Slashdot Mirror
Judge May Take "Fair Use" Away From Jury
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In what I can only describe as a shocker, the Judge in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum has, on her own, issued an order questioning whether the jury will be allowed to decide the 'fair use' issue at all, or whether the Judge herself should decide it. Judge Nancy Gertner's decision (PDF) notes that the courts have traditionally submitted the fair use defense to the jury, but questions whether that was appropriate, since the courts have referred to it as an 'equitable' — as opposed to a 'legal' — defense. This decision came from out of the blue, as neither party had raised this issue. IMHO the Judge is barking up the wrong tree. For one, all across the legal spectrum in the US, 'equitable' defenses to 'legal' claims are triable to a jury. Secondly, as the Judge herself notes, the courts have traditionally submitted the issue to the jury. It also seems a bit unfair to bring up a totally new issue like that and give the parties only 6 days to do their research and writing on the subject, at a time when they are feverishly preparing for a July 27th trial."
With Jews you lose so to win you must lose the Jews.
Hey... that's not FAIR, to take away FAIR USE. :)
IVERYRETENTIVE!
The last thing I wanted to do this Saturday night was spend several hours writing, editing, and typing this letter. However, I needed to do it because it's sincerely the best way to ask Ray Beckerman to rephrase his criticisms in a more reasoned way. Let me cut to the chase: Ray is the type of person that turns up his nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for him to reinforce the impression that inane blackguardsâ"as opposed to Ray's assistantsâ"are striving to expose and neutralize Ray's enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. Quasi-snappish and illiterate, his prevarications resemble a dilapidated shed. Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse, proving my claim that I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that there is no evidence to support Ray's accusations. What I mean is that the tone of his opuscula is eerily reminiscent of that of antihumanist pinheads of the late 1940s in the sense that the impact of his wanton, lawless declamations is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that Ray claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. I respond that his arrogance will lead him to make things worse quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "ultramicrochemistry".
If an attempt to bombard us with an endless array of hate literature isn't grumpy, it certainly is mean-spirited. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Ray will deprive people of dignity and autonomy. And to overcome these fears, we must admonish Ray not seven times, but seventy times seven. You may wonder why he is afraid of change. It's simply because he wants to annihilate a person's personality, individuality, will, and character. Faugh.
Even though Ray's apostles want so much to twist my words six ways for Sunday that the concept of right vs. wrong never comes up, this does not negate the fact that the poisonous wine of nepotism had been distilled long before Ray entered the scene. Ray is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. He likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what Ray is pushing is both mumpish and adversarial.
If truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, then I have frequently criticized Ray's unspoken plan to make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks. He usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of racism, defeatism, child molestation, and halitosis. Ray hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that Ray wants to get me thrown in jail. He can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but he does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that the spectrum of views between libertinism and fetishism is not a line but a circle at which hectoring quacks and the most depraved mythomaniacs I've ever seen meet. To properly place Ray somewhere in that spectrum, one needs to realize that if Ray could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to install a puppet government that pledges allegiance to his villainous junta. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that Ray has spent untold hours trying to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that materialistic goofballs are intrigued and puzzled by his amalgam of pretentious prætorianism and power-drunk Jacobinismâ"a tangled web of KKK, Freudian, encounter-therapy, populist, Ayn Rand-like, and Marxist notion
It almost seems like the judge is begging for an appeal to kick it upstairs and make it somebody else's problem. IANAL but isn't this like asking for an appeal?
when Obama's in charge?
Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.
Great Intellect...
NYCL, perhaps you can enlighten us all - it seems to me of late that more judges are going beyond what I understand is the scope of a judge's job (to adjudicate the law) and into "deciding" cases based on matters OUTSIDE the scope of law.
Am I misremembering what I learned back in 6th grade about the role of the judiciary in the legal system, or are these judges indeed going beyond the scope of their position?
www.eFax.com are spammers
There are dull incandescent bulbs hung down by wire over a set of towering oak podiums. Behind you are endless rows of rusty metal folding chairs, all occupied by elephants and donkeys, except for a few rats toward the front. The bailiff is an Argrue, standing in the shady area against the wall. You don't know what an Argrue is, but you can guess it's like what Arkansas is to Kansas and it looks vicious.
The judge uses a battle axe in place of a gavel, which would be fine if it didn't leave so many marks on the wood when it's banged, and wears an ancient Norse viking helmet. The smaller podium has a guillotine attached to it near the front, with the microphone being placed in front of the slot where you would place your head.
You have in your inventory a rope, which is binding your hands together, and a bright orange jumpsuit of -255 AGI, which you are currently wearing. The only exit is DOWN, through a trap door.
This is just another example of Judges emasculating juries, dis-empowering them.
I long for the days when juries (before the 2nd half of the 20th century) actually decided cases and where not treated like mushrooms by all.
Jordan
Having been a party in a lawsuit that was decided by the US Court of Appeals on the basis of an issue that was neither raised nor briefed at either the trial level or the appellate level, all I can say is that this sounds quite normal to me.
what I can only describe as a shocker...
THL phish sticks
Makes perfect sense. After all, fair use has been taken away from everyone else.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
...because that's the only female US Judge I'm familiar with. (Well her at that copy cat from "People's court", but I can never remember her name). If that's representative then your judges are opinionated, pre-judge everything, apply the law in a slipshod way based on wether or not she likes you and wether or not you show her respect. The number of times I've seen her behave in a way that I considered irrational and inequitable is amazing. So this would fit right in!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The Law is complicated--it's not a simple system of rules, it's a question of what words have people used to describe what they think the rules ought to be for the past five hundred years or so, how have those descriptions changed the rules as people have decided what they should mean, and it's not easy to get it right 100% of the time--particularly when you realize something about the law that may be inconsistent or mean that it should be handled in a slightly different way than how people thought. The issue here isn't necessarily the judge going beyond the judge's duties--especially since if that's really what's happening an appeals court will generally say so--as it is the fact that the judge only gave the lawyers a few days to research it. The law moves at a lethargic pace; six days is like a clock cycle in ALU-time.
> This is just another example of Judges emasculating juries, dis-empowering them.
Exactly. Judges these days want to rule. They don't want to be constrained by having to bother with juries, legislatures, laws, constitutions, and certainly not the executive. This case is a poster child for judicial activism.
So the 6th and 7th Amendments go into the toilet now... to join the 1st, 2nd, 9th and 10th, big parts of the 4th and 5th and the 8th. But we still have the 3rd Amendment inviolate!
Folks, when do we say ENOUGH! These idiots only get away with this foolishness because we just bitch and moan and don't make them pay a political price.
Democrat delenda est
Unfortunately, these rights like many our other rights have been eroded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Rule_Book
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/rulebook.html
The American Form of Government
The judge is attempting to countermand the authority of the jury? Ah, I think someone's rusty on their Constitution. Jury's in this country have the ability to declare the law itself unconstitutional or cruel and unusual and have it struck down. It's not something judges like to advertise, and this one is probably concerned that they might wake up and say "hey wait a minute...", remember their Constitutional readings from high school, and put a big fat bullet in the entire debate.
Either that, or the judge wants to guarantee a whole new trial, because that's what a move like this is going to cause.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Fellow pirates,
I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty. I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy. Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership. I am overjoyed.
Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take. I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.
I don't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work. I'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software. When their game comes out, I'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work. I'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted. If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty, I'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint, such as this one, amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.
According to that study, it's okay to not pay people for their work because there's some vague hope that they'll make up the difference in income through "concerts and speaking tours." Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do. John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming. It's genius. The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate. We've managed to stretch the truth so far that we're actually telling ourselves that we're helping artists by not paying them for their work. Excellent job.
I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are. Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement, and they've pretended to care about plagiarism, we're supposed to go along with Slashdot's anti-copyright agenda. I'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me. It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something. Remember, I'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is. That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.
EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong, yet the GPL is good. Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code." I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me. I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL. I don't care, because I'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free, not about the consequences. I want to get rid of copyrights because I've been told that copyrights are the bad guy, and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.
