The classic example is why you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre -- the real reason is that it intrudes on the private property owner's rights to operate his business in a peaceful manner.
I thought it was actually about the danger of imminent bodily harm to those who would be trampled in a stampede. It's perfectly legal to use speech to attempt to bring down somebody's business -- that's what boycotts, protests and pickets are all about -- but not to cause a risk of a stampede.
There are only a few cases that have held that a legislature can place a citizen's right to receive the benefits of a business in peace above the First Amendment. These cases are usually based around hospitals and abortion clinics, where the strong need for peace and quiet while receiving medical services overcomes the interest of the protesters. You can argue whether the Supreme Court (in deciding that state legislatures can place the interest in quiet ahead of the First Amendment) and the states (in actually doing so in some cases) got that one right or wrong, but it's the law of our country for the time being.
The rest of the "quiet enjoyment" cases usually revolve around homes, not businesses. It's constitutional for a state government to outlaw me standing outside your house with a megaphone at 6 am (and, again, the cases usually start with abortion protesters).
Sure -- but it's standard practice to ask for summary judgment on reasonably undisputed facts. If there's no reason to believe that the copyright is invalid then it wastes everybody's time and money to sit down and prove it in front of a jury -- and it wastes the jury's time to have to hear facts that nobody disputes.
It's not that they're "avoiding a jury trial", it's that they're limiting the scope of the trial to things that are actually disputed. If the defendant claimed that she hadn't actually downloaded the files then a jury trial would be appropriate to figure out if she did or not. But, unless I'm missing something, she doesn't really think that the copyrights are invalid--she'd just like the chance to get the jury to invent an excuse to not find her liable.
Unfortunately for her, to the extent that it's "recognized" at all, jury nullification is a criminal doctrine, not a civil one. If there is no question over the facts of a civil case (for example, we all agree that we had a contract for me to deliver you 100 widgets and I did not delivery any of them) then the court will use summary judgment to get rid of the uncontested issues (there, the existence of the contract and my breach of it). Sometimes that eliminates the need for a trial at all. I don't get to argue before a jury that it was a bad contract or that the other side is a bad person. It just doesn't work that way.
Does this mean that I get to only buy the sections of the newspaper that I want to read? I mean, I only read News, Sports, and Politics -- can I get a refund on the Entertainment and Style sections?
Except that's not how it would work. Right now you basically pay for the marquee channels in each package and get the rest of the channels free as a bonus. If channels were un-packaged you wouldn't get HBO for 1/20th the price of a premium package. Instead you'd get HBO for 1/2 the price of the premium package and all of the other channels for something more than 1/20th. The total cost of putting it back together would be higher than what you pay now.
Why? Simple economics.
Let's say there's a cable package that has 20 channels including G3, HBO, and ESPN. Slashdot readers are willing to pay $20 for G3 but only $1 for ESPN and $0 for any other channel. Sports nuts are willing to pay $20 for ESPN, but only $1 for G3 and $0 for any other channel. And families are willing to pay $20 for HBO, but $0 for any other channel.
Right now the cable company could charge $20 for that package and all 3 groups would buy it. Everybody pays $20 and gets 20 channels.
If forced to offer it a la carte the cable company wouldn't sell HBO for $1. They'd sell it for $20 in order to capture the family market, who is willing to pay that much for it. Same for ESPN -- they can sell it for $20 and capture the jock market. Same for G3 - they can sell it for $20 and capture the techie market. Now everyone is worse off. The families, techies, and jocks are still paying $20 for cable, but getting fewer channels for their troubles.
You can question the empirical assumptions -- maybe the pricing breakdown isn't that extreme -- but bundling of goods has long been a means to allow people who value different parts of a package differently to enjoy the package for one price.
The not-for-profit organization IP Justice has a great summary of the isssue up at www.ipjustice.org and a collection of useful links here.
Take a look. They also oppose the Directive on software patents.
Re:I like those principles, except
on
Copyright Defeats?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I don't think that's exactly what was meant. The idea is more along the lines of "just because I can copy it for free doesn't mean that the creator shouldn't be compensated. If somebody creates a work that adds value to society then they should be compensated.
I actually just posted the bullet-headlines of the principles. The full second principle (available here) includes "We will compensate artists who entertain and enlighten us with their art..."
Hopefully that helps.:) If I could just set my pet monkey loose on my computer for a few days and call that "creation" then I'd be set for money forever. Too bad value does count.
Also check out IPJustice.org
on
Copyright Defeats?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
IPJustice is another group working for fair use and copyrights. Check them out. Founder is Robin Gross, formerly of the EFF.
Their principles are:
We reserve the right to control our individual experience of intellectual property.
Creators deserve to be compensated.
We reserve our right to make private copies of lawfully acquired intellectual property.
Technology and information that enable the exercise of rights should be lawful.
Slashdot Mirror
The classic example is why you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre -- the real reason is that it intrudes on the private property owner's rights to operate his business in a peaceful manner.
I thought it was actually about the danger of imminent bodily harm to those who would be trampled in a stampede. It's perfectly legal to use speech to attempt to bring down somebody's business -- that's what boycotts, protests and pickets are all about -- but not to cause a risk of a stampede.
There are only a few cases that have held that a legislature can place a citizen's right to receive the benefits of a business in peace above the First Amendment. These cases are usually based around hospitals and abortion clinics, where the strong need for peace and quiet while receiving medical services overcomes the interest of the protesters. You can argue whether the Supreme Court (in deciding that state legislatures can place the interest in quiet ahead of the First Amendment) and the states (in actually doing so in some cases) got that one right or wrong, but it's the law of our country for the time being.
The rest of the "quiet enjoyment" cases usually revolve around homes, not businesses. It's constitutional for a state government to outlaw me standing outside your house with a megaphone at 6 am (and, again, the cases usually start with abortion protesters).
Sure -- but it's standard practice to ask for summary judgment on reasonably undisputed facts. If there's no reason to believe that the copyright is invalid then it wastes everybody's time and money to sit down and prove it in front of a jury -- and it wastes the jury's time to have to hear facts that nobody disputes.
It's not that they're "avoiding a jury trial", it's that they're limiting the scope of the trial to things that are actually disputed. If the defendant claimed that she hadn't actually downloaded the files then a jury trial would be appropriate to figure out if she did or not. But, unless I'm missing something, she doesn't really think that the copyrights are invalid--she'd just like the chance to get the jury to invent an excuse to not find her liable.
Unfortunately for her, to the extent that it's "recognized" at all, jury nullification is a criminal doctrine, not a civil one. If there is no question over the facts of a civil case (for example, we all agree that we had a contract for me to deliver you 100 widgets and I did not delivery any of them) then the court will use summary judgment to get rid of the uncontested issues (there, the existence of the contract and my breach of it). Sometimes that eliminates the need for a trial at all. I don't get to argue before a jury that it was a bad contract or that the other side is a bad person. It just doesn't work that way.
Does this mean that I get to only buy the sections of the newspaper that I want to read? I mean, I only read News, Sports, and Politics -- can I get a refund on the Entertainment and Style sections?
Except that's not how it would work. Right now you basically pay for the marquee channels in each package and get the rest of the channels free as a bonus. If channels were un-packaged you wouldn't get HBO for 1/20th the price of a premium package. Instead you'd get HBO for 1/2 the price of the premium package and all of the other channels for something more than 1/20th. The total cost of putting it back together would be higher than what you pay now.
Why? Simple economics.
Let's say there's a cable package that has 20 channels including G3, HBO, and ESPN. Slashdot readers are willing to pay $20 for G3 but only $1 for ESPN and $0 for any other channel. Sports nuts are willing to pay $20 for ESPN, but only $1 for G3 and $0 for any other channel. And families are willing to pay $20 for HBO, but $0 for any other channel.
Right now the cable company could charge $20 for that package and all 3 groups would buy it. Everybody pays $20 and gets 20 channels.
If forced to offer it a la carte the cable company wouldn't sell HBO for $1. They'd sell it for $20 in order to capture the family market, who is willing to pay that much for it. Same for ESPN -- they can sell it for $20 and capture the jock market. Same for G3 - they can sell it for $20 and capture the techie market. Now everyone is worse off. The families, techies, and jocks are still paying $20 for cable, but getting fewer channels for their troubles.
You can question the empirical assumptions -- maybe the pricing breakdown isn't that extreme -- but bundling of goods has long been a means to allow people who value different parts of a package differently to enjoy the package for one price.
The not-for-profit organization IP Justice has a great summary of the isssue up at www.ipjustice.org and a collection of useful links here.
Take a look. They also oppose the Directive on software patents.
I don't think that's exactly what was meant. The idea is more along the lines of "just because I can copy it for free doesn't mean that the creator shouldn't be compensated. If somebody creates a work that adds value to society then they should be compensated.
:) If I could just set my pet monkey loose on my computer for a few days and call that "creation" then I'd be set for money forever. Too bad value does count.
I actually just posted the bullet-headlines of the principles. The full second principle (available here) includes "We will compensate artists who entertain and enlighten us with their art..."
Hopefully that helps.