●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bySnotnose ( 212196 ) writes:
So if you or I infringe a copyrite we can be ordered to bend over and grab our ankles. But if the government does it then all is cool?
Yeah, I RTFA, and I flat out don't get the reasoning here.
byAighearach ( 97333 ) writes:
You generally can't sue a State, except where that State has given you permission to do so, or where you're accusing them of a Constitutional violation.
The Federal government can't waive the State's immunity on their behalf, the State would have to do it themselves. You'd need each State to pass the law, not the US Congress to do it. Or pass a Constitutional Amendment.
If Congress doesn't like that difference in effect, they can always just withdraw the Copyright Act and make it the same for everybody.
bybjwest ( 14070 ) writes:
You generally can't sue a State, except where that State has given you permission to do so, or where you're accusing them of a Constitutional violation.
Well, there's this...
US Constitution. Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have 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.”
Doesn't that make using someones copyrighted material without permission a Constitutional violation?
bysconeu ( 64226 ) writes:
No. It makes it a violation of law, not the Constitution.
That clause enumerates one of the powers of Congress, not one of the rights of the People.
byCytotoxic ( 245301 ) writes:
What he's pointing out is that the constitution specifically designates the power of copyright to the federal government. This should place federal law on the matter over the states, sovereign immunity or not.
The logic of this is pretty tortured. In this case, the constitution specifically grants control of copyrights to the federal government. But the courts say that doesn't bind the state government itself. Yet we say the 14th amendment's "incorporation" binds the state governments to all of the national constitution's limitations.
These two positions are at complete opposition.
The courts have a habit of backing in to whatever position they personally favor - see Wickard and Raiche for prime examples. In this case, states have sovereign immunity even though the constitution explicitly gives the federal government control of copyright law. But in the case of growing pot.. the feds have absolute control because... interstate commerce? Explicitly ruling that non-commercial growing of something that is never moved across any state line is interstate commerce in order to allow federal control of pot use is an excellent juxtaposition with the tortured logic of "the feds can't enforce copyright law on the states even though it is explicitly listed as a federal power in the constitution".
Parent
twitter
facebook
byraymorris ( 2726007 ) writes:
*After* listing the powers delegated to the feds, the Constitution was amended to say that the federal courts can't be used to sue a state over that stuff. I think that makes it pretty clear that just because the feds had previously been given aome power in a particular area, that doesn't undo the later Constitutional amendment that says you can't sue a state over it. For the copyright vlause to undo the 11th amendment requires that time runs backwards.
The 11th amendment and history give pretty strong supp
bysconeu ( 64226 ) writes:
That depends on if hte guy is a resident of North Carolina.
The 11th says you can't sue ANOTHER state in federal court.
byraymorris ( 2726007 ) writes:
It does, and if you look at ONLY the text, divorced from any historical context and any reasoning, that matters. There is an argument to made that one should look at only the words on the page and pay no attention to what the framers meant or to logically reasoning about it. I don't buy that argument, but an intelligent person can make that argument.
The text of the Constitution also says repeatedly that the states continued to hold all powers of government other than those listed powers that they delegate
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...