US Supreme Court Decisions

[larrymcg421]

OK, this is pissing me off. Is it too much to ask people to fucking read Supreme Court opinions before they criticize them? This idiot trying to take Souter's house said:

"It's solely for the purpose of showing (Souter) that his decision was unjust,"

I doubt he would have won anyways, but this comment just lost him his case. It would not be a valid taking. The following is from the majority opinion:

Though the city could not take petitioners' land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan

This is at the very beginning of the opinion, and not very difficult to find at all. I am sick and tired of people criticizing Supreme Court decisions without even bothering to make the first attempt to read and understand the reasoning behind them. Please, read the opinion before you criticize it. They're not long, and they're not very hard to understand.

[KevinNU7]

Please Pay Rent. This is a PR nightmare

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...ers-edit_x.htm

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by KevinNU7

Please Pay Rent. This is a PR nightmare

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...ers-edit_x.htm

This does hearten me a little: "The court said states can curtail abuses, and legislatures have rushed to do that. Delaware and Alabama passed laws barring the taking of private property for economic development. Similar measures are pending in eight other states and Congress."

SI

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

But your contention is that the recording industry's product is music, which is incorrect, their product is the distribution of music (which has been rendered obsolete by technology, much as the car did to the horse carriage). To think of it another way, if the recording industry shut down tomorrow, what would happen? Would music stop being produced? Of course not. It would just mean the end of $15 CD's and commercialized bands. Invariably, the amount of music would lessen somewhat (since there is still a cost involved to record the music to mp3, though that is lessening all the time), but it would be more than offset by the positive social effect of free music available to the masses. Plus, since the recording industry focuses on what will bring in the most profit (which means more cookie-cutter mass appeal stuff), the effect will be an increase in the awareness and distribution of more varied types of music.

I just can't let a dead horse lie there beaten.

The product actually IS the music. That is what people are buying, the music. Being that the music industry is producing and promoting that product, THEY get to decide how it is distributed. Not you, Not Napster, or Grokster.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I just can't let a dead horse lie there beaten.

The product actually IS the music. That is what people are buying, the music. Being that the music industry is producing and promoting that product, THEY get to decide how it is distributed. Not you, Not Napster, or Grokster.

So if their product is the music, if all the record labels shut down tomorrow, is it your contention that music production would cease?

[Mr. Wednesday]

But the music industry does not create the music. (OK, that's not completely accurate, they contribute to composition both in terms of songwriting and in terms of facilities and production assistance.) They are a middleman -- they buy the music from the artists, and facilitate distribution. Arguing that they currently control distribution and therefore make the decisions regarding distribution completely misses the point I think MrBigglesworth was making.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So if their product is the music, if all the record labels shut down tomorrow, is it your contention that music production would cease?

No.

If, however, there was no recording industry, you could download all the free music that you desired.

The deal is, In reality, there is a recording industry, and they hold the rights to sell the music that musicians have licensed(not sure if that is the correct term) to them.

The Music Industry holds all the cards. They were given them by the musicians, who very much like to be paid for their work. If the industry wants to distribute music through brick and mortar stores, then that is their right. They have provided some choices for people to purchase music online, a la iTunes. They just want to be able to give people the option of purchasing online, while preventing or at least limiting their losses to copy right infringement.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Two things in one post, just to avoid an unneeded dola.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

They are a middleman -- they buy the music from the artists

DingDingDing ... you just made one of my favorite points in the whole Napster/Grokster argument -- the companies OWN the music, or at least the rights to distribute said music (publishing rights for lyrics, that sort of thing, varies case-by-case of course).

Since most consumers are looking for the recorded material (rather than sheet music, etc.), the only legal means is to BUY the product from the entities that OWN the product ... i.e., the recording industry mega-corps.

----

=Biggles]It would just mean the end of $15 CD's and commercialized bands.

Wrong.

Wipe out every existing music mega-corp in existence today, create a total free-for-all, a vacuum for distribution.

Within a very short period of time, what you have are new players in the game (or, more likely, most of the same players under different sub-titles), serving the exact same purpose that the record labels serve today -- resources, expertise, promotional skills & funding for the whole shebang.

It's might mean the end of $15 CD's ... replaced by $12-$15 downloads. And the end of commercialization? Bwahahahaha, the money is simply too big for that to ever happen.