Court Finds Part of Copyright Act Unconstitutional 240
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "A US District Court in the Southern District of California has found the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act to be unconstitutional. That act is what removes the sovereign immunity for infringement that state workers have in their official capacity, something many argued would jeopardize universities with liability for faculty infringement, not to mention other state agencies. In a rather dense legal ruling (PDF), the Court found that the Clarification Act was not a valid exercise of congressional power under the 14th Amendment. For those of you who have absolutely no idea what I just said, I recommend either being glad that a small piece of copyright law may soon bite the dust, or hoping that NYCL will explain this better."
How should I know.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And besides, what's Ask Slashdot going to get besides a whole bunch of IANAL preceded rants in this type of submission?
Re: (Score:2)
You never know ... some of the real lawyers on Slashdot may come out and comment on it.
Ray's busy - cut him some slack (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ray's busy - cut him some slack (Score:5, Informative)
the Constitution is our supreme law;
any statute that conflicts with the Constitution is invalid;
the 11th amendment to the Constitution says you can't go into federal court to sue a State, states are immune;
the 14th amendment creates an exception to the 11th because it says if a State is systematically depriving some people of their rights (as, e.g., denying people's right to an equal education because of their race) then you can go into federal court to sue a State;
a statute which authorizes people to go into federal court to sue a State must therefore be based on the 14th amendment;
because this statute (authorizing copyright suits against states) was not based on the 14th amendment -- i.e. not based on systematic deprivation of some people's rights -- then it's an invalid statute.
It's really such a simple proposition, they probably knew it was unconstitutional when they enacted it, but did it anyway to placate some big contributors and lobbyists from the RIAA/MPAA crowd.
Re:Ray's busy - cut him some slack (Score:5, Interesting)
This happens way too often. The damage caused by these unconstitutional laws can be enormous since our courts (by design?) are rather slow in reacting most of the time.
Speaking of the government ignoring the Constitution, I got halfway through "Constitution Chaos" by Judge Napolitano. I had to stop reading it as the thought "rope, tree, politician - some assembly required" kept going through my mind. I'll try to finish reading it after I lock up all the firearms and hide the key.
Re:Ray's busy - cut him some slack (Score:5, Informative)
(I say with sarcasm, what many people would say with all seriousness. They display prejudice rather than open-mindedness.)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Ray, I always appreciate your input on Slashdot stories that delve into the legal arena.
Please accept my heartfelt thanks.
al
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time though, since I was asking for an opinion in the colloquial meaning, I don't think my original request is too burdensome, since Mr. Beckerman, like anybody else can free himself from the burden by temporarily becoming an AC.
I've a question for you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then ask about the difference between a government-owned University and a private one... The submitter seems to believe, the former ones deserve special immunity...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Technically, when people follow someone who they recognize actually knows what he's talking about it's not a cult.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In this case, NewYorkCountryLawyer knows some stuff about the legal system and (I assume) copyright law. His information is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The term "cult following" does not use the definition of "cult" you are implying it does.
Note: The term "cult following" does not use the definition of "cult" you are implying it does.
The 'cult' part in this well known phrase simply means that the followers are fairly limited in number, but very devout. Not that they are brainwashed. For example Another common use of the word cult is in film: for example the Blues Brothers is known as a 'cult classic', though it has nothing whatsoever to do with cults. Apart from possibly those Nazi dudes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, the film Office Space is considered to have a "cult following." Is Mike Judge a cultist? Of course not. The term just means that the film's popularity is relatively small and usually consists of a niche audience, hence the use of the word "cult." The same definition is being applied in this scenario to NewYorkCountyLawyer and those who follow his posts.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, reminds me of this shirt [thinkgeek.com] -- of course, I fix their computer anyway, but I'm always tempted...
Re: :-D (Score:2)
Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (Score:5, Informative)
Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State [...] shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment [...] from suite in Federal Court [...] for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner.
So this ruling basically says you can't sue the state for violating your copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The court held that the Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution to exempt government entities from litigation under the copyright act.
