You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral Arguments

October 7, 2010 -

While we’ll be trying to gain entrance into the Supreme Court to hear Schwarzenegger vs EMA oral arguments on November 2, even if questionable credentials or a nefarious past preclude us from gaining access, a recording of the arguments will be made available on the SCOTUS website.

The new recording release initiative, as detailed on the SCOTUS website, begins with the current October term and will see audio files posted to the SCOTUS website on Fridays, under the Oral Arguements section of the site's menu.

The Oyez Project website details the rather sad state of Supreme Court audio recordings, which began way back in 1955 with the introduction of a then state-of-the-art reel-to-reel recorder. Recordings were “principally for use by the justices and their clerks,” though they were also archived. The tape-based medium led to a multitude of problems, including degradation of the recordings over the years.

In 2005 the Court abandoned the analog recording process for a digital one, with audio recorded to mp3 files, but “also selected a low standard for its mp3 recordings, further impeding the quality of the resulting audio files.”

Yeesh.


Comments

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

 Funny considering most of his films are way more violent than any video game.

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

So?

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

Oh yay we get to listen to him.  Understanding what he says though is a different matter even on a better medium.

Still leaves me wondering (and yes this point as been raised many times).  How can he speak against violent games having made his career in violent movies?    Is he planning to ban the sale of those in California as well? 

 

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

His likeness has been used in violent games basedon said movies as well, ever since Terminator on the NES.

There were also games basedo n True Lies as I recall.

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

Because starring in a bunch of R-rated movies has absolutely zero to do with supporting legislation that ostensibly protects children from the dangers of playing violent video games.  Yes, his likeness was used in games based off those movies and yes, he made money from them.  What does that matter?  This legislation (again, ostensibly) would prevent children from buying those games if they met the ultra violence criteria.  He's willing to take a hit to the pocketbook on principle.  That makes him a martyr, not a hypocrite.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

Martyr?  Hardly.  When's the last time anyone released a game that used his likeness?  He's not giving up any royalty checks here.

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

Doesn't matter, but to answer your question, off the top of my head, a couple Terminator 3 video games.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

Of course it matters; you're claiming that he's hurting his own pocketbook with this stance by causing a decrease in sales on games he collects royalties on.  If that's not the case, then he's not a martyr.

The Terminator 3 games were released in 2003, for the PS2, Xbox, and Game Boy Advance.  No reasonable person would claim he is still collecting significant royalties on those games.

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

I'm claiming no such thing.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

Then please explain what "Yes, his likeness was used in games based off those movies and yes, he made money from them.  What does that matter?  This legislation (again, ostensibly) would prevent children from buying those games if they met the ultra violence criteria.  He's willing to take a hit to the pocketbook on principle.  That makes him a martyr, not a hypocrite." means.  What hit to the pocketbook is he taking?

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

It means exactly what it says.  The hit to the pocketbook he would be taking ("would be," not "is") would be from any royalties lost from this legislation preventing a child from buying a game he receives royalties from.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

You use the word "receives", as in present tense.  What game is he receiving, present tense, royalties from?  What game has he received royalties from at any point since backing this legislation?

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

I intended "receives" to refer to the point in time when the sale is prevented.

Now, to answer your question, I would speculate any game that features his likeness but there's no way for me to know for sure (I suppose I could always write and ask those who would be in the know but I highly doubt they'd be forthcoming with the info).

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

But that's my point -- any games featuring his likeness are out of print and he's not receiving money for them.  There's no Expendables game that I know of, and that's the only movie he's made in years.

He's not giving anything up -- perhaps hypothetical future earnings on games that may get made at some point in the future based on movies he may make at some point in the future, but giving up something that doesn't actually exist hardly qualifies a guy as a martyr.  Even assuming he's acting out of pure intentions and not political expediency, "martyr" is way too strong a word.

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

So, you understand what I'm saying you just think "martyr" is too strong a word?  That's fine.  Feel free to substitute one you find more appropriate.  I am, admittedly, being rather casual with its use.

"...any games featuring his likeness are out of print and he's not receiving money for them."

It may not matter if they're out of print or not.  Terminator 3, while likely out of print, is still being sold new.  If he still gets a cut of those sales, it counts.

EDIT: Thinking about it, I wonder if royalties are generated from retail point of sale.  To me, it seems more likely to come from publisher sales.  If that's the case, that would make the whole martyr argument rather moot as consumer sales wouldn't be feeding his royalty earnings anyway.

Of course, if the whole chilling effect came to pass and retailers refused to buy any hypothetical future game featuring his likeness or reorder any older title a publisher had left over stock of, that could potentially have an even greater affect.

"He's not giving anything up -- perhaps hypothetical future earnings on games that may get made at some point in the future..."

To me, that counts.

"...giving up something that doesn't actually exist hardly qualifies a guy as a martyr."

True, but the willingness to do so counts in my book (although looking at the dictionary definition, willingness to sacrifice something important isn't part of it).

Anyway, I didn't mean to say that he is a martyr at present (and honestly, I could have worded my original post better and made that clear).  What I meant was that such a thing happening (supporting a law that negatively impacted his earnings for the sake of principle) would make him a martyr.

Of course, this whole thing is looking at the law from an ostensible rather than realistic point of view.  When you consider the actualities (the law wouldn't prevent children from playing such games, kids typically don't buy games anyway so what sales would be lost?, would any of the games he gets a cut from fall under the scope of the law anyway?, etc.) it's highly unlikely he'll be missing out on any royalties he's owed.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

What's most interesting to me is that, as far as I know, he has never addressed that issue once. I doubt he will in his arguments before the court either.

That said, I don't think it's really an issue, because there is such a thing as turning a new leaf. I mean, when's the last time we saw him rip someone a new one in a film? Granted, he had a cameo in The Expendables, a violent movie, but as far as I know he was on screen for about five minutes and didn't shoot anybody, so I don't count that much.

There's also the fact that no one researches the effects of violence in movies or on television any more, just games, so I imagine that makes it easier for him not to think about it.

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

"What's most interesting to me is that, as far as I know, he has never addressed that issue once."

He's addressed it repeatedly, using the standard claim that games are qualitatively different from movies because they're interactive.

I think he's wrong, but that doesn't mean he hasn't addressed it.

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

I stand corrected. Shows how much I pay attention to what he has to say lately. Not a mistake I aim to repeat, I shall definitely be rectifying that when he makes his arguments before the judges.

Also changes my opinion of him a bit, and by that I mean I now frown on him as much as I do assholes like Yee. Before I was just dissappointed. Oh well.

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

You all aren't thinking that Arnold's gonna be making arguments before the Supreme Court, are you?! Jesus Christ!! He isn't even an attorney!!

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

Isn't he very much responsible for there being a legal battle in the first place? I'd think he'd need to make his case at some point. But if not, then so be it. I'm sure plenty of any points he has will be covered by the state's legal counsel anyway, so it may as well be him. I'm not a lawyer, but the one respresenting EMA sure said plenty of things I would've if I was.

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

That's the function of his State Attorney's Office. The Supreme Court's kinda picky about who can appear before them and make legal arguments. They only wanna hear from actual attorneys or pro se litigants.

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

So no chance of old Jack weaseling his way into the proceedings then.

We all know how much he would love to do that.

Re: You’ll Be Able to Hear Schwarzenegger SCOTUS Oral ...

Or, for those of us who can still manage to read our way to being informed, the Court's website also posts the court reporter's transcripts within 24 hours of a hearing.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
ZippyDSMleeEither way you get stagnation as people can not afford the prices they set.04/16/2014 - 8:47am
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician