Is Betamax Buried?

The Supreme Court has ruled. Internet file-sharing companies may be sued if they encourage illegal activity. Necessarily, such a finding of encouragement is a question of fact for a jury to decide.

"'We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties,' Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court."


It is a great victory for Hollywood, but it's not a total victory. The question now becomes whether or not the RIAA et. al., can drive all of the P2P providers out of business. There are packages that exist which are extremely hard to police (ICQ and mIRC come to mind). And those packages are completely neutral as to advertising and/or content. It makes me wonder where this will all go.


As soon as I've read the opinion, I'll have more comment.


UPDATE:

From the opinion:

"Evidence of active steps . . . taken to encourage direct infringement, such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use, show an affirmative intent that the product be used to infringe, and a showing that infringement was encouraged overcomes the law's reluctance to find liability when a defendant merely sells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use..."


Soooo. Even though there was similar evidence in the Betamax case (the Court even discusses Sony's trumpeting the virtues of building "your own library of your favorite shows") SCOTUS declines to draw the parallels.

They have dealt a blow to innovation this day.




Thanks to Ernest Miller for links to the bench opinion.



UPDATE #2:

I forgot to answer my title question: Is Betamax Buried?

Answer: No, but the hole's been dug, it's teetering on the edge, and lots of corporations are set for a big push.

Home is Where the Home Depot Is

Well, folks, the Supreme Court announced today that there's nothing stopping your local government from taking your property and shuffling it off to a private developer for the purpose of bolstering the economy and increasing tax revenues.

I haven't seen the opinion yet, since the slip opinion hasn't been posted and won't until later in the day.


Let me just say that I'm disgusted by this ruling. The takings clause has traditionally been interpreted to mean that private property may only be "taken" for public use. Five members of our Supreme Court have apparently determined that, even if the "use" is private, it's still okay as long as there's some demonstrable benefit to the community.

Ooooh how I wish I were on the City Council of the town in which John Paul Stevens lives. I'd "pave paradise, and put up a parking lot," quicker than you can say, "Get off the Court you old fascist!"


More later.

UPDATE:

I've read the opinion, and here's my take.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government."

--John Paul Stevens

Essentially, what they're saying is that because the City of New London "carefully considered" its economic development plan, and because we don't quite know yet which corporate giants will be benefitting from it, they can take whatever they want to as long as it fits into that plan.

They continue the idiotic assumption that "public use" means "public purpose," which is contrary to the ideals upon which our conception of private property is based.

Accordingly, they reject the argument that the government must show a "reasonable certainty that the expected public benefits will actually accrue." Meaning, if your city says that they want to take your property for "economic development," they may do so without even being required to show a likelihood that a developer will even be interested in the property.

"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power." Actually, their opinion gives government the moon, the stars, and the kitchen sink, unless they themselves choose to limit that right.

Start lobbying your state legislatures, people, 'cause that's the only way to stop this wholesale theft and corporate welfare.



From the dissent:

"Today the court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power [that government may not take property from A to give it to B]. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded -- i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public -- in the process."

"To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property -- and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

" [W]ere the political branches the sole arbiters of the public-private distinction, the Public Use Clause would amount to little more than hortatory fluff."

-- Justice O'Connor

What else can be said? Nobody's property is safe anymore.



UPDATE #2:

"This is not a prank."

I certainly hope that the above-linked individual didn't get his idea from me. What am I saying? Of course I hope he read it here first. Still, I must admit that my comment about Justice Stevens' house was tongue-in-cheek.

The reason being that, in the Kelo opinion, there is plenty of discussion of the illegality of the use of the eminent domain power (enough "of"'s already!), when it's being used vindictively against a specific person or group of people. Such as, a case of the City of Weare, New Hampshire attempting to oust a Supreme Court Justice from his home.

Further, the opinion discusses the comparable illegality involved when the private party to be benefited by the taking is already known. Such as, a case where a private developer actively petitions the Council for the use of eminent domain.

Both of those things above apply to Freestar Media, L.L.C.'s attempt.

That's why, in my original post here, I stated my wish that I were a member of the City Council of Stevens' hometown. In that case, I could "carefully develop" a plan for "economic development" that just happened to include Stevens' house, and the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to second-guess me.



A brilliant plan, and a fond wish, but then some yahoo from New Hampshire had to go and ruin it.

Creepy.

I just can't help myself. I've got to say something.

Michael Jackson has been found "not guilty" of all charges. Okay.

But comparing the verdict to the collapse of the Berlin Wall? Or Nelson Mandela (which seems to be a common comparison)?

Come on, people! I know Letterman's been having a field day with referring to Jackson as "creepy." Heck, who are we to argue with that? The guy's obviously loonier than a run-over dog.

But you know what scares me?

It's not the jury, who I think made the only decision they could make for our system of justice to retain any integrity. It's not the prosecutors, who had little to work with, and an apparent inability to argue anything remotely resembling good law. It's not the defense attorneys, either, who, after all, were only doing their job.

It's those fans.

Those unbelievable, mouth-breathing, died-in-the-wool followers of the Cult of Jackson. The comparisons made on his website are only the tip of the iceberg. These people seem like they'd gladly drink the kool-aid of Michael Jackson's insanity, if only he'd allow them to gaze for a moment upon his image.

It will forever puzzlie me how a celebrity can command such blind devotion from his/her fans. I mean, even the jurors said that they were convinced he'd molested children before, just not this particular kid (which is why I said they made the only decision they could make).

So the question is, what's it going to take to turn these people off? What's Jackson going to have to do in order for these people to realize that he's drawn them into the World of Creep so deeply that they, probably literally, stink from it?


I hope they wake up soon.

Really.

Supreme Court says, "No Weed for You!"

Today, SCOTUS released an opinion stating that it's A-ok for federal authorities to prosecute people who smoke weed for medicinal purposes under the advice of a physician.

The interesting thing is that the 6-3 decision was written by Stevens, with O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissenting. They argue that states should be able to make their own rules on such matters, since they do not implicate interstate commerce in any way.

Who'da thunk it?

Now, I'm as against drug-use as the next conservative thug, but come on, people! I know all the arguments against giving certain people "a pass" on drug laws, but let's think about this seriously for a minute...

Since I agree with Sandy, Billy, and Clarence that the feds should keep their noses out of the states' legitimate business, I obviously wouldn't begrudge these people being able to take advantage of their states' political processes. Which is what they're doing!!!

Hello? Mr. Justice Stevens?!!? Anyone home?

Stevens gives us the tired-old, "If you don't like the law, yada yada yada, you should work within the law to change it, yada yada yada."

But they do like the law, and that's why they argued against you changing it, Johnny.


Why can't the Supreme Court get their black-robed federal elitism out of my state's political process?


One thing about this decision is going to be interesting, though. It certainly shows the liberals on the court to be against states' rights at all costs, especially since the states with medicinal marijuana statutes are traditionally liberal bastions. It's going to be great watching how this is spun by the left.

Unless they just ignore it.

Will Video Games Ever Be The Same??!!!?? The Horror!

I'm not much of a gamer. I haven't bought a new video game since I spent $20 on a used copy of Silent Hill for the original PlayStation. I haven't played any of those games in 3 years. So, I may not be much of an authority on the subject,... but that's never stopped me before.

There's a new furor from, you guessed it, the actors' unions. This time it's about whether or not "voice actors" should get a percentage of profits from video game sales.

Well, anyone can see that they absolutely, without a doubt, should be paid in line with their abilities. I mean, c'mon, it's hard, grueling work to sit in front of a microphone for literally minutes a day, repeating lines like "Die, Alien scum," or "We've tracked the evil villain Prozac to the planet Ambien. Go get 'em, tiger." Sometimes they even run out of throat-soothing water, and must wait, actually wait, for some pimply-faced intern to bring them a re-fill.

Oh, the humanity!

I really like the quote in the article from the rep for the gaming industry:

"The union's demand for an equity stake, or residual structure, is unreasonable and not fair to the hundreds of people who often spend years developing a game," Howard Fabrick, an attorney representing publishers in the talks, said in a statement. "Voiceover work represents a small fraction of a video game's development and consumer enjoyment."

Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Well, certainly not for the actors. They're already not satisfied with making only infinitely more money than the "hundreds of people" who develop movies or television shows; so why in heaven's name should we expect them to demand any less for their minimal efforts in the gaming world?

Why do we even put up with such garbage?



I know. Let's socialize the entertainment industry. How does the following sound?

From each according to his overly-inflated sense of ability; to each according to his actual, not imagined, need.

Sounds great, huh? We'll do an experiment in the entertainment industry, and see if the results can be translated throughout humanity. We take all of the gross earnings from every entertainment venture, and divide them equally among the people involved in the entertainment industry. That'd be fair, right?

I certainly think so.


See you all later. I'm going to go dust off my PlayStation so I can see if it's worth writing to the game's makers to demand that they give more money to the label-printer-guy.

Open Letter to Motley Crue

Dear Motley Crue,

I recently read of the detestable behavior exhibited by NBC regarding the utterance of an expletive by your front-man Vince Neil.

I must say that I am appalled.

OK, well, not really.

I've got some questions for you, though.

1. How do you expect the sales of your new (and undoubtedly mediocre) album to go now?
2. How did you expect the sales to go before you pulled off this unbelievably juvenile publicity stunt?
3. Don't you think another Tommy Lee "video" would have been a more profitable way to go?
4. Where did you find your lawyer?
5. Seriously, he came to you, right?
6. No, really, he is a lawyer, isn't he?
7. I'm sorry. Back to the topic. Any other lawsuits in mind? I mean, you've been grievously wronged before, right? Like by whomever's been doing your hair?
8. Or by your tailors?
9. Your schoolteachers?
10. Your parents? Aunts? Uncles? Cousins?


To Mr. Sixx (I feel silly even typing that), I would direct a specific question. When you said you were being "discriminated" against, did you mean because you are a washed-up 80's-era scream-band, and the networks don't have any respect for you anymore? Or are you a member of some other minority group of which we're not aware?

Did you ever stop and think that maybe it's because NBC believes that Mr. Neil (giggle) simply can't keep it clean?

How about this. Why don't you own up to your actions, and take the consequences? That'd be a wonderful idea, wouldn't it? Seriously, I wouldn't suggest that such an illustrious hairband as yourselves has any dignity left to salvage, but c'mon, guys, take one for the team.



Or don't. I don't really care, I just wanted to rant.

In closing, I'll say this. Vince, good luck with the wine. Not so much with the whine.

Local Paper Weighs in on Minutemen

My local rag (it's sounds like I'm claiming it, but really, I'm not), the Odessa American, released an editorial today weighing in on the Minutemen down in Arizona.

The grand paragons of journalistic truancy first discuss a Chicago Tribune article chronicling the exploits of one Minutemen group on their first night of "patrol." Apparently, a rumor flew that the Mara Salvatrucha 13 gang was planning to attack the Minutemen under the cover of a moonless night. What happened after that, the OA says, made the Minutemen look like "Keystone Kops."

The OA editors make assumptions that the Minutemen "high-tailed it out of there," despite the Chicago Tribune article making it apparent that the only definite place they "high-tailed it" to was a Minutemen command post.

They follow with a "discussion" about how dangerous it would be to have armed citizens patrolling our Texas borders. This also, despite repeated assertions by Minutmen directors that if conflict arises, they are not to engage. The OA, along with most other "media" outlets, are painting the Minutemen as yahoos and "neophyte warriors," in complete contradiction to the Minutemen's stated goals.

It's interesting to note, also, that the Odessa American considers the current problem of illegal immigrants on welfare as "dreamed up," and "paranoia."

Their main point, though, is that the Minutemen are unnecessary. They believe that the Border Patrol is adequately equipped, staffed, and trained to handle the flood of illegal immigration.

The OA's final two paragraphs:

"Illegal immigration should be addressed, but it should be left up to people who are trained and who know the terrain and, most importantly, the rights of those they might catch crossing illegally as well as everybody else who lives near the area. "

"The Minutemen’s statement has been made. Now, for the safety of all involved, they should go home and leave the delicate and complicated job of patrolling our borders to members of the Border Patrol, who actually know what they’re doing. "


I suppose, then, that the ever-so-enlightened editors of Odessa's daily don't like citizen enforcement of laws. They must know, although they do not mention, that the Minutemen are breaking no laws, nor are they seeking to actively detain illegal immigrants. Despite the media's assertions that the numbers reported by the Minutemen are unsubstantiated, it is obvious that present patrols will observe and report at least some illegal immigrants who would not otherwise have been caught.

But, I guess we should abandon any effort to make sure our laws are enforced. Illegal immigrants are costing this country approximately $60 Billion a year. Big whoop. Write it off, I guess.

Are you kidding me?

Does that mean we should discontinue all of the neighborhood watch organizations and "take back the streets" initiatives that have been so successful in reducing crime in this country?

According to the OA's half-witted knuckleheads, we should. We should leave such patrols to the police who "know what they're doing," instead of taking an active role to reduce crime.


Final Word: If you believe as the OA Editors do, you must not take steps to enforce the laws of your country, state, county, or city. If you do, despite the fact that you break no laws in doing so, you are a "Vigilante."

All you neighborhood watch programs out there? You're "Keystone Kops."


The real solution is that we find the vending machine from which the OA editors received their journalistic degrees and/or credentials, and shut it down.

Once and for all.

Will Betamax Be Buried?

In 1984, the Motion Picture Association of America went to war with innovators, suing Sony over the sale of the video-tape-recording "Betamax" machine. This was due to the fact that the machines were capable of, and were being used to, illegally pirate copyrighted material.

The Supreme Court said that, because the videotape recorders were capable of substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., home-movies, recording televisions shows for later viewing, or "time shifting," etc.) the makers of those machines were not liable for copyright infringement.

Well, since then, the Betamax has gone the way of the dinosaur, but the continuing consumer demand for newer, better, faster, and more efficient ways to stock their video and music libraries has recently exploded. It began anew in 2001, when the 9th Circuit heard the Napster case, and muddied the waters significantly.

Still, with the Betamax ruling in full force, technology marches on. Armed with the Supreme Court's language, file-sharing megafirms re-vamped their formats to allow not only the sharing of music files, but also photos, texts, and video files. These re-workings significantly broadened the "substantial non-infringing uses" engaged in by users of the sites.

"Not good enough," say the Recording Industry Artists of America (among many others).

The Supreme Court will revisit the Betamax case when it issues an opinion in the case of MGM Studios v. Grokster.

My opinion:

While I believe the Supreme Court will, through its well-known artful torture of the English language, find in favor of the price-gougers over the file-stealers (in a lesser-of-evils dance); I certainly hope that they do not. Established precedent (Betamax) says that if a technology is capable of the promulgation of legal materials, the creators of that technology will not be held liable for those who use it illegally.

It's a wonderful thing, really. I don't condone the practice of indiscriminately downloading tens, hundreds, even thousands of copyrighted files without paying the owners. Still, I don't think the problem's going to go away. Despite the proliferation and popularity of the new pay-per-download sites (like the reconditioned Napster), I think people are simply tired of paying outrageous prices for music and movies, just so that J-Lo can have a new Escalade every other day.

It should have served notice on the music/movie-makers long ago. The market will dictate prices, and when you engage in serious price-fixing, the public isn't going to stand for it. This hole was not dug by devious computer nerds, hoping to cash-in on advertising revenue.

It was dug by money-hungry corporations who have no respect for those who give them their money.

I know, I know. If Grokster gets off the hook, the music and movie industry will simply go after grandma again. I'd rather see that happen, though, than a Supreme Court mandated stranglehold on the free exchange of ideas.

Home Improvement Idiocy

My wife's a big fan of those newdesign shows on TLC, HGTV, etc., and I must admit that I've grown a little addicted to them myself. Okay, so most of the time I'm watching to see people's reactions when some overzealous pseudo-designer turns their beloved family room into a 1960's love-den; but sometimes it's great fun!

Pseudo-designer: "Do you like what I've done with your space?"
Homeowner: "AAAAAAarrrrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhhhhh!!!"
Pseudo-designer: "I just knew you'd love it. Look, America, they're speechless!"


That brings me to my main point, though.

What's with all of the rooms in a house being referred to as "spaces" now? It's no longer a "living room," but a "living space." A bedroom is apparently a "sleeping space." A kitchen is, depending upon the layout, a "cooking" and/or "eating space." We won't go into what a bathroom is, but I've gotta tell you this is my biggest current TV pet-peeve. Really. I'm not kidding.

They're ROOMS, already. They started out as rooms, and no matter what you do to them, they'll still be rooms. Not "spaces." Never "spaces."

If I ever hire a designer to re-design a room in my home, and he/she comes in and says, "So, what are you looking for in this space?" So help me, I'm gonna punch them in the face. And have my oldest daughter kick them in the shins.

And throw them out on the street.

And film the whole thing.

As notice to the world.

Another Death Knell

This one announced by Sam Donaldson.

Yes, folks, broadcast news is either dead or dying, depending upon which overpaid mouthpiece you choose to believe.

Personally, I'm not so sure it's a bad thing. I haven't watched any news on television for some years now. (Although I must admit to an almost morbid fascination with the world's reactions to Pope John Paul II's then-declining health).

So, I suppose the question then is, where do we hold the funeral?

I vote for my blog. I promise, once reports of the death of broadcast news are substantiated, I'll deliver a stunning eulogy. I promise not to talk trash, really I do. It'll be sort of a pop-culture, transcribed media montage a la "Newsies, we hardly knew ye."

Okay, so there's another question. What do we do about it? Should we re-make broadcast news in our own (i.e., Bloggers) image? I don't think so. Could you imagine tens of thousands of people converging on the airwaves, each trying in vain to develop their own sufficiently serious that's-the-way-it-is style taglines?

I shudder at the mere thought of it.

I suppose all we can do is just wait and see.

In the meantime, Mr. Donaldson, I've got an opening for the position of "Contributor" to the Blaggle Universe. The pay really sucks, but hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.


R.I.P.

Your Info Is Not Safe

Lexis-Nexis, a grand and wonderful information-gathering system that I made much use of during law-school, has been falling asleep on the job.

What's more valuable these days than information? Nothing, and that's why companies like Lexis (Reed-Elsevier) and Westlaw (Thompson West) are pulling in huge numbers every year.

Problem is, they're not protecting what they're gathering. Well, maybe Westlaw is, but Lexis certainly isn't. They recently announced that the personal information compiled or gathered on 310,000 people has been stolen over the last couple of months.

What does this mean to you? Well, Lexis-Nexis is an information clearing-house. From the article:

Seisint [a "unit" of Lexis-Nexis], based in Boca Raton, Florida, uses property records and other public
data to build profiles on millions of U.S. consumers, which it sells to
law-enforcement agencies and financial institutions. (Additional reporting by
Adam Pasick in London)

Scary, isn't it? When you read the linked article, hopefully you didn't skip over the part about "a rash of similar break-ins at other companies handling consumer data."

Check your credit reports every year, people.

My Thoughts on the Schiavo Case

Would I really be able to call myself a "blogger on the law" if I didn't make some comment on this issue? No? Okay, here goes.


I'm a conservative. Really, I am. I just don't get it, though, why most of my conservative brethren (and sisteren, for that matter) are getting all in an uproar about this Schiavo case. We, as conservatives, are supposed to care about the rule of law, aren't we?

The law in this case, despite the wranglings by our U.S. Congress, places the responsibility for such determinations on the state courts. The ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Cruzan v. Director, MDH clearly stated that the previously stated wishes of an person, now incompetent, may be carried out by a surrogate if those wishes are proven in state court by "clear and convincing evidence."

That standard, "clear and convincing," is not for public opinion to decide. It is for the courts, and the courts alone. The Florida Supreme Court itself, in In Re Guardianship of Browning, clearly showed its support of SCOTUS' Cruzan decision, and even went so far as to broaden the scope of the holding, by making it clear that, in the case of an incompetent person, the surrogate may act without court intervention.

If such action is challenged, as it has been in the Schiavo case, that's when the clear and convincing standard comes into play.

I can't begin to understand what the parties in this case are going through. What's different between me and my conservative colleagues is that I don't pretend to.

We hear constantly on conservative talk radio how "evil" Mr. Schiavo is. He's compared to Hitler, the anti-christ, etc. But none of the people making these claims, despite their volume, have any idea what his motives are in doing what he's doing. They say that he has every opportunity to walk away, and leave her to the care of her family, and thus it points to some malicious motive that he does not do so.

I would posit that it's equally likely he's simply fighting, to the bitter end, to carry out his wife's wishes as they were explained to him earlier.

I won't for one second advance such a claim as the God's-honest truth, because I can't. Only Mr. Schiavo knows for sure.

My prayers go out to him, to the Schindlers, and, most importantly, to Terri.

An Aside: or, For the Benefit of Brent

Since I've been so recently told that my blog is suffering from a sincere lack of public substance (a la no Brad & Jen references), I decided to speak out on an issue of critical societal importance. This particular post will, hopefully, revolutionize the way we look at a service we all utilize on a regular basis.

Restaurants.

I offer these little tidbits to any restaurateurs who may be listening, and to all of you who care about the state of our eating establishments both locally and state-wide.

Rant #1:

Miracle Whip is not Mayo, and vice versa. If I say I want Mayo one more time, and get Miracle Whip instead, I believe I might just have to take matters into my own hands.

...

Actually, that's all I got.


But that Miracle Whip thing really pisses me off.

More substance later, I promise.

SCOTUS Oversteps... Again

SCOTUS decided today that minors may not be executed any longer. Basing its decision upon an illusory "national consensus," it said that severity of the crime no longer matters, nor does the jury's ability to weigh evidence at the punishment phase of a trial. It's a free ride, youngsters! Since the death penalty had no appreciable deterrent effect upon you before, you don't have to worry about it at all any more.

O'Connor makes the best argument, that you can't arbitrarily exclude an entire class of people from the application of the death penalty based solely upon a subjective reason. What's next? If someone made an argument that white people are traditionally less likely to resist peer pressure, or that women don't normally see themselves in a class that traditionally is punished severely for their crimes, they shouldn't have the death penalty applied to them, either?

It's ridiculous. O'Connor's right. The reason for the death penalty being so rarely applied to juveniles is not because people are loath to do it, but because juveniles so rarely engage in criminal acts of a sufficiently depraved nature to warrant its application. It's a chipping away at the basis of the death penalty by means other than the process by which such laws should be changed.

Every time the courts start acting as moral arbiters, and we allow it, we are doing nothing more than setting the stage for a ramming of the morality of the few down the throats of the morality of the many, or vice-versa.

SCOTUS shouldn't concern itself with why people do what they do. The process is there, and may be utilized by everyone, to prove mitigating factors denying the application of the death penalty in any case. For SCOTUS to step in and simply announce that a penalty that it itself has deemed to be neither cruel nor unusual no longer applies to an entire class of people. It's simply age discrimination by the highest court in the land. And it's also one of the worst examples of legislation by judicial fiat that I've seen in quite some time.

"Death Knell for Reality Television" (?)

I was just reading a book (remember that, people?), when I glanced up long enough to see the cast of Desperate Housewives accepting some award from the Screen Actor's Guild.

Some expertly coiffed Ken-doll accepted the award and said something to the effect of, "Here's to this award sounding the death knell for reality television."

I could honestly, hardly believe my ears.

Aside from the fact that the Screen Actors Guild is one of the tightest "labor" unions in the country, I just can't muster up any sympathy. Really. It's not that I don't admire the work that many actors do. I have family in the profession, and believe me, I couldn't do what they do.

It doesn't change for one second that this group of people are the most self-congratulatory bunch of glad-handing back-patters on the face of this planet. Honestly, any given week will find some awards show devoted to beautifully dolled, impeccably tailored, red-carpet-trodders who seem to have nothing better to do than announce to the world how wonderful they are.

Let's put that aside for the moment, and address the subject of "reality television." We all understand that a reality TV show can be fully funded and expertly shot for a fraction of the cost of a series (or even a miniseries). Is that a bad thing? The public love these shows. There are new ones coming out all the time, and the ones that make the cut, last, those that don't, don't. We still have Survivor and The Amazing Race, two wonderful examples of the staying power of "reality television."

But no, because SAG doesn't get to demand massive amounts of money (a la Friends cast) for the participants of these shows, they simply must be an evil to be eradicated. My question is, Why now?

Why wasn't Cops a problem? Or America's Most Wanted? Or America's Funniest Home Videos? Or Jerry Springer? Jenny Jones? The People's Court? Or, heaven forbid, Oprah?

I'll tell you why. Because nobody watched(es) the first 3. Numbers 4 and 5 were a flash in the pan that lasted longer than anyone ever thought they would. Number 6 had Judge Wapner (and everbody loved Judge Wapner;-). And Oprah, dear Oprah, has so much of America's fairer sex in her pocket that the promotional value of appearing on her show would be enough to propel a modest entertainment venture into the arena of the blockbuster.

Now, there's real competition. Competition that doesn't, in any way, allow the overpaid SAG-masses to get their paws on it. Competition that is eating up market share like Microsoft Windows on a steroid coctail. SAG's gonna have to learn something, and they need to learn it fast. For all their high-minded, red-ribbons-will-make-it-better mentality, they're becoming less relevant. They are removing themselves from the "common man/woman" that the liberal ideals (that actors profess to cherish) hold at the center of their reason for being.

I don't have any links. I'm sure there'll be no story. In the long run, who cares?

I suppose that SAG cares. I suppose that Ken-doll (among others) will continue his crusade against the evil forces of "reality television." I suppose that he may have a chance of one day succeeding, too.

But you know, for that to happen, I think the first reality television that hits the chopping block should be the glitz, glamour, style, fashion, fawning, and ferality that are the original reality shows.

The Oscars alone has been televised since 1953.





Thank you, and good night. I see the music has started.

Sigh.

Who's Next?

I promise I'm not trying to be a vulture here. The fact of the matter is that Rehnquist's days on the Supreme Court are numbered. He's already sitting out cases, something we'd like to hope our nation's highest-ranking judge won't do. I understand that it's because he's receiving treatment for cancer, but how long can we expect him to hold on?

The fact is, his illness and absence from the Court are causing some cases to go unheard. While that's never a good thing, considering the debate over Federal sentencing guidelines that has been raging lately, it's downright horrible.

So, my question is, who's next?

There's been much foofaraw about Thomas, what with our new Senate Minority Leader assaulting his record on the Court. Later, Reid allows as how he thinks Scalia might be in line for the top spot.

What?

Scalia? The guy the left has been crowing about for years? Very interesting, really. Actually, Rick Hasen makes a good case for why Scalia may be the best choice for the left.

Who'll it be? We wait with baited breath to find out.

The TaxMan (er, or Somebody) Cometh

So, now we've got a situation in which the IRS may be allowed to contract with private debt collection firms. No, really. The same people who call you at all hours of the day or night to get your money for Citibank et. al., will be calling you to collect Uncle Sam's dime. Indeed, the IRS hopes to be able to outsource collection of up to 2.6Million tax debts to private firms.

Thing is, they'll get to keep up to 25% of what they collect.

Great. What this means is that, because of the huge amount of people who owe money to the IRS, these firms will be inundated with collection contracts. And because of the grand rate they'll be offered by the Feds, they'll be pulling out all the stops to get you, unwary citizen, to pay up.

The IRS will retain its audit authority, and the one textual bright spot in this is that these firms will only get your address, telephone number, and the amount of your debt (the same thing they'd get from a credit card company). They apparently will not have access to your tax documents. Whew!

I am here, though, to tell you all what should be done about all of this.

Let's look first at the past. If the IRS, say 5 years ago, decided that you owed them $10,000 in unpaid taxes, they could, quite literally, come after you. And they did. Because they are an arm of the Federal Government, they were immune to suits for harassment, or other forms of intimidation. In fact, to hear some people tell it, such tactics were encouraged by them.

And now today. If the IRS is allowed to contract collections out, then some power should return to the hands of the people. See, there's this obscure little piece of legislation called the "Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act." It requires collection companies to play by some pretty strict rules when attempting to collect debts. Presumably, firms attempting to collect tax debts wouldn't get a free pass, but they will. Many (if not most) states have similar legislation on the state rolls as well. None of the acts, however, apply to "government debts." But they should. WRITE YOUR CONGRESSPERSON TODAY!!!!!

So, while government outsourcing may be seen by some as horrible, in this case it could end up a boon. If you are now, or at any time in the future, being harassed by a company attempting to collect a debt (any debt), contact a lawyer. If we don't show the collection agencies that we mean to hold them accountable, they'll continue to push the envelope. When you contact your Congressperson, be sure and tell them that we see what they're doing, and we don't like it.

Don't lie down.

Schools and Their Masters -- Who Should Run Them?

All I know now is that it doesn't need to be the Feds anymore. I've been having a discussion here about this. It started out as a discussion about whether or not our nation was becoming a theocracy, and evolved into a little back-and-forth between me and Diane Warth (of Karmalised, who's a much better blogger than I ever will be) regarding the school systems of today (and in history).

Eventually, we reached an agreement (I think), that the government needs to get out of the "business" of education, and that we need to return to the 3-R's. Sound good? I thought so.

It's pretty scary, really, what has been done to this country's educational system over the years in the area of history instruction alone. At the above link, Ms. Warth linked some articles that discuss the history of such instruction in our schools. Interesting reading, if you're interested.

Anyway, the sticking point seems to be parental involvement, and it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon, friends. As long as American parents keep shoving the responsibility off on schools to teach things they should be teaching at home, it's only going to get worse. Multiculturalism, political correctness, sensitivity and yes, even sex education are subjects better addressed by the family.

We all scream about how badly we want the government out of our lives. The question is, then, how badly do we want it?

Rutan's SpaceShipOne Wins Ansari X-Prize

I realize that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the law, but...


To me, this is amazing stuff. Yes, I'm one of the millions of guys who, as a kid, wanted nothing more than to be an astronaut.

That this group of men and women could achieve this feat in so short a time is just phenomenal. It is a testament to the possible wonders of both human perseverence and private enterprise.

I don't know when I stopped believing (as I did as a child) that anything is possible. I only know that I believe it again.

Thanks, Mr. Rutan.



That's all.

It's Over!!

I realize I reneged on my promise to make several installments regarding the BarBri Bar Exam Review Course.  But I don't care.

I finished taking the Bar Exam today.  After 3 horrible days, and the loss of feeling in my left (writing) hand, ...

IT'S OVER!

I'm gonna go get roaring drunk and then sleep for a couple of days.

Martha & Nelson: Peas in a Pod?

Martha Stewart recently compared her plight to that of Nelson Mandela.  Is this fair to Mr. Mandela?  Does Martha deserve our sympathy?  Our moral outrage?
 
It seems her prison sentence was based more upon the fact that she lied to Federal investigators than the actual fraud she committed.
 
There is a general clamor against the prosecution of those like Martha, while more egregious harm done by actual corporate officers goes largely unpunished.  And taking the brunt of the criticism is the Bush Administration.
 
So why is it that no one is paying attention to the fact that 2001 set a record for investigations and prosecution of corporate fraud cases?  Does the ignoring of that fact make it more or less likely that the criticism is fueled solely by politics?  Or are we merely trying to hold one administration to a higher standard than any other administration in history?
 
I don't believe that criticisms of the President are necessarily unfounded.  I do believe, however, that attempting to end-run the truth in making criticisms places more emphasis on the politics of the situation, and less emphasis where it belongs.
 
In this case, the emphasis should be placed on the principle that criminals belong in jail.  Martha Stewart is nothing like Nelson Mandela.  She was not targeted for her political beliefs.  She was prosecuted because she committed a fraud on the people of America.  All of the others who commit these crimes are deserving of the same attention, as well; but if they do not get it, that does not in any way excuse Ms. Stewart for what she did.
 
 
 
 
That's it.

Where Do They Find These People?!!?

My BarBri diary: Day 8,564 (I think)

Well, I took the practice Multi-State Bar Exam the other day, and I suppose it was helpful enough. I'm still kicking myself over going to the lectures, though. If you, reader, are having trouble imagining what the lectures are like, just go rent a documentary on a wonderfully exciting subject (like fish-scaling, or butt-rot remedies) and play it over and over, every day for a few weeks. The lecturers have been painstakingly recruited from the University of BORING, School of Law.

It'll all be over soon, and then I can finally go be a lawyer (or learn how to say "Do you want fries with that?" in a couple of languages).


That's all.

WalMart Woes -- How Will It Go?

And so it was today that a federal judge certified the largest class ever in a civil rights class action lawsuit. Over 1.5 Million women have been included in a class suing WalMart for gender discrimination.

Six original Plaintiffs have now greatly increased their numbers, and that's the absolute worst thing that could ever happen to WalMart...

Or is it?

Because for each individual civil rights claim, they're going to have to prove that civil rights were violated. There is no presumption here. All the dirty laundry is going to come out. WalMart will trot out all of its high-placed female executives to testify, and will assassinate each and every Plaintiff who takes the stand. And they must take the stand.

So, how will it end? Should we believe WalMart is a terribly sexist company? I'm afraid that most of America will believe it's so, simply because of the class being certified. WalMart addressed this fear in a news release, asking people to realize that the certification of a class "has nothing to do with the merits of the case."

Will it be enough? Let's wait and see, shall we. It'll be interesting to see just how hard this big one would fall.


That's it.

And God Said... Let There Be Monopoly

I recently graduated from law school, and have begun studying to take the Bar Exam here in Texas. As I move along, I will be posting comments about my journey into "the dark side."

But first, I'd like to invite any comment on the effective monopoly that is BarBri.

For those of you unaware, BarBri is the "preeminent" Bar review course to take in order to prepare for the Bar Exam. Everyone takes it, if only because it's the only real game in town.

They tout their success levels at every turn. 90% of people who take BarBri (we are told) go on to pass the Bar on their first try. Well, you'd be an idiot not to take it, right?

The problem is, it costs about $2,400. Now, this ordinarily wouldn't be a big deal, considering the benefit that's undoubtedly conferred by a structured system of study. My only gripe is that, by my estimation, their overhead can't possibly be more than $100-$250 per student.

I'm not against someone turning a profit. Not even a big one. But where does it end? And what can we do to stop it?


Man, I wish I'd taken that Anti-Trust class.



That's all.

Medical Malpractice Insurance

Why is it that Texas spent so much money convincing its voters to pass a resolution setting caps on medical malpractice suit damages?

We were told that the high cost of medmal insurance premiums (and, by extension, the high cost of health care itself) was due to an "epidemic" of frivolous lawsuits, and the only remedy was to keep people from filing them.

Except...

It was last year that the thing was passed, and doctors' premium rates haven't gone down one iota.

Great huh? I know, I know, those of you from other states are shaking your heads at the stupidity of the people of Texas, right? Well, let me tell ya, folks; Texas ain't the first to do it, and unless the American people wake up, it certainly won't be the last.

That's it.