8 ms·
Supreme Court: There's No 'Time Limit' on Copyright Infringement Claims
- HarryHirsch 2y agoNo time limit for copyright claims but very strict limits for anything to do with labour rights - and they still keep telling us it's a country of laws.
- teeray 2y agoIt would be nice to have some mechanism to force the various branches of government to pass laws that oppose their own collective self-interests but advance the interests of the populace.
- AnarchismIsCool 2y agoThere...is... It's even in the bill of rights, it's just not very pleasant.
- AndrewDucker 2y agoSure. Get a majority of people and a majority of states to vote for it. That's the mechanism.
- gecko 2y agoI mean, it is a country of laws. Just...some of those laws are pretty bad. For what it's worth, the Court in this case is narrowly focused on correcting a lower court's interpretation of the Copyright Act, not something in the Constitution or something fundamental, and on a first glance, I at least feel that their conclusion is highly justifiable. That doesn't mean the Copyright Act isn't fundamentally broken (it is, on my opinion), but that's trivially fixable by Congress if we get appropriately minded representatives.
- HarryHirsch 2y agoThe doctrine of adverse possession is well-established, at some point there has to be certainty about who owns what. Look at East Germany after reunification if you don't believe, the fights over real estate seriously delayed rebuilding. But for copyright adverse possession doesn't apply - it's understandable why the music industry would have the Court say so.
- stevenwoo 2y agoMinority rule by design (or originalists), a perspective: https://www.npr.org/2024/04/22/1246297603/ari-berman-minority-rule-electoral-college https://www.npr.org/2024/04/22/1246297603/ari-berman-minorit...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- westurner 2y agoWhy is Copyright, of all things, exempt from the federal statute of limitations? Are federal CSA cases exempted from the federal statute of limitations then? For CSA cases, e.g. California has: two (2) years from when the victim remembers IIUC?
- westurner 2y agoAre Conflict of Interest cases against the court exempted from the Statute of Limitations? Can commuted and pardoned cases be reheard once the elected executive is out of office, if there no limit to the statute of limitations? (Ludicrous that the court would consider total immunity for an executive of one branch, by the way.)
- ceejayoz 2y agoThey didn’t even have an ethics code until last year. The new one isn’t great , either. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-supreme-court-ethics-code-designed-fail https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-... > The rules themselves are weak. Consider recusal, when justices step aside from considering a case. The justices took the rule that applies to lower court judges but then inserted a handful of new loopholes, including one that could be so big that it swallows the rule — basically allowing a justice to disregard a required recusal if they think their vote is needed in the case. And the financial disclosure rules haven’t tightened at all — a significant shortcoming, since the justices have proven themselves troublingly adept at sidestepping the current rules, whether for RVs, tuition, fishing trips, or real estate deals.
- LocalH 2y ago[flagged]
- krapp 2y agoArguments about morality and preservation of culture aside, almost every who pirates does so because they want free shit, let's be realistic.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoThis is also a documented statistical fact - more than 90% of Yuzu users (or emulation users) do not dump their own keys. That, kind with TOTK famously getting pirated over a million times before release; shows that most arguments about morality and preservation of culture (although they have merit) are mainly given by people interested in justifying their own actions.
- Spivak 2y agoOf course they don't, this isn't some big gotcha. Why even bother when a Google search saves you the work? I play some old Pokémon games that came out on the DS and ya know what, I just downloaded the game and shoved it in an emulator rather then figuring out how to get it out of my own cart. Some nice person already did the work and I don't feel the need to conduct legal ritual with candles and blood rites to get a blessed copy of the same damn bits that are just sitting right there. If I could just get an Nintendo SD card adapter and plug it in to my laptop and dd to get the image it would be a different story.
- realusername 2y agoOr because they live in a country where the legal option doesn't even exist. Or because the legal option sucks so bad that you can't use it (hello Amazon prime)
- gjsman-1000 2y ago> Or because the legal option sucks so bad that you can't use it (hello Amazon prime) You can literally buy a Fire tablet for $49; or on eBay $20, and be able to use it and the DRM without touching your Linux stack. Complaining about the lack of legal methods is just a lack of exertion.
- ameister14 2y agoThe title is not accurate. The Court clarified that the time limit is 3 years from discovering the infringement, not 3 years from when the infringement took place.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Aloha 2y agoI dont get why people elsewhere on this thread are so up in arms about it - it seems like a perfectly reasonable interpretation of federal law, consistent with other kinds of civil claims. Tying the ability to recover damages not to the date of the action that caused the loss, but rather to when you discovered the loss seems more reasonable.
- ameister14 2y agoThe problem I can see is the extension of the period of damages. There is an argument to be made that there should probably be a statutory cap on years for damages accrual rather than just 'as long as you infringed,' but that's for the legislature to do.
- Aloha 2y agoI agree generally that there needs to be a cap on damages.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- snapplebobapple 2y agoIn general, tying statute of limitations to discovery rather than date of occurence is a bad idea because it extends liability infinitely and rewards incompetence on the victim side, which is egregious in general, but especially egregious in civil matters.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoUnfortunately, this is probably the correct decision. It's not the SCOTUS's job to determine what a "good" law versus a "bad" law is, unless it directly violates the constitution - which, when the constitution specifically says copyright is acceptable, and says nothing about a requirement for any statute of limitations, this clearly isn't.
- xtracto 2y agoPeople tend to mistake what the job of the Supreme Courts is. It is not as some form of vindictive righteousness body. Supreme courts are there to uphold the definite letter of the law. If laws are bad/outdated or otherwise improper, it's up to the other branches of government to change them.
- nico 2y agoCopyright is going to be tested to its limits in the next few years I wonder what the evolution of copyright will look like
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]