Here in MD, Driving Without Insurance is 1 year in jail and I believe $1k. The non-jailable version - Failure to Maintain Security - is $280 on the ticket.
In many states, it's a jailable offense to knowingly drive without insurance. If you're driving, and your insurance isn't valid, it would typically be enough to arrest you in such states (which could include the impounding of your car).
You might want to familiarize yourself with American law. In the US, the judge IS the court. They're synonymous. "The Court" is the finder of law, which is ALWAYS the judge (or, in appellate courts, the panel of judges). The jury is only ever a finder of fact.
That's never been the whole rule. You're presumed innocent as a matter of finding a verdict, but your'e not, nor have you ever been, presumed innocent as a matter of evidence gathering and investigation. This law, whether or not it is a good one, makes the correct move in requiring that the officers have some probable cause to begin investigating you (i.e. asking for papers). One question going forward is: is your skin color sufficient probable cause? If the officers think so, then that's going to be unconstitutional. However, how about if you're sitting in front of Home Depot in dirty clothes, not going in or out to buy anything. Is that probable cause to think you might be an illegal day-laborer? It's not sufficient to arrest you, but it's sufficient (most likely) for the officers to ask for your papers, i.e. to begin an investigation.
Compare it to less onerous laws. Right now, any officer in any state can ask you a question while you're walking on the street. You're entitled to ignore it and keep walking, and they can't just arrest you for that. However, let's say it is 2am and you're in a residential area. Now, the officer might have some concerns as to why you're walking around. In the interest of safety, he wants to know your name. When you're uncooperative, he might have enough probable cause to think you're there for criminal reasons. What if he sees what looks like a burglar's tool? (most states criminalize burglar tools).
If this law is enforced reasonably, it won't be trouble for anyone but criminals. If it's enforced unreasonably, it'll be wildly unconstitutional. The question is going to be the police, ultimately.
This is one of those situations that seems to draw out the difference between people who understand how policies work (as opposed to laws) and those who do not. A policy is an internal rule generated by an organization. Violating it exposes you to internal punishments and (in some situations) contractual civil liability. In other words, violating your policy might lead to some sort of penalty but not jail time. However, a law is above and beyond the scope of your organization, even when that organization is the government itself. The law that this idiot violated superseded the policy considerations. He was correct in his policy interpretation, I believe, but he was grossly incorrect in his legal interpretation. While the policy bound him against divulging the passwords, the law bound him against NOT divulging the passwords. He was in an ugly situation - one initiated by his boss - but this idiot is the one who broke the law to protect a policy.
Admitting you did what you're accused of is admitting "guilt". This is a factual decision, and so witnesses are able to testify on that matter. "Liability", on the other hand, is legal obligation to someone else due to your guilt. It is a legal decision, and so witnesses are (generally) not supposed to testify on that matter, especially when that legal decision is the central issue of the case. The question was improper as it apparently called for something beyond the scope of the witness' testimony. I'm not sure it actually was (the issue of "I am liability" versus "I am liable" is subtle...) but that's the idea.
(a) The whole "life sentence" concept isn't valid. By that reasoning, poor people should just commit massive financial damages against people, because they wouldn't be subject to paying those damages.
(b) He's going to just declare bankruptcy anyway, so it's rather silly as an aside.
(c) Separately, his lawyers appear to be grossly unable to handle the case; their "fair use" defense was beyond laughable, and they failed to preserve the easiest possible appeal (which would have, at least, probably allowed a retrial).
It's more problematic than that. Amazon cannot risk rending existing Kindles and books inoperable; they'll have to change the DRM on all their books, etc. More likely, they'll win anyway (due to, among other things, prior art) and/or settle and license the patent.
Blaming everyone else is bad, but you're completely inanely conflating viruses, etc. and porn.
The truth is, the best situation is to educate the child enough that they can be trusted to navigate the online world without either visiting porn inappropriately (i.e. w/ anyone else around) or downloading malware. The reality is, you have to educate children while using some protections against their mistakes.
So, teach her about sex, etc. Explain the issues as best you can, and discourage her from visiting it too much (and certainly set rules). But don't pretend she'll never check it out. The truth is, there's no harm in her checking it out occasionally.
Malware, on the other hand, is actually destructive, hence the use of spam, virus, etc. filters. So, teach her about it, hope she doesn't accidentally infect your system, but use tools to support her.
The key idea is to support your child's growth, not to restrict it.
That logic doesn't follow. It assumes, among other things, that: (a) we ever had a lower rate (i.e. that it has 'become' anything), and (b) we're not just better at dropping cases before they go to trial where the person is innocent (which would be a good thing).
Re:No, I think the converse is true
on
You Are Not a Lawyer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's sort of fascinating that you've posted the exact sort of response TFA expects. I'm tempted to think you're being ironic.
Here's the thing: a lot (i.e. the majority, actually) of these technical arguments you've referred to here are just silly. For example, you complain that the RIAA evidence links only to the computer, not the user. This is, of course, true. However, in the case of a family home that means the prosecution can narrow it down to the household members, so your argument would merely be "Well, you don't know if it was the dad or the son, so you can't sue", and that'll end up just bumping into group liability (which I won't bore everyone with here).
In the case of a shared computer, you'd have more of an argument, e.g. one a library computer or whatnot. But realistically, how many prosecutions have involved such a machine? So far, as far as I know, all the prosecutions have involved machines in private homes or apartments, so what exactly are you arguing?
I don't think it's revisionist at all: the reason you couldn't be aware of the law was not just your illiteracy, but the difficulty in distributing the information. Today, it's not a function of literal illiteracy (i.e. inability to read) but rather figurative illiteracy of the law (i.e. inability to digest the readily available legal materials). We can solve that need by (a) educating everyone on all law, (b) continuing to rely upon lawyers, or (c) re-writing the law to be accessible to everyone.
Everyone (especially on forums like this) likes to jump on option (c), forgetting the basic problem that a system is definitely not automatically bad just because it's complex. Far from it, when you're describing a tremendously detailed world such as our own, it is inevitable that your laws would become complicated and labyrinthine.
The law has not "become" so complex; from day one, the entire reason for the legal profession was that the average citizen (then, in the European nations) couldn't possibly be expected to know all the procedures of the courts, not to mention all of the details of substantive law.
I don't see the conflict. In fact, I think this case is ridiculous. A game should be fair? Ok, I am all for that. But simply building a tool that allows people to play unfairly does not constitute a crime or a civil offense. It might be immoral, but then my moral may be different of yours. Perhaps if you were in a tournament and someone uses a cheat, you could sue the cheater (and not the developer of the cheat, unless he happens to be the same person) for damages. But Blizzard? What damages did they had?
Besides, I don't see how he could have infringed their copyright since he doesn't distribute the game. If people cannot meddle with their own RAM because what's in there is protected by IP laws, we live in a very fucked world already.
I don't think you read the documents involved (including the stipulated damages issues already posted here).
Basically, Blizzard isn't just selling the software to users, but also the ongoing experience of the MMO which involves not only operating the servers and updating software, but also ensuring that the use of the software by legitimate customers isn't interrupted by illegitimate users.
A tremendous number of players find themselves disrupted by these Glider bots, and that's the damage.
Jack is already probably broke: his wife (an otherwise respectable woman and lawyer) is sick with cancer, and Jack has been unable to find work as anything but a commentator on an occasional news program for years. He wasn't paid for most of those appearances, most likely. His book didn't sell. That $43k fine was the limit of the legal options (you can't get punitive damages here).
Now, he's still open to civil lawsuits by other groups. For example, from my reading of the public documents about his settlement with Take 2, he's probably in violation of that settlement and could be liable for damages to Take 2/Rockstar. Similarly, he can still be sued for liable by people like Judge Tunis (whom he accused of bribery in his latest filings).
I want to be really clear here: disbarrment is beyond uncommon. It's happened a handful of times, nation wide, in the last few years. Even suspensions are difficult to get. Most bar proceedings that go anywhere result in, at most, a public slap on the wrist and a note on your record.
Even suspensions are survivable.
Jack Thompson, among other things, submitted porn to the courts, accused multiple judges of bribery in open court and public filings, violated numerous ethical rules regarding practice without a license, good character, etc. He falsely represented himself as being the lawyer for criminal victims, profited off their suffering, and then lied in court about it. He accused other lawyers of just as bad offenses, without a shred of evidence. On a more personal level, I can confirm that years ago, he physically broke into at least one lawyer's office to drop of papers and "scare" them (I know the lawyer personally).
Jack Thompson is a festering boil on the hide of the law.
It may not be different in your opinion, but that doesn't mean you're right.
In the American justice system, you have no reason to confess if there is not sufficient evidence of your guilt. The jury/judge system errs tremendously on the side of the defendant, for this precise reason. It is extremely difficult, despite what fiction might tell you, to muster enough false evidence to convince a jury or judge to convict a person when that person is innocent. That isn't to say it doesn't happen, but those are the extreme exceptions to the rule of a fair criminal system.
In fact, your premise fails for one simple reason: prosecutors accept deals (i.e. confessions or plea bargains) only where the cost of full prosecution (including risk of acquittal) isn't worth the benefit (i.e. full conviction). If all the evidence points against you, they're probably going to win anyway, and will be reluctant to deal with you anyway.
If you're innocent, keep your plea, and raise a defense. Appeal if you're convicted. It works constantly. Only people who refuse to work within the system consistently have a problem in this manner.
Don't get me wrong, as I said, unfortunately some innocents inevitably get convicted due to bad juries and judges, and even sometimes bad prosecutors, but the system is built around getting those people out.
This is the correct answer: it is already a criminal offense to organize a group for the purpose of criminal enterprises (e.g. collusion, extortion) and this already allows the imprisoning of those criminal leaders. In fact, contracts are void where their purpose is criminal, covering the civil side. Applying the crimes to the corporation would only serve to shield the actual directors.
What you've got to do, in order to avoid just speaking in hyperbole (this is the rhetorical 'you', here) is show that that is actually the purpose of the RIAA. Since the facts don't remotely support that assertion, you're going to have a serious hurdle to overcome before talking about this sort of thing.
I'm aware of the misbehavior of the RIAA's lawyers, but they are not the company.
Also, to correct your point: there are two types of contempt, civil and criminal. They are available in different situations, and have correspondingly different burdens and penalties. The level of misbehavior required for either form is actually quite high (hence the relatively rare use of it).
If the lawyers engage in misconduct, bar proceedings are always available even besides normal criminal or civil liabilities. However, we cannot say the corporation is engaged in criminal activities just because of hypothetical criminal activity by their lawyers.
I'm not aware of anyone actually having accussed the RIAA of extortion (or the related offenses), but I could be mistaken. Here, however, she's specifically accusing them of a civil offense, not a criminal one. Perhaps I should have spoken more explicitly.
In direct response to your idea: if, hypothetically, the RIAA is found to have either extorted or attempted to extort (including conspiracy) then the individuals who did so can be personally found guilty and imprisoned. Unless you can show that the company possessed the mental state required for the crime - which is conceptually impossible, absent extremely odd circumstances - you're not going to be able to demonstrate the elements of the offense.
Monetary damages against corporations will never be enough. Since they are fictitious legal persons we need the equivalent of prison time for them. In the information age it's perfectly possible to 'lock up' a company, suspending their trading and seizing all assets for 60 days would REALLY HURT.
It may even collapse the company. Well, if they can't take the heat they shouldn't be doing the crime. This is the only way to give society and the courts that represent us any teeth against corporations.
Vote for corporate jail time.
Since what they've done here isn't a crime, why are you mentioning imprisonment at all? The worst thing they've done here is a civil tort, and the only remedy available to anyone for civil torts are civil damages, i.e. generally monetary damages.
If you're suggesting we create a special sort of damages schedule for corporations vs. normal persons, you've clearly not thought your cunning plan through.
You didn't understand the point: the government here has sovereign immunity from law suit, regardless of whether they committed a tort. The issue is that they didn't waive their immunity.
That's not exactly what was ruled here. The issue of whether the federal government is immune from copyright is different from the issue of whether the federal government is immune to suit under the DMCA.
The issue here is whether the federal government committed a tort against the copyright owner by cracking encryption as proscribed in the DMCA. While the government may or may not have waived immunity under normal copyright legislation, it has apparently not waived any immunity under the DMCA in particular. This suit was about the DMCA violation, and so that was the issue discussed by the court.
This principle - that the government needs to waive its sovereign immunity - is by no means new. As far as I know, it has always existed for the Federal and State governments in the United States, dating back to when we were confederated under the Articles. Moreover, this emanates through the lower levels of government, unless those governments have waived the immunity.
As a practical issue, the state and federal governments have over time waived immunity to various laws. Usually, it's just a matter of showing (in your complaint) that the government has acted in a way that falls under a particular waiver.
It's stealing: you're depriving the intellectual property owner of one of their property rights, i.e. exclusivity. The same way I may choose who gets to stay in my realty (i.e. I control the exclusivity of the property), an intellectual property owner has the right to control who gets access to the intellectual property. By depriving me of that right without paying me agreed upon value, you're committing theft.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in MD, Driving Without Insurance is 1 year in jail and I believe $1k. The non-jailable version - Failure to Maintain Security - is $280 on the ticket.
