Slashdot Mirror
Sotomayor's Position On Copyright Damages
Too Lazy to Login writes "Wired reports that, based on her previous decisions, Sonia Sotomayor will likely affirm high damages (read: RIAA excessive) in cases where copyright claims are at issue. Good thing I'm not a betting man, because I'd have guessed the exact opposite." We discussed the nominee's cyberlaw record in general last week.
What did you expect given Barack Obama's political philosophy and how he's acted in office?
People who don't understand the concept of diminishing return shouldn't be allowed to graduate high school, much less become a judge.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/01/sotomayors-record-environmentalists-hope-business-leaders-pause/
love is just extroverted narcissism
The case quoted involved businesses who were wilfully infringing, and the decision was that the fines should be punative to act to disuade others.
This may not be true for the RIAA and dealing with individuals, but its probably true when dealing with businesses.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Wired reports that, based on her previous decisions ...
Huh, that's odd, I only found the article to list one case -- the TopRank suing the host of a tavern in 1996. And the statement she added as:
"A willful infringement, which the magistrate judge found, combined with a willful default, however, warrant an award greater and more significant than one which corresponds so closely to an estimated loss to the plaintiff,"
Are there more decisions I missed? Are we basing our image of this woman off of one action and one statement?
It's not a good indication but it's hardly conclusive. Things have changed with the advent of the internet since then. Here's to hoping, I guess, but I think we're being a bit unfair and too hasty.
My work here is dung.
Would she favor high copyright damages against latino female file-sharers?
(sorry, had to go there. you may now release the hounds.)
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Is the only answer. Throw them all out.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
One more time:
Republicans: Oil and gas
Democrats: Hollywood, the movies and recording industry
_Never_ be surprised at Democratic support for DRM, the RIAA or MPAA.
excessive), why?
I reckon RIAA and those persuaded by their arguments will continue to try to tighten their grip as much as they can wherever they can. Whether or not Sotomayor will decide in ways that favour RIAA or not is something I hesitate to speculate about. However if people want their government representatives and judges to understand their reservations about RIAA's way of doing business they have to continue to speak up; not only to protest but also to try and find solutions to the situation we are at now.
What should be the principles behind music and movie distribution? I for one would hope for something that those purchasing and creating such material would both find acceptable. Though it is hard for me to say what that would be. At the moment what we have are many reacting to what they see as negative trends, and some saying so in well argued ways, but as long as RIAA can claim even an inch of legitimate concern for the artists and their rights they will continue to resist reforms they cant adequately, in their eyes, influence.
The Long Now Foundation
. . . is wrong with her. I mean, she's sexist, racist, pro-corp, anti-individual rights, pro-handout, anti-responsibility.
1. There is no excuse for her statement regarding how the richness of a latina's life experiences give them the ability to make better decisions than a white man. News flash: That is racism, bigotry, the whole works. As a white male, I've moved around the country, lived on both coasts, attended schools in three states, had two friends kill themselves, had many others not. I've seen both financial ruin (my parents were hundreds of thousands in debt after their business failed when I was a child -- they did not declare bankruptcy and eventually paid back every dime) as well as upper-class lifestyle. I've had pets. I've traveled the world from Honduras to Hong Kong. Fact of the matter is that her lack of respect for MY opinions is greatly disturbing.
2. She holds a hard-line, firm belief in affirmative action, regardless of the circumstances. By god if the percentages aren't represented, then the reason must be RACISM! Never mind that statistics and probabilities may mean that the 15 people who ace a test might just be more qualified for their job.
There's more, but I'm busy and you have better things to do than read my rantings. Needless to say, I hope she flunks.
I mean, seriously: Obama comes from the epicenter of corruption in this country. Did you think for an instant he would forsake his corporate sponsors?
Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
Umm... Wut?
The entire point of the RIAA cases* is to increase the risk of file sharing so that it becomes less common. If they only sued for a couple hundred bucks, then no one would care. These cases are all about punitive action and would be worthless without it. If Sotomayor supports punitive infringement suits, she will almost certainly support the RIAA's.
* Certainly part of the RIAA's plan is to also leverage the life-crushing nature of their lawsuits to extort money out of others, but that doesn't change the deterrent 'ideal' of their suits.
Meanwhile, the Supremes rule on questions of law, not amounts of damages, so TFA asks a silly question and gets a silly answer.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
First, the case quoted involved willful infringement by a business and other aggravating circumstances. Also, from a strict-construction viewpoint the law does specify the amount of statutory damages so her finding that, if infringement occurred and the claim qualified for statutory damages, damages in the amount defined by the law were to be awarded would hardly be unexpected.
The big question is how she views the whole question of whether infringement occurred. That's the area where the RIAA and MPAA tend to part company with the rest of us. It's pretty clear that mass copying and distribution of unauthorized copies is infringing behavior, whether or not it's done for commercial gain. Note please that making 10,000 copies of a tape and handing them out on the street-corner is a far cry from copying a couple of songs off a tape so your friend can listen to them. To my mind there's three categories: copying that's not infringing period (eg. the copies needed to listen to anything on a computer), copying that's clearly infringing (the aforementioned making copies in bulk for anybody who comes along), and an intermediate range where the copying's technically infringing but so inoffensive that we view it as unreasonable for the owner to complain about it absent some additional problems. Making a copy of a few songs for a friend falls into that third category, it's technically infringing but the general reaction to an owner complaining about just that would be "Jeesh, get a life, dude.". The usual way the courts handle things like this is to award some token amount of damages, like the retail price of the songs copied, and then deny any request for costs by the plaintiff. What I'm interested in is exactly where Judge Sotomayor draws the lines between those three categories.
Good thing I'm not a betting man, because I'd have guessed the exact opposite.
Your gullibility is neither interesting nor novel.
Not true in the slightest (well, maybe the slightest). It is neigh guaranteed that some time in the lifetime of whoever is appointed the Supreme Court will hear a case regarding the excessiveness of damages in a (personal) infringement suit. Their ruling would basically decide if the present statue (regarding damages) is constitutional.
So true, they will not be deciding how much money _you_ have pay. However, they will be deciding something much more important: the minimum and maximum that _anyone_ should have to pay.
Meanwhile, the Supremes rule on questions of law
Wrong. The Supreme Court rules on questions of law. Dianna Ross and Mary Wilson, while talented singers, have no legal standing.
I don't see anything in the Top Rank decision which justifies the conclusion the Wired author has drawn. The only decision referred to was Top Rank v. Allerton Lounge, a typical 'bar and tavern' case. In those cases the statutory damages are frequently from 2 to 4 times the actual damages. The Magistrate appears to have awarded statutory damages on a 1:1 ratio. Judge Sotomayor raised the damages, but not wildly to some extreme multiple like what the RIAA looks for. It appears that her award was between 2 and 3 times the actual damages, which is within the usual range.
The RIAA seeks from 2,200 to 450,000 times the actual damages. It is well settled law that statutory damages awards have to bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages, and in keeping with economic reality. And it is well settled law that excessive disproportion to the actual damages is unconstitutional, as a violation of the due process clause.
There is no reason in the world to think that Judge Sotomayor would consider imposing statutory damages of $750 to $150,000 as against plaintiff's 35-cent loss for the download of a single mp3 file.
In the unlikely event that the RIAA could prove the defendant was a "distributor" -- i.e. someone who disseminated copies to the public by selling them, or by other transfers of ownership, or by rentals, leases, or lending -- then of course the actual damages would be higher than 35 cents. But the RIAA would have to prove its actual damages, and then the court could award statutory damages greater than that sum, but -- under established Supreme Court precedent -- the award would be constitutionally suspect were the ratio greater than single digits.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Die, spammer.
I'm just waiting for Sotomayor's Paris Hilton style homemade porn video to be released. I hope that long forgotten boyfriend held onto that tape they made that one rather forgetful night.
Seriously, did you read the speech she gave from which that specific segment is taken? If you actually read the sentence in context, it doesn't mean what every single right wing freak has claimed it does. God, man, think for yourself.
Granted, the damages do seem high, but these are only applied where the conclusion has already been made that a proper case was brought about and the crime proven without a reasonable doubt.
Why focus on this after-the-fact nonsense? In a perfect judicial world where only copyright violators were convicted, I would whole-heartedly support brutal monetary punishments to these self-entitled jackasses.
But in reality, shouldn't this crowd-sourced angst be directed at the flawed proceedings and discovery that is the real issue here? Please, for everyone who cares about "justice" and fair use and other copyright issues, let's focus the energy, however fickle it is, on what really matters here.
I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
The facts are complicated and require thinking, and might result in a conclusion that 1) not what the GP expects to find or, 2) doesn't fit exactly inside of the predetermined possibilities.
This is Slashdot - people are confident in their computer skills and knowledge of sci-fi, which naturally translates into flawless wisdom in relation to all things. Socrates woulda loved this place.
because the method of intimidation favored is to claim the opposing views are only driven by prejudice and paranoia.
Figuring her panel's overturn rate by the Supremes is probably a better indication of why she should not be on the Supreme Court but is fine where she is.
The real problem, she was selected for what she is, not who she is or how she ruled... at least according to the speech the teleprompter provided.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I don't recall ever hearing of one politician who wasn't on the side of the RIAA. Many people are calling it corruption, but it is legal because the money that changes hands is "campaign donations". However Legal corruption is still corruption. It has been around longer than any of us posting on here and I don't foresee it changing any time soon. Big business runs the country, this is no different than a year ago when all the telecommunications companies got off the hook because they gave "campaign donations" to most of congress the largest of which were to the three presidential candidates Obama, McCain and Clinton. Hmmmm where's Charlie Wilson when you need him...or maybe Mr. Smith.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
The folks at TechnicallyLegal (disclaimer, I'm a writer and podcaster there) wrote up a post as to why her decision in the copyright case will have little bearing on the outcome of the RIAA cases. And why her reasoning there isn't really indicitive of what her reasoning may be in those cases.
http://www.technicallylegal.org/de-fud-sotomayors-stance-on-copyright-infringement/
Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
Has anyone ever heard the poly-sci term "Legislating from the bench?" AFAIK and what I have learned is that Judges are only supposed to make judgments based on the original intents of the law, not create new policies and laws based on their judgment.
Live Free
So the reason damages are so high in copyright cases is because there is a statue about it. Normally in civil suits damages are limited to actual damages and then something in the realm of 3x actual for punitive, if warranted. Ok so for copying a CD the maximum you could possible argue in actual damages would be the retail cost of the CD (and that might be questionable since it is a copy, not a theft). That would end up with a total damage range of like $30-60 per CD, and then only if they can get punitive damages.
However copyright law provides for incredibly high statutory damages, we are talking like $100,000 per incident. Thus the RIAA can go after people for tons of money and use it as leverage to force a settlement. The problem with that is that it runs contrary to the 8th amendment.
So this is well an issue the SC could be hearing soon. A defendant could claim that the statutory damages are unconstitutionally high, meaning the law should be struck down.
Um, are you serious? Hilary Clinton is Secretary of State .
First I've heard of this. Care to point me at your source?
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Sure, Sotomayor herself:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Also:
Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench.
And:
But I accept there will be some [bias] based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
Uh, don't listen to the news do you?
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the speech where she said a female latina Judge would come to a better decision (on the basis of her being female and latina) than a white male judge.
Now, I fell off the political correct bandwagon a long time ago, but I do believe that the bulk of the people that make up the Democratic party would've had themselves a little uproar if John Roberts had said something of the lines of "I think a white male judge can come to a better informed, fairer decision than a black female judge".
Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren, a Republican governor of California to the Supreme Court. Warren was a centrist with broad support on both sides of the aisle. Warren led the Supreme Court through a remarkably liberal period. Eisenhower later publicly rued the choice he made. Bush the Elder nominated Souter as a conservative, and got something quite different.
The Court of Appeals judges (like Sotomayor) are bound by existing law and precedent. They never get the opportunity to be the final word on the Constitution. Once they go to the Supreme Court, they have the complete, unobstructed freedom to change--and they often do.
TFA is just speculative nonsense. /. is just putting it out because it starts little flame wars between the piracy lovers and the piracy haters. Aargh, matey.
Far to the left? Obama is a corporate centrist, his favorite president is Ronald Reagan. Don't tell me you've bought that 'He's a SOCIALIST! ZOMG!" crap, have you? Meet the next corporate centrist, same as the last corporate centrist. Oh, this one's not as war happy, which is a plus, but otherwise, not much difference.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yeah, I saw that first one in other sections, only with the context provided.
I fail to see how the second and third sentences make her racist. People who are different *gasp* have DIFFERENT OPINIONS?! Say it isn't so! I think the assertion that every man and woman should have the same opinion as a white guy to be incredibly racist, myself.
And anyone who says "I have no bias" is a fucking liar and should be punched in the face repeatedly. I more trust someone who acknowledges they have points of bias, so that they can actually work towards mitigating that bias.
So, try again, and provide me with some actions backing up those words. Show a decision that was racially motivated.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Uh, don't listen to the news do you?
Not YOUR news. I'm Canadian. I only keep a tangential interest in your judicial system at best, since all my favourite TV shows tend to involve it somehow.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
"In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
It's easy to mince people's words in order to prove a point.
It's much more difficult to actually listen to the whole thing and receive their message.
Full text: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
"It is neigh guaranteed "
Nigh is the word you're looking for, neigh is what horses do. Doesn't affect your point, but figured you'd want to know.
Read the rest of the quote. She just said the same thing that Alito said, only with more grace and dignity.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the law should be different for an individual who willfully infringes than it is for a business that does the same thing, or that Sotomayor is likely to ignore the law and treat them differently anyhow?
Here is a simple solution: Get some morals and ethics and stop infringing on their copyrights. I know, I know, you don't want to have to pay for what you want, but tough shit. Do the right thing.
If you don't agree with the law, work on changing it. And, if you choose to break the law, don't whine about it when you get your ass smacked. You made your choice, live with the consequences.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Imaginary property is unconstitutionally enforced by the federal government, leading to a government granted monopolies such as Microsoft, the MPAA and the RIAA. The Republicrats and Democans both have historically supported those government granted monopolies by passing more legislation to protect these monopolies.
--
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.
Ok, fine, so you spent a few years in law school, graduated, passed the bar and practice law.
How exactly does that qualify you to talk on this matter? Did you go to journalism school? Do you work for wired?
Feh.
You quote demonstrates that (a) first you, and (b) the culture you would wish to represent are hopelessly damaged, If you don't see why it is way too late to help you ... but a hint, different dosn't mean worse or racist.
Idiot!
We've never been at a place where a racist wasn't a serious candidate for the supreme court. This one is less racist than most. She just doesn't happen to be a white man, which is what's really got you spooked.
Support SETI@home
Actually, it looks worst in context. Until the final sentence she's pushing the usual post-modern relativist position, then pulls a 180 on the last sentence, which implies that, contradicting the previous sentence, she does believe that there is a universal definition of better.
Add her lesser abhorrence (her own words) of the idea of physiological or cultural differences, than the old white woman, and she sounds MORE racist, not less.
Say What you want about goold old GW Bush.
But I do not recall him putting any Oil Industry attorneys in the DOJ...
Your upbringing colors your perceptions and opinions. Being raised a middle class white male in the mostly white suburbs, has played a very large role in shaping me into who I am today. Granted, I've put some work into transcending this, but it still holds true. Hell, being left handed, wearing glasses, having curly hair, being tall, etc... has colored my perceptions.
I'm guessing being hispanic and female would have similar effects.
Pointing this out isn't racist. By stating that being of Germanic decent influences my opinions, am I being racist?
Yes, she represents a class that isn't common in our halls of power which are largely composed of older rich white men, yes, her views might give her certain insights that would be harder for rich white guys to see. Nothing too controversial here., I can admit that Martin Luther King Jr. was probably so effective at his work because he was... well... black. Would MLK Jr. stating that his background gives him insight on certain issues that would be much harder to obtain from a what guy, be racist?
Of all the arguments against her, this is the silliest, and least deserving of consideration. The fact that she is somewhat unknown, and doesn't have a clear history, or philosophy, is more disturbing to me. I also worry that she was picked because she is a latina, over other, perhaps more qualified, canditates just to solidify diversity.
I'm sick of diversity for diversity's sake. Merit should be colorblind, and the only criteria for our decisions.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Sorry, if people dont buy RIAA music and goto MPAA films they will soon run out of money.
No AWARE new artist(s) need to get screwed by them again, The front game is OVER. The Internet, and with it (almost) free publishing and (absolutely) free publicity emerged into the world.
The MPAA & RIAA cannot pack the genie back in the bottle, and their business model is defunct, they will go bust on their own if you simply excercise your freedom and ignore them.
Statues are the things in the lobby that look like a chick in a blindfold playing with a balance scale.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
You must not get out a lot or read much...it's been all over the news (and I mean that in terms of regardless of whether or not you AGREE with the allegations, the allegations have been EXTREMELY widely reported, blogged, etc about)
So in short, I'm not sure if you're trying to be snide or not, but the allegations go back to a statement she made (linked below, see for greater context):
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml
That's from whence the allegations come. Make of it what you will--I don't think that's racist, I think it just shows that she's a full blown identity politics player.
Queue someone registering supremecourtlatinajusticeporn.com
Never question rule 34 man...
Of course in real democracies supreme court judges get replaced at regular intervals instead of getting appointed for life.
But if she votes for the establishment, then that's hardly surprising she is a product of it after all isn't she.
Copyright is theft.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I think the assertion that every man and woman should have the same opinion as a white guy to be incredibly racist, myself.
You're just totally buying into identity and race politics, and the sad thing is, you don't even realize it.
WTF does it matter if someone is black, white, latina, male, female etc. Alito made a somewhat simliar (though in my view less offensive) statement during his confirmation hearing about his family's immigrant background, and how that gave him empathy in certain kinds of cases. The difference is he didn't say a wise Italian will come to a better answer...he didn't play the race gender political identity game. Sotomayor did, and that's the difference.
Yeah, why don't we just give them the death penalty? After cybereal thinks they are self-entitled jackasses... The punishment is too much for the crime and the crime is only slightly immoral.
Now if this same candidate was openly against black females she would have immediately been slaughtered by the press. It's time the press stop sucking up to Obama and start doing some critical reporting. When is this attitude of /certain/ racism and /certain/ sexism being ok in politicians going to be rejected?
she said a female latina Judge would come to a better decision (on the basis of her being female and latina) than a white male judge.
And she probably would if that were the only difference between her and a white male judge. Nobody worth their salt is going to claim that you can overcome your background when making a judgment. Further, it's easier to have empathy towards those who are in situations similar to those you've been in. Finally, even George Will will tell you that empathy is an important part of the judicial process.
That said, I don't think that gender or race should be the highest criteria for nominating a supreme court justice. Any form of racial or gender-based discrimination should be eliminated when possible, otherwise we create a group mentality of us vs them. That's why I hate this nomination and will probably hate Obama's nominations from here on out. I don't believe that Obama would nominate a white male for this position regardless of the circumstances, and that's ridiculous.
You're mixing up the concepts of law and statute. Executive orders aren't statutes, but they sure are law. Same thing with case law.
Are you adequate?
You copy for 6 of your friends. You DO *have* 6 friends, don't you?
OK, that hurdle past.
Now why would they not want to share with 6 of their friends (or are they only friends with you?).
Now how long before you get 10,000 copies? 5 generations and your at 7700+.
So this is only 5 generations different. Five people. You copy to someone who copies to someone for 5 people.
"so the rest of the world looks at us in a better light."
Yes, the rest of the world just LOVES us and our shiny new suit.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/
The English don't think too much better about your secular Messiah after he dumped all over the Queen, the Prime Minister, and the British press for daring to criticize his administration. Take off your ideological glasses and think like an adult once in a while.
Great post!
Dude... You must be new here.
Silly me thinking attacking two neighbors, genocide, religious persecution, utter failure to comply with terms of surrender, and last but not least intelligence claims of WMDs, etc had something to do with it. Fascinating.
Yeah, it is pretty silly to think we invaded Iraq in 2003 because... ... they committed genocide against the Kurds in 1983 which we knew about at the time and kept quiet about because we supported their war with Iran. ... they went to war with Iran in 1980 and used chemical weapons against them, which we later supported and helped Iraq to fund because we wanted Iran contained. ... they invaded Kuwait in 1990, initiating the Persian Gulf War.
I mean I can at least see how you could think WMD were a reason to invade... though when they come up with the reason first, and then demand the intelligence community support that reason, you should wonder...
But to think that one action that already resulted in us going to war, and two other actions which we supported at the time, warrant an invasion twenty years later is just nutty. I mean how can you watch a guy stand at a podium and tell you we need to invade Iraq because of genocide twenty years ago, when that same guy twenty years ago was shaking the murderer's hand while the U.S. government was aware of what he was doing, and nod your head and go "yup yup!"
The enemies of Democracy are
Don't worry about the white males. They'll get nominated under the next Republican cycle.
Every time you worry about the excesses of one party, just remind yourself that the excesses of the other party will happen soon enough.
The Tom Daschel song
Soylent green is good and tasty
We made it fresh today
We made it from your dead grandpa
While you went out to play
Now don't you get all huff and hasty
Soylent green's the natural way
to save the planet and your future
this is what we say
Snuff the old to feed the young
Snuff the old they're a drain
Snuff the old to feed the poor
Snuff the old they're a pain
They use up all the health-care
They use up all the food
They horde all of the money
and it puts us in a bad mood.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Imagine a world in which your DVD rip was uniquely tagged - and every download of the movie points back to you as the primary source.
Imagine that the licensed distributor has real numbers to take into court - and is suing you for the wholesale value of the distribution - plus punitive damages.
The numbers add up really, really, fast.
With no statutory limit on damages, you must settle the case out of court or risk taking the full whack.
In the real world of civil law, the burden of proof is much lighter.
The rights holder doesn't have to trace the movement of every file. He only has to persuade the jury that the bill has come due and that you owe him - big time.
The other side of the coin, of course, is that the good guy - the geek - isn't always the defendant.
He is sometimes the plaintiff - whose only realistic hope of recovery is through the imposition of statutory damages.
Suckers.
Pelosi's response to Tiananmen is all of a sudden that much more entertaining.
Rot in your own filth, /.
What did you expect? It's liberals like Obama that embrace and encourage litigation and big $$ awards. Did someone say Hope and Change??
Stating that being of Germanic descent influences your insight does not make you racist. Stating that you will make a better decision than someone who is black (or white or blue or rainbow hued) because you are of Germanic descent is racist. We should seek justice that is impartial, not justice that is "the right kind of racist."
Despite popular sloganizing* of people's words, I do not believe that making a racist statement makes you a racist. It is possible to say something stupid without acting in the same stupid manner in most circumstances. In fact, if I had to choose, I would prefer a judge is racist in their heart but rules impartially and without prejudice to a judge who is colorblind in heart but is influenced by race in decisions for political or ideology motivations. Put simply, judge Sotomayor's statements matter far less to me than her record.
I too am sick of diversity for diversity's sake. I believe that the idea that lowering the bar, or eliminating people from hiring or promotion so that you get a desired skin color should be obviously wrong. Certainly we should hope for a judge that would prefer a city who gives a test, widely considered fair, to determine eligibility for promotion to their firefighters to stand by the results. In 2006, a Federal District Court upheld the New Haven decision to discard the scores of such a test, because of the skin color of the applicants who did well, in the Ricci v. DeStefano decision. This decision was backed up in appeal by judge Sotomayor.
President Obama may have picked a liberal leaning Latina woman for political reasons. Frankly, it doesn't surprise me when politicians make decisions for political reasons. Despite the motivations for choosing justices, it is my hope that those chosen and affirmed will make decisions that are rooted in impartial justice. This should be the only criteria for picking or affirming a justice to the Supreme Court. Sadly, I expect the politicians who must affirm her appointment to act as usual, on political motivation, in their opposition and support.
* - I don't think sloganizing is a word, but then it does seem to convey what I intended, so I'm using it anyway.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
VERY different than what you imply. Tell me, how is what she said any different from what Alito said? Where does she say that a Latina will make better decisions? Nowhere, and that is not at all what she was implying.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No, you said Obama is far to the left of the citizens that elected him, implying they are too stupid to vote for what they want. America is a liberal country. The right wing, the Republicans, are a dying breed that only gets any traction in the south among old white men. They are the minority. You are the minority. America isn't the hate filled, greedy, racist, misogynistic country you seem to hope it is.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm doubtful that the next 'Republican cycle' will occur in my lifetime, given that, among other things, the Obama DOJ just greenlighted rampant voter fraud by denying Georgia to verify that voters are actually citizens and eligible to vote. Not surprising for a guy that rode to victory on the backs of Acorn voter fraud, but it doesn't bode well for a democratic process going forward.
Excuse me... Sotomayor was first nominated by George H W Bush, a.k.a Bush 41.
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
She just doesn't happen to be a white man, which is what's really got you spooked.
Actually, I'm a very conservative Latino male. I've seen racism, and I abhor racism from all sources.
Sotomayor believes in this thing called "Social Justice", which to me means justice based on the social standing of the participants. Consider how many ways that can go wrong.
Consider the reaction if someone proposed a White Supremacist vision of Social Justice... Or a Black Supremacist vision of Social Justice. How about a Neo-Nazi vision of Social Justice. Fundamentalist Islamic vision of Social Justice?
Is it any better to to advocate a Mexican Supremacist vision of Social Justice? And remember, Sotomayor is a member of "La Raza", Spanish for "The Race", a Mexican Supremacist organization. An organization that seeks to return Aztlan (Southwest US states) to Mexico.
Anyone who says I can make a better legal decision based on my race, is a racial supremacist.
Anyone who belongs to a race based supremacist organization does not belong on any court.
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
Since neither one can offer the "big change" they always promise, isn't it pretty clear that something's broken with only 2 major parties up there?
The law should be different for someone who makes huge amounts of money from infringing and someone who doesn't.
Let me know when she starts running around with the KKK. Let me know when she wants to put yellow armbands on members of a certain race. Let me know when she joins a Hispanic Superiority club. Let me know when she does anything more than assert that someone's racial background makes a fucking difference to their life.
This is the most pathetic manufactured scandal since the spotted owl. I can't believe the Republicans decided to take it and run with it. It does nothing but make them look bad, and it won't affect her confirmation in the slightest.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
This government isn't run only by Obama, as you well know. Democrats in power, like Biden and Conyers, are famous for supporting the RIAA, MPAA and any corporate media outfit (that kicks money back to these politicians after offering their customers the least use rights possible).
Let me know when she joins a Hispanic Superiority club
It's called La Raza, and yes Sotomayor has been a member for 20 years. http://www.drudge.com/news/121501/sonia-sotomayor-raza-member
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
Reps & Dems alike know where their bread is buttered.The media got McCain nominated. McCain was the easiest target of the Rep nominees to defeat. Then the media went gaga over BHO and squelched any and all flaws or red flags.Now we're seeing the real BHO. How come we didn't see this coming? Answer: The Media didn't want you to.
You voted for him. But it's completely understandable that you would do otherwise now that you are starting to question if you really knew who BHO was. Still trying to figure out who BHO really is? As he recently (May 27) said at a star-studded Hollywood fundraiser, "You ain't seen nothing yet!"
The parent said nothing of profit, only willfulness. But let's go from there. Do you feel the same way about manufacturers of dangerous toys?
Yes. If you wilfully cause harm, you should not only compensate the injured party but also lose any profit you made as a result. If you make more money you should end up paying more for it.
But this isn't about giving up your profits. It's about damages, which can be measured by many different methods depending on the case. The question is this: Do you think that a business should be punished differently from an individual for the same act, if all things are equal other than the fact that one of them is a business and the other is an individual?
Oh yes, I can clearly see how that's the same thing as the Aryan Brotherhood and the KKK. Their offices are like, right next to each other. Those of you with both Caucasian and Hispanic heritage can pick up a pamphlet from each booth!
Your doctor called, the x-rays show you're missing a sense of perspective and have an absurd inflammation of the spleen. For the former, he recommends you look up 'racism' in the dictionary, and for the latter, turn off Fox News.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Well, surely damages and punishment are different things. The injured party deserves to be compensated for their loss. No more, no less. That is damages. The perpetrator needs to be discouraged if they acted wilfully. That is punishment. As such, the penalty needs to be at least as much as their gain. (This only works if there's a 100% chance of being caught so in needs to be modified based on risk as well).
So it's not so much about whether they're a business as whether they're intending to make a profit. If an individual makes 100 copies of a CD and intends to sell them for $5 each then they should be punished exactly the same as if a business does the same. If a business decides to act unlawfully for reasons other than making a profit (which would be odd behaviour for a business) then they should only pay damages.
So, wait - you mean #I am legally entitled to hurry love!? I always wondered about the constitutional basis for that argument.
The slashdot crowd is all Democrat sympathizers, incapable of following logical chains of thought when their emotions come into play.
'If you aren't a Liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're still a liberal as an adult, you have no brain.'
But of course you'll deny that. Shocking.
For the 40+ million USians without insurance, unless they're rich, the glaucoma and kidney fixes are unavailable. What do you do, search out the worst from other countries and use those as your examples?
Anecdotally: my mom, who has insurance, weighed the options for a few months before getting the glaucoma (interim fix) surgery. Waiting a few more months would have been tolerable. My good friend, who has no insurance, has already waited 7 years trying to save enough money for the same operation (she's still paying off a stomach operation, she'll never get it paid off). The broken hip example sounds made up and just for FUD.
How exactly is this health care going to be paid for? Will all the doctors charge less? Will all the companies that make the drugs charge less?
Health care could be paid for with collective bargaining, thus reducing the staggeringly high prescription drug prices. Throw in extra dollars saved from not using insurance agents, insurance companies and their profits, HMOs and their profits, drug company profits (most of their research is already paid by the government and done by universities), and advertisements for all of the above. As a bonus, the uninsured will start getting preventative care, which is measurably cheaper than emergency room visits.
Sure, pay the most expensive Doctors a little less, million dollar practices sounds a bit steep to most of us. And are aware that drug companies already charge other countries less, way less, than US patients?
It was a while ago, but remember when the last US administration lowered taxes for the rich by a huge amount, kept the middle class about the same, and raised it for us decent wage earners? All the rich people make or inherit their fortunes off of our labor, they don't work any harder than any of us, taxes on the rich are one way to fix the inequality.
Also, all these extra benefits to people are going to do more harm then good. If someone has to do nothing to get a roof over their head, they get good health care for free, they get paid to stay at home, where is the incentive to better them selves? There is none. They can sit at home with their hand out and the checks arrive.
Ever hear of Sweden, France, UK, Canada, Cuba, Italy? You do realize those countries have national health care yet somehow, magically, people still *gasp* work?
So the US government gives trillions to military businesses and financial institutions, but paying for doctors with money set aside for that exact purpose is ridiculous? Let's put it another way, giving money to a few is better than giving money to benefit many? Oh, OK, now I get it. Uhhh where do I sign up to become one of the few 'cause I'll like sell out my morals fast for that kind of money.
So you quote a blog post that says ignoring profits is a legitimate way to compare prices? Right there your reference obviously, at least to analytical people, cherry picks data to conform to the desired conclusion. Sounds like RIAA arithmetic. (What's that screeching noise, it sounds like an axe being ground.)
Then the media went gaga over BHO and ignored and squelched any and all flaws or red flags.
Only until the second he passed Hillary in the primaries. Then it was non-stop, 24/7 concern trolling over Rev. Wright, "white working class voters", "lack of experience", etc. And even after winning a landslide election, the media STILL talks to 2 Republicans for every Democrat they put on the air. And if they'd spend a quarter of the effort investigating the Bush Administrations claims for why we had to invade Iraq as they spent investigating Geithner and AIG bonuses, maybe we wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place, which has gotten more Americans killed than Osama Bin Laddin.
Dude, you're the picture perfect definition of a troll. PS. You make a piss poor mind reader.
And this southern white man isn't going to bail your dumb socialist ass out when you and your cohorts send this country spiraling down further by giving away everyone else's money.
You'll be eating your words in a year when the economy turns around and your world view is proven old and outdated. Until then, you can sit, bitterly dreaming of America's failure. I'll be over here with the patriots cheering her on.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You'll be eating your words in a year when the economy turns around
You know, I'd be more than happy to eat my words if the economy turns around. But call me bitter for thinking that Obama's recipe of nationalizing everything and going into a stupendous level of debt to "stimulate" the economy combined with the "quantitative easing" policy of the Fed (also called "monetizing the debt", also called "hyperinflation here we come") isn't the recipe needed. A key indicator that Obama or any of the Democrats for that matter don't have a fucking clue is when they hold up FDR's policies during the Depression as something to emulate when it was FDR's policies that turned a garden variety Depression (one lasting 1-2 years for just about every other country) into a Great Depression lasting 12+ years in the United States.
Wrong. Just look up the actual statistics and figures about the depression. Only radical free market revisionists rewrite history like you do and expect anyone to believe their fantasies. I've done the research, it's obvious you haven't.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I've done the research, it's obvious you haven't.
Uh huh. I hate to break it to you, but Das Kapital doesn't quality Comrade.
How stupid are you? Das Kapital was written a little bit before the great depression. How could it "quality"? No, I'm talking research using actual historical records about the depression.
The great depression, by any measure, ended shortly after FDR's policies took effect. GDP started growing again, that is the definition of the end of a depression. GDP grew incredibly quickly, more than it had before the downturn, until things were back where they were before the depression happened, in 1937. Then Republicans convinced FDR to stop his 'socialist' policies and a mini recession happened. He reimplemented them, and by the time WWII came around, it was as if the depression had never happened. In fact, if you'd just left money in the market through it, by Pearl Harbor you would have received a better average rate of return than has ever been seen under a Republican president.
The historical record doesn't lie. These facts and figures are easily available to everyone. Socialism has been proven to work, over and over again, and it will work here.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Then Republicans convinced FDR to stop his 'socialist' policies and a mini recession happened.
How did they ever manage to do that considering the Democrats controlled Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court (via Roosevelt's court packing threat)?
In 1937? Uh huh. Anyway, I said, "convinced," not "voted in despite a veto." But that's beside the point. The point is, a recession or a depression means a falling GDP. If the GDP is not falling, it is a recovery, not a recession. The recovery started when FDR's policies were enacted. And the GDP grew very fast. In fact, during FDR's administration, the stock markets went up an average of 16% annually. No Republican president has ever done that well.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
One thing that didn't go up very fast under FDR's policies was employment. So while the rich banksters were making money (not unlike under your current hero Obama), the common man was getting the shaft.
Oh, one more thing...the rate at which this Obama economy is losing jobs (500,000+ per month), by the time next year when this thing is predicted by you to turn around, we'll be looking at 13% unemployment at a minimum. And that's if it turns around. Which it won't. You can't put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.
Please do your research before making unsupported claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
Employment recovered just as quickly as any other indicator.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I know you are probably busy reading Lenin's "What Is To Be Done?" right about now, but you might want to check and see how our Dear Leader's stimulus plan is working. Here's a nice graph for you:
http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/stimulus-vs-unemployment-may-corrected.gif?w=460&h=280
Wow. Someone knows how to draw lines. Neat. Unfortunately, those lines are mere speculation, and mean nothing in the real world. Seriously, that is the dumbest unsourced graph I have ever seen.
However, the stock market has rebounded 10% since Obama took office. How ya like them apples? Suck it up and say "Thank you, Obama, for getting us back on track." Because you don't want America to fail, right? You are happy that Obama's plan is working, right? Yeah, right.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton