act creates a due process right, in that it requires that the state allow itself to be sued for such a taking. 3) The 14th Amendment authorizes the Copyright Act's limitation on sovereign immunity, because it is an attempt to enforce a Due Process right.
But there is a fatal flaw in that argument. A violation of copyright is not a taking of property. If you violate someone's copyright, they are still the copyright holder. A copyright violation is NOT a taking of property. Without a taking of life, liberty, or property, Due Process is not required, and the 14th Amendment is not implicated.
the Constitution is our supreme law;
any statute that conflicts with the Constitution is invalid;
the 11th amendment to the Constitution says you can't go into federal court to sue a State, states are immune;
the 14th amendment creates an exception to the 11th because it says if a State is systematically depriving some people of their rights (as, e.g., denying people's right to an equal education because of their race) then you can go into federal court to sue a State;
a statute which authorizes people to go into federal court to sue a State must therefore be based on the 14th amendment;
because this statute (authorizing copyright suits against states) was not based on the 14th amendment -- i.e. not based on systematic deprivation of some people's rights -- then it's an invalid statute.
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
This happens way too often. The damage caused by these unconstitutional laws can be enormous since our courts (by design?) are rather slow in reacting most of the time.
Speaking of the government ignoring the Constitution, I got halfway through "Constitution Chaos" by Judge Napolitano. I had to stop reading it as the thought "rope, tree, politician - some assembly required" kept going through my mind. I'll try to finish reading it after I lock up all the firearms and hide the key.
-- Will program for bandwidth
That was the original excuse for the abomination that is the modern EULA (a contract, masquerading as a license, intended to change the terms of sale post sale.) That's why, in the US, we have USC Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs.
So, if you don't need a license to run the software, or install the software (essential step in the utilization), what's the point of the EULA. After all, there's Adobe vs Softman, where the court found that a single payment for perpetual use constitutes a sale, not a license. If buying the software doesn't get you the right to have it, what did you pay for? If buying the software does give you the right to have it, and copyright law doesn't allow the creator of the software to prevent your using it, then what's the point of the EULA in the first place? When you buy a book, it has a copyright notice, but no license. None is necessary - your purchase gives you a right to use it. Anything else would be silly.
Now, there is a specific case where they are useful, and make sense. A true license (not the modern bastardization) only grants freedoms, but can do so according to terms. Ultimately, it's not the license that takes your ability to do things away, but the law itself. Here's an example:
I make a piece of sheet music. Copyright law states that you cannot distribute copies you make of said music.
Suppose I attach a license to it stating that "you are permitted to make and distribute copies, provided the copyright notice and this notice remain intact". This grants freedoms ("make and distribute copies"), subject to terms ("the copyright notice and this notice remain intact.") You aren't required to accept the license - you can use the sheet music just fine without a license. Should you choose to avail yourself of the additional freedoms I grant you with my work, you may do so (subject to terms).
So, for software, it makes sense to have a license when the author wishes to expand the user's rights beyond that provided by the Doctrine of First Sale, Fair Use, etc. He could, for example, permit the use on a second machine (a laptop perhaps), etc.
Napolitano works for FOX News as a commentator. FOX News is a right-wing puppet news organization. Therefore Napolitano's book is also part of the right-wing conspiracy. I will not read it.
(I say with sarcasm, what many people would say with all seriousness. They display prejudice rather than open-mindedness.)
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.