In many states, it's a jailable offense to knowingly drive without insurance. If you're driving, and your insurance isn't valid, it would typically be enough to arrest you in such states (which could include the impounding of your car).
You might want to familiarize yourself with American law. In the US, the judge IS the court. They're synonymous. "The Court" is the finder of law, which is ALWAYS the judge (or, in appellate courts, the panel of judges). The jury is only ever a finder of fact.
That's never been the whole rule. You're presumed innocent as a matter of finding a verdict, but your'e not, nor have you ever been, presumed innocent as a matter of evidence gathering and investigation. This law, whether or not it is a good one, makes the correct move in requiring that the officers have some probable cause to begin investigating you (i.e. asking for papers). One question going forward is: is your skin color sufficient probable cause? If the officers think so, then that's going to be unconstitutional. However, how about if you're sitting in front of Home Depot in dirty clothes, not going in or out to buy anything. Is that probable cause to think you might be an illegal day-laborer? It's not sufficient to arrest you, but it's sufficient (most likely) for the officers to ask for your papers, i.e. to begin an investigation.
Compare it to less onerous laws. Right now, any officer in any state can ask you a question while you're walking on the street. You're entitled to ignore it and keep walking, and they can't just arrest you for that. However, let's say it is 2am and you're in a residential area. Now, the officer might have some concerns as to why you're walking around. In the interest of safety, he wants to know your name. When you're uncooperative, he might have enough probable cause to think you're there for criminal reasons. What if he sees what looks like a burglar's tool? (most states criminalize burglar tools).
If this law is enforced reasonably, it won't be trouble for anyone but criminals. If it's enforced unreasonably, it'll be wildly unconstitutional. The question is going to be the police, ultimately.
This is one of those situations that seems to draw out the difference between people who understand how policies work (as opposed to laws) and those who do not. A policy is an internal rule generated by an organization. Violating it exposes you to internal punishments and (in some situations) contractual civil liability. In other words, violating your policy might lead to some sort of penalty but not jail time. However, a law is above and beyond the scope of your organization, even when that organization is the government itself. The law that this idiot violated superseded the policy considerations. He was correct in his policy interpretation, I believe, but he was grossly incorrect in his legal interpretation. While the policy bound him against divulging the passwords, the law bound him against NOT divulging the passwords. He was in an ugly situation - one initiated by his boss - but this idiot is the one who broke the law to protect a policy.
Admitting you did what you're accused of is admitting "guilt". This is a factual decision, and so witnesses are able to testify on that matter. "Liability", on the other hand, is legal obligation to someone else due to your guilt. It is a legal decision, and so witnesses are (generally) not supposed to testify on that matter, especially when that legal decision is the central issue of the case. The question was improper as it apparently called for something beyond the scope of the witness' testimony. I'm not sure it actually was (the issue of "I am liability" versus "I am liable" is subtle...) but that's the idea.
(a) The whole "life sentence" concept isn't valid. By that reasoning, poor people should just commit massive financial damages against people, because they wouldn't be subject to paying those damages.
(b) He's going to just declare bankruptcy anyway, so it's rather silly as an aside.
(c) Separately, his lawyers appear to be grossly unable to handle the case; their "fair use" defense was beyond laughable, and they failed to preserve the easiest possible appeal (which would have, at least, probably allowed a retrial).
It's more problematic than that. Amazon cannot risk rending existing Kindles and books inoperable; they'll have to change the DRM on all their books, etc. More likely, they'll win anyway (due to, among other things, prior art) and/or settle and license the patent.
Blaming everyone else is bad, but you're completely inanely conflating viruses, etc. and porn.
The truth is, the best situation is to educate the child enough that they can be trusted to navigate the online world without either visiting porn inappropriately (i.e. w/ anyone else around) or downloading malware. The reality is, you have to educate children while using some protections against their mistakes.
So, teach her about sex, etc. Explain the issues as best you can, and discourage her from visiting it too much (and certainly set rules). But don't pretend she'll never check it out. The truth is, there's no harm in her checking it out occasionally.
Malware, on the other hand, is actually destructive, hence the use of spam, virus, etc. filters. So, teach her about it, hope she doesn't accidentally infect your system, but use tools to support her.
The key idea is to support your child's growth, not to restrict it.
That logic doesn't follow. It assumes, among other things, that: (a) we ever had a lower rate (i.e. that it has 'become' anything), and (b) we're not just better at dropping cases before they go to trial where the person is innocent (which would be a good thing).
It's sort of fascinating that you've posted the exact sort of response TFA expects. I'm tempted to think you're being ironic.
Here's the thing: a lot (i.e. the majority, actually) of these technical arguments you've referred to here are just silly. For example, you complain that the RIAA evidence links only to the computer, not the user. This is, of course, true. However, in the case of a family home that means the prosecution can narrow it down to the household members, so your argument would merely be "Well, you don't know if it was the dad or the son, so you can't sue", and that'll end up just bumping into group liability (which I won't bore everyone with here).
In the case of a shared computer, you'd have more of an argument, e.g. one a library computer or whatnot. But realistically, how many prosecutions have involved such a machine? So far, as far as I know, all the prosecutions have involved machines in private homes or apartments, so what exactly are you arguing?
I don't think it's revisionist at all: the reason you couldn't be aware of the law was not just your illiteracy, but the difficulty in distributing the information. Today, it's not a function of literal illiteracy (i.e. inability to read) but rather figurative illiteracy of the law (i.e. inability to digest the readily available legal materials). We can solve that need by (a) educating everyone on all law, (b) continuing to rely upon lawyers, or (c) re-writing the law to be accessible to everyone.
Everyone (especially on forums like this) likes to jump on option (c), forgetting the basic problem that a system is definitely not automatically bad just because it's complex. Far from it, when you're describing a tremendously detailed world such as our own, it is inevitable that your laws would become complicated and labyrinthine.
The law has not "become" so complex; from day one, the entire reason for the legal profession was that the average citizen (then, in the European nations) couldn't possibly be expected to know all the procedures of the courts, not to mention all of the details of substantive law.
I don't see the conflict. In fact, I think this case is ridiculous. A game should be fair? Ok, I am all for that. But simply building a tool that allows people to play unfairly does not constitute a crime or a civil offense. It might be immoral, but then my moral may be different of yours. Perhaps if you were in a tournament and someone uses a cheat, you could sue the cheater (and not the developer of the cheat, unless he happens to be the same person) for damages. But Blizzard? What damages did they had?
Besides, I don't see how he could have infringed their copyright since he doesn't distribute the game. If people cannot meddle with their own RAM because what's in there is protected by IP laws, we live in a very fucked world already.
I don't think you read the documents involved (including the stipulated damages issues already posted here).
Basically, Blizzard isn't just selling the software to users, but also the ongoing experience of the MMO which involves not only operating the servers and updating software, but also ensuring that the use of the software by legitimate customers isn't interrupted by illegitimate users.
A tremendous number of players find themselves disrupted by these Glider bots, and that's the damage.
Jack is already probably broke: his wife (an otherwise respectable woman and lawyer) is sick with cancer, and Jack has been unable to find work as anything but a commentator on an occasional news program for years. He wasn't paid for most of those appearances, most likely. His book didn't sell. That $43k fine was the limit of the legal options (you can't get punitive damages here).
Now, he's still open to civil lawsuits by other groups. For example, from my reading of the public documents about his settlement with Take 2, he's probably in violation of that settlement and could be liable for damages to Take 2/Rockstar. Similarly, he can still be sued for liable by people like Judge Tunis (whom he accused of bribery in his latest filings).
I want to be really clear here: disbarrment is beyond uncommon. It's happened a handful of times, nation wide, in the last few years. Even suspensions are difficult to get. Most bar proceedings that go anywhere result in, at most, a public slap on the wrist and a note on your record.
Even suspensions are survivable.
Jack Thompson, among other things, submitted porn to the courts, accused multiple judges of bribery in open court and public filings, violated numerous ethical rules regarding practice without a license, good character, etc. He falsely represented himself as being the lawyer for criminal victims, profited off their suffering, and then lied in court about it. He accused other lawyers of just as bad offenses, without a shred of evidence. On a more personal level, I can confirm that years ago, he physically broke into at least one lawyer's office to drop of papers and "scare" them (I know the lawyer personally).
Jack Thompson is a festering boil on the hide of the law.
It may not be different in your opinion, but that doesn't mean you're right.
In the American justice system, you have no reason to confess if there is not sufficient evidence of your guilt. The jury/judge system errs tremendously on the side of the defendant, for this precise reason. It is extremely difficult, despite what fiction might tell you, to muster enough false evidence to convince a jury or judge to convict a person when that person is innocent. That isn't to say it doesn't happen, but those are the extreme exceptions to the rule of a fair criminal system.
In fact, your premise fails for one simple reason: prosecutors accept deals (i.e. confessions or plea bargains) only where the cost of full prosecution (including risk of acquittal) isn't worth the benefit (i.e. full conviction). If all the evidence points against you, they're probably going to win anyway, and will be reluctant to deal with you anyway.
If you're innocent, keep your plea, and raise a defense. Appeal if you're convicted. It works constantly. Only people who refuse to work within the system consistently have a problem in this manner.
Don't get me wrong, as I said, unfortunately some innocents inevitably get convicted due to bad juries and judges, and even sometimes bad prosecutors, but the system is built around getting those people out.
This is the correct answer: it is already a criminal offense to organize a group for the purpose of criminal enterprises (e.g. collusion, extortion) and this already allows the imprisoning of those criminal leaders. In fact, contracts are void where their purpose is criminal, covering the civil side. Applying the crimes to the corporation would only serve to shield the actual directors.
What you've got to do, in order to avoid just speaking in hyperbole (this is the rhetorical 'you', here) is show that that is actually the purpose of the RIAA. Since the facts don't remotely support that assertion, you're going to have a serious hurdle to overcome before talking about this sort of thing.
I'm aware of the misbehavior of the RIAA's lawyers, but they are not the company.
Also, to correct your point: there are two types of contempt, civil and criminal. They are available in different situations, and have correspondingly different burdens and penalties. The level of misbehavior required for either form is actually quite high (hence the relatively rare use of it).
If the lawyers engage in misconduct, bar proceedings are always available even besides normal criminal or civil liabilities. However, we cannot say the corporation is engaged in criminal activities just because of hypothetical criminal activity by their lawyers.
I'm not aware of anyone actually having accussed the RIAA of extortion (or the related offenses), but I could be mistaken. Here, however, she's specifically accusing them of a civil offense, not a criminal one. Perhaps I should have spoken more explicitly.
In direct response to your idea: if, hypothetically, the RIAA is found to have either extorted or attempted to extort (including conspiracy) then the individuals who did so can be personally found guilty and imprisoned. Unless you can show that the company possessed the mental state required for the crime - which is conceptually impossible, absent extremely odd circumstances - you're not going to be able to demonstrate the elements of the offense.
Monetary damages against corporations will never be enough. Since they are fictitious legal persons we need the equivalent of prison time for them. In the information age it's perfectly possible to 'lock up' a company, suspending their trading and seizing all assets for 60 days would REALLY HURT.
It may even collapse the company. Well, if they can't take the heat they shouldn't be doing the crime. This is the only way to give society and the courts that represent us any teeth against corporations.
Vote for corporate jail time.
Since what they've done here isn't a crime, why are you mentioning imprisonment at all? The worst thing they've done here is a civil tort, and the only remedy available to anyone for civil torts are civil damages, i.e. generally monetary damages.
If you're suggesting we create a special sort of damages schedule for corporations vs. normal persons, you've clearly not thought your cunning plan through.
You didn't understand the point: the government here has sovereign immunity from law suit, regardless of whether they committed a tort. The issue is that they didn't waive their immunity.
That's not exactly what was ruled here. The issue of whether the federal government is immune from copyright is different from the issue of whether the federal government is immune to suit under the DMCA.
The issue here is whether the federal government committed a tort against the copyright owner by cracking encryption as proscribed in the DMCA. While the government may or may not have waived immunity under normal copyright legislation, it has apparently not waived any immunity under the DMCA in particular. This suit was about the DMCA violation, and so that was the issue discussed by the court.
This principle - that the government needs to waive its sovereign immunity - is by no means new. As far as I know, it has always existed for the Federal and State governments in the United States, dating back to when we were confederated under the Articles. Moreover, this emanates through the lower levels of government, unless those governments have waived the immunity.
As a practical issue, the state and federal governments have over time waived immunity to various laws. Usually, it's just a matter of showing (in your complaint) that the government has acted in a way that falls under a particular waiver.
It's stealing: you're depriving the intellectual property owner of one of their property rights, i.e. exclusivity. The same way I may choose who gets to stay in my realty (i.e. I control the exclusivity of the property), an intellectual property owner has the right to control who gets access to the intellectual property. By depriving me of that right without paying me agreed upon value, you're committing theft.