Lady Gaga, herself essentially a parody of the music industry today
Either you don't understand Lady Gaga, the music industry, or the word "parody."
I have literally never heard anyone suggest she's a parody of the music industry today. She may be representative (I disagree on that) or something else, but a parody? Only if Madonna was a parody of 80s-00s music industry.
Law ain't cheaper to get into. An extra three years of school, an extra $150,000 in student loans, and only about a 10% chance of actually becoming one of those six-figure lawyers within five years of graduating.
They need to make it so prospective law students know becoming a rich lawyer is actually a long shot. It's a meme that lawyers are rich. They seldom are. And the ones who are typically work 70+ hour weeks for decades and take very few vacations.
Full loans for anyone majoring in engineering (or hard science or whatever) with complete (tax deductible) loan forgiveness if the person graduates with a 3.5 GPA, and a partial forgiveness on down to, say, 3.0. Maybe near-full for a 3.5 and full if you graduate top 10% of your class or something. Or maybe near-full for all that, and the final part is forgiven if you work as an engineer for two years or something.
Politicians talk a lot of crap about "we need more engineers," but the only way to get more is to make being one more attractive financially.
If I had been offered a full ride to do engineering, I probably wouldn't have bailed on it for math and then law.
Federal judges are not elected. This article is about federal judges. Accordingly, there should be no concern about giving election speeches from the bench.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but the constitution states the purpose of copyright law must be to promote the arts, so presumably, if it's not at all suitable for that purpose, it's unconstitutional. Or is that taking the constitution's wording too far?
You're right. I honestly don't know what the hell I was thinking when I said the Constitution explicitly references the definitiveness of copyright terms. I was, in short, being a big fuckup when I wrote that. Let's chalk it up to carb shortage--I'm a weightlifter trying out this thing called a Cyclic Ketogenic Diet and my mind isn't working very well in the mornings.:) But more likely, I was just being stupid.
If history repeats itself (which seems likely), the argument should carry somewhat more weight, though.
Maybe, but I'm still not too sure. As a former math guy, the difference between a finite number of finite retroactive extensions and indefinite extension is chasmous (casmotic?). I want a damn adjective form of "chasm," dammit!
On second thought, I don't think the Takings Clause argument would work. The Takings Clause deals specifically with a transfer of private property for public use. A public domain work is probably by definition not private property.
The closest analogue I can think of is if the Federal Government sold federal lands to a private individual. That would seem to indicate it's OK to take public lands and transfer them to private individuals. However, there is just compensation there, in that the taxpayers in theory now have a smaller national debt after the sale, so I don't know whether it's that this case is (Takings Clause relevant + just compensation-->OK) or (Takings Clause irrelevant-->OK).
To be fair, the Constitution only explicitly prohibits indefinite copyright. It's almost as equally far-fetched to equate "Congress has extended copyright length retroactively one time" with "Congress is establishing indefinite copyright terms."
And that's really the only constitutional argument to make, aside from maybe a Takings Clause argument. I can't remember if a Takings Clause argument has ever been made, though. A quick search on Google reveals a few random blog commenters suggesting it (along with some misunderstandings of the law, so I doubt they're lawyers), and a search on Google Scholar cases and legal journal articles reveals nothing.
So actually it might be a fruitful topic for legal scholarship. I should email a former copyright prof of mine and see what he thinks. Maybe I could make an article out of this. Even though it's a rather stale topic, since SCOTUS hasn't ruled on retroactive copyright in over a decade I think.
The transfers need to stimulate production of new works to have a net benefit, and extending copyright on existing works doesn't qualify.
The SCOTUS addressed this specific point (wrongly, IMO) in the last big retroactive-copyright case. The majority's response was "when someone makes a work, they do so with the knowledge their copyright may be retroactively extended. Accordingly, retroactive copyright does sometimes induce more creation."
Lessig did work as an elbow clerk for Posner on the 7th Circuit, and then Scalia on the Supreme Court. There are few people in this world who have a better understanding of how judges work than he, having spent two years working in chambers with them.
I myself clerked, and I learned a lot in the process (chief among them: most lawyers can't write for shit).
I asked Lawrence Lessig once about the case when he spoke at UT. He told me that before he went to the Court, he talked to my (pretty authoritative) constitutional law professor at UT, Sandy Levinson, about the case. Apparently down on Lessig's chances, Levinson asked him, rhetorically, how often in the history of the Supreme Court has it ever come down against the money side.
I don't think it's the SCOTUS intentionally deciding for the moneyed folks so much as the government doing so and the SCOTUS being hesitant to overturn many things Congress does without pretty clear reasons.
And the arguments in Lessig's case were, as you said, in the abstract.
No. The topic subtly became all intellectual property when his/.-parent or -grandparent started talking about the US economy being based on "intangibles." I doubt that copyright so outright dominates the calculation of intangibles that patents were not impliedly brought up by headkase or the poster above headkase in the tree.
I have befriended a number of people based on a common geek interest in my town. Within a year or so, I came to realize they're all fucking morons. They like this geeky thing, but have no logical reasoning capabilities, have almost no post-secondary education, and have menial jobs.
But I wouldn't really call it a rising trend so much as "geeky" things becoming mainstream: video games (Halo did this more than any other game, I think), sci-fi/fantasy (came about because of LotR), computers...
Everything that used to require you to be a nerd, too,* now only requires you be a geek.
* Full disclosure: I consider a nerd to be someone with depth and breadth of knowledge (which sort of implies a high degree of intelliigence), while I think a geek merely has depth. So you can "geek out" over one topic like video games, but unless you're actually an intelligent person, you aren't a nerd.
And yeah! this all sounds elitist, but I don't care. I used to befriend computer people and then happen to have conversations with them about number theory, geopolitics, whatever. Now there is no guarantee a "computer person" I befriend even knows what a kernel is.
Re:Inconsistencies with X3: Last Stand
on
X-Men: First Class
·
· Score: 1
So you're complaining about a lack of canon consistency? Welcome to comic book fandom!
Slashdot Mirror
Fixed that for you.
Yeah, eight or nine of the top ten universities in the world are remedial in nature.
You're confusing "open source" with "free/libre/free-as-in-freedom/Free."
"Open source" encompasses many things, and one of the things that falls under its umbrella is "source that is available to view."
Either you don't understand Lady Gaga, the music industry, or the word "parody."
I have literally never heard anyone suggest she's a parody of the music industry today. She may be representative (I disagree on that) or something else, but a parody? Only if Madonna was a parody of 80s-00s music industry.
Yeah, I'm guessing you don't live in the US...
As opposed to what? Rolling a new system that has ZERO userbase? Facebook is free for everyone; there are no barriers to participation.
Breaking news: Delta, Southwest, Continental, etc. are NOT commercial airlines because they only transport people!
I think the idea is that places without indoor plumbing could eat their own.
Law ain't cheaper to get into. An extra three years of school, an extra $150,000 in student loans, and only about a 10% chance of actually becoming one of those six-figure lawyers within five years of graduating.
They need to make it so prospective law students know becoming a rich lawyer is actually a long shot. It's a meme that lawyers are rich. They seldom are. And the ones who are typically work 70+ hour weeks for decades and take very few vacations.
Full loans for anyone majoring in engineering (or hard science or whatever) with complete (tax deductible) loan forgiveness if the person graduates with a 3.5 GPA, and a partial forgiveness on down to, say, 3.0. Maybe near-full for a 3.5 and full if you graduate top 10% of your class or something. Or maybe near-full for all that, and the final part is forgiven if you work as an engineer for two years or something.
Politicians talk a lot of crap about "we need more engineers," but the only way to get more is to make being one more attractive financially.
If I had been offered a full ride to do engineering, I probably wouldn't have bailed on it for math and then law.
Federal judges are not elected. This article is about federal judges. Accordingly, there should be no concern about giving election speeches from the bench.
To be fair, Article III federal judges are appointed for life terms. But your point is well-made anyway.
Well, I'm something of a copyright lawyer ;)
You're right. I honestly don't know what the hell I was thinking when I said the Constitution explicitly references the definitiveness of copyright terms. I was, in short, being a big fuckup when I wrote that. Let's chalk it up to carb shortage--I'm a weightlifter trying out this thing called a Cyclic Ketogenic Diet and my mind isn't working very well in the mornings. :) But more likely, I was just being stupid.
Maybe, but I'm still not too sure. As a former math guy, the difference between a finite number of finite retroactive extensions and indefinite extension is chasmous (casmotic?). I want a damn adjective form of "chasm," dammit!
On second thought, I don't think the Takings Clause argument would work. The Takings Clause deals specifically with a transfer of private property for public use. A public domain work is probably by definition not private property.
The closest analogue I can think of is if the Federal Government sold federal lands to a private individual. That would seem to indicate it's OK to take public lands and transfer them to private individuals. However, there is just compensation there, in that the taxpayers in theory now have a smaller national debt after the sale, so I don't know whether it's that this case is (Takings Clause relevant + just compensation-->OK) or (Takings Clause irrelevant-->OK).
To be fair, the Constitution only explicitly prohibits indefinite copyright. It's almost as equally far-fetched to equate "Congress has extended copyright length retroactively one time" with "Congress is establishing indefinite copyright terms."
And that's really the only constitutional argument to make, aside from maybe a Takings Clause argument. I can't remember if a Takings Clause argument has ever been made, though. A quick search on Google reveals a few random blog commenters suggesting it (along with some misunderstandings of the law, so I doubt they're lawyers), and a search on Google Scholar cases and legal journal articles reveals nothing.
So actually it might be a fruitful topic for legal scholarship. I should email a former copyright prof of mine and see what he thinks. Maybe I could make an article out of this. Even though it's a rather stale topic, since SCOTUS hasn't ruled on retroactive copyright in over a decade I think.
The SCOTUS addressed this specific point (wrongly, IMO) in the last big retroactive-copyright case. The majority's response was "when someone makes a work, they do so with the knowledge their copyright may be retroactively extended. Accordingly, retroactive copyright does sometimes induce more creation."
Lessig did work as an elbow clerk for Posner on the 7th Circuit, and then Scalia on the Supreme Court. There are few people in this world who have a better understanding of how judges work than he, having spent two years working in chambers with them.
I myself clerked, and I learned a lot in the process (chief among them: most lawyers can't write for shit).
I asked Lawrence Lessig once about the case when he spoke at UT. He told me that before he went to the Court, he talked to my (pretty authoritative) constitutional law professor at UT, Sandy Levinson, about the case. Apparently down on Lessig's chances, Levinson asked him, rhetorically, how often in the history of the Supreme Court has it ever come down against the money side.
I don't think it's the SCOTUS intentionally deciding for the moneyed folks so much as the government doing so and the SCOTUS being hesitant to overturn many things Congress does without pretty clear reasons.
And the arguments in Lessig's case were, as you said, in the abstract.
No. The topic subtly became all intellectual property when his /.-parent or -grandparent started talking about the US economy being based on "intangibles." I doubt that copyright so outright dominates the calculation of intangibles that patents were not impliedly brought up by headkase or the poster above headkase in the tree.
Yeah, hang on and let me put my 3GB movie file in the "sci-fi" "movie" "Peter Jackson" and "closeted-hobbits" folders and take up 12GB of space!
I think the guy you're responding to is pretty obviously referring to patent-related scarcity, not copyright-related scarcity.
I'd like to preëmptively point out that I'm not equating doing a menial job with being a moron.
I have befriended a number of people based on a common geek interest in my town. Within a year or so, I came to realize they're all fucking morons. They like this geeky thing, but have no logical reasoning capabilities, have almost no post-secondary education, and have menial jobs.
But I wouldn't really call it a rising trend so much as "geeky" things becoming mainstream: video games (Halo did this more than any other game, I think), sci-fi/fantasy (came about because of LotR), computers...
Everything that used to require you to be a nerd, too,* now only requires you be a geek.
* Full disclosure: I consider a nerd to be someone with depth and breadth of knowledge (which sort of implies a high degree of intelliigence), while I think a geek merely has depth. So you can "geek out" over one topic like video games, but unless you're actually an intelligent person, you aren't a nerd.
And yeah! this all sounds elitist, but I don't care. I used to befriend computer people and then happen to have conversations with them about number theory, geopolitics, whatever. Now there is no guarantee a "computer person" I befriend even knows what a kernel is.
So you're complaining about a lack of canon consistency? Welcome to comic book fandom!