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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenThat doesn't mean there has to be a movie though. Having said that, I've no doubt that we will eventually get a Black Panther movie. But Stan Lee will probably learn about it around the same time you and I do.09/02/2014 - 2:34pm
MaskedPixelanteWell they have to get to him eventually. Captain America's shield didn't grow on a tree, the minerals to make it had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is Wakanda.09/02/2014 - 2:31pm
E. Zachary KnightYes, but it has never been confirmed as in development, or even pre-production.09/02/2014 - 2:21pm
MaskedPixelanteBlack Panther's been on the short list for a while.09/02/2014 - 2:18pm
E. Zachary KnightIt is possible that Stan Lee mispoke. I don't think he knows everything Marvel movies. But it is a sweet idea if true.09/02/2014 - 2:04pm
Andrew EisenSo says Stan Lee who almost certainly wouldn't know.09/02/2014 - 2:04pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.cinemablend.com/new/Marvel-Black-Panther-Movie-Confirmed-By-Stan-Lee-66993.html Black Panther is apparently getting a movie. And maybe one for Black Widow, even though I think it's too late for her.09/02/2014 - 1:53pm
Cheater87Look what FINALLY came to Australia uncut! http://www.gamespot.com/articles/left-4-dead-2-gets-reclassified-in-australia/1100-6422038/09/02/2014 - 6:49am
Andrew EisenHence the "Uh, yeah. Obviously."09/02/2014 - 12:53am
SleakerI think Nintendo has proven over the last 2 years that it doesn't.09/02/2014 - 12:31am
Andrew EisenSleaker - Uh, yeah. Obviously.09/01/2014 - 8:20pm
Sleaker@AE - exclusives do not a console business make.09/01/2014 - 8:03pm
Papa MidnightI find it disappointing that, despite the presence of a snopes article and multiple articles countering it, people are still spreading a fake news story about a "SWATter" being sentenced to X (because the number seems to keep changing) years in prison.09/01/2014 - 5:08pm
Papa MidnightAnd resulting in PC gaming continuing to be held back by developer habits09/01/2014 - 5:07pm
Papa MidnightI find it disappointing that the current gen of consoles is representative of 2009-2010 in PC gaming, and will be the bar by which games are released over the next 8 years - resulting in more years of poor PC ports (if they're ever ported)09/01/2014 - 5:06pm
Andrew EisenMeanwhile, 6 of Wii U's top 12 are exclusive: Mario 3D World, Nintendo Land, Pikmin 3, Mario Kart 8, Wonderful 101, and ZombiU. (Wind Waker HD is on the list too but I didn't count it.)09/01/2014 - 4:36pm
Andrew EisenLikewise, only two of Xbox One's top 12 are exclusive: Dead Rising 3 and Ryse: Son of Rome (if you ignore a PC release later this year).09/01/2014 - 4:34pm
Andrew EisenNot to disrespect the current gen of consoles but I find it telling that of the "12 Best Games For The PS4" (per Kotaku), only two are exclusive to the system: Infamous: Second Son and Resogun.09/01/2014 - 4:30pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/09/01/beyond-two-souls-ps4-trophies-emerge-directors-cut-reported/ MMM MMM, nothing quire like reheated last gen games to make you appreciate the 400 bucks you spent on a new console.09/01/2014 - 4:24pm
Andrew EisenThat's actually a super depressing thought, that a bunch of retweeters are taking that pic as an illustration of the actual issue instead of an example of a complete misunderstanding of it.09/01/2014 - 4:20pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician