Posted on March 26, 2006
I would like to take a moment to comment on Brian Hansen’s article regarding the Lady Dukes’ Basketball season in last Thursday’s issue of The Breeze. He said: “Disappointment is the only way to describe the end of the season.” As an avid Lady Dukes’ Basketball fan, I can say with confidence that the only way to describe the end of the season is, “sheer pride.” Yes, Hansen did mention the fact that Kenny Brooks, coach of the year, led the Dukes. He also mentioned senior Meredith Alexis as CAA Player of the year, yet he failed to mention other vital players such as Andrea Benvenuto — someone who definitely deserves recognition.
Anyone who went out to a women’s basketball game this season would agree that the team brought nothing short of heart and excitement each time they took to the court. At least 26 straight wins at home and an overall season record of 24-2 is not a disappointment. Being the first JMU basketball team to make it to the NCAA tournament in 10 years is not a disappointment.
Hansen’s article was plagued with a negative tone and focused on all the wrong things that happened for the ladies during an overwhelmingly positive season. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Coach Kenny Brooks and the JMU women’s basketball team for a great season and wish them all the best in the future.
Meghan McCormick, junior communications/music industry major
Julie Kupelian’s statement that downloading music is the “same thing as going into a record store and walking out with an album under your purple and gold hoodie” is a false analogy that was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in Sony v. Universal (1984). That case addressed the legality of the VCR, and opponents often compared taping live programs and watching them later (time-shifting) to stealing jewelry. The Supreme Court’s response:
“Theft of a particular item of personal property of course may have commercial significance, for the thief deprives the owner of his right to sell that particular item to any individual. Time-shifting does not even remotely entail comparable consequences to the copyright owner.”
Furthermore, her blanket statement that downloading music “adversely affect[s] the artists, and … the entire music industry” ignores the many artists who do not sell their music or those whose records are no longer in print.
Copyright infringement is not theft; it is copyright infringement. Muddying the issue with bad comparisons does a disservice to the ongoing discussion in this country about copyright and lends improper credence to the propaganda advanced by record companies and movie studios.
AJ Schuster, alumnus, class of 2004
As a proud graduate of JMU, I occasionally take time from work to read The Breeze online. It’s great to hear about the current events that are going on at JMU, ranging from academic issues to updates on our sports teams. But it was not so great to read last Thursday’s house editorial, “Don’t keep the district disenfranchised.”
The editorial discusses the bill before Congress on whether or not the House of Representatives should grant the District of Columbia the right to vote in the full House. The issue at hand is not a partisan issue as much as the writer would like you to believe. The issue deals with our Constitution.
In the past, the case to grant D.C. a vote in the full House has come in front of many Courts. The first initial case was Adams v. Clinton in which the U.S. District Court for D.C. examined the issue of whether failure to provide congressional representation for the District violated the Equal Protection Clause. In hearing the case, the court determined that there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause and that for the purposes of congressional representation D.C. did not meet the criteria of what makes a state; meaning no vote for D.C. in the House. Also within the Adams decision, the court determined that the debate by our Founding Fathers, at the time of ratification, indicated an understanding that the District would not have a vote in the Congress.
There is one constitutional way for the District of Columbia to receive the right to vote in Congress: an amendment. If the citizens of D.C., of which I am one, would like representation in Congress, they have the right to petition for an amendment granting them statehood. If the people decide to give D.C. the right to vote in Congress, as it should occur in a democracy, then by all means this should occur.
Another point of contention I have with the editorial is the reference to Rep. Tom Davis of Northern Virginia as “our very own.” That is simply inaccurate. Rep. Bob Goodlatte represents James Madison University and the Harrisonburg area. Assuming all JMU students are from Northern Virginia is an ignorant assumption. JMU is a diverse community with students coming from various states.
The editorial should have stayed away from creating a partisan debate on this matter and should have focused on constitutionality of resolving D.C.’s voting rights. “It doesn’t take long to read between the lines” to see that the writer is just another liberal Democrat whining to get his way.
Oswaldo J. Palomo, alumnus, class of 2005