No, genius, that "shall not be immune" line came from the law that Congress passed, which tried to remove the state's immunity from litigation from the 11th Amendment. Congress wasn't exempting government entities from litigation, they were trying to enable it.
The Court ruled this Unconstitutional, so
Dog Bites Man! (Score:2, Insightful)
Baby kissing? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Congress exempts itself from a lot of laws - link [house.gov]. Although the house.gov site puts a positive spin on this (news at 11), they're exempt from minimum wage, OSHA, the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA), and a lot of other ones.
Funny, isn't it? Congress is exempt from nearly all provisions of the "Ethics in Government Act of 1978."
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing in there saying that states have sovereign immunity over a copyright claim.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
True. It's the part where copyright claims have to be filed in federal court (see 28 U.S.C. sec. 1338(a) [cornell.edu] -- citation taken from Compulawyer's post [slashdot.org]) that really complicates things.
Not to mention a few other rulings cited in the decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonetheless, that is based on jurisdiction, not sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is when the government says, "sorry, you can't sue me because I'm the government." A lack of jurisdiction is when the court is not allowed to hear a case.
It seems similar, but the reasoning behind it is different.
he's fired, then sued (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL, but (Score:3, Insightful)
At any rate, it seems to me that whether they fire you or not is kinda irrelevant. They can't sue you
Constitutional Law 101 (Score:5, Informative)
The USA is a conglomerate of separate and independent governments. Each state has its own government that co-exists with the federal government. The federal government is a government of limited powers. It has only the powers that the states gave it when those states ratified the Constitution. The 11th Amendment to the Constitution specifies that states cannot be compelled to defend suits in federal courts.
States, as independent sovereigns with their own governments, enjoy sovereign immunity. No one can take legal action against a sovereign unless the sovereign gives permission to do so. Various Tort Claims acts allow those injured by states to sue the states to recover damages.
The US Constitution was amended in the 19th century to include the 14th Amendment as a response to slavery and its vestiges. Specifically, the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 amendments to the Constitution) specifically applicable to the states and allows the federal government to create legislation that abrogates sovereign immunity of the states if, and to the extent, necessary to abolish the vestiges of slavery. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted using Congress's powers under the 14th Amendment.
Therefore, what I presume the Court's ruling held is that Congress could not abrogate sovereign immunity of the states for copyright infringement because such infringement is not one of the vestiges of slavery. Also, I suspect that there is probably some discussion of states' immunity from suit in federal courts for copyright infringement. Since copyright infringement is a claim that can only be brought in federal court, you can see how a state could infringe at will by refusing to permit itself to be sued in federal court on a claim that is impossible to bring instate courts.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no discussion of whether copyright infringment is a vestige of slavery in the opinion. Rather, the court holds that there is no evidence of a pattern of copyright infringement by the states which would justify abrogation of state sovereign immunity.
I think that you're wrong about the "vestige of slavery" bit. It is true that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give full civil rights to former slaves, but what amendment actually does is to extend to the states certain restrictions pre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe they would just go with the 19th amendment [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's true. I forgot that the 19th Amendment explicitly applied to the states.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nevertheless, I'm not sure that the statute is necessary to reach the desired goal. The 5th amendment prohibits the state from taking property without due compensation. It has been incorporated through the 14th Amendment to apply to State governments. If the state is taking your IP, I would think that you'd have a cause of action for a violation of the 5th. And fortunately, you don't need Congressional permission to sue your state for violating your constitutional rights.
No, that's not possible, and for good reason. IP is not considered "property" in that context, nor should it ever be. The term "Intellectual Property" is just a catch-all phrase to describe the various exclusive rights granted under Copyright, Patent, and Trademark law. It's not actual property, and if you read the decision closely, you'll see that the court recognizes that (as it must), and clearly defines the rights the plaintiffs are claiming as an exclusive right granted by copyright, having nothi
Re:Constitutional Law 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
Specifically, the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 amendments to the Constitution) specifically applicable to the states and allows the federal government to create legislation that abrogates sovereign immunity of the states if, and to the extent, necessary to abolish the vestiges of slavery.
