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.
Is the only answer. Throw them all out.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
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
Oops the link got cut off. It's this page that has the list.
When did three cases become "many"?
And what of sharing files via p2p software and torrents, which is the equivalent of making 10,000 copies of a tape and handing them out on the street-corner?
What do you consider that to be?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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.
How exactly is this health care going to be paid for?
By taxing the rich who don't pay their fair share!
Sarcasm aside, this country is already fundamentally insolvent even if we do not add on additional liabilities like socialized health care. We can't pay the bills we had in 2007, we can't pay the bills we've added since then, and we damn sure can't pay the bills Obama is planning to add on top...even if you kill the rich and the middle class and confiscate their wealth. Not that Obama and company won't get around to trying that when their abject failure becomes apparent. That of course, assumes that failure of the US economic is not their end goal....which it might very well be (it would be hard to figure out how they could be even more irresponsible).
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?
and the fact that Obama has been filling the Justice Department with RIAA lawyers
You do realize that a lawyer's job is to vigorously argue his client's case, regardless of whether he "believes in the cause" or not. An attorney can vigorously defend a murderer, while all the time believing that his client is indeed guilty. Hey, the lawyer on "The Wire" knew all of Stanfield's gang were guilty, right?
Point being that just because these guys represented the RIAA in a previous life, it doesn't mean they actually support or like what the RIAA does. Maybe with the inside info, they are more likely to present compelling arguments AGAINST the RIAA? (If they don't recuse themselves.).
There is no misrepresentation going on here, even if you had hoped that since you agreed with him on one thing that he would agree with you on another.
I wonder why it is that the only ones who seem to think Obama promised them everything under the sun and half of everything under ground are his detractors.
The enemies of Democracy are
The most expensive year of your life is almost always your last one. The multiple 'heroic' attempts to save the life of grandma are extremely costly and have a very small benefit to society. Yes, I was extremely saddened when my grandmother passed away, but the last year of her life after her stroke was extremely costly and unjustifiable. This is not a unique event. My great aunt post-Alzheimer had the exact same costly treatments and same end result.. Uncured dementia and prolonged death at great expense to US taxpayers.
We have forgotten as a society how to die gracefully. Just because you have the technology to keep someone alive well past the time their brain has died doesnt mean you should. And it certainly doesnt mean that the government should pay for it. If you want to pay $100,000 to keep your brain dead grandmother alive, feel free. But dont expect everyone else to pay for you.
If we dont get old age expenses under control, there will be no Social Security or Medicare for the young.
Copyrights that they too often SHOULD NO LONGER HAVE. Under the 1790 Copyright Act, it would last 14 years (renewable for extra 14). But the big media kept buying laws to stretch the damn thing again and again, and don't you doubt they will do it again. Those scoundrels don't care about screwing the people, so why should anyone have qualms about screwing them back? There is nothing moral about respecting an immoral law, so I'll keep downloading, fuck you very much!
Circumcision is child abuse.
Medicare has 5% overhead. Private insurers have closer to 30%. The facts don't agree with your anti-government stance.
How is he different from the mumbling cowboy that Bush was? Have you ever heard him speak without a teleprompter? I have and there isn't much difference. Hell, Even Biden made a remark about Obama being lost when the wind at some speech in Colorado blew the teleprompter over and broke it. When Bush read from the screen, he sounded pretty good too.
I think you have been fooled.
It depends what you mean by "works". I have lived in a country with socialized health care and it did not work at least for me. Several reasons:
1) Anything run by government is slow and does not respond well to their customer base (think about DMV, for example). ... the list goes on...
2) You cannot choose your doctors - you are stuck with what you happen to get. And usually you get someone who does not give a damn what is happening to you. They just try to shove pain killers down your throat or some other drugs to mess you up, just to get rid of you. This is especially bad when it comes to older people.
3) It takes for ever to see a doctor. If you have a serious condition you will probably die before get anywhere. Unless, you can pay the private sector and they will take care of you right away.
4) Since the public sector is not paying doctors well enough and their work schedules suck, they will get the worst doctors. I had to pay on top of everything a private plan so that I could see a doctor who could actually help me (= I was effectively paying twice!). This becomes even more difficult if you have children. Because of the lack of properly trained doctors, you will most often see just a nurse. Also, no periodic check ups etc. - if you would try to do this they would just laugh at you and send you away...
5) Some folks try to assure that it is much cheaper. Well, it might be cheaper but that is because the service is worse. You get what you pay for!
6) Most socialized health care systems do not include dental, eye, etc.
In fact, there were not even private plans available and you had to pay a lot to get these services.
7) I had many times problems getting into the public clinics because these were "taken over" by some wierdos (not an uncommon scene to have police men surround the place and take someone out of the building in a straight jacket).
Right now, I am in the US and have a plan from Keiser - everything works smoothly!