Episode 4: The Supreme Court Strikes Back

[Sheeyt]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that cable companies may keep rival Internet providers from using their lines, a decision that will limit competition and consumers' choices.

The 6-3 decision is a victory for the Bush administration, which sought exclusive control to promote broadband investment from deep-pocketed cable companies.

Judges should defer to the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission, which concluded that limited access is best for the industry, the high court said in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.

More than 19 million homes have cable broadband service. At issue is whether cable Internet access is a "telecommunications service" under federal law that makes it subject to strict FCC rules requiring companies to provide access to independent providers.

The FCC said no, voting in March 2002 to exempt cable companies from the strict rules to stir more investment. The agency reasoned that high-speed Internet over cable was just an "information service," making it different from phone companies.

The stakes were high. Cable companies have invested billions to set up broadband networks and are now reaping the benefits. Last year, the industry earned about $10 billion in revenue from cable-modem subscriptions, which now represent its fastest growing segment.

The cable industry also had the backing of phone companies, which will now push the FCC to deregulate their rival Internet services on digital subscriber lines. Currently, DSL is regulated as a "telecommunications" service that requires companies to share their lines with independent providers such as Brand X and Earthlink.

Consumer groups, however, argued that subscribers should be able to choose their own Internet service provider rather than be forced to use the cable company. Left unregulated, cable companies will monopolize the market, with unfettered ability to raise prices and restrict content for their business advantage, they said.

Most computer users access the Internet through dial-up services, but broadband connections, through phone and cable lines and satellites, are faster. Broadband, which costs about $40 to $50 a month, depending on location, also features video conferencing.

Though there are alternatives for high-speed access such as telephone line-based DSL, fixed wireless and satellite, an estimated 60 percent of high-speed Internet users subscribe to their cable company's service, according to recent studies.

:hail: :hail:

Yes thank you Supreme Court for limiting my options! Why not just give it all to Comcast and call it a day? :flipoff:

[Sheeyt]

WASHINGTON -- Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod.

The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. on the grounds that the companies couldn't be sued. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.

File-sharing services shouldn't get a free pass on bad behavior, justices said.

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.

At issue was whether the file-sharing services should be held liable even if they have no direct control over what millions of online users are doing with the software they provide for free. As much as 90 percent of songs and movies copied on the file-sharing networks are downloaded illegally, according to music industry filings.

The entertainment industry said it needed protection against the billions of dollars in revenue they lose to illegal swapping. Consumer groups worried that expanded liability will stifle the technology revolution of the last two decades that brought video cassette recorders, MP3 players and Apple's iPod.

Companies will have to pay music and movie artists for up to billions in losses if they are found to have promoted illegal downloading.

Two lower courts previously sided with Grokster without holding a trial. They each based their decisions on the 1984 Supreme Court ruling that Sony Corp. could not be sued over consumers who used its VCRs to make illegal copies of movies.

The lower courts reasoned that, like VCRs, the file-sharing software can be used for "substantial" legal purposes, such as giving away free songs, free software or government documents. They also said the file-sharing services were not legally responsible because they don't have central servers pointing users to copyright material.

But in Monday's ruling, Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining factors such as how companies marketed the product or whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses.

"There is substantial evidence in MGM's favor on all elements of inducement," Souter wrote.

[Sheeyt]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court, struggling with a vexing social issue, held Monday it was constitutionally permissible to display the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol but that it was a violation of separation of church and state to place them in Kentucky courthouses.


Ummm WTF!?!?!

[Casper]

Ummm WTF!?!?!
That was a favor for GW - they figured they'd get that out of the way real quick before they closed - ugh

[Sheeyt]

What, that makes no sense.

[Jafo]

Well, as far as the cable ruling. Um, who gives a fap. Cable will someday be dead, and the decision is so narrowly based on cable alone, I do not see it being a big deal.

As for the file-swapping. This just baffles me. I wonder how it applies to say the common VCR? Those are used all the time to create illegal (non-personal) copies of copyrighted material. I dunno, waiting to hear more analysis on this decision.

The ten-commandments decision sounds to me like they cut the baby in half. I guess it's another step towards "It's only free speech if that speech is not about Judeo/Christian heritage".

[Jafo]

The more I read about the fileswapping decision the more I think it actually does nothing to filesharing. It seems the majority are reading this to mean that it only applies to the promotion of distrobution of copyrighted materials. In otherwords, a company can be found liable if they promote their service for copyright infringement. It's ruling was not a statment saying "If copyrighted material is transferred via your medium, it is automatically guilty".

[Casper]

What, that makes no sense.
What makes no sense is their decision is what is allowed and what isn't. It appears that if you show the Commandments outside of the government building, then that is ok. But if you display them inside the building then that is terrible and offends people that aren't Christians.

I just don't see how this ruling makes any sense. That's where the Bush joke came in - his old state, so they kinda got the 'ok' nudge.

[Ford Mustang]

It makes more sense if you do some research.

The Commandments or other religious things cannot be displayed by themselves, but as part of a larger exhibit they are acceptable.

[Jafo]

And that makes sense how?

[Casper]

It makes more sense if you do some research.

The Commandments or other religious things cannot be displayed by themselves, but as part of a larger exhibit they are acceptable.
So you're saying that it makes more sense by drowning out the 10 Commandments with other monuments or artwork around in the area, yet, it can't be inside - where it's closed to the outside public. I did read up on it, and still think it's a horrible and indecisive decision. It's going to be on a case by case basis, which will do no good.

[Jafo]

For the life of me, I cannot find in the Constitution the words "separation of church and state".

[Casper]

For the life of me, I cannot find in the Constitution the words "separation of church and state".
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm

That's cuz it's not in there.

[Jafo]

And this athiesm article is supposed to explain what? An athiests opion on not establishing a religion. Sorry, but the 10 commandments does not establish a religion any more than the greek writing all over Government establishes Zues as a mighty god.

[Casper]

Bah, I didn't notice that part in the link, but it's About.com - which is usually pretty good, no clue when they started putting in separate religions in there dam it.

Ahh, here we go:

From the 1st Amendment (Bill of Rights) - Establishment Clause:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution plainly prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine", certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to reduce substantially the promotion of religion by state governments. (For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Justice David Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

Why am I not shocked to see Kiryas Joel Village School District in there, Jafo?