A federal appeals court handed a major setback to Hollywood and the television networks today when it struck down an anti-piracy regulation that required computer and television makers to use new technology that would make it difficult for consumers to copy and distribute digital programs.
The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel, in an important case at the intersection of intellectual property and technology, was a stinging rebuke for the Federal Communications Commission. The court said the commission had exceeded its authority when it approved the rules in 2003.
It was an important victory for libraries, consumer groups and civil liberties organizations. They had maintained that the regulation, known as the “broadcast flag” rule, would stifle innovation in technology and make it more difficult for consumers and users of library services to circulate material legitimately.
Good.
Mason
Not to be too snarky, but I’d call it more of a strict constructionist ruling, based on the actual decision. ;)
John Cole
Don’t you understand- if a judge votes against the whims of anyone, he or she is an activist judge. See Delay/Greer/Schiavo.
Justin Faulkner
Actually, John, DeLay wanted the judges in the Schiavo case to be *more* activist–to override established law and precedent–to suit his agenda.
That said, this is something that we should all be able to celebrate: limited government! “Freedom is on the march!” as President Bush would say. Except he’s not saying it. Don’t we have to ask why? I think the answer is obvious.
Justin Faulkner
Mason, I’d like to have a discussion about just what “strict constructionism” means.
Mason
Justin, my response to John was a little tounge-in-cheek, but this definition ought to suffice:
http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/APGOV_Judiciary.htm
The strict constructionist approach holds that judges should confine themselves to applying those rules that are stated in or clearly implied by the language of the Constitution.
In this case, the circuit court did not decide that the broadcast flag itself is a bad idea, or harmful to consumers, or an undue burden in the holy name of copyright. The ruling said the FCC doesn’t have the authority to do what it did, based on the powers delegated to it by congress.