July 24, 2007
Motion To Kiss My Ass
Someone pointed me to an awesome case. Washington v. Alaimo, 934 F. Supp 1395 (S.D.Ga. 1996) begins like this:
On April 5, 1996, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this Court should not impose Rule 11 sanctions upon him for filing a motion for improper purposes. The motion which Plaintiff filed was entitled "Motion to Kiss My Ass" (Doc. 107) in which he moved " all Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith [to] kiss my got [sic] damn ass sorry mother fucker you." This Court gave Plaintiff until April 25, 1996, to respond and specifically warned: " Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this case." Plaintiff has appealed the show-cause order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
I wish that the motion itself were available online.
Posted by Barzelay at 9:20 PM | Comments (3)
January 22, 2007
Law Students for Governmental Accountability, Website and Events
This one's for the law students. One of my good friends from New Orleans started a student lobbying group to make sure something like the Katrina disaster never happens again, and to hold accountable those responsible for the century of bad decisions that caused it. They're having a bunch of events this week to serve, I guess, as rallies, challenging other schools:
- Monday night, Trivia at Fado (Chinatown), American University and UDC challenge, 6:30pm (w/ drink specials)
- Tuesday night, Atomic Billiards (Cleveland Park), Catholic University challenge, 6:30pm (w/ drink specials)
- Wednesday night, Karaoke at Fast Eddie's (Farragut?), George Washington University challenge, 9:30pm
- Thursday night, L-S-G-80's Dance Party at K Street Lounge, Georgetown and Howard University challenge, 9:30pm
I'll definitely be at Fado trivia tonight, possibly karaoke Wednesday night (Jeanette will almost certainly be there showing everyone how it's done), and probably at the 80's dance party Thursday. I love me some 80's dancing. In fact, I dislike all non-80's dancing.
Join 1,000 law students from every congressional district in the country going before Congress in the name of efficient, effective, and accountable American democracy, to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated and a catastrophe like Katrina never happens again in America. Beginning now and culminating March 14 with a National Lobby Day in Washington D.C., Law Students for Governmental Accountability (LSGA), in cooperation with many other national organizations, is bringing to Congress the first comprehensive legal analysis of the Federal Government's responsibility for 80 years of decisions that caused the flooding of Katrina, and its effects on our nation's defense, economy, environment, and culture. Did you know that its impact will cost American consumers in only four industries $648 billion within just 10 years? That doesn't include public costs. It has already cost consumers at least $1 billion in Arizona, $3 billion in Ohio, $5 & $9 billion in New York & California respectively. What about your state? Our national government foresaw this and could have prevented it all at a fraction of the cost. As law students who understand government process, we must expect better accountability. Today is your opportunity! Sign up now at www.lsga.net.
Posted by Barzelay at 11:46 AM | Comments (0)
October 19, 2006
Why Join A Law Firm When You Can Be A Monk Instead?
I teach a Kaplan LSAT Prep course every Tuesday at Catholic University. Sometimes while the students are taking a quiz, I peruse the pamphlets that are stored in a rack in the hall outside the classroom. Tuesday, I came across a pamphlet inducing its reader to become a Capuchin ("hooded") Franciscan brother, and I read through it with interest. As I came upon each new point, I became increasingly wowed by how similar the experience sounded to joining a law firm. Indeed, firms and this brotherhood advertise all of the same things when trying to get people to join their program:
The pamphlet contained several separate leaves, each of which presented information about the brotherhood. For instance, one of the leaves was labeled, "Historical Highlights," and presented an historical overview of the founding of the Capuchin Franciscan order. Kind of like a law firm. Compare:
- Monks: "St. Francis of Assisi founded his order of priests and brothers in 1209. Capuchin Franciscans are a reform movement founded in 1528... There have been over 20 declared Capuchin Saints and Blesseds throughout our history. Over 14,000 Capuchins worldwide. 7 Provinces in the Uniteed States... the Province of St. Mary serves New York and New England where there are 150 Capuchins in 22 ministerial sites as well as friars in mission territories."
- Lawyers: "Established in the heart of Silicon Valley in 1972, the firm was founded by four visionary attorneys who moved to Palo Alto to establish a practice in the geographic area they believed was destined to become the technology epicenter. The Firm's history is inextricably entwined with the growth of technology in Silicon Valley"
There was also a leaf labeled "Fraternity" that spoke about the social aspects of the order/firm. Compare again:
- Monks: "Our communities average 3 to 5 brothers living together for fraternal support. We gather for prayer together 2 or 3 times each day. All meals are taken in common. All goods are held in common. Each friar's unique talents are recognized and used for the common good."
- Lawyers: "We're... small enough to maintain a collegial work environment, one where you'll know all the members of your team... [O]ur firm culture emphasizes cooperation among team members... [W]e encourage you to explore your interests across practice groups and find the ones that suit you best."
Both firms and Catholic brotherhoods claim to have strong pro-bono commitments:
- Monks: "We serve the needs of all with special emphasis being placed on the poor and marginalized."
- Lawyers: "For more than 30 years, [redacted] has served its community by offering legal services to persons and organizations that could not otherwise afford effective legal counsel. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community."
Both have ample opportunities for social interaction:
- Monks: "Opportunities for Eucharistic adoration offered frequently. Also, yearly mandatory retreat."
- Lawyers: "Past summer events have included sailing excursions on the San Francisco Bay, white water rafting, a Yosemite weekend, Napa Valley wine tasting, cooking classes, baseball games, concerts, Shakespeare in the Park and numerous informal dinners and barbecues at our lawyers' homes."
Both have good training programs that allow the individual to experience a variety of work:
- Monks: "Use his summer to serve in a variety of ministeries, including total immersion in another culture.... Classes, workshops, ministerial experiences and various prayer opportunities."
- Lawyers: "Because [redacted] is a full-service law firm, we devote considerable efforts to in-house education and training. Summer Associates are encouraged to attend any and all of our in-house training programs."
Both have various locations from which to choose:
- Monks: "Visiting a number of friaries regularly in order to get to know many Capuchin Franciscans and their ministeries."
- Lawyers: "Ensuring that you spend time in both of our offices... our... headquarters, located in California's famed Silicon Valley, and our San Francisco office, located in the Financial District of one of the most beautiful cities in the world."
Both are open to applicants from various backgrounds, and each has some specific criteria in mind:
- Monks: "Spiritual Direction, involvement in parish and frequent reception of the Sacraments are strongly encouraged... If interested in applying for postulancy, candidates are asked to do so by January of the year he plans to apply."
- Lawyers: "[Redacted] seeks law students with excellent academic credentials who will thrive in an entrepreneurial, full-service Silicon Valley law firm... In the late summer and fall, [redacted] will participate in a variety of law student recruiting efforts."
And finally, each has a process for determining whether or not the individual will stay on a more permanent basis:
- Monks: "At the conclusion of the year temporary vows of poverty, chastity and obedience are professed."
- Lawyers: "After all Summer Associates have completed their stay here at [redacted], the Hiring Committee works promptly to make decisions about offers for full-time employment while the experience of the summer is still fresh in everyone's minds."
So of the two, which would you choose? Personally, I've made my choice, but the Order does look quite attractive. I wonder whether they'd mind that I'm an atheistic Jew?
Posted by Barzelay at 1:36 AM | Comments (4)
June 23, 2006
NPR on EFF
If you're wondering what the hell it is I'm doing this summer, NPR has a great feature on EFF. It's about four minutes long, and explains our organization's mandate, as well as going through some of the major cases with which we've been involved.