While that was the purpose of the 14th Amendment at the time, it actually has much broader powers than merely abolishing slavery. Amendment XIV intentionally mimics the language of Amendment V, in that it forbids the states from "depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;". This Amendment is the reason that the freedoms express in various constitutional amendments are now applied to the states, despite clearly being directed toward Congress, e.g., the federal government, and not the states.
In this case, Congress attempted to apply that standard to copyright law, by claiming that violation of copyright deprived the copyright holder of "property", and because of the states' normal immunity to federal suit, did so "without due process". In order for this law to pass Contitutional muster, it must fall clearly within the scope of that 14th amendment clause, for the reason you mentioned: if no constitutional amendment expressly grants Congress the power to override the 11th Amendment, Article I forbids them from doing so.
What the court found, based on earlier decisions, was that this particular law did not meet the strict test for determining if it fell legally within the 14th Amendment. Read in isolation that Amendment does seem to cover this particular action, but the Constitution cannot be read in isolation. In order to balance Amendment XIV with Amendment XI, the courts impose limits on how free Congress can get with its 14th Amendment powers, which are similar to the limits the Court places on Congress's attempts to limit First Amendment rights. Specifically, the law in question must be designed to address a specific infringment in the most specific and limited means possible. Since the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act was essentially preemptive (the Court didn't find the "evidence" used to support the act as being very consistant), and because there are other remedies for the copyright holder (individual suits; breach of contract suits; etc), the Court found that Congress overstepped their bounds with this act.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Constitutional Law 101 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oregon voters (not the legislature, it was actually voted on by the people) passed a law legalizing doctor-assisted suicide under limited circumstances and with strict controls to make sure it's not used inappropriately. Actually, I think either the legislature figured out a way to override it or the state Supreme Court found it unconstitutional (I don't recall whic
Sovereign Immunity is waivable. (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would you want this anyway? Do you really want the government to have the right to steal your work?
Go ahead... flame me. I think that Intellectual Property rights are important.
Re:Sovereign Immunity is waivable. (Score:5, Informative)
I know as a law student you probably know more law than I do, but as a practicing IP lawyer, I have to disagree with you. I don't think a petition for certiorari would be granted and if it was, I think the decision of the trial court would be upheld.
Re: (Score:2)
After reading through the material a little more, I agree that it's not a slam dunk reversal at that level, BUT, I don't think it's a slam dunk to uphold the decision either.
The 11th Amendment essentially says that Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over claims against a state.
The necessary and proper clause, however would apply to Congre
Re: (Score:2)
Still, the law wouldn't be unconstitutional, per se, just entirely unenforceable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I admit I didn't read the decision... however, I disagree with your opinion that the SCOTUS would not grant cert. They most certainly would want to resolve this issue.
There is no issue to resolve. So far as I have seen, the decisions are unanimous in finding this act an unconstitutional exercise is legislation. There is no circuit split to resolve. IMHO, I don't see this case as one for a grant of cert.
After reading through the material a little more, I agree that it's not a slam dunk reversal at that level, BUT, I don't think it's a slam dunk to uphold the decision either.
Nothing in court is a slam dunk.
The 11th Amendment essentially says that Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over claims against a state.
That's right, it does.
The necessary and proper clause, however would apply to Congress' power to "promote the progress of science and useful arts," and potentially allow this law to apply to states, regardless of their sovereign immunity. I suppose you could also make a claim involving the commerce clause there...
Note that other courts have come to the same result for "clarification acts" involving patents and trademarks too. There is a marked difference between giving Congress power to legislate in an area and compellin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Back during the Anthrax scare, the government nearly seized Bayer's patent on Cipro under Eminent Domain.
And as someone who despises both states' "rights" and intellectual "property" with a bloody passion, I'm quite torn on this. I hate anything that protects states' "rights", but I love anything that degrades copy"right".
Re: (Score:2)
the primary problem most of us have is that copyright terms are not in the public interest, which is the whole reason copyrights and patents are given in the first place - a government granted monopoly in exchange to that work or invention passing into the public domain.
