Octopus Overlords

Chaz wrote:I'm going to take a look at the decision, but I'll probably need someone smarter than me to explain how the hell the decision makes any sense at all.

Because Aereo's activities are substantially similar to those of the CATV companies that Congress amended the [Copyright] Act to reach, Aereo is not simply an equipment prvoider. Aereo sells a service that allows subscribers to watch television programs, many of which are copyrighted, virtually as they are being broadcast. Aereo uses its own equipment, housed in a centralized warehouse, outside of its users' homes. By means of its technology, Aereo's system "receives programs that have been released to the public and carr[ies] them by private channels to additional viewers."

Isgrimnur wrote:Aereo is engaging in a public performance (6-3). Opinion text

Isgrimnur wrote:Congress redefined a performance back in 1976 when court cases went against the copyright holders. According to the current definition, turning on your TV and watching something constitutes a performance. The public part comes in that it's considered a public performance even if a subscription cable provider does it, so there's no difference in the argument that Aereo performs to subscribers.

Scalia, Alito, and Thomas were the dissenters.

Isgrimnur wrote:I doubt it.

They're still performing it by transmitting it, and you owning the equipment doesn't make it any less of a public concern based on the extant definitions.

stessier wrote:How is that different than an antenna on the roof of an apartment building with a supervisor maintaining them?

RunningMn9 wrote:Gearing up for a decision today on the Hobby Lobby case. It still boggles my mind that as a nation we are contemplating whether or not corporations have the right to exercise religion and believe in God.

The justices' 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

Isgrimnur wrote:
I guess we'll be seeing the Church of the Kraken on Curio City soon.

I disagree with the judgment, but at least it's limited in scope. We shouldn't be seeing attempts from companies listed on the stock exchanges attempting to make the same arguments.

Isgrimnur wrote:

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

RunningMn9 wrote:Isn't the *entire point* of the existence of the Corporation is that there is an essential difference between the business and its owners.

Smoove_B wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:Isn't the *entire point* of the existence of the Corporation is that there is an essential difference between the business and its owners.

Only when a Corporation is facing fines or penalties based on decisions made by individuals running said Corporation. They apparently have the best of both worlds, assuming they meet some nebulous size qualifier.

Over 90 percent of all businesses in the United States are closely held

Captain Caveman wrote:

Over 90 percent of all businesses in the United States are closely held

RunningMn9 wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:

Over 90 percent of all businesses in the United States are closely held

Yes, but most of those are too small to be compelled to murder babies already.

Michelle Dean wrote:

Alito wrote:In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.

I think what we are supposed to glean from this paragraph in Alito's opinion is, "Don't worry, women! We're really just targeting your reproductive organs here."

Smoove_B wrote:Tomorrow I'm incorporating myself as a profit-seeking business and claiming my #1 religious belief is that I don't pay taxes.

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate andshould not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, which upheld the payment of Social Security taxes despite an employer’s religious objection, is not analogous. It turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation; and if Lee were a RFRA case, the fundamental point would still be that there is no less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes.

Fretmute wrote:Via Gawker:

Michelle Dean wrote:

Alito wrote:In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.

I think what we are supposed to glean from this paragraph in Alito's opinion is, "Don't worry, women! We're really just targeting your reproductive organs here."

Isgrimnur wrote:

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

I guess we'll be seeing the Church of the Kraken on Curio City soon.

Isgrimnur wrote:They're one step ahead of you.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

Isn't the *entire point* of the existence of the Corporation is that there is an essential difference between the business and its owners.

Zarathud wrote:This is a fundamental, foundational point of corporate law. The Supreme Court's decision may have severe unintended consequences. Terrible decision, even if they attempted to narrow it. When the issue is pushed, the Supreme Court is going to have to re-evaluate its decision in Hobby Lobby.

RunningMn9 wrote:If the corporation is essentially the same as its owners, does that mean we can take away their houses to settle outstanding corporate debts?

Smoove_B wrote:the idea that corporations are people and that some corporations now have the ability to impose religious beliefs on workers.

RunningMn9 wrote:I don't know that I agree that Hobby Lobby is imposing religious beliefs on workers.