5 ms·
Justices Breyer, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan were the majority. It isn't over since the case now goes back to the lower court, but Aereo ca
by pgrote 12y ago
Justices Breyer, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan were the majority.
It isn't over since the case now goes back to the lower court, but Aereo can no longer argue they are the same as a person putting an antenna on their roof.
- Grue3 12y agoSo, all the "liberal" judges? Sucks that the ones who usually defend human rights are also the same people who stifle innovation.
- sheetjs 12y agoDescribing Roberts as liberal is a great stretch
- Grue3 12y agoPretty sure he's the one who "saved" Obamacare when it went to Supreme Court.
- nfoz 12y agoDescribing Obamacare as liberal is a bit of a stretch. - a Canadian
- krapp 12y agoBear in mind, the U.S. definition of liberal is still far to the right of what the rest of the world considers liberal.
- Grue3 12y agoAnd by the whole world you mean Western Europe and a few other countries. US is very liberal compared to many other places (like my own country).
- krapp 12y agoFair enough.
- jusben1369 12y agoCan I ask which country that is? It strikes me as odd to hear such a domestic US political rant from someone who doesn't live here. (or maybe you do live here now and are just comparing it to where you're from)
- Grue3 12y agoI live in Russia. I try to follow various happenings all around the world, nothing odd about that.
- witty_username 12y agoAgree. In India one has to pay exorbitant sums for poor medical care, forget about subsidised, good medical care.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago1. "Obamacare" is an implementation of the Heritage Foundation's[0] health plan from the early 90s. It's "liberal" in the same sense that any Republican can be said to be "liberal." 2. Roberts has a deep and wide judicially conservative record. He cannot be called "liberal" in the context of American politics; it's not even up for debate. The man and his judicial practice is as conservative as they come. 3. I really don't see why it matters. The justices' political leanings have nothing to do with whether or not their decisions are "correct" or not (although it may provide insight into why they decide one way or another). [0]www.heritage.org
- Grue3 12y agoDoesn't change the fact that other conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, and so on) voted against it and liberal justices voted for it. So Roberts could be said to be the most liberal of the bunch. The Aereo vote is pretty much the same as Obamacare vote, except Kennedy who is both anti-Obamacare and anti-Aereo.
- bmelton 12y agoWell, that 'fact' isn't very factual. The 'conservative' justices dissented from the majority opinion, but that doesn't mean that their rendering would have made Aerio's practices legal. In a nutshell, the dissent would have also ruled against Aerio, just for a different reason than the majority. This sentence from Scalia's dissent should put things in perspective: "I share the Court's evident feeling that what Aereo is doing (or enabling to be done) to the Networks' copyrighted programming ought not to be allowed."
- RyanMcGreal 12y agoRemember, Obamacare is the health care plan the Republicans proposed after rejecting any kind of single-payer universal plan. That the Republicans subsequently also opposed their own health care proposal speaks more to their basic coherence than their political ideology, per se.
- ceejayoz 12y agoObamacare was closely based off Republican proposals in the 90s (including Romney's implementation of it in Massachusetts).
- o0-0o 12y agoI would not describe Roberts as liberal, per se. However, I would think that someone has got some dirt on him. No way to explain his voting record, otherwise.
- jonnathanson 12y agoWell, the problem is that Aereo probably could not have prevailed at SCOTUS, because SCOTUS looks to precedent. In this case, their interpretation of the precedent itself (Copyright Act of 1976) was accurate, even if that precedent is out of date in our eyes. If you want SCOTUS justices to innovate, you need to challenge the precedents at their fundamental level, or else point to other precedents that should invalidate or challenge them. Bear in mind that the function of the Supreme Court isn't to propose new laws (legislate); it's to rule on existing laws. By its own mandate, the Supreme Court does not serve an innovative function in government. It serves an examination and arbitration function. If we want to change anything here, we'll have to start in the other branches of government, or else bring a case that sufficiently challenges the Copyright Act.
- pla3rhat3r 12y agoWell said.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> Well, the problem is that Aereo probably could not have prevailed at SCOTUS, because SCOTUS looks to precedent. In this case, their interpretation of the precedent itself (Copyright Act of 1976) was accurate, even if that precedent is out of date in our eyes. You are confusing enactments (things like the Constitution and statute law, like the Copyright Act) with precedent (prior rulings of courts applying the same law). These are fundamentally different things, thought the court looks to both
- jonnathanson 12y agoSorry, was a misnomer on my part. I was using "precedent" in the broad sense, i.e., to mean a preexisting reference point. But you're quite right in that the term has a very specific legal meaning, and I should have been more mindful of that. (IANAL, and I should probably preface a lot more of my legal discussions with that.) Nevertheless, I think my point still stands. Court needs to find, sort, and prioritize reference points essentially.
- danielweber 12y agoEverything following this comment is a horrible derail. And would be expected from the plain text of the comment.
- dminor 12y agoAll the judges were against it. The three who dissented just didn't agree on the reason.
- drzaiusapelord 12y agoIts amazing that the left and the right can't agree on anything, not even it being illegal to lie on gun applications, but once IP is tossed in the game they all fall on some pretty strong protectionist postions. I'm not making some big statement here, but it just goes to show that guys like Lawrence Lessig and the EFF keep losing because they have so few allies in government and have the most powerful enemies, the various deep-pocketing IP abusers like tech firms or Disney. What now? Back to our DRM-laden lives with no silver lining I guess. Shame that the profit on mass entertainment trumps all rights. I wonder if my Slingbox is illegal now. Probably not, supposedly this decision is narrowly written, which is a welcome change from the big sweeping conservative-led majority decisions of late.
- PaulHoule 12y agoIntellectual property law is the pride and joy of our legal system. Really. Patents, Copyright and Trademarks are all American inventions that have spread everywhere in the world. Many Americans think it goes too far, but in the fraternity of lawyers and judges, IP rules.
- exo762 12y agoRomans gave world Civil law, Americans gave world IP law. Sad.
- icebraining 12y agoIt's not true. IP law existed before the American revolution, and the US in fact initially refused to sign the major worldwide convention on IP law (Berne).
- bediger4000 12y agoin the fraternity of lawyers and judges, IP rules I believe that's the key insight. "Intellectual property" is good (in the sense of generating lots of work) for the legal profession. Judges tend to rule towards things that benefit the legal profession(s), and against things that don't benefit those profession(s). However, you're wrong in point of fact. Copyright is an English law thing, a statute law, not a common law. Look up "Statute of Queen Anne". It's from 1710. Patents seem to be a British or Venetian thing. The USA almost didn't have a patent or copyright system, Thomas Jefferson was quite against them. For a long time, the USA allowed immigration on the basis of possessing some skill or patented idea - the USA was an "IP Outlaw". Not too surprisingly, this coincides with the USA's period of industrialization. "Intellectual Property", the idea that one can own ideas, is just a bad idea, from an economic standpoint.
- Alupis 12y agoCan someone explain the gist of what's going on to an outside observer not familiar with Aereo?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- jcampbell1 12y agoAereo is a company that setup 1000s of DVR's with 1000s of antennas on a New York City rooftop. They lease access to these DVRs for roughtly $5/month and the DVRs stream to your computer. In the US, broadcast channels are free over the air. However, there is a law that says if cable companies want to retransmit the broadcasts, the networks can charge the cable companies. Is Aereo "retransmitting" the broadcast, or just renting personal antennas? That is what the Supreme Court was deciding.