The truth be known, within the legal profession the ones who are generally acknowledged to best understand substantive law are those who are newly minted graduates. One need only understand, for example, the role that clerks play in the Supreme Court. They author opinions, but the justices take all the credit (of course justices review and revise, but nowhere near as much as one would expect). Thus, I long ago ceased to consider how long one has actually been practicing as a key factor in knowledge of substantive law because in many cases (far too many to my liking) the longer they have practiced translates into less than perfect understanding of the law.
Holy shit. You're lucky you comment anonymously, or I'd find a way to link back to the MANY, MANY comments from someone I'm sure is you repeatedly trumpeting your own decades of experience in the law as to why you understand these issues and we do not.
It makes me cringe to see Aero described as "innovative". It is a horrendously inefficient means of receiving broadcasts, with the one redeeming quality being that it is less horrendously inefficient than most other means imposed by the monopolistic regime of copyright.
Innovative, to me, means building something that the public wants. Aereo seems to qualify.
Please please keep this Representative out of the policies of the White House. I shutter to think of what would happen should he learn of DMHO (dihydrous monoxide) or of carbon monoxide and its' associated dangers as claimed by the White House.
I will buy hundreds of small DVD players, The smaller the better. I will then load requested DVDs into the players and rent out the DVD, player, and Player control so that someone over the net can watch the DVD.
His second in command, James Clapper is no bargain to succeed him.
You have your facts mixed up. Alexander reports to Clapper, not the other way around. Alexander is head of NSA. Clapper is Director of National Intelligence, which coordinates between all the intelligence agencies, including the NSA. Also, Clapper is not succeeding Alexander. Instead, it's Admiral Mike Rogers from the Navy who will be succeeding Alexander (not to be confused with House Intelligence Committee boss Rep. Mike Rogers). Clapper is staying in his position.
Your post is very interesting and certainly provides some valuable points. You could have made your point without insulting me and it would have come off as a lot more valuable, and you wouldn't seem like a world class asshole. But, to each his own.
Verrilli should have been fired and disbarred anyway for facilitating the NSA lies to Congress.
This is neither true nor particularly accurate. The lies in particular were to the Supreme Court, not Congress, and Verrilli was repeating a lie he was told by national security lawyers, under the belief that the claim was true. And, to his credit, once it was shown to be a lie, it appears that he was furious and forced changes to policy.
I have my issues with Verrilli, but the NSA stuff is not one of them.
I just don't see the ruling being overturned. Not only that but Google is arguing that it has a first amendment claim? First, Google has no standing to file the appeal, that should be filed by the film-maker, not by Google or Youtube. Not only that, but this isn't a first amendment issue, I would think it's more of a copyright issue.
You seem woefully underinformed.
1. Google is the defendant, not the plaintiff and we're already at the appeals stage. The idea that they don't have standing? WTF? The whole case has revolved around Google. Even more to the point, its Google that is being ordered to block the content.
2. And, yes, it's both a copyright and a First Amendment issue. Prior restraint involves the government ordering certain speech not to occur, which is exactly what's happened here.
By arguing against the order, Google is saying that actors, actresses and artists don't have the right to order takedowns of the content they either appear in or retain the ownership or copyright to.
As others have pointed out, you don't know what you're talking about.
Please try to educate yourself slightly before making silly comments.
I certainly hope the second notice is not the work or has been approved by counsel for Google/YouTube.
My understanding is that it absolutely was.
Spending quality time before a court explaining its contents and why they should not be disciplined is not a productive way to use one's time.
Under what possible legal theory could that ever lead to them being disciplined? The statement is no different than the kind of corporate statement companies release to the press after losing court cases all the time.
You really need to let go of your irrational hatred of all things Google, and your desire to slam everything. It just suggests you're not nearly the super lawyer you pretend to be. It repeatedly clouds your judgment.
And for those arguing about the fixation issue, Goldman takes that on as well, noting:
In order for Garcia to have a federal copyright, she must “fix” her performance by recording it herself (which she didn’t do) or have the movie producer fix her performance “on her behalf” (also clearly not the case). So there is simply no way for Garcia to claim a federal copyright interest because she failed to satisfy one of the formalities. This will be true of almost all actors who are depicted in video produced by someone else.