you honestly think making freestyle...hits...gettin money..& being signed are more annoying than copying & pasting articles from Wiki to hate in a internet thread...& then posting a paragraph in bold?Originally Posted by Dez
WoWWWWWWWWW
you honestly think making freestyle...hits...gettin money..& being signed are more annoying than copying & pasting articles from Wiki to hate in a internet thread...& then posting a paragraph in bold?
WoWWWWWWWWW
yo JJ was ur grandmother fat too?
what about ur grandfather? did y'all struggle during meal times?
what about ur pops n moms, r u still with them?
are they dead? what size we're their coffins? did it take a group of ppl to carry them? what's it like to have more breathing space at home?
did u stay fat in memory of them?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
JJ?
wrong thread Marv.
but it was still funny..I had a chuckle
you are a wierd kid. keep calling me names and such. here i'll call you 'AA'. there now we are even. go follow dez to the shitter. watch how he shits. then you can copy that also
whattup dog, daddy gone? no momma to cook you spag bol?you are a wierd kid. keep calling me names and such. here i'll call you 'AA'. there now we are even. go follow dez to the shitter. watch how he shits. then you can copy that also
whattup?
stuck on gambling cus parents can't support you, let;s get to the root of ur problem dog, maybe the lord can help you.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
oh ur JJ?you are a wierd kid. keep calling me names and such. here i'll call you 'AA'. there now we are even. go follow dez to the shitter. watch how he shits. then you can copy that also
I have a question for u...what about Ed Casey makes mods hate?
is it the free's?
is it the deal?
is it the fans?
or is it becuase they cant accomplush any of those things?
discuss
Aye RXL, you still stay out here?
he keeps calling me two letters or something. I dont know why. to answer your question. mods hate the ones that dont boot lick. enough said
For starters, your free's are suspect. Secondly, the deal that you claim to have with an unknown record company is suspect as well. Oh, that's right, your manager doesn't want you to say who it is yet. Because I know that if I was the manager of an unknown rap group who is badly in need of promotion, i'd tell them to be hush-hush about their (most likely) distribution deal.
And lol. . . what fans? Smokey and like 3 other kids follow you around saying shit like "you're so nice Casey!" Shit, I have more people following me around and saying shit like that and I don't even rap.
As far as actual rappers go, you probably have the 52nd highest fanbase on RB. Seriously.
Lmao @ your existence. . . i'm so glad I don't stay wherever you do. You have to be from the South or Chicago, because only kids from that region of the U.S. act as dumb as you do.
But, I digress. . .
Kristin Laura Kreuk (born December 30, 1982 in Vancouver, BC) is a Canadian actress. She is known for her roles on the Canadian television series teen soap Edgemont and on the American television series Smallville in which she stars as Clark Kent's star-crossed love Lana Lang.[1]
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Biography
* 2 Career
o 2.1 Television
o 2.2 Modeling
o 2.3 Films
* 3 Filmography
* 4 References
* 5 External links
[edit] Biography
Kreuk (Dutch pronunciation: IPA: [k[r]øːk] {krooyk}, but more commonly pronounced "krook" to rhyme with the English, "spook"[2]) was born in Vancouver, British Columbia. Her father, Peter Kreuk, is of Dutch descent; her mother, Deanna Che, is Chinese descent, but born in Indonesia; her maternal grandmother is Chinese-Jamaican.[3]Both parents are landscape architects. Kristin has a sister who is about five years younger. Kristin trained in gymnastics at the national level until high school but quit in grade 11 due to scoliosis. She attended Eric Hamber Secondary School in Vancouver.
She had plans to study either psychology, environmental science, or forensic science at Simon Fraser University when a casting director for the CBC TV series Edgemont contacted her secondary school, looking for an exotic-looking girl to play the part of a Chinese Canadian, Laurel Yeung on the Vancouver-shot show. Kreuk's drama teacher convinced Kreuk, who had no previous acting experience other than in musicals at her high school, to audition for the role. To her surprise, she won the part.
[edit] Career
[edit] Television
After shooting the first season of Edgemont (a teen soap opera set at a Vancouver-area high school) and getting herself an agent, Kreuk landed the lead role of Snow White in a TV movie entitled Snow White: The Fairest of Them All. The film, shot in Vancouver, also starred Miranda Richardson and was directed by Caroline Thompson. It aired on ABC on March 17, 2002.
After Snow White, Kreuk's agent sent an audition tape to screenwriters Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, who at the time were putting together the cast of a show they had created for the WB Network entitled Smallville. The series (which was slated to be shot in Vancouver) revolves around the life of teenager Clark Kent before he becomes Superman. Gough and Millar called Kreuk to WB's studios in Burbank, California to audition for the role of Clark Kent's love, Lana Lang. Originally, Kreuk was unsure about auditioning for Lana's role, as the character was to be a popular, gorgeous cheerleader, so she assumed that the part would be that of a shallow idiot. However, upon reading the graveyard scene from the pilot, she was so impressed that when she was offered the role, she immediately accepted.
In 2003, Kreuk wrapped up her role on Edgemont.
In the summer of 2004, Kreuk took the role of Tenar for the Sci Fi Channel two-part miniseries Legend of Earthsea. The miniseries was filmed in Vancouver, directed by Rob Lieberman and broadcast on December 13, 2004.
[edit] Modeling
The executives at Neutrogena made her the spokesmodel for their new worldwide ad campaign; in this regard Kreuk followed in the footsteps of fellow teen stars such as Jennifer Love Hewitt, Mandy Moore, and Mischa Barton. In 2005, she renewed her contract with Neutrogena for another two years, making her the company's longest-serving model spokesperson.[4]
[edit] Films
In 2003, she made her first feature film, a cameo appearance in the film Eurotrip, starring Scott Mechlowicz and Michelle Trachtenberg. The film, shot in Prague, Czech Republic, also featured cameos by Matt Damon and Lucy Lawless. It debuted in theatres on February 20, 2004.
In early 2005, Kreuk signed on to the independent feature film Partition. She plays Naseem, a vulnerable seventeen-year-old whose world is shattered by the trauma of the Partition of India in 1947, but falls in love with ex-British Indian Army officer Gian Singh (played by Jimi Mistry). Neve Campbell also stars. The film is directed by Vic Sarin and is a co-production between Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The Canadian release date for the film is scheduled for February 2, 2007.
In the summer of 2006, a short film called the Dream Princess by comic book writer and artist Kaare Andrews was made, where Kristin plays The Princess. The film is a modern sci-punk retelling of the tale of Sleeping Beauty, with a twist. It is due to be released in 2007 in Canada.[1][2]
Snow White, released in the U.S. as Snow White: The Fairest of Them All, was a television film, made in 2001, and based on the Snow White storyline. It was made by Hallmark. However, it deviated in several places from the original Brothers Grimm story. It was directed by Caroline Thompson. It seems to be a mixture of the story of Snow White and that of The Snow Queen.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Plot
* 2 Cast
* 3 Countries broadcast
* 4 DVD release
* 5 See also
* 6 External links
[edit] Plot
Born from a drop of blood in a flutter of apple blossoms, and framed in ebony, a young girl named Snow White (Kristen Kreuk) becomes the blessing of a loving peasent couple, John (Tom Irwin)and Josephine (Vera Farmiga). But with her birth comes a curse and the end of her mother's life. Left alone with an infant daughter, John braves a brutal winter in search for food for his starving angel. Salvation comes unexpectedly when the father's tears melt the frozen tomb of a bewitched creature, the Granter of Wishes (Clancy Brown). In thanks, the insinuating beast grants John three wishes: nourishment for Snow White, a kingdom in which to raise a family and a queen by his side, (originally he wanted his wife back, his "queen", but the Green-Eyed Granter of Wishes cannot raise the dead, but he can give him a queen, followed shortly by His idea to give John a kingdom.) But John's cause for celebration is short lived.
For the Granter of Wishes has devious plans for the well being of his own family. Owing his loathsome spellcasting sister, Elspeth (Miranda Richardson), a long awaited wish, he encourages her desires for appointment to the throne. A kingdom to rule is hers for the waiting, the new King John is hers for the belittling and a luscious little stepdaughter named Snow White, is hers to toy with and destroy at will.
Sixteen years later, Snow White (Kristen Kreuk) grows in grace and beauty. At this time a prince is visiting their kingdom. He sees Snow White and falls in love. This causes him to spend most of his visit trying to spend time with Snow White. She, however, pushes him away everytime. In the mean time, Elspeth, who grows more and more vain each day, will consult her magic mirror.
Jörg Friedrich (born August 17, 1944 in Kitzbühel; often also spelt Joerg or just Jorg in English) is a Berlin-based author of books on history commonly described as an "independent German Historian". Friedrich is best known for his publication "Der Brand" (2002) in which he describes the English bombing of civilian targets during World War II as systematic mass murder.
Friedrich, formerly considered by English conservatives a left wing anti-war activist and even sometimes described as a Trotskyist [2], now considered by some critics as a revisionist historian.[3] His books have sold hundreds of thousands of copies in Germany and some have also been translated into English, Dutch, French and many other languages. He is well connected in German political and military circles, including friendships with the former German Chancellor. Before he published interviews with Bahro and Hilberg, when their books were published.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Life and career
* 2 Analysis of Friedrich's position
* 3 Other related historians
* 4 Influence on German and international debate on the war
* 5 Bibliography
* 6 Reviews
* 7 Notes
[edit] Life and career
Born in Kitzbühel, Austria in 1944, he spent his childhood in Essen, Germany. Jörg Friedrich became a Trotskyist and, during the Vietnam war an anti-war protester. Following from that, he began to write books on the history of the war in Germany and work as an independent historian, researching post war justice and the Nuremberg Trials. His books have always been controversial and have largely sold through this controversial analysis and the publicity surrounding them.
[edit] Analysis of Friedrich's position
As a historian who has written strongly on the horrors committed by the German state under the Nazis, Friedrich's position has, in the past and the present, always been assumed to be anti-Nazi with anti-war tendencies focused towards Germany taking responsibility for its actions during the war.
"his previous work examining Wehrmacht crimes and Nazi justice enables him to approach the subject without risking automatic dismissal as a right-wing apologist." (from the Peifer review of Der Brand)[4]
However, the discussion surrounding his books on the allied bombing campaign has led to a reappraisal of his position and a re-examination of his earlier books. His criticism of post-war Germany and denazification, which have previously been understood as being a criticism of power-politics and the selective prosecution of those not useful to the new administration can now be seen as a direct criticism of interference in German national sovereignty:
"Jörg Friedrich describes the denazifcation program as a form of political purge with no basis in international law. The Hague rules of land warfare do not authorize an occupier to undertake any such interference in the enemy's domestic affairs." [5]
Once taken in this light, alongside Friedrich's recent admission that he is a "revisionist historian"[6], Friedrich's modern books and the choices and omissions he has made in them have been seen to take on a rather different meaning. Friedrich admits the well known fact that Germany initiated bombing of civilians in the UK by bombing London, although he claims the first raid was "accidental" thereby leaving the Britain as the first nation in his book to "deliberately" bomb non-military targets. Less well know bombings, such as that of the Polish town of Wielun within the first two hours of the war and prior to any attack on Germany, either by air or land, are left out. Friedrich, whose primary claim to fame is as a military historian mentions the British use of explosive weapons followed by incendiary, a mixture designed to create large fires, but fails to mention that such tactics had already been deployed by Germany in Poland and Russia, and that the use of air power to create firestorms was a German development from the Spanish Civil War first seen in actions such as the Bombing of Gernika.
Friedrich was convinced to publish his book of Dresden photographs by Former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl[7], however a pre-requisite was given, that equivalent photographs of Polish and British victims should be shown. He has made repeatedly mentioned Schroeder's endorsement, but actually admitted failing to fulfil the conditions, explaining that the archives of the UK Government would not allow him to publish such photographs. In fact, many of the photographs of the Blitz in London belong to private collections such as that of George Rodger of Magnum Photos'. By choosing as his standard of comparison for Dresden the bombing of London, Friedrich avoids covering the topics of Stalingrad, where 40,000 Soviet civilians are known to have been killed in one day of German bombing, Leningrad where approximately a million Soviet civilians were killed or with Warsaw where, 200,000 Polish civilians were killed in the Warsaw Uprising, often in ground based attacks which used a similar mixture of explosive and incendiary weapons to those used by the allies in Germany, but, by contrast to Dresden, where general areas were targeted, also involved deliberate and selective targeting of clearly marked Hospitals with dive bombers and ground forces.
Friedrich has specifically attempted to claim the position of an objective historian[8], making no judgement about the morality of Allied bombing[9]. Many reviews of his books have pointed out that the language Friedrich uses in his books, with words such as "Einsatzgruppen" (the name of Nazi death squads) used to describe allied pilots and "crematoria" (as in the crematoria of Auschwitz) to describe the air raid shelters in which Dresden residents died. This has led to accusations that Friedrich "is downright reckless" and is attempting to make the reader consider a parallel to "the Nazi dehumanisation of the Jews.". [10]
Taken together, two explanations have been given for Friedrich's recent books and their choice of topics. The first is that Friedrich maintains strong anti-war feelings and with the looming War in Iraq and other global conflicts, Friedrich wanted to join in the general German anti-war feelings and implicitly criticise the policy of attacks on foreign non-military targets in Iraq. Friedrich has himself rejected this explanation stating that he 'is dismayed that "The Fire" has bolstered the pacifist argument against German participation in an Iraq war'[11]
The second explanation which has been given is that Friedrich, whilst probably still anti-Nazi, has been acting as a German Nationalist and trying to relativise the crimes of the German Nation in WWII as just some among many committed by all nations involved in the war.
[edit] Other related historians
Comparisons between the bombing of Dresden and the extermination of the Jews in the second world war were first made popular through the work of the holocaust denier David Irving. Whilst Jörg Friedrich, who operates within German law, where holocaust denial as carried out by Irving would be illegal, does not directly made that comparison, he has described the death of civilians killed by carbon monoxide poisoning in their cellars as "gassing", the attacks in general as a "massacre" and claimed that the attacks of 1945 had little or no military value.
Irving was the first person to claim a death toll of over 100,000 for the bombing of Dresden, which even he was later forced to withdraw. Jörg Friedrich has never made such extreme claims, although his claim of 40,000 is 5000 more than the highest range of the official estimate and 15,000 above current best estimates of 25000 (see Bombing of Dresden).
More close to the mainstream of historical research, other German historians have also covered the suffering of the German people during the war. The bombing of Dresden had been covered in detail by Götz Bergander prior to Friedrich's book.[1]
Friedrich has cooperated with historians from various countries including with Peter Maguire during the creation of his book "Land and War".
[edit] Influence on German and international debate on the war
Friedrich's books have not been well received by all in Germany. ARD, a public television channel, wrote "the Fire" ("Der Brand") off as a "provocation"[2] and Süddeutsche Zeitung recommended throwing his latest book, "Places of Fire" directly into the garbage.
Even with these strong criticisms, Friedrich has had considerable public success, Der Brand was serialised in the German tabloid Bild and has had a serious influence on German national debate. Friedrich has claimed that this has meant that German civilians who had never previously talked about their wartime experiences have begun to tell about this phase in history which was previously documented primarily from the point of view of influence on the war. At other times, revision of the outlook on the war has taken place, with Klaus Naumann, a former NATO General and friend of Friedrich's, saying, during a joint promotional interview with Friedrich, that he now doubted the legality and military need for the Churchill's decision to attack Dresden, thereby implying that the attacks may have been war crimes.[3] [4]
Both in Germany and abroad, neo-Nazi groups have seized on the book as proving that the air war was begun by the UK. Claims that the book shows that bombings of German towns in 1940 were the first attacks on civilians of the war, based on the omission of attacks in Poland, are common. The equation of bombing of Dresden with the Holocaust is made explicit and even inverted, the murder of unarmed and compliant civilians in the Holocaust described as a "decision" of Hitler for strategic reasons whilst the bombing of heavily defended civilian targets directly involved both in the production for war and the carrying out of the Holocaust becomes a "war crime" and a "massacre".
However in actuality (see Bombing Vindicated by J.M Spaight) the British tried to abstain from bombing cities until provoked by Germany.
[edit] Bibliography
Brandstätten (2003) (Places of Fire / Cities of Fire)
Friedrich's latest book, covering similar material to Der Brand.
Der Brand, Deutschland im Bombenkrieg 1940-1945. Jörg Friedrich. Propyläen Verlag, Munich 2002, ISBN 3-549-07165-5.
The book which brought Friedrich to fame, and has sold over 186,000 copies,[5] covering the bombing of German cities. Starting with technology and mechanisms but then concentration on effect on the ground and the horror of bombing for the German civilians trapped in it. See reviews below.
Das Gesetz des Krieges: Das deutsche Heer in Russland, 1941 bis 1945 : der Prozess gegen das Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, (The rules of war: The German Army in Russia, 1941 to 1945, the trial of the Wehrmacht High Command) Jörg Friedrich, Piper, ISBN 3492031161[6]
a book including strong criticism of the way that the Nuremberg trials have come to be perceived in Germany, placing blame at least partly on the American instigators of the trials.
Freispruch für die Nazi-Justiz: Die Urteile gegen NS-Richter seit 1948 : eine Dokumentation (Rororo aktuell) (Acquittal for Nazi-Justice: The sentencing of NS-Judges since 1948, Jörg Friedrich, Rowohlt, 1983, ISBN 3499153483[7]
[edit] Reviews
Due to the level of controversy it has raised, a number of reviews of the German edition of "Der Brand" have been written in English and published in English language journals and/or made available on the Internet. These reviews, made shortly after the publication of the book, and prior to Friedrich's public statements have tended to treat the inaccuracies and omissions in Friedrich's books as carelessness, although criticism of the language used has been almost universal.
Comparison of reviews made in Germany with those in the USA and the UK is also interesting. Some of the differences which exist may be seen as being due to different points of view, however specific aspects of the book (for example, the most commonly mentioned failure to provide context) are reliably mentioned in English language reviews whilst being included strongly in some German reviews and missing entirely in others.
* Review: Der Brand: Deutschland im Bombenkrieg, 1940-1945, Douglas Peifer, Air and Space Power Chronicles, Spring 2004[8]
Peifer provides a detailed review of the book, which finds that it is "Highly effective as a literary dirge and lamentation, it comes up short when judged by the standards of the history discipline". Perhaps more importantly he states that the language is "deliberately provocative", that the book's unclear chronology can be misleading and that the lack of clear references included makes it unverifiable. Even given these flaws, Fifer finds that "for those willing to make the effort, reading the piece is worthwhile".
* Review of Jörg Friedrich, Der Brand. Deutschland im Bombenkrieg 1940-1945; A Narrative of Loss, Joerg Arnold, Department of History, University of Southampton,[9]
Perhaps best summarised by its final line, "As a narrative of loss, Der Brand succeeds like few other texts, but as a historical treatment of the allied air war, it is seriously deficient." this review analyses in particular the use of sources within Friedrich's work and also his refusal to apply analysis to the reasons for the bombing. A particularly strong criticism is in Arnold's contrast between Friedrich's overt claim that the bombing had nothing to do with the holocaust his implicit linkage of the two subjects through his use of the language of the holocaust to describe the effects of the bombings.
* Jörg Friedrich: Der Brand, Franz Kaessl, Öbib online (German Language).[10]
From its opening sentence "The fate of German civilians in the Second World War was treated as a taboo topic for many decades", this review contrasts strongly with most English language reviews. It points to the example of Günter Grass as an author recently discovered the suffering of the war, whilst reviews elsewhere have claimed that Grass's work of the 1960s is actually a far more powerful portrait of the effects of wars on civilians.[11] In the end the review concludes that the book should give a new view on history, not a new assignment of blame.
* The Destruction of Germany, Ian Buruma, in The New York Review of Books[12]
* In a footnote to his article "Targeting the city: Debates and silences about the aerial of World War II",[13] published in the International Review of the Red Cross, Charles Maier (Leverett Saltonstall Professor of History at Harvard University) collates several reviews of Der Brand:
See the excellent reviews submitted to the H-German network by Joerg Arnold, 3 November 2003, and Douglas Pfeifer, 4 November 2003, which appropriately address, I believe, the strengths and weaknesses of this work — Pfeiffer’s with more emphasis on the military and political issues, Arnold’s with greater emphasis on the moral and conceptual problems. Others have also indicated the deficiencies of the book as a scholarly source. See for instance Horst Boogs’ summary list of errors in his contribution to Ein Volk von Opfern? Die neue Debatte um den Bombenkrieg 1940-45, Rowohlt, Berlin, 2003. Obviously many issues are contentious in this debate. The most parochial issues are those that concern historians as such. To what extent can the historian merely report or dissect the differing positions without engaging his own sense of moral judgment. Second, what sort of rhetoric is legitimate in an historical account?
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) was a case heard before the Supreme Court of the United States, challenging the constitutionality of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). Oral argument was heard on October 9, 2002, and on January 15, 2003, the court held the CTEA constitutional by a 7-2 decision.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Background
* 2 District Court
* 3 Court of Appeals
* 4 Supreme Court
* 5 Related cases
* 6 See also
* 7 External links
[edit] Background
Eric Eldred, the lead plaintiff.
Eric Eldred, the lead plaintiff.
In most cases, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (or CTEA) provided for the extension of existing copyright terms by an additional 20 years from the terms set by the Copyright Act of 1976. The law affected both new and existing works (making it both a prospective extension as well as a retroactive one). Specifically, for works published before January 1, 1978 and still in copyright on October 27, 1998, the term was extended to 95 years. For works authored by individuals on or after January 1, 1978 (including new works), the copyright term was extended to equal the life of the author plus 70 years. For works authored by joint authors, the copyright term was extended to the life of the last surviving author plus 70 years. In the case of works-for-hire, anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term was set at 95 years from the date of first publication, or 120 years from creation.
The practical result of this was to prevent a number of works, beginning with those published in 1923, from entering the public domain in 1998 and subsequent years, as would have occurred under the previous law. Books, films and other materials which the plaintiffs had been prepared to republish or restore were now unavailable due to copyright restrictions.
The lead petitioner, Eric Eldred, is a noncommercial Internet publisher of public domain texts and derivative works. Eldred is joined by a group of commercial and non-commercial interests who rely on the public domain for their work. These include Dover Publications, a commercial publisher of paperback books; Luck's Music Library, Inc., and Edwin F. Kalmus & Co., Inc., publishers of orchestral sheet music; and a large number of amici including (but not limited to) the Free Software Foundation, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the College Art Association.
Supporting the law is the U.S. government, represented by the Attorney General in an ex officio capacity (originally Janet Reno, later replaced by John Ashcroft), along with a set of amici including (but not limited to) the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, ASCAP and Broadcast Music Incorporated.
[edit] District Court
The original complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on January 11, 1999. The plaintiffs' argument was threefold:
1. That by retroactively extending copyright terms, Congress had violated the requirements of the Constitution's Copyright Clause, which gives Congress the following power:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (emphasis added)
Plaintiffs argued that by reading this formulation so as to allow for any number of retroactive extensions, Congress could in practice guarantee an unlimited period of copyright protection, thus thwarting the intent of the clause.
2. That any copyright law must be subject to scrutiny under the First Amendment, thereby ensuring a balance between freedom of speech and the interests of copyright.
3. That the doctrine of public trust requires the government to show a public benefit to any transfer of public property into private hands, and that the CTEA violates this doctrine by withdrawing material from the public domain.
In response, the government argued that Congress does indeed have the latitude to retroactively extend terms, so long as the individual extensions are also for "limited times," as required by the Constitution. As an argument for this position, they referred to the Copyright Act of 1790, the first Federal copyright legislation, which applied Federal protection to existing works. Furthermore, they argued, neither the First Amendment nor the doctrine of public trust is applicable to copyright cases.
On October 28, 1999, Judge June Green issued a brief opinion rejecting all three of the petitioners' arguments. On the first count, she wrote that Congress had the power to extend terms as it wished, as long as the terms themselves were of limited duration. On the second count, she rejected the notion of First Amendment scrutiny in copyright cases, based on her interpretation of Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., v. Nation Enterprises, an earlier Supreme Court decision. On the third count, she rejected the notion that public trust doctrine was applicable to copyright law.
[edit] Court of Appeals
The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the District Court to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, filing their initial brief on May 22, 2000, and arguing the case on October 5 of the same year in front of a three-judge panel. Arguments were similar to those made in the District Court, except for those regarding the public trust doctrine, which were not included in the appeal.
Instead, the plaintiffs extended their argument on the copyright clause to note that the clause requires Congress to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," and argued that retroactive extensions do not directly serve this purpose in the standard quid pro quo previously required by the courts.
The case was decided on February 16, 2001. The Appeals Court upheld the decision of the District Court in a 2 to 1 opinion. In a forceful dissent, Judge David Sentelle agreed with the plaintiffs that CTEA was indeed unconstitutional based on the "limited Times" requirement. Supreme Court precedent, he argued, held that one must be able to discern an "outer limit" to a limited power; in the case of retrospective copyright extensions, Congress could continue to extend copyright terms indefinitely through a set of limited extensions, thus rendering the "limited times" requirement meaningless.
Following this ruling, plaintiffs petitioned for a rehearing en banc (in front of the full panel of nine judges). This petition was rejected, 7–2, with Judges Sentelle and David Tatel dissenting.
[edit] Supreme Court
On October 11, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. On February 19, 2002, the Court granted Certiorari, agreeing to hear the case.
Oral arguments were presented on October 9, 2002. Lead counsel for the plaintiff was Lawrence Lessig; the government's case was argued by Solicitor General Theodore Olson.
Lessig refocused the Plaintiffs' brief to emphasize the Copyright clause restriction, as well as the First Amendment argument from the Appeals case. The decision to emphasize the Copyright clause argument was based on both the minority opinion of Judge Sentelle in the appeals court, and on several recent Supreme Court decisions authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist: United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison.
In both of those decisions, Rehnquist, along with four of the Court's more conservative justices, held Congressional legislation unconstitutional, because said legislation exceeded the limits of the Constitution's Commerce clause. This profound reversal of precedent, Lessig argued, could not be limited to only one of the enumerated powers. If the court felt that it had the power to review legislation under the Commerce clause, Lessig argued, then the Copyright clause deserved similar treatment, or at very least a "principled reason" must be stated for according such treatment to only one of the enumerated powers.
On January 15, 2003, the Court held the CTEA constitutional by a 7–2 decision. The majority opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, relied heavily on the Copyright Acts of 1790, 1831, 1909, and 1976 as precedent for retroactive extensions. One of the arguments supporting the act was the life expectancy has significantly increased among the human population since the 1700s, and therefore copyright law needed extending as well. However, the major argument for the act that carried over into the case was that the Constitution specified that Congress only needed to set time limits for copyrights; the length of which was left to their discretion. Thus, as long as the limit is not "forever," any limit set by Congress can be deemed constitutional.
A key factor in the CTEA’s passage was a 1993 European Union (EU) directive instructing EU members to establish a baseline copyright term of life plus 70 years and to deny this longer term to the works of any non-EU country whose laws did not secure the same extended term. By extending the baseline United States copyright term, Congress sought to ensure that American authors would receive the same copyright protection in Europe as their European counterparts. [1]
The Supreme Court declined to address Lessig's contention that Lopez and Morrison offered precedent for enforcing the Copyright clause, and instead reiterated the lower court's reasoning that a retroactive term extension can satisfy the "limited times" provision in the copyright clause, as long as the extension itself is limited instead of perpetual. Furthermore, the Court refused to apply the proportionality standards of the Fourteenth Amendment or the free-speech standards in the First Amendment to limit Congress's ability to confer copyrights for limited terms.
Justice Breyer dissented, arguing that the CTEA amounted to a grant of perpetual copyright that undermined public interests. While the constitution grants Congress power to extend copyright terms in order to "promote the progress of science and useful arts," CTEA granted precedent to continually renew copyright terms making them virtually perpetual. Justice Breyer argued in his dissent that is highly unlikely any artist will be more inclined to produce work knowing their great-grandchildren will receive royalties. With regard to retroactive copyright extension he viewed it foolish to apply the government's argument that income received from royalties allows artists to produce more work saying, "How will extension help today’s Noah Webster create new works 50 years after his death?" [2]
In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens also challenged the virtue of an individual reward, analyzing it from the perspective of patent law. He argued that the focus on compensation results only in “frustrating the legitimate members of the public who want to make use of it (a completed invention) in a free market.” Further, the compelling need to encourage creation is proportionally diminished once a work is already created. Yet while a formula pairing commercial viability to duration of protection may be said to produce more economically efficient results in respect of high technology inventions with shorter shelf-lives, the same perhaps cannot be said for certain forms of copyrighted works, for which the present value of expenditures relating to creation depend less on scientific equipment and research and development programmes and more on unquantifiable creativity.[3][4]
Lessig expressed surprise that no decision was authored by Chief Justice Rehnquist or by any of the other four justices who supported the Lopez or Morrison decisions. Lessig would later regret basing his defence on legal arguments based on precedent, rather than attempting to demonstrate that the weakening of the public domain would cause harm to the economic health of the country. [5]
[edit] Related cases
* Golan v. Ashcroft
* Kahle v. Gonzales
[edit] See also
* Copyright
* United States copyright law
* Intellectual property clause
* List of United States Supreme Court cases
* Public Domain Enhancement Act
* Free Culture
* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 537
[edit] External links
* "Eldred v. Ashcroft" on Wikisource.
* Oral argument before the Supreme Court, in MP3 format (Transcript)
* Opinion of the Supreme Court, in MP3 format (Text)
* OpenLaw amicus briefs - also has other information including media coverage, etc.
* Text of the opinion, LII, Cornell University
* Text of the opinion, findlaw.com
* Links to various briefs filed in the case
* Symposium on Eldred from the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
* A timeline of U.S. Copyright
* Eldred vs. Ashcroft (eldred.cc)
* First-person narrative of the experience of attending the Oral Argument before the Supreme Court
* Lawrence Lessig's article about why Ashcroft won
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft"
Categories: United States Supreme Court cases | United States copyright case law | 2003 in law | Lawsuits
dgfhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
bird poop
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
24 x OM Hall Of Fame
lmfao
"Yo Bitch, Yo Bitch..she love my style..Now Ur Bitch..is My Bitch Now...Wo
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Its Ed!
Check my Audio Out Hater!
Posting Rules
Reply With Quote