Today I went to a hearing on the AT&T/NSA wiretapping case before Judge Vaughn Walker in the Northern District of California. Among other things, we were arguing against the government's right to invoke the "state secrets privilege" to avoid judicial scrutiny of illegal executive action. EFF is arguing on behalf of consumers whose private phone calls have been intercepted by the NSA as part of Bush's wiretapping program.
It's nice being involved in real issues that I care so much about. And if you don't care about these issues, then you're not paying enough attention. Join EFF if you're not already a member. You get stickers and shit, and depending on which level you donate, you might also get a t-shirt and some other random goodies. Plus you help out with, like, freedom and stuff.
Posted by Barzelay at 5:40 PM | Comments (1)
June 16, 2006
EFF Video at the top of YouTube
EFF (my summer internship) put out a video called "The Corruptibles" several days ago, about the dangers of three proposed legal changes currently before Congress. The video has jumped up to the top spot on YouTube! 48,000 views and counting on YouTube alone (in addition to views on EFF's website and GoogleVideo), It doesn't go very in depth but it is fairly amusing. So check it out and learn more about evildoers' efforts to require an audio flag, a sinister broadcast flag, and to plug the analog hole.
Watch it on YouTube, and then go to EFF.org/action for more info and to do something about it.
Update: 110,000 views.
Posted by Barzelay at 1:42 PM | Comments (0)
June 8, 2006
Alternative Dispute Resolution
When a pair of opposing attorneys in a Florida insurance case failed to resolve even simple scheduling disputes without the federal judge's intervention, he decided to impose a new form of alternative dispute resolution on them. The judge ordered the attorneys to meet on the steps of the courthouse at a specified time, and play "one (1) game of 'rock, paper, scissors.' . The winner gets to choose the location of the deposition. Yay for Clinton appointees!
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISIONAVISTA MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a Avista Plex, Inc.,
Plaintiff,-vs-
WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to designate location of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition (Doc. 105). Upon consideration of the Motion – the latest in a series of Gordian knots that the parties have been unable to untangle without enlisting the assistance of the federal courts – it is
ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED. Instead, the Court will fashion a new form of alternative dispute resolution, to wit: at 4:00 P.M. on Friday, June 30, 2006, counsel shall convene at a neutral site agreeable to both parties. If counsel cannot agree on a neutral site, they shall meet on the front steps of the Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Tampa, Florida 33602. Each lawyer shall be entitled to be accompanied by one paralegal who shall act as an attendant and witness. At that time and location, counsel shall engage in one (1) game of "rock, paper, scissors." The winner of this engagement shall be entitled to select the location for the 30(b)(6) deposition to be held somewhere in Hillsborough County during the period July 11-12, 2006. If either party disputes the outcome of this engagement, an appeal may be filed and a hearing will be held at 8:30 A.M. on Friday, July 7, 2006 before the undersigned in Courtroom 3, George C. Young United States Courthouse and Federal Building, 80 North Hughey Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on June 6, 2006.
I'm totally in favor of absurd judicial orders whenever attorneys act absurdly. Or even if they don't. Any time a decision is entirely arbitrary, why not have a little fun with it? I'd definitely be doing this kind of thing if I were a judge. For instance, I tend to write very long law school exams, because I always end up including a ton of stuff intended solely to make the professors laugh.
But seriously, here's my proposal for our new legal system: Complainants shall have their choice of the following methods of dispute resolution. If the complainant desires, questions of fact or of law may be decided by:
- Staring contest
- Monster-truck race
- Paramilitary coup
- Thumb wrestling
- Dance-off
- Each side prays to its own god, and whichever side's god is first to deliver a sign, wins
- Steel cage match
- the penis game
- poetry competition
- Chili contest
- Skateboarding tournament
- Chariot race
- American Counsel, a new reality TV show
- 1-800-ASK-GARY
Posted by Barzelay at 6:35 AM | Comments (2)
May 2, 2006
Should documentary filmmakers release their raw footage under Creative Commons license?
Jason Schulz asks, "Should Documentary Filmmakers release their raw footage under Creative Commons licenses?" Then all of their unedited footage would be available for people to see and to make up their own minds. Their biases would be open to scrutiny, and when their neutrality was attacked, they could simply point to the footage. For that matter, I think the same suggestion would be good for all media that makes a claim of objectivity (basically, "news").
It's a pretty interesting idea, all the more so in light of a discussion I had with Aaron a month or two ago about neutrality in documentaries. His contention was that, since true neutrality will never be achieved, it is better for filmmakers to abandon all pretense of objectivity and simply present their take on the material as what it is: their take on the material. I suppose that such a viewpoint would have to extend to all supposedly objective newsmedia, since everything from newspaper articles to the evening news is skewed in the same way.
My argument, on the other hand, was (and is) that, although there can be never be complete neutrality, there is value in presenting stories in as objective a light as possible, and when such an effort has been made in good faith, one has every right to claim objectivity; since nothing is objective, any claim of objectivity necessarily connotes only an attempt at objectivity, and it is always the viewer's responsibility to take into account the possible biases of the filmmakers.
Hence, if FOX News truly believe themselves to be fair and balanced, they have every right to claim to be fair and balanced. Viewers must take into account FOX News' bias. The strongest argument against this idea is that, by presenting news as if it is objective, people (even intelligent, skeptical people) are often (maybe even usually) duped into believing it to be objective. If one had never been told that FOX News skews way right, then the only way to find that out for oneself is by comparing it to other news sources. But each of those other news sources also has its own bias, which must be held under the same scrutiny. At some point, one can really only figure out what's happening by taking into account the presentations of all the news sources out there, and figuring out as much as one can about each of their respective biases. And even then, all the available news sources might be fed the same biased information. Who has time to do all that sorting of facts?
On the other hand, [my extrapolation of] Aaron's argument breaks down just as dramatically. Who can be trusted to reveal the extent of their own bias? If someone truly has a bias, they must have it because they seek to impose their viewpoint on the events in question, and in so doing, alter the perception of the events for some purpose. Underreporting their own biases would mean people would view their version of the events as being closer to the objective truth than is the case. And many people fancy themselves much more able to be objective than they, in fact, are. And so that system requires just as much scrutiny as if everyone claims to be objective.
Anyway, I just put a lot of words in Aaron's mouth, and extrapolated his argument way beyond his original intention, which was to argue that Grizzly Man was a great documentary. In Grizzly Man, Werner Herzog clearly presents his own view of the facts, withholding a crucial piece of the puzzle because showing it does not fit into his idea of the meaning in the story. Aaron thought it was a wonderful movie, putting it in his Top 10 of 2005, and fully supported the filmmaker's decision to withhold that piece, preferring Werner Herzog's opinion of the facts of the story.
Whereas I think Grizzly Man was the biggest cocktease of a movie since Bring It On. Werner Herzog plays up the story of this bear-lover hippie guy who lives with the bears every summer for years, the whole time alluding to an impending disaster. About halfway through, he tells the viewer that he has the recording of the guy finally getting eaten by one of the fucking bears. So what does he do? He talks on camera about how he got the recording, and about what the recording will show, and then Herzog shows himself listening to the recording, but then REFUSES TO PLAY THE RECORDING FOR THE VIEWER! The most interesting thing in the whole movie gets dangled in front of the viewer like a carrot, only to have the filmmaker tell the viewer that no one should be subjected to such a grisly scene. Apparently we aren't mature enough. Insane.
I hated the movie. I thought that the filmmaker had stumbled upon some of the greatest footage ever available to a documentarian, and then completely dropped the ball, making probably the most self-indulgent, pointless documentary I've ever seen. In fact, the main redeeming thing about the movie is as a study of just how much a documentary can go wrong when it becomes more about the filmmaker and his perceptions of the story than it is about the story.
Anyway, if Herzog released all his materials, I'd finally get to listen to the guy getting eaten by the bear, and for that reason alone, if nothing else, I wholeheartedly support Jason's idea. It sounds like a great concept, and I'd love to see it employed by all newsmedia.
Posted by Barzelay at 3:47 AM | Comments (10)
April 27, 2006
Next Year's Classes
I recently submitted my course requests for next year. Only while compiling my next year's schedule did I realize how much 1L schedules suck. In each term for next year, I went through the entire course schedule bookmarking courses I really wanted to take. In each term, I bookmarked more than twenty classes. That's awesome. I had one in which I was really interested this year (Property).
Fall
If I get the perfect schedule, here is what I'll have next year. If I get all of these, I'll have to drop one of the 2 credit courses. I'm especially excited about... well... every class except Evidence. I don't think I'll especially like Evidence, but I need to take it, all the more so for mock trial.
- LAWJ-165-05 - Evidence
Michael Gottesman, 4 credits
TR 03:30PM-05:30PM - LAWJ-267-05 - Law of Cyberspace
Michael Songer, 3 credits
M 05:45PM-08:50PM - LAWJ-200-08 - Communications Law: Law, Policy & Politics in the Internet Age
R. Paul Margie and James Assey, 2 credits
R 06:15PM-08:15PM - LAWJ-361-05 - Professional Responsibility
Robert Drinan, 2 credits
M 03:30PM-05:30PM - LAWJ-332-01 - Patent Law
John Thomas, 3 credits
MW 09:35AM-11:00AM - LAWJ-341-05 - Great Philosophers On Law Seminar
Ladislas Orsy, 2 credits
W 11:10AM-01:10PM - LAWJ-196-05 - Free Press Seminar
Lee Levine, 2 credits
T 10:00AM-12:00PM
Spring
I probably won't get Patent Trial Practice (it is a very hot course, and limited to an enrollment of 14 students), in which case my top preference is Law And Philosophy Seminar, with John Mikhail, a joint Law and Philosophy department course. Either way, if I get all of these, I'll have to drop two of the classes.
- LAWJ-334-05 - Patent Trial Practice
Joseph Potenza, Christopher Renk, Mark Banner, Erik Maurer, Tom Pratt , 3 credits
F 11:10AM-02:10PM - LAWJ-342-09 - Information Privacy Law
Marc fucking Rotenberg!, 3 credits
T 05:45PM-07:45PM, every other R 05:45PM-07:45PM - LAWJ-442-05 - Intellectual Property Seminar: Theoretical Foundations Of Intellectual Property
Julie Cohen, 3 credits
T 01:20PM 03:20PM - LAWJ-433-08 - Trademarks & Unfair Competition Law
Rebecca Tushnet, 3 credits
MW 01:55PM-03:20PM - LAWJ-110-01 - Copyright Law
Rebecca Tushnet, 3 credits
MW 09:35AM-11:00AM - LAWJ-235-01 - International Law I: Intro To International law
Charles Gustafson, 3 credits
T 03:30PM-05:30PM, R 03:30PM-04:30PM - LAWJ-368-05 - Drug Abuse & The Law
Peter Cohen, 2 credits
R 03:30PM-05:30PM
Posted by Barzelay at 3:38 PM | Comments (8)
April 20, 2006
Law! Sex! Poetry!
My Property Professor, Susan Scafidi, just recited the following limerick, which she apparently got from one of her professors, Guido Calabresi, who is now a 2nd Circuit Judge.
"There was a young lawyer named 'Rex,'
With miniscule organs for sex.
When charged with Exposure
He replied with composure,
'De minimis non curat lex.'"
Posted by Barzelay at 4:49 PM | Comments (3)
April 5, 2006
Go to college, or download music? Your choice.
Cassie Hunt at MIT's paper The Tech writes a column about her experience with the RIAA's settlement negotation center. It really highlights the blind absurdity of the RIAA's practice of making examples of average students who have done nothing everyone else hasn't done. The most egregious but more savvy offenders (me?) don't get caught (yet) while regular kids get sued for a few Top 40 tracks.
"But as much as I tried to argue that I was in as unique a situation as someone with medical expenses, there was no getting through. Bowie even had the audacity to say, “In fact, the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements.”Are. You. Shitting. Me."
Personally, I've always maintained that, were I to get sued for copyright infringement and be forced to pay one of the RIAA's settlements (approximately $3500), that cost would be well worth the amount of music I've downloaded.
But for those who haven't been following this whole situation as closely, when the RIAA sues someone for copyright infringement, she is stuck with two apparent choices:
- Pay statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) that, for many people, would total millions of dollars.
- Negotiate a settlement with the RIAA's settlement center.
»» Continue reading "Go to college, or download music? Your choice."
Posted by Barzelay at 7:24 PM | Comments (5)
March 25, 2006
Everything that can possibly have happened has happened
One of the interesting things about studying law is that you realize, in reading over case law, that every possible occurrence has occurred. Every once in a while, you come across a case that reminds you that every "What if..." has come to pass, and that the law is necessarily rigorous because, much to our surprise, this shit actually happens.
I came across just such a case today in a footnote to my property reading. In re Neiderhiser's Estate, 2 Pa. D. & C.3d 302 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1977). The case deals with the distribution of the property of one Robert Neiderhiser after his death--a death which occurred in the middle of his wedding to Naomi Neiderhiser nee Nicely, directly after vows and prior to the pronouncement of marriage. Is the wife entitled to her statutory share in his estate? Check Westlaw for the exciting conclusion to this common example of an uncommon occurence. Yep. This shit actually happens.
"6. This being a single ring ceremony, Robert R. Neiderhiser, repeated the following words after placing a ring on the fourth finger of Naomi Nicely, and saying after the Minister--"With this ring I thee wed, In the name of the Father; And of the Son; And of the Holy Spirit. Amen.""7. The Minister then commenced the prayer generally recited after the exchange of vows by the parties, and at some point during the prayer, the minister noticed that Robert R. Neiderhiser began to gradually slump to the floor.
"8. After a question of inquiry of Naomi Nicely, and while the said Robert R. Neiderhiser still exhibited life, the said Rev. Jacobs did cut the ceremony short and pronounced them husband and wife, either shortly before Robert R. Neiderhiser completely fell to the floor, or right after he hit the floor and prior to his decease."
Posted by Barzelay at 1:00 AM | Comments (5)
March 9, 2006
EFF Interview
Today I had a phone interview for a summer legal internship with the EFF. It lasted about forty minutes, and I spoke with Barak Weinstein and Kevin Bankston, about both of whom I'd read on numerous prior occasions. It was like the extreme geek version of being a bit star struck. I've written about the EFF on many occasions. Frequent readers will also recognize the name/blog of Jason Schulz (LawGeek.typepad.com), who apparently reported back to Barak or Kevin on recent comments I'd made on his blog.
Phone interviews are a funny thing. I couldn't distinguish between Barak and Kevin, though in person they look quite different. And over the phone, it's really tough for me to tell how any jokes I make are going over. So I can't tell whether to lose the attempted humor or not. Anyone who knows me in the corporeal realm will attest that I am a pretty funny guy, but over the phone? Who knows. Another consequence of a phone interview is that I was able to be online at the same time. So, when they were questioning me about my blog (such as asking whether I'd make them Barzberry Napoleons), I was able to go to my blog and quickly assess what they'd read.
I'd really love this internship, more than any possible summer job (I've got a couple other possibilities), and I think I did alright in the interview, though not great. It amazes me how inarticulate I can sometimes be when discussing something about which I am knowledgeable and passionate, despite being the very model of eloquence in most situations. Even though I've been following the EFF closely for five years now, and tend to research most of their issues in depth, often blogging about them myself (though not as much recently, perhaps because I'm surrounded by other law-related things), I had trouble being specific about which of their issues and cases really interest me and why. In addition, I was vague when discussing why I was so passionate about them. It was a case of me having so much to say that I couldn't manage to speak except in generalities, lest I shortchange some one issue in favor of US companies' interactions with totalitarian regimes, 4th amendment packing tape, or the ways in which an oppressive patent regime limits free speech.
Now I have only to wait and see whether I get a position. To summarize:
Pluses:
- My favorite non-profit in the world
- Issues about which I'm passionate
- Real legal work
- San Francisco
Minuses:
- Unpaid
- Unpaid
- Unpaid
- Unpaid
Georgetown Law has a lot of funding available for people with non-profit summer jobs, but I'd need to know pretty soon in order even to apply for that funding. If I get an RF position for Gewirz next year (which would be amazing), I wouldn't have to worry too much about summer money because I can borrow from next school year's loans. To work at the EFF, I'd actually have to be taking out additional loans, paying just for the opportunity to work there. And yet, I'd do it. I really, really love the EFF, and hope that I can eventually work there permanently, doing legal work I care about, that matters, and that is effective.
Posted by Barzelay at 3:13 AM | Comments (8)
February 28, 2006
The new Built To Spill album, or "Who is Mike Jones?"
So I thought that I had downloaded a pre-release of the new Built To Spill album. And indeed, it does have all the songs, and seems to be mastered and complete. The songs are classic Built To Spill, and I really like it. Except for one peculiarity:
 |
At sporadic times but roughly every thirty seconds, the album features guest vocals by rapper Mike Jones, singing his trademark line, "Who is Mike Jones!"
World's worst mash-up, or world's best copy protection? For instance, listen to the opening strains of "Wherever You Go," the fifth track on the album. I've sampled the first seven seconds for your convenience.
Two theories have been proposed to explain the presence of the singularly ridiculous rapper. 1) The band, knowing that the pre-release would leak, included Mike Jones as the world's most successful and innovative form of copyright protection. Their goal of copyright protection, however, is somewhat problematic since they almost certainly took the Mike Jones sample without his permission, thereby violating his copyright. So, explanation the next. 2) Whatever release crew did the rip and distributed it onto and throughout the internet, included the sample as a joke. However, this is problematic because no release crew would want their releases tainted, and therefore lose their hacker cred.
Either way, the album is very good. I'm afraid I might grow fond of this version of the album and come to miss the sample. It's comforting knowing that, whatever problems there are in the world, every thirty seconds, Mike Jones will be there to ask who he is. I can't wait to sing the new songs in the shower, "Who is Mike Jones" and all. And at the shows, I can't wait to hear this guy singing the Mike Jones part at all the appropriate times.
Anyway, congrats to Warner Brothers on the first form of digital rights management that I've ever known to work. It allows listeners to try out the album (and cross-promotes another "artist"), but is too annoying to keep them from buying it. Now if only the album cost $5 (which is the ideal price point for a musical album, in my view), they'd sell two million of these.
Posted by Barzelay at 1:48 PM | Comments (3)
February 27, 2006
Rap Battles for Lawsuits
 "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court?" |
Apparently, some Dutch drug czar type guy has recorded a rap song about the marijuana loophole where use is not a criminal activity. I propose we settle all our legal disputes the way the enlightened Dutch do.
It would probably solve the race gap in the legal profession. Not to mention that it would be hilarious if Eminem and Ludacris were some of our nation's best oral advocates. Here is a mirror of the mp3, and you can find the full lyrics on this page (about a fifth of the way down at time of posting). An excerpt follows.
Oh, and thanks to Aaron for the link (who really should have a blog).
In this land of the 16 million wise I ask: what are we trying to prove? The joint, da stickie, made use famous, but the negative sides are not mentioned...Even more planted under the light
So that backdoor stays closed tight!
Though the policy seems somewhat retard
On this one I am hard...
Posted by Barzelay at 10:06 PM | Comments (3)
February 21, 2006
President's Day Tidbits
 Cigar box label for Lincoln Cigars |
What a wondrous and ridiculous holiday. We've a ten day break (besides class Thursday) here at Georgetown Law due to the one-two punch of President's Day and a faculty retreat. In any case, Patently-O featured a post about the only patent ever received by a U.S. President. Abraham Lincoln apparently received a patent for what appears to be expandable ballast tanks on ships. Their post also features scans of the patent app.
Abraham Lincoln is the only U.S. President to have received a patent. His invention involved inflatable air chambers on a boat to help float the boat through low water or over sand bars.
Evidently, Abraham Lincoln was a very innovative man. At a mock trial competition two weeks ago, our judge told us a story (I can't confirm its veracity) about a particular trial practice of young Lincoln, when he was a trial lawyer. In those days, people regularly smoked inside buildings, and courtrooms were no exception. According to the story, Abraham Lincoln would insert a thin metal wire throughout the length of his cigars. Then during very important parts of his opposing counsel's case (opening and closing statements, cross examination of important witnesses, etc.), he would conspicuously take out a cigar and light it, and begin to smoke it. As he smoked the cigar, the hidden wire would prop up the ash on the end, so that it would not fall off. He would just keep smoking, and the ash would grow longer, and longer. The jury would apparently become so intrigued at the length of his ash, how it could possibly be hanging on, and when it would finally drop, that they would stop listening entirely to the other lawyer making his case.
Posted by Barzelay at 4:23 AM | Comments (0)
February 15, 2006
Lawyers In Love!
 |
Just what I've been waiting for! Lawyers In Love is a new online dating site just for people in the legal community. It caters to our particular needs, like partners who don't need us to actually spend time with them, and who are morally flexible. This is pretty hilarious.
The best part is the picture above. That's true love, man. When a lawyer is willing momentarily to tell someone to "Hang on a sec" in order to share a brief laugh and a moment of connection with another person, well... it just doesn't get any better than that. You can just see on his face that he wants to spend the rest of his life coming home to her late at night, if at all. I can't wait until I have a similar marriage of convenience and financial incorporation. If only SScafidi243 sends me a message, all my dreams will come true.
Lawyers in Love is the premier online dating site for single lawyers, law students, and legal professionals. If your schedule makes it difficult for you to meet people, if you are still working or during happy hours and other social events, if weekends are devoted to writing briefs or studying for your next law school exam, you will love this unique opportunity to find romance on the Web.
Via Law Geek.
Posted by Barzelay at 2:21 PM | Comments (1)
January 23, 2006
Crack Cocaine and the Snitch Bitch Hoes who interfere with distribution
Wow. I'm so glad things like this actually happen! Pay particular attention to Footnote #1. Tip from Jeanette.
U.S. v. Murphy, 406 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 2005).
We begin with the facts. Pamela Hayden agreed to become an informant for local law enforcement after being arrested on drug charges. In December of 2002, she made two controlled purchases of crack cocaine from Darron Murphy, Jr., which led to his arrest.On the evening of May 29, 2003, Hayden was smoking crack with three other folks at a trailer park home on Chain of Rocks Road in Granite City, Illinois, Murphy, Sr., who had sold drugs to Hayden several years earlier, showed up later that night. He was friendly at first, but he soon called Hayden a "snitch bitch hoe" [FN1] and hit her in the head with the back of his hand. He said he saw her name in discovery materials from his son's criminal case and that she was responsible for putting him in jail. He put a gun--a small chrome-plated one--to her head and said he was going to kill her for putting his son in jail. He said this would be her last night and her body would be found in a ditch. Murphy then placed several calls, telling Hayden he was calling his people to get someone to dispose of her car.
FN1. The trial transcript quotes Ms. Hayden as saying Murphy called her a snitch bitch "hoe." A "hoe," of course, is a tool used for weeding and gardening. We think the court reporter, unfamiliar with rap music (perhaps thankfully so), misunderstood Hayden's response. We have taken the liberty of changing "hoe" to "ho," a staple of rap music vernacular as, for example, when Ludacris raps "You doin' ho activities with ho tendencies."Baker, who dealt drugs for Murphy, eventually arrived. Murphy asked Hayden for her keys before eventually ordering her outside to retrieve them from her car. Once out of the trailer, Hayden tried to run away, but she was thwarted by Baker, who grabbed her right arm. Murphy again told Hayden to get her keys. When Hayden stalled, an impatient Murphy hit her with the butt of his gun, splitting open the top of her head. After struggling for a few more minutes, Hayden managed to get in her car and drive away. A sheriff's deputy discovered her at 4 a.m. She had a bleeding gash on her head and bruises on her arm.
Police later arrested Murphy outside his home and discovered that he was carrying crack cocaine. They also arrested Baker inside Murphy's home. A search of the home revealed more crack, a syringe, baking soda, a digital scale used for weighing narcotics, and firearms, including the small chrome-plated one identified by Ms. Hayden.
Posted by Barzelay at 12:03 AM | Comments (5)
December 12, 2005
What other purpose could 26(a)(1)(E)(vi) have?
Rule 26(a)(1)(E)(vi) of the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure seems to be in existence solely to scare law students. Fuck you, too, federal courts.
(E) The following categories are exempt from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1):...
(vi) an action by the United States to collect on a student loan guaranteed by the United States;"
Posted by Barzelay at 1:17 PM | Comments (0)
December 11, 2005
Dykes On Bikes Win!
Following up a previous post about the USPTO denying a trademark app for the Dykes On Bikes, they've won their appeal. From Jason Schultz at LawGeek, the Patent and Trademark Office considered a mass of evidence and testimony from linguists (cunning ones), sociologists, and psychologists attesting to the potential of an offensive word like "dykes" to be reclaimed by the group as a source of pride. And Vandy gets a shout-out.
Carolyn Dever, an associate professor of English and women's and gender studies at Vanderbilt University, compared the term to "queer.""'Dyke' has been claimed by lesbians as a term of pride and empowerment, as a sign of the refusal to be shamed or stigmatized by lesbian sexuality and social identity and as a symbol of unity within lesbian communities past, present and future," Dever wrote in her declaration.
The USPTO (and any government office) has no business judging obscenity and vulgarity, nor censoring or discriminating on the basis of those judgments. The sole domain of the trademark division of the USPTO should be to protect brand confusion. How does obscenity come into it?
Posted by Barzelay at 5:44 PM | Comments (4)
November 11, 2005
Boycott the Bluebook!
Fuck Legal Research & Writing. I have my in-class exam for it today (25%), after which I will be given my Fall Exam memo (75%). We won't even get assigned a grade for the course until the end of the spring semester. Ugh. So tired of studying for this stuff. It's all about legal writing conventions and citations to statutes and cases. Needed something to do to distract me briefly before continuing studies.
 |
So, I'm boycotting the Bluebook. You can have your Uniform System of Citation. I've got my own authority. Buy your Purplebook today. Purplebook: A Different System of Citation.
While speaking to a fellow student, it occurred to me how funny it would be if one were to re-bind one's Bluebook with a different cover, and then try to take it into the exam. I was picturing this debate with a proctor:
Proctor: "You can't be serious."
Me: "Why, whatever do you mean?"
Proctor: "Bluebooks only, sir. You can't take that in here. I'm sorry."
Me: "Why not? What's wrong with my Purplebook?"
Proctor: "I was just told that nothing but Bluebooks are allowed."
Me: "You're discriminating against my Purplebook! What do you have against purple?"
Proctor: "I don't have anything against purple."
Me: "I can't believe you support these Jim Crow citation laws!"
Proctor: "Hey, I'm just doing my job."
Me: "Calling it your job doesn't make it right!"
Oh, the things one does while procrastinating.
UPDATE: In contrast to the Bluebook, one of our other Legal Writing texts occasionally surprises with its wit. I ran across this little gem by Ray & Ramsfield, on using dashes in legal writing.
Dashes
The dash, the gigolo of the punctuation world, has its uses and its dangers. It intrigues the writer with its drama and its convenient ambiguity. Like a gigolo, however, its effectiveness is determined by the user's savoir faire and restraint. If you overuse the dash in legal writing, you run the risk of looking desparate.
Posted by Barzelay at 6:47 AM | Comments (3)
November 8, 2005
I've Been Summoned
 |
I got a jury duty notice in the mail today (or so I discovered from my father, and I relied on his email). He suggested I use some excuse to get out of it (like, for instance, that I'm out of the state).
you got a jury duty notice...I can open it and write in your DC address and tell them that you can't make it, or I could forward it to you, or do whatever you want. John got out of his by doing the former, and I learned that about 75% of them get ignored by the public. love ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It doesn't really matter because it's very unlikely that anyone would keep a law student on a jury. But I have a really big problem with people trying to get out of their jury duty.
Everyone of any intelligence, success, or means gets out of jury duty. This leads to all juries being full of underprivileged, uneducated, unintelligent people. Trials aren't fair that way. I know if I were on trial, I wouldn't want everyone in my jury to be ignorant, uneducated, jobless, and poor (especially if it were a criminal trial).
We've discussed this a bit in law school (well, in mock trial clinic, anyway). As a lawyer, your ideal jury is the dumbest and least-informed jury possible because they are the easiest to manipulate. But the dumbing down of juries is a major problem with our legal system. It really has created a regime where it is impossible for a large segment of the population to be tried by a jury of their peers, and impossible for anyone to be tried by a representative body.
So I'd like to perform my jury duty if at all possible. I'm going to try to get it re-scheduled. Please consider performing your jury duty when you, too, are called upon. It's necessary for the functioning of our legal system and our society.
Posted by Barzelay at 10:47 PM | Comments (9)
November 6, 2005
Which Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure Are You?
I know, I know. Law humor is so 1L.
YOU ARE RULE 20(a)!
You are Rule 20, an important part of the Federal
Rules' policy of permissive joinder. You are
designed specifically to allow as many parties
in an action as can be tried efficiently, and
you'll include someone as long as there is some
factual overlap between a claim involving them
and the rest of the case at hand. You are
popular, out-going, and are never far from
friends. However, your overly gregarious
nature and magnanimous approach do make things
a bit crowded--you're the reason that lawsuits
are often cluttered with innumerable parties
and even more numberous claims for relief.
Still, despite the crowds that you attract, you
can't argue with the efficiency of getting
everything done at once!
Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Posted by Barzelay at 7:09 PM | Comments (4)
November 4, 2005
The Court Can Be Funny
Check out these funny judicial opinions.
Law humor is so 1L.
Posted by Barzelay at 9:24 AM | Comments (1)
September 22, 2005
Consumers' Rights
UPDATE: Some of this turns out to be bad advice in light of the ability to contract out of UCC guarantees. It helps to finish one's Contracts class before providing amateur advice on contracts. Please read the comments, and remember that YMMV.
First, the disclaimer I am told I must provide when telling anyone anything that could be construed as legal advice: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Now, onto the meat:
BoingBoing posted a link to a blog entry by former MacUser UK Editor Ian Betteridge. His post is a review of the rights consumers have when the products they've bought don't work as desired, titled "What to do when a PC goes wrong."
It's an interesting read, especially for consumers in the UK. But the BoingBoing post doesn't mention that, in general, the same rights also apply in the US, albeit with different statutes supporting them. Though we lack some of the recent EU regulations that effectively guarantee all products for 2 years, we've got plenty of our own consumer protections.
»» Continue reading "Consumers' Rights"
Posted by Barzelay at 5:20 PM | Comments (28)
Authors Guild Sues Google Over Searchable Digital Library
The Authors Guild is suing Google over their Digital Library project, a massive undertaking that will scan and OCR texts from libraries. Google will then be able to provide a giant, searchable online library. Google will not show pages to users, only snippets so that users can then go to conventional sources to actually obtain the texts. In addition, Google will be providing University libraries with a digital archive of all of their texts, allowing them to provide works on e-reserve, etc.
Original BoingBoing story with updates, recent BoingBoing post with new developments and arguments from Jason Schulz and Cory Doctorow, NPR Story, Slashdot story, Jason Schulz of the EFF's original post about this.
The Authors Guild argues that they aren't being properly compensated. Jason Schulz points out the following analogy they use to make their point:
To endorse Google's library initiative is to say "it's OK to break into my house because you're going to clean my kitchen," said Sally Morris, chief executive of the U.K.-based Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. "Just because you do something that's not harmful or (is) beneficial doesn't make it legal."
He refers to it as "another inept physical property analogy." He's absolutely right about that. This whole thing points to the inadequacy of law to address change in technology. Law school, if anything, is showing me how slow the law is to address any sort of external or internal change. Current notions of property and licensing are no longer applicable to new situations. It's why the DMCA is so flawed, why record companies can sue for statutory damages of millions of dollars for sharing a few songs, and why everyone is now a criminal because of it.
We can't keep applying old doctrines to new technologies. Digital copies do not necessarily deprive the original owners of anything, and making something searchable is not just a fair use, but an actual improvement of the Authors Guild's products.
I wonder how long it will take for the venerable law to catch up. And furthermore, I wonder whether the old institution of common law (cases that interpret the laws) can ever evolve rapidly enough to keep up with the current pace of paradigm-changing technology.
I don't think it can. I think it will be ten years or so before statutory law can address new ideas about digital music, which is already a technology that is ten years old. Then it will be another ten years before common law can make any sense of the statutory law. By the time we can adequately address it, the tech world will have long since moved on (indeed, it already is). What do we do when the entire legal tradition of statutory interpretation by common law is no longer viable?
Posted by Barzelay at 5:00 PM | Comments (2)
July 27, 2005
Flex Your Rights... Just say "No" to searches
Everett posted about how ridiculous it is that New Yorkers are being searched on subways (his post was friends only). Here's a link to the Citizens guide to refusing New York subway searches.
This same page, FlexYourRights.org, also has a lot of other useful articles on how to survive police encounters:
- When the Police are at your door
- When police stop you on the street
- When a cop pulls you over in a traffic stop
And check out their frequently asked questions. There is a lot of important information on Flex Your Rights that my friends should heed, and it is contained in a few short articles. Read up.
Posted by Barzelay at 4:38 AM | Comments (13)
July 21, 2005
"Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"
- Some kooky Christian scientists (not scientologists) are raising cash from conservative "family" groups to fund studies they think will show that enjoying pornography causes brain damage. Everything we do alters the brain in some way, and Dr. Judith Reisman is trying to portray this as "damage." She's gone before Congress already, pitching her ideas.
They foresee two possible outcomes: if they can demonstrate that porn physically "damages " the brain, that might open the floodgates for "big tobacco"-style lawsuits against porn publishers and distributors; second, and more insidiously, if porn can be shown to "subvert cognition " and affect the parts of the brain involved in reasoning and speech, then "these toxic media should be legally outlawed, as is all other toxic waste, and eliminated from our societal structure."
The people at Mind Hacks take her claims apart a bit, saying:
Furthermore, she argues the damage could be so severe, that an affected person would not be rational enough to engage in 'free speech.'... One unmentioned implication is the fact that, if sexual arousal from pornography causes 'brain damage', then so will real-life sex!
- I don't even want to talk about the ESRB rescinding Grand Theft Auto's rating. It will now be considered an "Adult Only" title until the sex stuff is removed. This is understandable to me, though a bit silly. But what I would like to question is why, in the 21st century, if something is considered an "Adult" title, it can not be sold at most stores. This is the same as when a studio can't release an NC-17 movie (link about The Velvet Side Of Hell) because it won't be able to play in 99% of the theatres around. I don't have a problem with the idea of ratings (though I definitely have a problem with a lot of their criteria). But I think it is downright oppressive that companies refuse to show the stuff that's intended for adults. I really think we need to look at these policies and, for the sake of art and liberty, demand that theatres and stores not have policies against serious adult media.
Posted by Barzelay at 2:25 AM | Comments (16)
July 18, 2005
Dykes On Bikes Get Fucked
.jpg) |
Ever heard me ranting about how terrible the USPTO is? Well, here's another bit of evidence, via Jason's post on LawGeek, that has nothing to do with my other complaints (mostly patent-related). The patent office has rejected an application for a trademark for "Dykes On Bikes," finding it patently offensive. Is this phrase obviously offensive to everyone? Clearly not, if there are people wanting to refer to themselves this way. At least the internet isn't so oppressive. Also, here's a nice discussion on BoingBoing, and here is a real news article about it.
The Dykes on Bikes are a group of lesbian bikers who ride at the front of a lot of Pride parades, and have been doing so for many years. Their name is an example of a group taking ownership of a pejorative term (i.e. womyn calling themselves "cunts", black people calling themselves "niggers", etc.). The idea is that taking ownership of it, proudly claiming those terms, severly blunts their negative impact.
But the USPTO doesn't see that. Instead, it is obvious that they are moralizing here; there are lots of trademarks containing "nigga," one containing "nigger," and a ton containing "NWA" (not all of which are related to the rap group). The USPTO doesn't even require a member of the public to object to the mark, the decision was made by some application examiner.
"The examining attorney found it to be offensive to a significant portion of the lesbian community," said Jessie Roberts, a trademark administrator with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. "And we're also looking out for the sensitivities of the general public more than that of a specific applicant."
How do they know what's offensive to the gay community? Anyway, I find "Focus On The Family" offensive. Why should that be allowed to exist? Offense shouldn't be grounds for not granting a trademark, and even if it is, that decision shouldn't be made by a USPTO officer. Offensiveness is just too subjective and variant to rely on. And anyway, that has nothing to do with the purpose of trademarks, which is to protect consumers from brand confusion. In my mind, and though I'm not a rabid free-market advocate, the only solution to this problem lies in the market. If some business or group is offensive, don't patronize them. But we shouldn't not let them exist.
Posted by Barzelay at 4:38 AM | Comments (1)
July 12, 2005
Vandy gives up on Confederate thing
Well, so that's done. Vanderbilt loses, "Confederate" stays on facade. This issue has been beaten to death, but I can't not comment. I think the ruling was fair: leave the name or pay up. On the other hand, it would be rather crazy to tell a black person to go live in a dorm named "Confederate Memorial Hall." I've said before that I think the name should stay; why change history? And I don't mean the history of the Confederacy, I mean the history of Vanderbilt as a racist institution in the pocket of the Old South. To me, that's a better lesson, and the surprise of seeing that word in a place of glory provides such a contrast with normal expectations that every time people see that word it can remind them how far we've come. I'm usually against the idea of being "offended."
But if Vanderbilt really thinks it's a problem, the court has given them an easy, viable solution: Pay the money. $50,000 isn't that much to Vanderbilt. They probably spent that much on the legal fees for the lawsuit already. Just pay it and do what you want. Then everyone's legally satisfied, and you also demonstrate that the Confederate Memory no longer holds the power and financial sway to persuade schools to keep its glory alive against their ethical principles.
*UPDATE (07/13/2005 2:06PM): As Jacob pointed out in the comments, it was $50,000 adjusted for inflation, which is apparently now $700,000 or so. That's a bit different. Vandy would be insane to pay that much to remove the name. Leave it up for sure, and use it as a lesson.
Posted by Barzelay at 12:25 PM | Comments (3)
July 11, 2005
Links to things.
"That these people are, If necessary, prepared to spill Arab blood in addition to the blood of regular--of nonarab people living in London."
Posted by Barzelay at 1:45 AM | Comments (0)
July 6, 2005
Open wi-fi points not really so open?
Another impressive blunder for Tampa! The St Pete Times reports on a man arrested for using open wireless access point. He has admitted to using the connection, and so they're pinning him with "Unauthorized access to a computer network," a third degree felony. That's the same crime someone would get charged with for hacking into a CIA database. All for sitting outside someone's house in a van, surfing the web.
This is a point of law about which I am not ambivalent. This should not be a crime at all. Yes, he wasn't "authorized" to access that network. But neither do you have authorization to access my computer, and yet you are doing it right now to read this blog. The internet is based on an assumption of openness: if something is available on a computer somewhere, then people can access it unless you take steps to prevent their doing so. If we got rid of this principle, you would have to write by snail mail to every website owner in order to obtain permission to access his site before doing so. This principle of openness has been tested in court before where courts said people could not be prosecuted or called hackers merely for typing a web address into their browser and seeing the content at the address, even if the content owners never linked to it. Here's another article about why this must be the case, and this is a great comment on this specific case.
»» Continue reading "Open wi-fi points not really so open?"
Posted by Barzelay at 7:21 AM | Comments (2)
July 3, 2005
Photographer takes illicit picture of photogenic old man!
 |
Photographer Philip-Lorca diCorcia is being sued by an orthodox Jewish man whose picture he took somewhere on a New York street. The man was in public, and the shot was taken at a distance, so the man didn't know he was being photographed. Now the photographer has apparently sold "multiple prints at about $20,000 each," as well as selling several thousand copies of a book in which the picture appears. The man found out, and he's suing.
Now, aside from the question of why anyone would ever want to pay $20,000 for a print of any picture, let alone this extremely common one, what about the legal issues here? On the one hand, the guy was in public, and the shot was an artistic shot, not intended for commercial stock. On the other hand, do we each have ownership of our images, and the right to control profits from them?
»» Continue reading "Photographer takes illicit picture of photogenic old man!"
Posted by Barzelay at 4:42 AM | Comments (2)
June 28, 2005
The Ten Non-Demoninational Moral Commandments
I wrote this quick article for The Slant last night: The Ten Non-Demoninational Moral Commandments:
As dictated by divine revelation and the Establishment Clause, and in accordance with the Supreme Court's rulings on the display of the Ten Commandments by government, the following Ten Non-Denominational Commandments have been formulated to replace the original ten, while being more clearly of a historical and secular purpose:
»» Continue reading "The Ten Non-Demoninational Moral Commandments"
Posted by Barzelay at 9:12 PM | Comments (3)
AMD Files Antitrust Suit Against Intel
AMD has filed a law suit against Intel. They're totally right, of course. Intel, like any good company, has tried to increase their market share by "encouraging" business partners to go with them instead of their competitors. In some industries, it's easier to do this legally than in others. Unfortunately, Intel has continuously offered special pricing and other forms of payment to partners for buying exclusively from them. This suit will be very long and drawn out, and whatever agreement the government comes to with Intel if AMD wins will likely not do much to fix things (same as with Microsoft).
Posted by Barzelay at 4:21 PM | Comments (2)
Free Staters' seek revenge on Souter
Private developers have applied for eminent domain to build a hotel on the land where Justice David Souter's house is located. This is in response to Souter's opinion in support of the Supreme Court's eminent domain decision last week.
They are trying to open a hotel called the "The Lost Liberty Hotel," featuring the "Just Desserts Cafe." Each room will have a copy of Atlas Shrugged instead of the Gideon Bible. This is not a joke, they're actually trying to do it, and seeking funding from liberty advocates.
On the one hand, I love defiant stuff like this, and I love the irony. But aren't the libertarians a bit hypocritical opening up a hotel they know will not be financially independent or profitable?
Posted by Barzelay at 3:43 PM | Comments (0)
June 27, 2005
Supreme Court on Ten Commandments; Insert Charlton Heston Joke Here
Court rules Texas monument constitutional, Liberals Frustrated Over Court's Split Decision. One of the things (well, really, two of the things: McCreary v. ACLU on Kentucky postings, and Van Orden v. Perry on Texas monument) the court ruled on was the issue of public display of religious symbols. Since the court ruled on both cases today, and the two are so similar, the two separate decisions should have really clarified this issue. However, everyone is currently up in arms because of the inconsistency of the rulings. The Kentucky plaques were ruled unconstitutional, while the Texas monument was ruled constitutional. This contrast in rulings was partly due to the mobility of Sandra Day O'Connor, who, like the Supreme Court's local bag lady, neither has a home with the conservatives nor the liberals, though she's hated by the religious public due to her support of Roe v Wade.
Though the Court issued rulings that served to muddy the issue more than clarify it, it seems to me that this is the only possible way it could (and should) have gone. I agree with the majority opinion in the Kentucky case, and I agree with both the majority opinion and the minority opinion in the Texas case (and in cases of whether or not people are allowed to do things, I think we should generally err on the side of allowing them). In fact, independent of the law, the court made the rulings that I think ought to be made: I think the Texas monument should stand, while the framed copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky should not. Legally, it gets trickier, but I'd like to discuss the common sense argument.
»» Continue reading "Supreme Court on Ten Commandments; Insert Charlton Heston Joke Here"
Posted by Barzelay at 8:02 PM | Comments (0)
June 25, 2005
More flag-burning
The proposed flag-burning amendment would read, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." These pictures show a flagrant violation from the nation's top criminal.
See an interesting blog post from This Modern World, where they discuss the infeasability of a law banning flag-burning even if the amendment is passed.
Posted by Barzelay at 4:20 AM | Comments (2)
June 24, 2005
Porn Now Requires Record-Keeping
New policy threatens adult web content. This is just the latest in a long trend of laws, rulings, and opinions that shift the burden of responsibility for illegal and infringing media from the perpetrator to anyone who (even unknowingly) spreads the media.
It's the same with suing makers of p2p software for the infringement of their users. We need to re-expand our ideas of personal responsibility here. If individuals infringe on copyrights, or take pornographic pictures of seventeen year-olds, or link to content that some people don't want to get out, those individuals should be the ones responsible. They should be prosecuted. Not the people who provide a communication tool that happens to get used for improper things.
Of course, this sounds nice, right? The argument against this is that in the case of some types of infringing activity, it is extremely difficult and prohibitive to get the individuals who are actually responsible, so the only way to curb the problem is to go after the communication providers (ISPs, websites, software makers, forums). But that is entirely wrong-headed. If you can't get the people responsible, you don't go after the people who aren't responsible, you just try harder to get those responsible, and if you can't, then you let it go.
This is like many of the detainees at Gauntanamo Bay. They don't have evidence enough to charge them with anything, so instead of letting them go, they just hold them indefinitely. It's the opposite solution to the correct one. The old legal maxim that it's better to let a ten guilty men go free than let one innocent man be punished should still apply here, and it is still apt even when the ratio is much higher (though this links to a great column arguing the opposite).
Posted by Barzelay at 5:19 AM | Comments (0)
June 22, 2005
Flag-Burning Amendment
A proposed Constitutional amendment to ban burning of the American flag has passed the Republican-controlled House. Presumably, the flag-burning amendment will be shortly followed by the amendment mandating fag-burning, another major issue for the core GOP party members.
»» Continue reading "Flag-Burning Amendment"
Posted by Barzelay at 9:06 PM | Comments (0)
June 4, 2005
Proof of actual distribution required for infringement
Yay! A judge has found that simply offering copyrighted material to others doesn't mean you're distributing it. This means copyright holders must actually prove that someone downloaded copyrighted material from you before you can be held liable for infringement. Since it is much harder to prove someone actually downloaded something (although in the case of something like Napster, not all that hard), this makes their burden of proof much greater and protects scheisters like me.
Specifically, this ruling clarifies that my freshman year files-for-money scheme was entirely legal, although still an asshole thing to do. It worked like this:
I (as most of you know) have tons of files on my computer. Music, movies, programs, etc. These files are desirable to people. So, I set up an ftp server by which people could ostensibly log in and download my precious files.
Then I found a porn spam company who was willing to pay me $0.06 for every person who gave them their email address. So, I had visitors to my site go to that company's site and put their email in for porn spam before allowing them to get onto my server to download. At the time, FTP was a big deal, and so I got a lot of traffic. At one point I was making $300/week.
Now, what I just described is still entirely illegal. Here's the part that kept it legal, and made me an asshole: I set the maximum number of users on the account to 0. So, once someone gave their email address (and the spam company gave me six cents), they would try to log on and receive a message that said, "Too many users logged on at this time. Try again later."
So, no one could actually download anything, keeping my legal. No one ever paid anything to anyone, the spam company got their email addresses, I got money from the spam company, everyone was happy except for their slight hassle of their wasted minute and an increase in spam (until they unsubscribed, and unsubscribing in this case actually worked). It was quite a racket.
And now it's clear that Dean Brock Williams should not have forced me to stop it and told me if they ever caught me doing it again that I'd never again have access to university internet. I explained to him all about the legality of it and the cited the relevant laws and court cases, but he just couldn't tell how it could possibly be legal. I'm gonna find a better article about this from a more neutral source and then forward to him out of spite. Up yours, Brock.
Posted by Barzelay at 12:18 AM | Comments (0)
April 18, 2005
Caesar's Bath Meme
I've been spending a lot of time this weekend on Vanderblogs. It was Jacob Grier's idea, and I told him months ago that I'd make it, so I figured I'd finally get on that. Feel free to get on and check it out, submit your blog/livejournal, but with the understanding that you'll almost definitely have to resubmit it later once features are added and it goes live at www.vanderblogs.com. Jacob has the domain registered and hosting and all, so it shouldn't be too too long.
In other news, I've been memed (for epistomology, talk to Jacob). I got passed this meme by Meredith Gray, who got it from Mike Mott, who got it from Jacob Grier, and he got it from people I don't know.
Behold, the Caesar's Bath meme! List five things that people in your circle of friends or peer group are wild about, but you can't really understand the fuss over. To use the words of Caesar (from History of the World Part I), "Nice. Nice. Not thrilling . . . but nice."
Affirmative Action:
No matter how deeply I have embraced liberalism, I simply cannot get into this one of its tenets. It's not that I don't understand the idea, and it's not even that I don't agree that in the longterm it will help to even things out. I just don't think the present inequality and the decreased productivity that occur because of it at all levels of society are worth the results. I still think that in general, although obviously not all the time, the ambitious members of any class, race, or gender will succeed. I don't want to debate different definitions of success, and even if that's true, it isn't enough to justify my position. But I also think that the standard for how ambitious minorities have to be to succeed is lowering, and quickly. Not quickly enough for many people, myself included, but the aims of affirmative action are occurring anyway, and the negatives of affirmative action are, in my opinion, not worth it.
Million Dollar Baby
I thought this movie was crap. It was so sappy and silly while exploring nothing non-obvious in terms of emotion and psychology. I didn't even think it deserved to leap from Lifetime to the big screen, let alone be nominated for Best Picture. Ugh. Phantom Of The Opera also sucked, although thankfully that didn't get nominated for Best Picture. There were so many more-deserving movies this year that didn't get nominated:
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, The Machinist, Closer, Hotel Rwanda, Shaun Of The Dead, Love Me If You Dare, The Dreamers, Collateral, The Incredibles, Bad Education, The Motorcycle Diaries, Garden State, Kinsey, Love Actually...
Dark Tans
I'm just not into tans. Tan people look disgusting. I've only just started realizing this, but I actually tune people out visually who are very tan. I can see the same girl two days in a row, be totally attracted to her the first day then she gets a tan and be completely disgusted by her the second day. I'm not actively grossed out usually, but like I said, when I see tan people, I just don't even bother looking at them to see if they're otherwise attractive, because they can't be. And for this to be the case, they don't even have to be tan to the point of being leathery where people can generally agree that they're gross. My threshold is much lower. I just don't understand why people are into this. I *do* like when people are generally normal-colored but have a little sun to show they aren't vampires. For instance, my favorite feature on women is freckles. But who usually gets freckles? Fair-skinned girls. I'm not against people getting sun while being outside. But the purpose of being outside should not be getting sun.
Basketball
Only major sport that I never played as a kid. So, I always sucked at it, and hence, never played it and never improved. So I always sucked and never got into it. I scoff at your final four. Give me baseball, football, tennis, hockey, soccer, even cricket. A lot of readers of my livejournal don't know this: I'm secretly a huge sports fan. But basketball does about as much for me as my grandmother in a bathing suit.
Anime
Anime seriously sucks, with the exception of the few big arty ones that reach the mainstream. I liked Princess Mononoke a little, liked Spirited Away a lot. Vampire Hunter D and Bloodlust were also good. The rest are crap (and yes, I've seen every single one and am qualified to make that judgment and you all are obligated to believe me).
and a couple more, just for kicks:
Soutwestern Food
Chili's, Baja Fresh, Qdoba, Chipotle etc. Does not apply to strictly Mexican places.
Smoking
And this includes cigars, and even pot. Why doesn't everyone just take shrooms all the time?
Reality TV
UPDATE: I forgot to meme others. I pass this meme to Sarah, Claire, Christy, Chris, and Karen.
Posted by Barzelay at 6:18 AM | Comments (0)