Why I am glad for this ruling. (Score:2)
It's not that simple. They CAN still sue the individual responsible, per my understanding (IANAL, but it's discussed in TFA).
They just can't get lots of money from the state, now. They also appear to have been trying to copyright mere ideas, but that's another can of worms.
So, IMHO, it's a good ruling and good law, because it's not like the states have been authorizing infringement to begin with, an
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal acts are automatically outside protection (Score:2)
Yes, but the minute you do something illegal, you're outside your official capacity, so by infringing, they give up their immunity due to their position. So we're right back to "you can sue the person, but not the state" again.
The article discusses that exact point, but I don't blame anyone for missing it
Re:Illegal acts are automatically outside protecti (Score:2)
Not necessarily. It all gets right at whether or not the state has vicarious liability. Except, unlike in private vicarious liability suits, you can't sue the employee unless the employer (the state) is not able to be reached by vicarious liability.
You can definitely commit an illegal act in the course of your official duties. Think about a bouncer kicking someone out of a bar... if his boss says, "rough him up a little,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want anyone to have the right to steal my work. I'd like to keep it available for my use and my purposes, to have any time I like. Stealing it would really irritate me a lot, because if it was stolen I wouldn't have it any more. Why, if it was a song and it was stolen I wouldn't be able to listen to it! If someone stole my movie, I wouldn't be able to watch it! Worst of all, if someone stole my bo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here we go again with that word "steal". You only have these artificial rights to work you do because of government fiat, justified under a lot of shaky assumptions. Some of these being that ideas are discrete and clearly delineable, that you alone could have come up with some idea, that you owe nothing to society for educating you and placing at your disposal libraries of prior art to help you avoid "reinventing the wheel", and that you are able to make use of this government granted monopoly, and only f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
False equivalence. I had hoped for some real argument, not this. I'm saying there are fundamental differences between real property, such as my house, and intellectual property, such as any patentable ideas I may have.
Some differences are that I can stop you from attempting to move into my house without my permission. If you try it, I'll know. If you attempt to force your way in, I, being present, could resort to force to keep you out. I could possibly even handle this without running to the governme
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This subject is VASTLY more complex than you know (Score:5, Insightful)
What is state sovereign immunity? An ancient concept that basically says "you can't sue the state unless the state gives you permission to do so". It goes all the way back to the days of Kings, and was imported into the US too. In the Constitution the states have sovereign immunity from 1. a basic "postulate" of the structure of the constitution (this is extremely fuzzy and not well defined) and 2. The 11th amendment which ONLY created sovereign immunity in diversity actions (correcting a blunder put into the original Article III language). Now, there are still plenty of times that you CAN sue a state, the courts have carved out an exception for suing a named state official, and doing so only for future prospective relief (like I want the state to stop harming me, but I can't sue to collect big money from the state).
So you might say: What about all my rights, can the state get away with everything? The answer is no. It is possible for Congress to (in limited circumstances) abrogate or take away state sovereign immunity. The problem comes from the above "postulates": State sovereign immunity is INHERENT to the Constitution (not just to common law which would be easy for Congress to override with legislation). Think of this in programming terms: In the ORIGINAL base class (constitution) there is no real way for Congress to abrogate sovereign immunity unless there is an express exception in the base class itself. However, when the 14th amendment came along LATER and amended the constitution (think of the constitution as a new inherited class with slightly different properties) it DID give Congress a window to (sometimes) abrogate a State's sovereign immunity.
To abrogate you need 2 things that the Court in this case found lacking: 1. Congress has to very clearly state in statutory language that it is abrogating state sovereign immunity (not every bill relating to the 14th amendment abrogates, section 1983 of the civil rights act is a notable case); 2. (and this is where the act failed): The right granted has to PROPERLY be rooted in the 14th amendment section 5 grant of power to Congress. This law was not rooted in the 14th amendment even if Congress said it was. The Copryight power has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. There is one exception in the original Constitution that Courts have recognized, and that is the bankruptcy power (which has some funky text associated with it in ARt I), aside from that the Court has basically held that state sovereign immunity could be abrogated for bankruptcy).
Why have all this sovereign immunity? Well there are good reasons for it, the biggest one being that it would be way too easy to sue the states for petty money in federal courts. It should be no surprise that abrogation came with the 14th amendment which was passed after the Civil War when the trust of the states was at an all time low. Remember: In a federal democracy like the U.S. the states DO have trust and sovereignty, but not absolute sovereignty, and the level of trust they get has gone up & down over the years.
Now
Re:This subject is VASTLY more complex than you kn (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice exposition. One further detail: a state can be sued in state court for violation of its own constitution.
Re:This subject is VASTLY more complex than you kn (Score:3, Interesting)
This case has NOTHING to do with copyrights whatsoever.
Actually, it does, albeit somewhat tangentally. Copyright is an exclusively federal cause of action. 28 U.S.C. sec. 1338(a) [cornell.edu]. If not for that twist, the "tort" of copyright infringement would likely fall under most states' Tort Claims acts and authors of copyrightable works would not be left without a remedy for infringement by states (or hoping against hope for a waiver of 11th Amendment immunity).
Good luck on your Fed Courts exam. I have found that my Fed Courts class was far and away the most valuab
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This subject is VASTLY more complex than you kn (Score:2, Funny)
This would have gone over better if it were a car an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anti-gun/weapon laws. Why so many complications?
Any device for the sole or usual use of severely injuring or killing a person should be regulated in manner X, this includes but isn't limited to guns, tazers, spring
No (Score:2)
Don't be too quick to judge... (Score:2)
You may not remember, but the RIAA has been after universities (there are plenty of Slashdot stories on that topic). Follow that by the fact that state universities are parts of the state, which are immunized by this ruling. Yes, it appears to allow them to still sue INDIVIDUALS (through more convoluted
Glad that a CERTAIN PORTION of the law is gone (Score:2)
But that does NOT mean that "copyright law", in general, is bad. It is not. It is essential to the healthy functioning of a free society. In fact, if you read the Constitution, you will see that the abilities to copyright and patent were expressly provided for in order to further the general public good.
If you read your history, you will see why this i
The wrong way to argue a decent point... (Score:3, Informative)
And when you say "Since you chose to challenge the claim, it is up to you to find a counterexample." I'm sorely tempted to post an ironic reply in the vein of "Anyone who says that loses the argument (it's up to you to provide a counterexample if you disagree)."
But don't get me wrong, I think that copyright is the wrong way to do the right thing, if that makes an
Re: (Score:2)
When men control the fruits of their own labors, society benefits from an abundance of such labors.
So, why shouldn't you expect it to work for intellectual property, as well?
Where is your counter-example? Or are you too busy declaring yourself to be "rubber, not glue" to think of one?
Re: (Score:2)
That's... not a good way to argue it.
With real property, I can police it. If someone takes it, I can take it back. I can *see* people taking it if I watch. Transfers of IP can't be policed. They can happen entirely on someone else's property (e.g. between their computers) without my knowledge. Provided there's someone watching, it will never be impossible to notice that your property is missing. With IP, you have no way of knowing who has a copy of it, s
I didn't mean to come off that harshly. (Score:4, Informative)
You may misunderstand. I understand wanting to have the other party "pony up" before you argue with them, so that you don't end up in a hit-and-run where you do a lot of work refuting them and they do none. But I don't think it worthless to be careful with one's words, and the notion that someone asking about your support for your propositions has to provide counter-examples and means of undermining them first is... not conductive to a good conversation, let alone a debate. It's just not good to throw out what seems like a clear fallacy like that (even unintentionally, due to being less than clear about your intent). You undermine the very idea you intend to support if you do, whether in conversation, debate, or anything else!
> Arts and invention were anything but "public domain" during the Renaissance. Artisans and inventors were supported by the wealthy and powerful, who kept the benefits for themselves. It only "trickled down" to the general populace at the whims of those same wealthy and powerful.
