I have a question for the SC experts. If Hillary wins and replaces Kennedy and Scalia, how many times has there been a Chief Justice been in a huge minority on the Court?
I have a question for the SC experts. If Hillary wins and replaces Kennedy and Scalia, how many times has there been a Chief Justice been in a huge minority on the Court?
I do. The Aero decision was a bad one. Rather than asking for reasonable protections, copyright holders want to retain complete control even after selling content or broadcasting it to the public. As Aero's counsel put it, "the issue in the case was whether consumers who have always had a right to have an antenna and a DVR in their home and make copies of local over-the-air broadcast television, if that right should be infringed at all simply by moving the antenna and DVR to the cloud."Originally Posted by bym051d
The broadcasters' strategy was to keep Aero tied up in legal battles even after the broadcasters lost several times in lower level courts. Hate to see this strategy pay off in the end.
So you honestly think that 1. the Supreme Court is likely to adopt Hobby Lobby's arguments word for word, 2. Such an opinion would lead to the dangerous results you outlined, and 3. that the Supreme Court will completely ignore those potential results in its opinion?
That's seems highly unlikely. As I said earlier maybe its best to await the opinion from the 9 people who actually know what they are talking about before spewing hyperbolic speculation.
Wasn't Aero making money from retransmitting the material?
I said very clearly what I thought. I then explained it.
Like BBD says here and you have said on other threads, the only reason to continue this is for you to create a fight. Thus, I'm done with this issue with you.
seriously
I haven't commented on this issue in any other thread. I haven't even really said anything that caustic on this thread. I'm legitimately curious as to why you anticipate such an opinion from the Court. The Court rarely adopts one side's argument word for word. It typically issues a more nuanced fact specific opinion which limits broad sweeping precedent. What scholarly sources do you have indicating the Court will, or might, do as you say?
Thanks for trying- Blessed be the peacemakers.
Nothing would make me happier than for you and BDD to succeed. I wish I could still be that much of an optimist.
Not sure about "huge," but Charles Evans Hughes and Warren Burger are two that come to mind.
This would be a 6-3 opposition to the CJ for the rest of his tenure. Plus, it would be a vast ideological difference between the CJ and the rest of the Court.
Correct
It's not as much of a "vast ideological difference" as you might expect. Roberts voted with Sotomayor and Kagan 74% of the time each.
The Court is much more united than people give it credit for.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ates.html?_r=0
I feel like a lot of cases that come up are non-ideological ones where it's relatively straightforward and one of the circuits has just been a little off the reservation.
This is true to an outsider.
I would not be surprised if things like CU and maybe even the VRA may be revisited when either Kennedy or Scalia step down.
To be fair it was even more clear that I meant to call RJ out for his typo (not sure you can even call it that) by juxtaposing his post with the aforementioned fact that SCOTUS has not issued an opinion as of yet.
That fact that he didn't pick up on that kind of proves my point that he doesn't take the time to read and understand anyone's posts, often including his own.
I apologize for provoking him.
Is this relevant? Broadcast television chooses open transmission but wants the same control as closed transmission providers.
First, the "not sure about 'huge'" comment applied to Hughes and Burger. That should have been perfectly clear to anyone who is interested in understanding it rather than starting fights and throwing insults. Or something like that.
Second, Breyer is 75 and Ginsburg 81. It's unlikely that our next president will be picking four new justices, no matter which side of the aisle (s)he comes from.
Third, presidents make mistakes in their selections. It's less likely now than 20-60 years ago, but Eisenhower appointed Warren, Ford appointed Stevens, and Bush appointed Souter.
ETA: Had "Burger" for Eisenhower instead of "Warren."
Last edited by OldGoldBeard; 06-25-2014 at 02:17 PM.
Allowing an individual to use a copyrighted broadcast is one thing. Allowing a third party to profit from a copyrighted product without paying is quite another.
Which means your position was a bit off not mine.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama replace Ginsburg. I'm surprised she hasn't stepped down yet. The next POTUS could bet to appoint three.
As you say, it's much easier to pick the people these days. The internet and 24 hour news has made it so.
They're not profiting from the product, they're profiting from the technology. It's the same as hooking a Tivo, simple.tv, HTPC, or similar device up to an antenna, then watching the recorded program on your laptop/tablet. Instead of the consumer purchasing a set-top box and a monthly subscription to Tivo/simple.tv/PlayOn/whatever to enable them to watch the broadcast live or recorded, Aereo is just removing the hardware and providing the exact same service.
In other words, antenna manufacturers, Tivo and Aereo aren't profiting from the copyrighted product, they are profiting from providing people a technology that provides them access to the copyrighted product.
I certainly understand the broadcasters' concerns that the alternative decision could have eliminated their ability to get paid from the cable/satellite companies, but my point is that Aereo has competitors that provide basically the same service (albeit with different hardware) that have been established long before Aereo was.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote