I am very curious to know who appointed this liberal to the bench.
Isn't Matsch the Timothy McVeigh judge?
Nothing "liberal" about the ruling. Resellers are subject to whatever terms are imposed by the owner of the work, so if the owner says "no cuts" then the reseller is in breach of contract. Nobody's forcing anybody to resell the item so if they know the conditions going in then they have nothing to complain about.
That would be Ford, I guess.
Liberal or not, it appears to be the right decision. To me, the sanitizing service is an obvious violation of copyright laws.
Regardless, the copyright owners are shooting—or, at least grazing—themselves in the foot, as there are some people who absolutely will not buy the non-sanitized versions of their films.
So be it.
He was appointed to the Federal bench by Nixon. But what's so "liberal" about upholding copyright laws?
From the University of Denver web page: "In 1965, he was appointed Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Colorado. He served on that bench from 1965 to 1974. He was appointed United States District Court Judge for the District of Colorado in March of 1974, and presided as Chief Judge of the District from 1994 to 2000. At present, he sits as a Senior Judge on that bench."
It appears that this brilliant legal mind was appointed to the District Court bench by Richard Nixon, the man who also blessed us with John Paul Stevens.
From the Rocky Mountain News article's quotation from the opinion:
"The accused parties make much of their public policy argument and have submitted many communications from viewers expressing their appreciation for the opportunity to view movies in the setting of the family home without concern for any harmful effects on their children," Matsch wrote.
"This argument is inconsequential to copyright law and is addressed in the wrong forum. This court is not free to determine the social value of copyrighted works.
"What is protected are the creator's rights to protect its creation in the form in which it was created."
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4830375,00.html
Matsch is a highly respected judge. His politics are largely unknown, because he keeps them out of the courtroom. This opinion is an example of judicial restraint. What he is saying, is my opinion about whether what you are doing is right or wrong is irrelevant. If you want to change the copyright laws, don't ask this court to do it, get the legislature to change the law. I wish we had more judges like him.
Matsch, Richard Paul
Born 1930 in Burlington, IA
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Colorado
Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on January 31, 1974, to a seat vacated by Olin H. Chilson; Confirmed by the Senate on March 1, 1974, and received commission on March 8, 1974. Served as chief judge, 1994-2000. Assumed senior status on July 1, 2003.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, District of Colorado, 1973-1974
Education:
University of Michigan, A.B., 1951
University of Michigan Law School, J.D., 1953
Professional Career:
U.S. Army, 1953-1955
Private practice, Denver, Colorado, 1956-1959
Assistant U.S. attorney, District of Colorado, 1959-1961
Deputy city attorney, City and County of Denver, Colorado, 1961-1963
Private practice, Denver, Colorado, 1963-1965
Referee in bankruptcy, District of Colorado, 1965-1973
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Male
Why do you assume the judge is liberal? Regardless of ideology, the decision in this case is the correct one.