Mike, I don't necessarily disagree. There are clearly instances where copyright and free speech can collide, hence my note that there is clear tension between the two clauses. However, I stand by the statement that saying "copyright in and of itself is a violation of the first amendment" in not correct.
Actually, I don't believe the law says anything about purchasing anything. You have to show that you have health insurance and your insurance provider will provide you with a form, similar to a 1099 form, that says you have it. If you don't you'll be subject to a tax.
Others have brought up the commerce clause as support for health insurance reform. Most legal scholars I've read on this subject are pretty well agreed that it will easily pass a challenge on constitutional grounds.
This was meant to address the notion that the government can't "force" you to purchase a product or service.
It's akin to people objecting to answering questions about race on the census form because "it's not in the constitution." Questions about race have been asked since the first census in 1790.
It allows the federal government to mandate that you purchase a service from a private company or payment of a fine.
The Militia Act of 1792 required all able-bodied men from ages 18 to 45 to "provide himself" with a musket, ammo, and other equipment. Or, in other words, to purchase a specific thing at your own expense. Since this was enacted by a government made up of many of the Founding Fathers, you'd think they'd know whether it was constitutional or not.
George Washington didn't seem to think it was unconstitutional. You going to argue with the father of our country?
Copyright is specifically authorized by the constitution. It's highly unlikely that any court would find that protection of a constitutionally authorized right would be violation of the first amendment. There is clearly tension and balance between the two, but saying "copyright in an[d] of itself is a violation of the first amendment" isn't really correct.
Well, lawsuits over IP don't, in and of themselves, promote "progress" on either side. But the effect of the results of the lawsuits do, I think, in both cases.
In the first, it certainly strengthens the public domain. In the second it strengthens the mechanism of copyright that leads to progress by reinforcing the assurance creators have that their rights will be protected.
I'm generally not in favor of lawsuits, since the process can too often be abused, but when they are on solid factual ground, they are often sadly necessary.
Thanks, but what about the second part of the question: If it's fine to applaud punishment for those who falsely abuse copyright and patent enforcement, shouldn't the same applause be applied to punishment for correct enforcement of infringement?
In other words, if $10 billion dollars for patent marking is okay, why aren't the awards in the Tetelbaum and Thomas-Rassert cases? Isn't abuse of the legal system abuse, no matter who is doing it?
But, at the same time, as with copyfraud, falsely claiming a gov't granted monopoly right over something that is not protected is a pretty serious problem -- and a law that makes it profitable to punish such an abuse seems like it should be a good thing. Now, if there were only a similar setup for copyrights...
Mike, could you please clarify? Are you saying that when copyright (and patent) supporters like the RIAA go after infringement and win big awards, that's an abuse of the legal system and they shouldn't do it. But when anyone goes after "patent markers" and "copyfraud" then excess damages are not an abuse of the system and are a good thing?
In other words, it's laudable if you approve of the cause, but lamentable and abusive if you don't?
That's pretty straightforward statement. It's your interpretation (and not one I'd agree with) that this is an admission of any kind.
Basically, what Odeon is admitting here is that it knows the experience of going to its theaters is so bad that it simply can't compete with watching the movie at home. This is a rather stunning admission by Odeon and probably should make you think twice before going to any Odeon theaters.
This is contradicted by the article, where they talk about their investment in digital and 3D equipment, making the theater experience, especially in viewing 3D movies superior to current home theater technology. It's your suggestion that they can't compete with home theaters, one that I think is not supported by the article you linked to. Indeed, other theaters seem to be able to compete with "home theater" this film (or are at least willing to accept restrictions that could lessen their revenue).
I can make no judgment of the quality of experience in their theaters, since I've never been in one. If you had independent support, you didn't link to it.
A more accurate statement would be that Odeon spites itself by foregoing some revenue for the sake of making a stand on maximum revenue and is misguided. I don't know that this is true, but it is supported by the article.
I just don't think that your interpretation is merited on the facts in the article, and the headline is at worst a false misrepresentation and at best misleading.
The correct headline would be: "Mike Misinterprets Article to Accuse Odeon Cinemas of Crappy Theatrical Experience".
Of course, Odeon admitted no such thing, at least not in the article Mike links to. Quite the opposite:
Odeon also highlights the additional costs the chain has incurred making its screens suitable for 3D movies.
"Odeon/UCI has invested considerable sums of money, especially in the UK, over the past 12 months to install digital projection systems in its cinemas," it said.
"The proposed reduction in the window on a high-profile 3D title like Alice in Wonderland undermines the investment made."
So, cinema invests likely millions of dollars (or pounds) into improving the theatrical experience and objects to a release time shorter than standard that directly affects their revenue...and Mike claims that they "admit the experience at their theaters" is bad.
Well, at least even erroneous leaps of logic and jumping to conclusions is a form of exercise.
Ah, the old 'if the exact words aren't in the Constitution, the law doesn't exist' gambit.
Copyright law isn't in the Constitution, that document merely provides the fundamental basis for copyright legislation to be enacted by Congress. And Congress has allowed copyright holders to restrict your use of copyrighted content, including, in some instances, viewing options on movies.