Fellow pirates, let us continue our selfish leeching. Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt. Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations. Making money is wrong, even though Slashdot displays ads, and it cost me money to buy the computer I'm using to pirate stuff.
Yours truly,
A fellow Slashbot
Has the judge been bought out or does she just not care about the rights of the defendant?
users. Surprise Slashdot's BSD's aaclaimed Th3re are some
Judges decide matters of law, juries decide matters of fact.
Something like fair use could be either, depending on the circumstances. Contract law is a good example. Suppose that there is a case about a contract: If the contract is clearly written, and its meaning is easily determined by reading it, a judge will decide; based on law. On the other hand, if the contract's meaning isn't obvious, witnesses might be called to clarify what the intent of the signing parties was. In that case, there may be a dispute about facts and a jury would decide.
Of course, the judge may make a mistake about who decides and, in that case, there would probably be an appeal.
So this court and law stuff is supposed to be all about fairness?? It seems like it's always a lawyer fucking somebody, the judge fucking you over, or lawyers fucking each other, or a lawyer fucking their client, or two people fucking each other, while their lawyers fuck them too and the judge is just watching.
Yeah I really though court was just about fucking people.
> jury nullification is something we inherited from English common law, and was never really codified
Well yes and no. It is sorta implicit. Combine "no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined" with jurors being immune to retribution by the courts for their verdicts (barring jury tampering, etc) and jury nullification kinda falls out as a consequence. If the jury decides you are guilty according to the law but that law is stupid they are free to return not guilty. It is then pretty much impossible to try the perp a second time (unless it is a civil rights case... then the feds can have a second try. grr.) and the jury is in no fear of consequences for their actions even when they do something really infamous like set OJ free.
This judge obviously fears exactly such a thing so is attempting to bypass the jury. The correct response is impeachment. Anything less sends a signal to other judges that this sort of thing is acceptable, even if some higher judge rules she can't do it in this particular case. Violating the right to a trial by jury is something no judge should be allowed to even contemplate.
Democrat delenda est
But we still have the 3rd Amendment inviolate!
You wish! A case can be made that NSA wiretapping violates the third amendment.
Is the new DEX
and throw their worthless child molesting asses in the ovens.
DIE FAGGOTS DIE
Can anyone say appeal. Wont matter who wins..
- I've had Judge Gertner save my ass. She's very smart, sees through nonsense, very willing to take on authority, government, etc. - It's not whether you can send fair use to a jury, it's whether you have to. If it's equitable with no damages, it can be handled every time by summary judgment even if there are issues of fact. - Juries are shitty at all complex civil matters; terminally shitty at intellectual property; and the U.S. marriage to civil juries is unusual and kind of stupid. If imprisonment is what's at stake, juries make sense. If it's about a TRO or civil damages for some kind of abstract infringement, juries make no sense. Other countries under common law and substantially similar copyright law would not use a jury. - Don't get all patriotic. Civil jury mistakes and artifacts are a core reason why the U.S. is polluted with so many lawyers, and so many rich lawyers. - Don't assume fair use is better before a jury. It's just more random. - It's odd for Judge Gertner to bring it up, agreed. But if it's a watershed issue both parties obviously should have been pursuing given their positions, but were afraid to touch, it's something she would do. - Slashdot is such an incredible fountain of ignorance, isn't it?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule49.htm
...the judge is either an ex-lawyer of SONY or has a family member working in a high position in RIAA/MPAA.
It always is the case.
In fact i wouldn't be surprised if he has a financial interest in a RIAA member.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Touché.
Back when the scientologists first sued him for breaking copyright on one of Hubbard's sillier screeds (he made a copy to give to the judge in Grady Ward's case), he wasn't allowed to claim that copying a work to bring it to the attention of law enforcement was fair use. The jury never got to hear the argument.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I heard there was one that formed in Canada. Has one been set up in the US yet?
Hm?
U AND I SHOULD ANAL
that is equitable relief, and the Queen would approve!
This copypasta is posted in every article even slightly related to IP... nothing interesting about it.
NYCL and others who know a thing or two about USA law:
My understanding at the moment is that if a Judge decides that the issue is an equitable one rather than a legal one, there is no need for a jury. And that in an equitable case, the Judge's duty is to determine what is fair compensation for the actual damages done. It doesn't seem like there can be any punitive damages awarded in an equity judgment.
Would this mean that Judge Gerstner could decide in favor of the RIAA, and award them compensation based on $0.79 per proven instance of copyright infringement, if that seemed the fair thing to do?
It would seem that if she decides this is an issue of equity, then the awards written into the DMCA would be guidelines that she might feel would only apply to commercial infringers who press a hundred thousand copies of a CD (which is apparently the kind of infringement that the USA Congress had in mind when they wrote the law). That it would not be equitable to impose those fines on a casual copyright infringer who may have cost the record companies a dozen sales (if that). So maybe this is a good thing?
I am so confused.
Will
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.
"Fair Use" usually boils down to the question of whether the geek with a broadband connection is entitled to his free movie fix - or has to stand in line with the peons at Blockbuster.
I have said this before:
The juror is not your comrade-in-arms, he does not share the geek's sense of entitlement. He is a middle-aged, middle class, small-C conservative who respects the system and has come to do a job.
Let him define "fair use" and you risk being hammered into the ground like Jammie Thomas.
Loose talk about guns casts the geek as a psychopath.
The tax payers are the ones who take it in the neck while these endless court cases go on and on. How many billions in tax dollars does it take to support courts hearing copyright cases every year? It's like pornography or abortion in the courts and in congress. It just keeps running up expenses. Maybe these types of cases should not be allowed in the justice system at all.
Stuff like this just makes me shake my head...
Common law seems to be very much alike to the imperial measurement system. Almost no one use it any more, except some former british colonies [*]. It seems extremely counterintuitive, against a clean separation of powers (because precedents are essentially law), full of historical bullshit like the issue at hand and extremely impractical (because you have to dig up all those precedents).
Oh, and it requires almost exactly twice as many lawyers to function[**]. Which is probably why it will take even longer than the imperial system to be abolished...
[*]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png
[**] Germany: 150,375 Lawyers, 82,217,800 citizens, 546.75 citizens/lawyer
USA : 1,118,386 Lawyers, 305,548,183 citizens, 273.20 citizens/lawyer
Sources:
http://www.brak.de/seiten/pdf/Statistiken/2009/Mitglieder_klein.pdf
http://www.abanet.org/marketresearch/Lawyer_Demographics.pdf
What the decision is saying is this:
1) historically, a type of legal question known as an "equitable" claim (or equitable defense) has been decided by the judge, not a jury [for ancient historical reasons I won't get into here on Slashdot]
2) there are some cases which refer to copyright fair use as an equitable defense but it's not clear if those cases are using the term "equitable" as that term is used in (1)
3) some cases have put the fair use defense to the jury to decide, but without considering the issue I have described in (1) and (2)
4) I'd like the parties to tell me, in writing, what they think the correct answer to this issue is, and why
5) once I get the written submissions in (4), I'll decide whether the judge or the jury should rule on the copyright fair use defense
Juries are populated by the populace, and the populace are sheeple. They're inconvenienced by jury duty! They hold the whole service in contempt!
I was on a jury for a GBH case, lasted 5 days. At the end of the 5 days, I realised that:
- Three of the jurors didn't understand what the judge told them or what the barristers were asking, and didn't bother to ask for clarification. They just looked at the people in the dock and made up their mind based upon whether they "looked like they did it."
- Four understood, but didn't really take it seriously. It was a holiday for them, a time away from work. Needless to say these were the people who worked as a subordinate to someone else, so they still had income.
- Two were self employed. They didn't talk about anything else apart from how much money they were losing, and constantly rushed any decision.
- Two (myself and a young lady, of like mind to myself) took it seriously. We were deciding the far-reaching future of some young people charged with a terrible crime, and we did our best to help the others understand points of law, asked pertinent questions of the judge, and pretty much lead the deliberation.
There's one more person in this jury that i've not mentioned. I've saved the best until last. A young man, early twenties. All I can say about him is that he was bored. Bored by the whole thing. He constantly shuffled in his chair, hummed to himself in court, and as we entered court before we gave our verdict he hummed the death march.
If those are the people who decide my future, should I ever end up in court, I sincerely hope it is left up to a judge.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
It isn't an equitable defense. The equitability of the defense relies on what you DID being what would be considered an action that copyright should not control.
E.g. quoting and plagiarising a section of content are both in so far as the *action* is concerned the same. But copyright SHOULD control plagiarism and should NOT control quoting. The argument of fair use is then not whether that use is fair and the case dropped but whether that use is quoting or plagiarising. If it's quoting, then it is not a copyright controlled action and there is co case to argue against.
Remember:
"Do we really want this sort of action to be punished like this?"
and
"Was this what they had in mind when they wrote that law?"
THAT is the reason why Jury Nullification exists.
An unjust law can still be passed. A police officer can decide not to prosecute it. If he does, the prosecuter can decide not to persue. If he does, the judge can decide not to judge the case. If he does the jury can decide not to pronounce guilty.
A bad law without the jury deciding if that law needs to be applied here is a bad law that can be finessed into reality despite it being bad.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wonder if the Judge is deliberately giving the Defendant an easily-appealable point (bad/missing jury instruction), so that if it goes the RIAA's way, the Defendant can raise that issue on appeal, and the whole verdict would almost certainly be thrown out.
Bad/missing jury instruction is a oft-won appeal issue; so methinks this is a clever strategy by the judge to "help" the Defendant, without appearing to do so.
Otherwise, the Judge should get a brain scan, so they can actually find that brain tumor.
IANAL (nor a neurosurgeon for that matter), but jus' sayin'...
You are right about the rule you cite: it exists. Like everything else in law, a single rule can't be taken out of context.
The issue behind SCO vs Novell revolved around whether or not SCO got the Unix copyrights. No copyrights, no case. SCO's strategy was to try to get the question in front of a jury; that's well documented on Groklaw if you're interested. If they could prove that the contract (Asset Purchase Agreement) was unclear, they could bring witnesses to testify about what the intent of the original signers was. The underlying strategy was that they would have an easier time confusing a jury than a judge.
Judge Kimball decided that the contract was clear and didn't need extra facts to interpret and didn't, therefore, need a jury. That effectively gutted SCO's case.
No justice, no peace.
If it's war they want, well, they'll get it. We have not yet begun to fight!
Well, keep in mind that lawyers try to weed out potential jurors that may be able to think on their own. They want the sheeple they feel they can manipulate.
That being said, I'm almost 30 and have never been on a jury. I've only been summoned once but in that month I had 2 business trips planned that would keep me away from home for half the month so I was automatically dismissed. I fear, though, that because of the professions of my parents that I'll never get to see a jury box anyway. My dad is a retired sheriff and my mom is still a court reporter for the county common pleas judge. Every lawyer in this region knows my parents, I'd probably get dismissed by the defense attorny right away.
Of course I have also gotten out of a few speeding tickets, so I've got that going for me!
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Tennessee, Mississippi, and New Jersey also have separate courts of equity, known as "Chancery Courts".
Do a little public service and inform your fellow citizens about jury nullification. This is a vastly UNDER-utilized tool that the citizens can use to protect themselves from tyranny and idiocy in the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_Nullification
" . . . if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of invalidating statute . . . Jury nullification is thus a means for the public to express opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment."
The jury can do what THEY think is right and fair and ignore "orders" from the judge. As an aside, I've always wondered why the hell we have to treat judges as if they were royalty. You have to rise when they enter the courtroom, and they sit on a throne in their black robes looking down at everyone. WTF? They're nothing more than appointed government officials, and these procedures serve to reinforce their image as an authority figure to the jurors. If a law is idiotic and un-just, I think it's the DUTY of the jury to toss the case. Of course every case is unique, but I'd be inclined to nullify any offense related to piracy without profit, minor drug possession, civil disobedience or other victimless "crimes".
Why not? There is a large American contingent who maintain that the views of men who died 200 years ago is better than a rethink of the current system. In the narrow case of juries deciding civil trials, and especially of deciding damages, the experiment is over. We read daily about screwball rulings from juries, especially in RIAA cases, but also in other areas. Personal accounts from jurors suggest their peers didn't have a clue or didn't care in many cases.
I think all would agree that, if one were to start over today, the American legal system wouldn't have these pernicious features. So why not start to think about changing the broken system?
(BTW, last week I asked a Canadian lawyer friend if Canada allowed juries to decide civil cases. His response: "Why the fuck would we do that?")
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
I think you misunderstand the argument against. He didn't say the rules should never be changed (even if he does think that, that's not what he said). He said "this is what the rules _are_". The judge should not be changing rules mid stream. They should abide by what is present. If it needs to be changed, there is an established process for making that change. This process does not involve a single judge deciding the old rules are obsolete.
> The judge should not be changing rules mid stream.
You got it in one. :)
Judges don't make laws or decide which ones to use. That is what We The People elect a legislature for. They make the laws constrained by the limits spelled out in a Constitution. The Constitution (State or Federal) isn't sacrosanct, but it is designed to be hard enough to change that it provides some protection against poorly thought through changes made in response to momentary passions.
So if enough folks can be convinced that trial by jury creates more problems than it solves just go in and strike those parts of the 6th and 7th Amendments. I won't be joining that movement any more than I join the perennial calls to abolish the Electoral College. I understand why those things are important, in spite of their downsides.
Democrat delenda est
I agree, the few good alternative viewpoints in that post are sitting at the bottom of a sea of troll. The downright offensive generalization you pointed out is just one example of where he takes the worst and most outrageous viewpoints some pirates have and makes them out to be the mainstream opinions of anyone on the side of the fence he's attacking. It's the IP discussion equivalent of the mocking "ignorant redneck/dirty hippie" posts you find in political discussions. I always read the whole post before moderating but my troll-o-meter redlined a quarter way through that post.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Most eloquently put. I second this statement.
Juries are populated by the populace, and the populace are sheeple.
xkcd
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If that's what you need, pay me.
More hyperbole & red meat for the believers.
This is not a decision to take away the issue from a jury, but rather the judge noting a conflict between binding caselaw and what other judges have done.
These *are* rather high profile cases, and a judge being hyper-careful is hardly surprising. In fact, it's encouraging.
When I initially saw it, I also shrugged, assuming that the decision was based on lack of sufficient eveidentiary showing to send it to a jury (which still wouldn't surprise me--the fair use notion strikes me as far-fetched [that has nothing to do with what would be a *good* policy, simply what current law *is*]).
hawk, esq.
*** This article may require cleanup to meet Slashdot's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. ***
> This is just another example of Judges emasculating juries, dis-empowering them.
Exactly. Judges these days want to rule. [citation needed] They don't want to be constrained by having to bother with juries, [citation needed] legislatures,[citation needed] laws, [citation needed] constitutions, [citation needed] and certainly not the executive.[citation needed] This case is a poster child for judicial activism.
So the 6th and 7th Amendments go into the toilet now [citation needed]... to join the 1st, [citation needed] 2nd, [citation needed] 9th [citation needed]and 10th, [citation needed] big parts of the 4th [citation needed] and 5th [citation needed] and the 8th.[citation needed] But we still have the 3rd Amendment inviolate!
Folks, when do we say ENOUGH! These idiots only get away with this foolishness because we just bitch and moan and don't make them pay a political price.
Actually, I don't know what political price you are referring to, but judges, at least federal ones are appointed and not elected specifically to avoid bringing playing politics into the court room for fear of not being reelected.
What a pile of horse manure. Tell me, did you willingly give up the ability to think when the Neo-Cons sent you their bullet point list, or did they make you drink Kool-Ade?
Jesus Christ, there are many cases where the judge decides.
Fuck, please start to think.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I wondered if anyone knew what projects are lined up for Jury ? I know he and his girlfriend were at the Irish Film awards a few weeks ago. I'd be surprised if ROME doesnt result in a lot of work for him. harie real estate