Um...I don't like the FCC but would I also like more content.

I don't know why they even bother. They're just making it more fun to beat. The only way for them to prevent the possibility material being copied is to prevent people from watching it in the first place, and that wouldn't be a very good idea, would it... Macrovision was supposed to do the same thing for DVD's but all you needed to get past it was an older VCR or an RF modulator from Radio Shack...

Yep, it's a description not a title. You said "the US Federal Appeals Court," which didn't make sense. There are lots of federal appeals courts. Their titles are "X Circuit Court of Appeals."

Agreed.

EDITED TO ADD: "US TO FCC: 'QUIT BEING DICKS!'" was also a shitty headline.

In this case, yes. I agree with the ruling. You seem to be saying that the line of argumentation is patently absurd. It really isn't. On slightly different facts the FCC might easily have won. For example, if they had exercised these ancillary powers in the past and Congress had failed to act to stop them from doing so, they might have persuaded the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that it could infer that Congress intended to give them such ancillary powers because Congress didn't explicitly forbid ancillary powers and failed to act to curtail exercise of such power in the past. Generally when Congress gives a mandate to an executive agency, it's assumed that Congress has also empowered the agency with enforcement / rule making powers unless Congress explicitly limits that sort of power.

Well, I wasn't directing that specifically at you, anyway. So, okay.

[Edited on Feb 23, 2005 by HenryTMensch]

[Edited on Feb 23, 2005 by HenryTMensch]

Dude, you say some interesting things, but you know its really had to get past the feeling that you enjoy the sound of your own voice overmuch. Given that you've made far more grievous factual errors than misapprehending the import of a badly written source article, you might consider being a little less supercilious.

More significantly, you've rather misapprehended the court's statements. What the court is saying is both that there is no delegation and there is no mandate, which is far more than a slight differentiation on the facts, it goes to the heart of the law. There is nothing in their powers or purview that remotely suggests that they have the ability or authority to regulate intellectual property. Congress alone has reserved that power and not delegated it even to agencies far better situated to address the issue.

FCC = Jack asses who should all get different, usefull, jobs. (for the most part)

May I extend you this invitation

Thank you for your opinion. In the future, I'll be sure to run all my headlines by you before I publish.





Oh, wait, no I won't.

Hey! I did a paper on digital copyright last semester!

What's ironic is that no one says anything to radio stations. Radio stations are allowed to play copyrighted material because owners of sound recordings have no legal control control over the public use of their material.

I understand the need for copyright, but things are getting crazy. For example, people are being banned from giving professional presentations if the paper deals with circumvention in any sense (i.e. Edward Felton [professor at Princeton], Billy Hoffman and Virgil Griffith)

“If you buy a book, or even borrow a book, you’re free to read it as many times as you like. You can loan it to somebody else. You can sell it or give it away or even rent it out. You can’t make copies of it, but you can use it and use it and use it again. But if every time a work appears in the RAM of your computer, you are making an actionable copy, then we have for the first time given copyright owner extensive control over the consumption of their works” (Jessica Litman, 2001).

Okay. You're right in that the source article from USA Today was pretty sucky, but shouldn't the solution be finding a good source article and understanding it, if you intend to publish a news story on the site. I'll cop to being anal and nit-picking. It wasn't my intent to be condescending when I pointed out the mistakes about FCC and "US Federal Appeals Court" etc. So if I gave that impression, I apologize.

My point was this: the argument that the FCC or another executive agency might have certain powers in the absence of such powers being denied to them by Congress rather than explicitly granted is not per se a terrible argument. I got the impression that Shalome thought it was because she editorialized ("-- get this --" or some such) when she was laying out that part of the story. In this instance it was a bad and unpersuasive argument because of the particular facts here. But it's not generally a frivolous line of argumentation.

the fcc can lick my sack while the pmrc and religious organizations give me head...
if i buy something... i want the whole thing... not just what they think i should listen too, and i'll do what ever the hell i want with it... i paid the duckets... it's mine!!!!

You know that if you can write and submit stories for the SG news wire, don't you? Creating new content might be more productive than slagging off articles that are already there.

I'm guessing (and I could be wrong) that factual corrections are always welcome butnit-picking at minor details while ignoring the thrust of the article isn't. But maybe that's just me.

Does the FCC actually serve any purpose? I'm sure it does, but I can't quite figure it out...

The irony is thick.

It wasn't all nit-picking at minor details. Some of it was. Some of it wasn't.

Is slagging off on me for slagging off on articles more productive than slagging off on articles?

It's not like I've never posted a news story, what.

Have you actually taken Admin Law, cause you really seem to be missing the point. The FCC's argument here is not that they have tacit, but unexplicated powers, it is that because there is an ancillary effect that they magically have ancillary powers not granted them by congress nor remotely within their mandate. It is one thing to argue that an action must be taken by a regulatory agency to effect a congressional directive and therefore the power to do that is implicit. That in and of itself is an argument the courts traditionally take a very dim view of. It is a weak and usually unpersuasive argument. It is quite another to say that because of some mythic attenuated impact an agency can regulate actions far beyond their mandate. That truly is a very sucky argument.

[Edited on Feb 23, 2005 by reprobate]