And yet, it did trickle down, did it not? I'm arguing more against the extreme notion that without copyright there is nothing worthwhile. Now, there's a good point here that the patronage model is not the greatest thing of all. However, it does support the notion that there are workable (if not superior) models that encourage innovation other than copyrights. But I see that you're arguing that copyright is the most effective we have so far. I think that's a reasonable point, if tempered by the notion that we should get rid of many of the excesses in the current model. For example, I think it's reasonable to say that Google has been innovative, but how many of its services have NOT been sued in some way? Book search, in particular, comes to mind. I really think publishers were shooting themselves in the foot trying to stop that one. So I hope we can agree that copyright (as it exists today, in the US) is at least not the best possible.
> If you want an actual example of the opposite, a place and time in which "intellectual property" automatically belonged in full to "the people", you need look no further than the former Soviet Union. And if you know much about their history, you know that this system simply did not work. In fact, all innovation ended up being controlled by the government and the military, while "the people", the ostensible owners of all the above, continually teetered on the brink of starvation and economic collapse.
I wouldn't blame the fall of the Soviet Union on copyright. I know you're not, but it sounds like it. With socialism, the inherent problem is quite often there isn't enough for everybody. Now, yes, there's a lack of incentive problem, too, but I think all those problems contribute. At least with copyright, there IS enough for everybody. I mean, that's why they're worried about piracy to begin with: too many people are copying it. They wouldn't be able to copy it if there wasn't enough to go around (and copies both legal and otherwise do, to be fair, use limited resources: disk space and bandwidth, in particular).
> Another place that does not officially recognize "intellectual property" to any degree is China. But you might notice something about their admittedly booming economy in recent years: they have been great at copying the inventions of others but really, really lousy at coming up with anything new of their own. Why? Because there is economic incentive to copy the work of others cheaply, but little or no economic incentive to innovate. There is no profit in it so people don't do it. This is not just real but obvious to those who have been paying attention.
You know, they said that about Japan not very long ago, too. In fact, Japanese goods once had a reputation for being inferior knock-offs that
This is old news (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, this ruling was handed down two months ago, so I'm not sure why it's being discussed now. But second, the Fifth Circuit struck down exactly the same part of the same law in 2000. See Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, 204 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2000). Though it hasn't made it to the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit is the only federal appellate court to consider the issue, no court will allow Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity under its Art. I powers. And Copyright is not a Fourteenth Amendment issue, so there's just no way to do this. This really isn't a big deal.
I agree with you on both counts, nenya.
A win for soveriegn immunity (Score:2)
This opinion is about sovereign immunity, the legal theory that states cannot be sued. For all the Federalists in the room this may be a good deal. For those that would like to see less protection for intellectual property - this isn't your decision.
Sovereign Immunity has actually created state funded patent trolls. California schools are financially exploiting patent law by patenting tech
As much as Copyright Law sucks... (Score:2)
As much as Copyright Law sucks, there are some parts of it that I'd be quite upset if they struck.
Fair Use to name one. Limited Immunity for ISPs (one of the few or only good things to come out of the DMCA) to name another.
A Hopefully Not Too Longwinded Explanation (Score:5, Informative)
The Eleventh Amendment gives the states sovereign immunity in absolute terms, and it controls over any Constitutional text that preceded it. Thus, any Congressional power to limit sovereign immunity must come from an amendment that was passed AFTER the Eleventh Amendment. It cannot come from the Copyright Clause.
Arguably, the only place to look for a Congressional power to limit sovereign immunity is the 14th Amendment, section 5. This text gives Congress the power to enforce the first 4 sections of the 14th Amendment through "appropriate legislation." But any Congressional action that relies on Section 5 must be geared towards enforcing Due Process, Privileges and Immunities, Equal Protection, or some other clause of the 14th Amendment.
Essentially, the court in this case says that the purpose of the Copyright Act is not to enforce the 14th Amendment. That seems pretty obvious to me. The purpose of the Copyright Act is to enforce the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, not the rights enshrined in the 14th Amendment!
The only argument that I can think of for the other side would look to the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. The 14th requires that states not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. So the argument would go like this: 1) The state is taking a person's property when it violates someone's copyright. 2) The Copyright Act creates a due process right, in that it requires that the state allow itself to be sued for such a taking. 3) The 14th Amendment authorizes the Copyright Act's limitation on sovereign immunity, because it is an attempt to enforce a Due Process right.
But there is a fatal flaw in that argument. A violation of copyright is not a taking of property. If you violate someone's copyright, they are still the copyright holder. A copyright violation is NOT a taking of property. Without a taking of life, liberty, or property, Due Process is not required, and the 14th Amendment is not implicated.
Not Glad About Sovereign Unaccountability (Score:2)
Or, like Richard Nixon said [paperlined.org] as an excuse for
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now, could somebody PLEASE mod parent funny? For me?
Re:Not a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, that doesn't sound good at all, although it's one of those things that may cost them more in the long run.
Besides, the military has been doing that forever. My father worked on a number of major contracts for the Navy and Air Force back in the sixties, and anything they decided they liked and wanted to have built cheaper elsewhere they would just stamp "CLASSIFIED".
Once that was done, the original manufacturer/designer/inventor was basically screwed out of his rights (patents, copyrights, whatever) and couldn't even take it to court. After that happened to Dad a couple of times, he made damn sure that the patent apps and design specs left out crucial elements such that they'd eventually have to come back and buy it from his company. That, or invest a whole lot of time and money figuring out what he hadn't told them. They deserved it though: the Navy severely shafted his company on a number of contracts. Just outright stole years of work, and put them out on open bid ("classified", yeah, right.) Sleazy, and not what most people would expect from the service. A used car salesman, sure, but not from the world's most powerful military.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is as close as you can get to really stealing IP, because once it is classified the people who came up with it can't even use it themselves.
People think the Military-Industrial Complex is dirty today, it was always dirty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at section 15 and 16 of GPL v3. (They're also in v2.) These parts apply to how you use the software once you have it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What the GPL applies to (Score:5, Insightful)
That was the original excuse for the abomination that is the modern EULA (a contract, masquerading as a license, intended to change the terms of sale post sale.) That's why, in the US, we have USC Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 [cornell.edu] - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs.
So, if you don't need a license to run the software, or install the software (essential step in the utilization), what's the point of the EULA. After all, there's Adobe vs Softman, where the court found that a single payment for perpetual use constitutes a sale, not a license. If buying the software doesn't get you the right to have it, what did you pay for? If buying the software does give you the right to have it, and copyright law doesn't allow the creator of the software to prevent your using it, then what's the point of the EULA in the first place? When you buy a book, it has a copyright notice, but no license. None is necessary - your purchase gives you a right to use it. Anything else would be silly.
Now, there is a specific case where they are useful, and make sense. A true license (not the modern bastardization) only grants freedoms, but can do so according to terms. Ultimately, it's not the license that takes your ability to do things away, but the law itself. Here's an example:
I make a piece of sheet music. Copyright law states that you cannot distribute copies you make of said music.
Suppose I attach a license to it stating that "you are permitted to make and distribute copies, provided the copyright notice and this notice remain intact". This grants freedoms ("make and distribute copies"), subject to terms ("the copyright notice and this notice remain intact.") You aren't required to accept the license - you can use the sheet music just fine without a license. Should you choose to avail yourself of the additional freedoms I grant you with my work, you may do so (subject to terms).
So, for software, it makes sense to have a license when the author wishes to expand the user's rights beyond that provided by the Doctrine of First Sale, Fair Use, etc. He could, for example, permit the use on a second machine (a laptop perhaps), etc.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a remarkably uninformed example of a Slashdot troll. Try harder next time
Re: (Score:2)
These same companies employee the largest percentage of the work force
I've seem spam with better grammar.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Won't work. (Score:2)
The state is fully protected (and our tax money, as another way to look at it), but the employee themselves is not. IANAL, but look at the strange way that lawsuit was dismissed: the one who allegedly infringed (outside of their official capacity) is the only one left to sue.
I know it's hard to read, when it dismissed the suit against the alleged infr