In Order to Restore Order, We Must Order More Parts!
So SCOTUS ruled on a bunch of stuff yesterday and after Ahniwa's comment I felt I wanted to make a second post. For those of you who don't care, ignore me.
This article talks about the file sharing ruling. My response to Ahniwa's comment outlines my opinion on that subject, except for one point. This article on MSNBC talks about some of the supposed consequences of this ruling as far as technology development is concerned.
I disagree with the idea that development will be stifled. File sharing is ONE aspect of technology development and before a few years ago it was a minor blip on the radar. Technology wasn't stiffled then. It won't be now. People, especially technically proficient young adults are constantly finding ways around the law and the fact that KaZaa, Limewire, et al. haven't been sued already, is a testament to the thriving underground technology business. If they survived this long, they'll continue.
One thing I find interesting about this particular ruling is that the suit was filed by MGM. So this particular ruling, though it did involve all media, was specifically about movies.
Now, movies i understand. I think that not buying movies is bad and I think we should all support the film industry. I know that won't make me the most popular kid on the block, but I believe it. I think that as far as music is concerned, the artists should be given the choice of how they want to release their art.
Whoah, wait, they already are!
Sure enough, the music industry only represents a group of concerned artists with large contracts. There are millions of independent artists who are self-promoting on the web and trying to make it by releasing free mp3s. Instead of a scary 'big business' I think that looking at the industry as more of an exclusive union of artists who want to keep control of their music is ok. There will always be people who aren't down with that, because it's a very exclusive union.
But this law reduces the number of protections that people who are committing a crime have. And to remember that it is and always has been a crime to distribute pirated music is very important. If you do it, there have never been legal protections for you.
If you check a book out from the library, you're not allowed to make copies of it for your own bookshelf. Even if you bought a copy from the book store, if it burns up in a fire, you don't get a free copy. The way intellectual property rights go in this country, that is the interpretation SCOTUS was using.
---
Another ruling was against reporters and 34 states trying to 'protect a reporter's right to protect their sources'.
I think SCOTUS did a great injustice to the system of ethics governing journalists by not clarifying a 1972 decision that said reporters could sometimes be compelled to reveal sources when being interviewed by a Grand Jury.
Starting with the NYTimes propaganda department reporting (or lack thereof) on the Soviet Union, I think that matters of national security make a good case for legally 'outing' a source. The case before the court works specifically.
An unnamed government official leaked the name of an undercover CIA opperative to a journalist. The journalist printed the name of the spy. The printing of the name violates laws, but what's worse is that the journalist would not release the name of the source who should be tried for treason.
If we're going to be honest, I believe revealing the name of undercover agents to the press should be punishable by life imprisonment, if not death. As a government official, it is your responsibility to keep secrets and to protect the lives of those around you who are in the business of protecting national security.
With this particular case I feel that there were two crimes committed. The first was the government official who leaked the name; the second was the reporter who decided to print it.
Irresponsible journalism is a serious problem in the U.S. and the protections available to journalists are extreme and for the most part unecessary. It is automatically in a journalists best interest to keep their sources quiet and in certain cases, it should definately be a legal right that they cannot be compelled by a court of law to reveal names. But in a case where a certain source comitted treason no law should protect their rights. The reporter should go to jail. It is their right to keep their source, but they must face the consequences.
But SCOTUS needed to rule on this. By not taking the case, protection of journalist's 'rights' will become an issue for state legislatures and I think that it will come back to haunt them.
---
Those are the two I really wanted to comment on. Tear me a new one now in the comments section.
Anyway, my point in all of this is that SCOTUS does use logic to make their decisions. Logic and some precedent. It may seem as though they simply decided for big business or against journalistic rights, but upon further analysis of the decisions (and not the commentary on them by CNN,MSNBC et al) one sees the common thread of thought. It's easy to listen to commentators lambasting the court for knee-jerk decisions, but I find that to be trite, erroneous, and condescending toward a group of well educated and diverse group of people, charged with interpreting the constitution and how it applies to specific situations.
That's my take. Have a great afternoon!
--TAKETHETIMETOSHARETHELOVE--
This article talks about the file sharing ruling. My response to Ahniwa's comment outlines my opinion on that subject, except for one point. This article on MSNBC talks about some of the supposed consequences of this ruling as far as technology development is concerned.
I disagree with the idea that development will be stifled. File sharing is ONE aspect of technology development and before a few years ago it was a minor blip on the radar. Technology wasn't stiffled then. It won't be now. People, especially technically proficient young adults are constantly finding ways around the law and the fact that KaZaa, Limewire, et al. haven't been sued already, is a testament to the thriving underground technology business. If they survived this long, they'll continue.
One thing I find interesting about this particular ruling is that the suit was filed by MGM. So this particular ruling, though it did involve all media, was specifically about movies.
Now, movies i understand. I think that not buying movies is bad and I think we should all support the film industry. I know that won't make me the most popular kid on the block, but I believe it. I think that as far as music is concerned, the artists should be given the choice of how they want to release their art.
Whoah, wait, they already are!
Sure enough, the music industry only represents a group of concerned artists with large contracts. There are millions of independent artists who are self-promoting on the web and trying to make it by releasing free mp3s. Instead of a scary 'big business' I think that looking at the industry as more of an exclusive union of artists who want to keep control of their music is ok. There will always be people who aren't down with that, because it's a very exclusive union.
But this law reduces the number of protections that people who are committing a crime have. And to remember that it is and always has been a crime to distribute pirated music is very important. If you do it, there have never been legal protections for you.
If you check a book out from the library, you're not allowed to make copies of it for your own bookshelf. Even if you bought a copy from the book store, if it burns up in a fire, you don't get a free copy. The way intellectual property rights go in this country, that is the interpretation SCOTUS was using.
---
Another ruling was against reporters and 34 states trying to 'protect a reporter's right to protect their sources'.
I think SCOTUS did a great injustice to the system of ethics governing journalists by not clarifying a 1972 decision that said reporters could sometimes be compelled to reveal sources when being interviewed by a Grand Jury.
Starting with the NYTimes propaganda department reporting (or lack thereof) on the Soviet Union, I think that matters of national security make a good case for legally 'outing' a source. The case before the court works specifically.
An unnamed government official leaked the name of an undercover CIA opperative to a journalist. The journalist printed the name of the spy. The printing of the name violates laws, but what's worse is that the journalist would not release the name of the source who should be tried for treason.
If we're going to be honest, I believe revealing the name of undercover agents to the press should be punishable by life imprisonment, if not death. As a government official, it is your responsibility to keep secrets and to protect the lives of those around you who are in the business of protecting national security.
With this particular case I feel that there were two crimes committed. The first was the government official who leaked the name; the second was the reporter who decided to print it.
Irresponsible journalism is a serious problem in the U.S. and the protections available to journalists are extreme and for the most part unecessary. It is automatically in a journalists best interest to keep their sources quiet and in certain cases, it should definately be a legal right that they cannot be compelled by a court of law to reveal names. But in a case where a certain source comitted treason no law should protect their rights. The reporter should go to jail. It is their right to keep their source, but they must face the consequences.
But SCOTUS needed to rule on this. By not taking the case, protection of journalist's 'rights' will become an issue for state legislatures and I think that it will come back to haunt them.
---
Those are the two I really wanted to comment on. Tear me a new one now in the comments section.
Anyway, my point in all of this is that SCOTUS does use logic to make their decisions. Logic and some precedent. It may seem as though they simply decided for big business or against journalistic rights, but upon further analysis of the decisions (and not the commentary on them by CNN,MSNBC et al) one sees the common thread of thought. It's easy to listen to commentators lambasting the court for knee-jerk decisions, but I find that to be trite, erroneous, and condescending toward a group of well educated and diverse group of people, charged with interpreting the constitution and how it applies to specific situations.
That's my take. Have a great afternoon!
--TAKETHETIMETOSHARETHELOVE--
