4 ms·

No, not quite. They/we want the same kind of justice so our fundamental expectations or rights preserved -- and if that does not suit copyright, then it is copy

by hxa7241 16y ago

No, not quite. They/we want the same kind of justice so our fundamental expectations or rights preserved -- and if that does not suit copyright, then it is copyright that must give way. Of course it may not be easy to square the two. But the relative priority really ought to be rather clear. Copyright as it is is only a particular choice, but matters of personal freedom are things we take to be deeply rooted, and not submissive to merely commercial expediency.

SomeCallMeTim 16y ago
Copyright is actually more deeply rooted in the Constitution (of the US) than those other rights; the Bill of Rights happened later, after all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
- dedward 16y ago
  Deeply rooted does not imply deeply rooted in the constitution of the United States. I believe the US mindset is supposed to be that the constitution does not give you rights - rights are inherent. the constitution sets limits on what rights the government can take away. Doesn't it also have a clause that says anything not declared in here are relegated to the states, or to the people? PEOPLE have an expectation of privacy. PEOPLE make laws.
  - SomeCallMeTim 16y ago
    >Doesn't it also have a clause that says anything not declared in here are relegated to the states, or to the people? That would be the tenth amendment, yes.
- DougWebb 16y ago
  Not exactly. The Bill of Rights was added later to explicitly identify a number of the most important rights of the people. These were originally implied; everything not mentioned in the Constitution is a right of the people.
  - SomeCallMeTim 16y ago
    >everything not mentioned in the Constitution is a right of the people. Prior to the Bill of Rights, that was not the case. As I mentioned elsewhere, the "everything else is a right of the states or the people" clause is in the tenth amendment. Edit: AND in the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
    - DougWebb 16y ago
      Yes, the 10th Amendment makes explicit the fact that all rights not mentioned in the Constitution are inherent rights of the States and the People. This was implicit before the Bill of Rights, but it lead to a lot of confusion. At the time, most governments had all rights implicitly with a sovereign, and the people only had the rights that were explicitly granted to them. Our founders intended to flip that relationship, but since many people didn't get it, they had to add the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately many people still don't get it, despite what the 10th Amendment says.
- Natsu 16y ago
  You're mistaken about how that works. Amendments amend what comes before them. In the most absurd case, that logic could be used to say that the 3/5ths compromise is "more deeply rooted in the Constitution" than the 14th Amendment. Courts have long recognized that the Copyright Clause exists "in tension" with the First Amendment and, therefore, have tried their best to harmonize the two.
  - Fargren 16y ago
    "Courts have long recognized that the Copyright Clause exists "in tension" with the First Amendment and, therefore, have tried their best to harmonize the two." Can I get a citation for that? It seems very interesting, and I hadn't heard of it before.
    - Natsu 16y ago
      Certainly. Here are a couple: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=13828 http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=13828 http://www.slais.ubc.ca/courses/libr500/10-11-wt1/www/C_Chase/universal.html http://www.slais.ubc.ca/courses/libr500/10-11-wt1/www/C_Chas... There's also a lot of stuff on LexisNexis, but that costs quite a bit of money unless you know someone with a subscription. This one appears more relevant, but quotes me a price of $12.50+tax: "A REGULATORY THEORY OF COPYRIGHT: AVOIDING A FIRST AMENDMENT CONFLICT" https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=35+Emory+L.J.+163&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=b26a75c161c40990f5aae57a75dbfd8c https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?actio... I should mention that other courts have said that they don't see the interplay between the Copyright Clause & First Amendment as "tension", but instead view things like fair use as "safety valves" that prevent the two from being in conflict. Whatever words you use to say it, the fact is that the courts do their best to uphold both, rather than choose one or the other. Whether one sees the considerations in reconciling the two as "tension" or believes that their approach harmonizes the two, it's something the courts weigh carefully.
VladRussian 16y ago
>No, not quite. They/we want the same kind of justice so our fundamental expectations or rights preserved -- and if that does not suit copyright, then it is copyright that must give way. it is somewhat false dichotomy - the copyright itself has no conflict with the fundamental rights. It is the modern way of enforcing the copyright on the Internet and investigating/prosecuting the copyright violations there that is violating fundamental rights. Somehow due process gets relaxed when it comes to copyright violations. Though may be the strength of the due process was only perceived as such if one considers all these cases when an Afro wearing guy would get arrested a week later and get a life (or even death) for the crime committed by a bald perpetrator. 30+ year ago society felt that these guys weren't worth the due process and looks like today the society thinks that "the ones who copy from the Internet or the ones who have something to hide" aren't worth the due process.

by hxa7241 16y ago

SomeCallMeTim 16y ago

Copyright is actually more deeply rooted in the Constitution (of the US) than those other rights; the Bill of Rights happened later, after all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

dedward 16y ago
Deeply rooted does not imply deeply rooted in the constitution of the United States. I believe the US mindset is supposed to be that the constitution does not give you rights - rights are inherent. the constitution sets limits on what rights the government can take away. Doesn't it also have a clause that says anything not declared in here are relegated to the states, or to the people? PEOPLE have an expectation of privacy. PEOPLE make laws.
- SomeCallMeTim 16y ago
  >Doesn't it also have a clause that says anything not declared in here are relegated to the states, or to the people? That would be the tenth amendment, yes.
DougWebb 16y ago
Not exactly. The Bill of Rights was added later to explicitly identify a number of the most important rights of the people. These were originally implied; everything not mentioned in the Constitution is a right of the people.
- SomeCallMeTim 16y ago
  >everything not mentioned in the Constitution is a right of the people. Prior to the Bill of Rights, that was not the case. As I mentioned elsewhere, the "everything else is a right of the states or the people" clause is in the tenth amendment. Edit: AND in the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
  - DougWebb 16y ago
    Yes, the 10th Amendment makes explicit the fact that all rights not mentioned in the Constitution are inherent rights of the States and the People. This was implicit before the Bill of Rights, but it lead to a lot of confusion. At the time, most governments had all rights implicitly with a sovereign, and the people only had the rights that were explicitly granted to them. Our founders intended to flip that relationship, but since many people didn't get it, they had to add the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately many people still don't get it, despite what the 10th Amendment says.
Natsu 16y ago
You're mistaken about how that works. Amendments amend what comes before them. In the most absurd case, that logic could be used to say that the 3/5ths compromise is "more deeply rooted in the Constitution" than the 14th Amendment. Courts have long recognized that the Copyright Clause exists "in tension" with the First Amendment and, therefore, have tried their best to harmonize the two.
- Fargren 16y ago
  "Courts have long recognized that the Copyright Clause exists "in tension" with the First Amendment and, therefore, have tried their best to harmonize the two." Can I get a citation for that? It seems very interesting, and I hadn't heard of it before.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    Certainly. Here are a couple: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=13828 http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=13828 http://www.slais.ubc.ca/courses/libr500/10-11-wt1/www/C_Chase/universal.html http://www.slais.ubc.ca/courses/libr500/10-11-wt1/www/C_Chas... There's also a lot of stuff on LexisNexis, but that costs quite a bit of money unless you know someone with a subscription. This one appears more relevant, but quotes me a price of $12.50+tax: "A REGULATORY THEORY OF COPYRIGHT: AVOIDING A FIRST AMENDMENT CONFLICT" https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=35+Emory+L.J.+163&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=b26a75c161c40990f5aae57a75dbfd8c https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?actio... I should mention that other courts have said that they don't see the interplay between the Copyright Clause & First Amendment as "tension", but instead view things like fair use as "safety valves" that prevent the two from being in conflict. Whatever words you use to say it, the fact is that the courts do their best to uphold both, rather than choose one or the other. Whether one sees the considerations in reconciling the two as "tension" or believes that their approach harmonizes the two, it's something the courts weigh carefully.

VladRussian 16y ago

>No, not quite. They/we want the same kind of justice so our fundamental expectations or rights preserved -- and if that does not suit copyright, then it is copyright that must give way. it is somewhat false dichotomy - the copyright itself has no conflict with the fundamental rights. It is the modern way of enforcing the copyright on the Internet and investigating/prosecuting the copyright violations there that is violating fundamental rights. Somehow due process gets relaxed when it comes to copyright violations. Though may be the strength of the due process was only perceived as such if one considers all these cases when an Afro wearing guy would get arrested a week later and get a life (or even death) for the crime committed by a bald perpetrator. 30+ year ago society felt that these guys weren't worth the due process and looks like today the society thinks that "the ones who copy from the Internet or the ones who have something to hide" aren't worth the due process.