Monday, September 21, 2009
My Argument
Based on the facts presented by the court I do agree with the decision. It was a big step in music history, and gave a proper precedent that can allow for (at the time) a new form of making music possible to succeed. Since then the genre of rap music has made great strides to be more socially accepted. As a musician I believe that the court’s decision on what is fair use opened a door that led to the progression of music in a new direction. Today rap music has expanded to places even 2 Live Crew would have never imagined, and is a result of the supreme court’s decision. Even if the song (Pretty Woman) was seen as parody it gave a more defined view of what parody is, and that in itself was a catalyst for rap musicians to strive for more than just parody and create new and original ideas that when a final product is released it is not seen as parody. This is because the artist now can understand that they must reach past just using a song for what it stands for, but to create a whole new work and to respectfully use parts of other work as a means of inspiration or emphasis.
Rule of law
The court made a precedent involving what is and is not of fair use. The court upheld the four factors to be considered when fair use is in question, and in doing so gave a more defined explanation of what is and is not a work of parody. And also that not all parody will be found contitutional , but that “This may serve to heighten the comic effect of the parody, as one witness stated, App. 32a, Affidavit of Oscar Brand; see also Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 482 F. Supp. 741, 747 (SDNY 1980) (repetition of "I Love Sodom"), or serve to dazzle with the original's music, as Acuff-Rose now contends.”
Reasoning of the court
The district court had made the dacision based on the music behind the lyrics and title. Since song names cannot be copyrighted it was seen that since the only thing that was in direct relation to the original was the bass line and the district court stated that 2 Live Crew had not “helped themselves overmuch.” 754 F. Supp., at 1156-1157
The court of appeals disagreed, stating that "while it may not be inappropriate to find that no more was taken than necessary, the copying was qualitatively substantial. . . . We conclude that taking the heart of the original and making it the heart of a new work was to purloin a substantial portion of the essence of the original." 972 F.2d, at 1438.”
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/campbell.html
The court of appeals disagreed, stating that "while it may not be inappropriate to find that no more was taken than necessary, the copying was qualitatively substantial. . . . We conclude that taking the heart of the original and making it the heart of a new work was to purloin a substantial portion of the essence of the original." 972 F.2d, at 1438.”
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/campbell.html
Decision of the court
“It was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of 2 Live Crew's parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" rendered it presumptively unfair. No such evidentiary presumption is available to address either the first factor, the character and purpose of the use, or the fourth, market harm, in determining whether a transformative use, such as parody, is a fair one. The court also erred in holding that 2 Live Crew had necessarily copied excessively from the Orbison original, considering the parodic purpose of the use. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. “
http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_campbellacuff.html#14
The court found the song to be of fair use by it’s dissenting opinions in reguards to the Copyright Act of 1976. Because the purpose of copyright is, "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts . . . ." U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. And as justice Story explains that "[i]n truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before." Emerson v. Davies, 8 F. Cas. 615, 619 (No. 4,436) (CCD Mass. 1845).
The court found that the work was not of commercial nature, such as advertising or promoting anything in specific. It also found that it proposed no form of market harm, thus the audiences for each individual work is so vaired that there would be no monetary loss for the original work done by Orbison.
http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_campbellacuff.html#14
The court found the song to be of fair use by it’s dissenting opinions in reguards to the Copyright Act of 1976. Because the purpose of copyright is, "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts . . . ." U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. And as justice Story explains that "[i]n truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before." Emerson v. Davies, 8 F. Cas. 615, 619 (No. 4,436) (CCD Mass. 1845).
The court found that the work was not of commercial nature, such as advertising or promoting anything in specific. It also found that it proposed no form of market harm, thus the audiences for each individual work is so vaired that there would be no monetary loss for the original work done by Orbison.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
So what do I think of the Supreme Court
Over the course of the quarter I have been exposed to the legal system in ways I would have not have been otherwise. Our legal system is a very balanced one that relies on perspective and respect to all involved parties. That is especially important in the Supreme Court of the land.
The movie, “The First Monday in October” explains how it is important for the need for that perspective in law. Senator Snow explained how the Supreme Court is very much departed from the people. He explained to Justice Loomis how the courts must put people first. The courts are responsible for placing a collective response of the American people in the voices of only nine people.
I am not sure if our highest court is doing such a good job of relating a true American opinion. As we discussed in class for there to be a realistic representation of the American public the entire panel of Supreme Court Justices may have to be changed. But why? Isn’t the Supreme Court supposed to keep a consistency of opinion with respect to law? I think that if the justices were to be a direct representation of the population than the courts would be a mess.
Law is something not to be changed overnight. It takes time, consideration, time, precedent, and time to be properly evaluated. Just as law cannot be changed hastily neither should the people who interpret and enforce those laws. I believe that our Supreme court justices are not a realistic representation of the American people, but rather a realistic representation of who Americans look when all other efforts for justice have been exhausted. As time goes I am confident that the number of minorities and other religious backgrounds will grow. It is just not something to be taken lightly.
The movie, “The First Monday in October” explains how it is important for the need for that perspective in law. Senator Snow explained how the Supreme Court is very much departed from the people. He explained to Justice Loomis how the courts must put people first. The courts are responsible for placing a collective response of the American people in the voices of only nine people.
I am not sure if our highest court is doing such a good job of relating a true American opinion. As we discussed in class for there to be a realistic representation of the American public the entire panel of Supreme Court Justices may have to be changed. But why? Isn’t the Supreme Court supposed to keep a consistency of opinion with respect to law? I think that if the justices were to be a direct representation of the population than the courts would be a mess.
Law is something not to be changed overnight. It takes time, consideration, time, precedent, and time to be properly evaluated. Just as law cannot be changed hastily neither should the people who interpret and enforce those laws. I believe that our Supreme court justices are not a realistic representation of the American people, but rather a realistic representation of who Americans look when all other efforts for justice have been exhausted. As time goes I am confident that the number of minorities and other religious backgrounds will grow. It is just not something to be taken lightly.
Issue of the case
This case reached the supreme court as a case representing copyright, and what is and isn’t an example of fair use when the work is in parody of another work. The supreme court held a number of issues up for interpreting in the case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”
http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_campbellacuff.html
The court looked at whether or not the song could be interpreted as fair use as a parody under the Copyright act of 1976. District Courts found the song in fair use, but was reversed by the court of appeals. The song was characterized by it’s “commercial character and excessive borrowing.” Supreme court Justice Souter expressed his opinion by writing that, “Because we hold that a parody's commercial character is only one element to be weighed in a fair use enquiry, and that insufficient consideration was given to the nature of parody in weighing the degree of copying, we reverse and remand.”
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. This factor takes into consideration the nature of the work. 2 Live Crew’s song can be seen a a parody, but “the fact that parody can claim legitimacy for some appropriation does not, of course, tell either parodist or judge much about where to draw the line.” The Supreme court stated that, “We have less difficulty in finding that critical element in 2 Live Crew's song than the Court of Appeals did, although having found it we will not take the further step of evaluating its quality.” Instead the court viewed the work and looked for it’s transformative value. And that “Although such transformative use is not absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use, Sony, supra, at 455, n.40, the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works. Such works thus lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine's guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright, see, e. g., Sony, supra, at 478-480 (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting), and the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.”
2. The nature of the copyrighted work. The cort stated, “We agree with both the District Court and the Court of Appeals that the Orbison original's creative expression for public dissemination falls within the core of the copyright's protective purposes. 754 F. Supp. at 1155-1156; 972 F.2d at 1437. This fact, however, is not much help in this case, or ever likely to help much in separating the fair use sheep from the infringing goats in a parody case, since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works.”
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. The court made a priority of revealing the degree to which the parody may serve as a market substitute for the original or potentially licensed derivatives.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Here the court was to determine whether or not the enquiry "must take account not only of harm to the original but also of harm to the market for derivative works." Harper & Row, supra, at 568. “
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”
http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_campbellacuff.html
The court looked at whether or not the song could be interpreted as fair use as a parody under the Copyright act of 1976. District Courts found the song in fair use, but was reversed by the court of appeals. The song was characterized by it’s “commercial character and excessive borrowing.” Supreme court Justice Souter expressed his opinion by writing that, “Because we hold that a parody's commercial character is only one element to be weighed in a fair use enquiry, and that insufficient consideration was given to the nature of parody in weighing the degree of copying, we reverse and remand.”
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. This factor takes into consideration the nature of the work. 2 Live Crew’s song can be seen a a parody, but “the fact that parody can claim legitimacy for some appropriation does not, of course, tell either parodist or judge much about where to draw the line.” The Supreme court stated that, “We have less difficulty in finding that critical element in 2 Live Crew's song than the Court of Appeals did, although having found it we will not take the further step of evaluating its quality.” Instead the court viewed the work and looked for it’s transformative value. And that “Although such transformative use is not absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use, Sony, supra, at 455, n.40, the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works. Such works thus lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine's guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright, see, e. g., Sony, supra, at 478-480 (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting), and the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.”
2. The nature of the copyrighted work. The cort stated, “We agree with both the District Court and the Court of Appeals that the Orbison original's creative expression for public dissemination falls within the core of the copyright's protective purposes. 754 F. Supp. at 1155-1156; 972 F.2d at 1437. This fact, however, is not much help in this case, or ever likely to help much in separating the fair use sheep from the infringing goats in a parody case, since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works.”
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. The court made a priority of revealing the degree to which the parody may serve as a market substitute for the original or potentially licensed derivatives.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Here the court was to determine whether or not the enquiry "must take account not only of harm to the original but also of harm to the market for derivative works." Harper & Row, supra, at 568. “
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
illicit
Musicians may be some the biggest criminals in the world. Not because of the alleged drug and alcohol abuse that is synonymous with the rock and roll lifestyle, but because of our ways of dispersing music to the masses. I am talking about illegal distribution of music through piracy. As seen in the film “Illicit,” I feel somewhat responsible for other major illegal activity. I am no drug runner nor am I any type of money launderer with the agenda of influencing political figures. But my intentions are even more selfish. I want free music, and so do my friends. We download torrents with entire discographies of our favorite musicians. In turn that music is illegally reproduced and traded or given away with no monetary value along the way. This is solely for our own satisfaction and entertainment.
Wait a second! What the hell am I saying? I’m not buying a bootleg from the shady guy on the corner where all the proceeds might go to some illicit form of goods that might ultimately end up in drugs and guns. Nope. There was no money at all. So there is nothing wrong? Really? Not really.
I believe it is true that pirating media is just as harmful. In a different sense. In the sense that somewhere someone is making money off of the same music I have, and doing bad things with that money. Now to be perfectly honest I do not download. I have my friends do it for me. I still shop for my CD’s at the store. And if I cannot afford it I find it somewhere online where I can listen to it for free. So that puts me at an awkward place. What I am saying is that I do not support nor oppose this type of illegal activity. Where does that put me in the grand scheme of things. Not behind bars, and that’s the way I like it.
Wait a second! What the hell am I saying? I’m not buying a bootleg from the shady guy on the corner where all the proceeds might go to some illicit form of goods that might ultimately end up in drugs and guns. Nope. There was no money at all. So there is nothing wrong? Really? Not really.
I believe it is true that pirating media is just as harmful. In a different sense. In the sense that somewhere someone is making money off of the same music I have, and doing bad things with that money. Now to be perfectly honest I do not download. I have my friends do it for me. I still shop for my CD’s at the store. And if I cannot afford it I find it somewhere online where I can listen to it for free. So that puts me at an awkward place. What I am saying is that I do not support nor oppose this type of illegal activity. Where does that put me in the grand scheme of things. Not behind bars, and that’s the way I like it.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Supreme Court Case
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
Acuff music sued the members of the rap group 2 Live Crew. This was in relation to 2 Live Crew’s song, “Pretty Woman.” This song had “infringed Acuff Rose’s copyright in Roy Orbison’s Rock Ballad, “Oh Pretty Woman.”( http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html) The band used the presumption that the song was a parody, and made fair legal use of the song.
The Court decides it is "fair to say that 2 Live Crew's song reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree." Ante, at 13 (applying the first fair use factor). While I am not so assured that 2 Live Crew's song is a legitimate parody, the Court's treatment of the remaining factors leaves room for the District Court to determine on remand that the song is not a fair use. As future courts apply our fair use analysis, they must take care to ensure that not just any commercial take-off is rationalized post hoc as a parody.( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=510&invol=569)
Acuff music sued the members of the rap group 2 Live Crew. This was in relation to 2 Live Crew’s song, “Pretty Woman.” This song had “infringed Acuff Rose’s copyright in Roy Orbison’s Rock Ballad, “Oh Pretty Woman.”( http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html) The band used the presumption that the song was a parody, and made fair legal use of the song.
The Court decides it is "fair to say that 2 Live Crew's song reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree." Ante, at 13 (applying the first fair use factor). While I am not so assured that 2 Live Crew's song is a legitimate parody, the Court's treatment of the remaining factors leaves room for the District Court to determine on remand that the song is not a fair use. As future courts apply our fair use analysis, they must take care to ensure that not just any commercial take-off is rationalized post hoc as a parody.( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=510&invol=569)
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
3’s about me
3names I’ve been called: mikey, giggles, saxamaniac
3 jobs I’ve had: Shelver at the public library, general manager of a little caesers, sam’s club
3 places I’ve lived: Danbury Connecticut, Chicago Illinois, Las Vegas Nevada
3 tv shows that I watch: heroes, sportscenter,south park
3 places I’ve been: Disneyland, both coasts, top of the stratosphere
3 people that email me regularly: my mom, Stephan, Bruce
3 of my favorite foods: Club supreme from jersey mikes, curry puffs, steak
3 cars I’ve driven: Nissan frontier, dodge neon, ford escort
3 things I am looking forward to: next quarter, getting a new car, rx bandits show next month!
3names I’ve been called: mikey, giggles, saxamaniac
3 jobs I’ve had: Shelver at the public library, general manager of a little caesers, sam’s club
3 places I’ve lived: Danbury Connecticut, Chicago Illinois, Las Vegas Nevada
3 tv shows that I watch: heroes, sportscenter,south park
3 places I’ve been: Disneyland, both coasts, top of the stratosphere
3 people that email me regularly: my mom, Stephan, Bruce
3 of my favorite foods: Club supreme from jersey mikes, curry puffs, steak
3 cars I’ve driven: Nissan frontier, dodge neon, ford escort
3 things I am looking forward to: next quarter, getting a new car, rx bandits show next month!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
greed is good?
So greed is good. Than what is bad? The greed displayed on Wall Street is becoming a problem. Where exactly the $4 billion in bonuses to Bank of America and Merrill Lynch come from? I knew I felt my pockets feeling a bit flatter this week! This is just becoming ridiculous, and the ultimate price is being paid by the less than fortunate middle and lower classes in America.
Now I will admit that I too have a greedy streak, and it is evident in the technology I buy and the use of money for partying and other disposables. I am stumped by this parallel. But I believe it is indeed a parallel of two different settings in modern America. The greed has taken us all into a really messed up position. It’s like, look! I can stand up on my hands, but I’m buried to my neck in sand! Standing up on our hands being our greed, our want to do something fantastic, but ignoring the fact that our heads are in the sand and we are all going to die unless we get our body back down below us. My point is that greed is never good. But it looks like so much fun!
On another note I want to make a smash the idiot A.I. student that doesn’t get it. Please bear with me for this rant.
I am furious over the fact that students come to school with no intentions of learning anything. Nor do some of these kids have a care in the world for the thousands of dollars they are wasting away every week they float on into class ill prepared. Sad really, and I will call them kids because that’s what they are putting themselves on display as. I work too damn hard to have a few kids make a group project hell for me. No positive input, no direction, and a complete lack of basic care for their grade, and in that case no pride in the work they should be putting into getting a degree. I would love to whack one of these fools in the face and scream at them, “way to go retard!”
Now I will admit that I too have a greedy streak, and it is evident in the technology I buy and the use of money for partying and other disposables. I am stumped by this parallel. But I believe it is indeed a parallel of two different settings in modern America. The greed has taken us all into a really messed up position. It’s like, look! I can stand up on my hands, but I’m buried to my neck in sand! Standing up on our hands being our greed, our want to do something fantastic, but ignoring the fact that our heads are in the sand and we are all going to die unless we get our body back down below us. My point is that greed is never good. But it looks like so much fun!
On another note I want to make a smash the idiot A.I. student that doesn’t get it. Please bear with me for this rant.
I am furious over the fact that students come to school with no intentions of learning anything. Nor do some of these kids have a care in the world for the thousands of dollars they are wasting away every week they float on into class ill prepared. Sad really, and I will call them kids because that’s what they are putting themselves on display as. I work too damn hard to have a few kids make a group project hell for me. No positive input, no direction, and a complete lack of basic care for their grade, and in that case no pride in the work they should be putting into getting a degree. I would love to whack one of these fools in the face and scream at them, “way to go retard!”
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
What do my classmates think of our legal system
What do my classmates think of the legal system? I would dare to say that my classmates are cynical towards our legal system. Wow! I was right! “The whole thing is such a big mess that I think the only real solution is to wipe the slate clean and start over, however that would include massive devastation that would cost millions of dollars and possibly lives. Knowing that the legal system is flawed, go and find the holes and let it work out to your benefit.” ( http://c2animtions.blogspot.com/) William Cross
I just don’t understand it. I think our legal system is doing a sufficient job. Not great or above and beyond, but certainly sufficient. As long as I do not see guns in the pants of a young man at the grocery store, or a father give his son a straight right for asking for a new video game, or even seeing everybody speed on the 215 I think we are hanging on to the right ideas. Isn’t that what the law is supposed to do! I thought it was meant to keep our functions within a particular boundary.
Now with respect to our public officials I will agree that some people dictating and enforcing law are corrupt. So what? If I worked at a fast food joint and stole a cheeseburger wouldn’t I be considered corrupt? “It feels like the bad guys are always getting the upper hand.” (http://fashionvsstyle-jackie.blogspot.com/) Jaqueline Hernandez. Yes, yes the bad guys are getting the upper hand. I believe it is our responsibility as law abiding citizens to do our best to support those in power to do good things. That means voting!
Otherwise everyone would feel like this guy… “Where it tends to be corrupt is in the upper hierarchy where the money you have, the better representation you can receive. It is no secret that well respected and top lawyers have gained a sort of respect and or business type of relationship with a judicial committee in his or her county.” (http://sincidkid24.blogspot.com/) Andrew Veliz
I just don’t understand it. I think our legal system is doing a sufficient job. Not great or above and beyond, but certainly sufficient. As long as I do not see guns in the pants of a young man at the grocery store, or a father give his son a straight right for asking for a new video game, or even seeing everybody speed on the 215 I think we are hanging on to the right ideas. Isn’t that what the law is supposed to do! I thought it was meant to keep our functions within a particular boundary.
Now with respect to our public officials I will agree that some people dictating and enforcing law are corrupt. So what? If I worked at a fast food joint and stole a cheeseburger wouldn’t I be considered corrupt? “It feels like the bad guys are always getting the upper hand.” (http://fashionvsstyle-jackie.blogspot.com/) Jaqueline Hernandez. Yes, yes the bad guys are getting the upper hand. I believe it is our responsibility as law abiding citizens to do our best to support those in power to do good things. That means voting!
Otherwise everyone would feel like this guy… “Where it tends to be corrupt is in the upper hierarchy where the money you have, the better representation you can receive. It is no secret that well respected and top lawyers have gained a sort of respect and or business type of relationship with a judicial committee in his or her county.” (http://sincidkid24.blogspot.com/) Andrew Veliz
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
What I think of the legal system
The legal system is so complex, and so overwhelming that I it scares me. I am but a simple citizen trying to get ahead in this world. The legal system seems like a guideline of what not to do. So in turn I do my best to not break the law. However the fates have my path laid out I know that one day the legal system will come to bite me in the ass! Something I am doing my best to avoid. My business law class is preparing me for the obstacles in creating, running, and being prosperous in the business world.
I believe our legal system is structured very well. I think I will be able to use it effectively to my advantage when dealing with contracts and clients alike. My main cause for concern is the music that my company will be putting out. The problem is that I do not care what people say on a record, with respect to gruesome details about rape and murder. (Things just not meant for anyone to put to music) I am concerned with the topic of slander. Rappers and singers alike will intentionally make statements in their music that will include “thoughtless statements that reflect on another person’s good name and reputation.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, pg.48)
With my still limited knowledge of the legal system I must try to rely on the simple fact that this is art. Plain and simple…or so I would like to hope for. With any luck I will be so super successful that I can pay my attorney to handle small torts with cash settlements. Maybe not, but I can dream! And with that being said I really do respect our legal system. It may bend under public scrutiny but I believe that it cannot be broken.
I believe our legal system is structured very well. I think I will be able to use it effectively to my advantage when dealing with contracts and clients alike. My main cause for concern is the music that my company will be putting out. The problem is that I do not care what people say on a record, with respect to gruesome details about rape and murder. (Things just not meant for anyone to put to music) I am concerned with the topic of slander. Rappers and singers alike will intentionally make statements in their music that will include “thoughtless statements that reflect on another person’s good name and reputation.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, pg.48)
With my still limited knowledge of the legal system I must try to rely on the simple fact that this is art. Plain and simple…or so I would like to hope for. With any luck I will be so super successful that I can pay my attorney to handle small torts with cash settlements. Maybe not, but I can dream! And with that being said I really do respect our legal system. It may bend under public scrutiny but I believe that it cannot be broken.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Myspace Hoax
Something is wrong when an online community can be used to cause a person emotional stress. Furthermore it is disgusting that the mother of a teen would use the power of persuasion with the power of the internet to cause a teenage girl harm. With that being said Lori Drew is a criminal. I think that her daughter and anyone else involved are criminal as well. I only hope that Ms. Drew would understand that she is in part responsible for that girl’s suicide. I am sickened by her conduct to think she would be innocent in any way. Saying that, “It was fine and people do it all the time." Is like assuming that it is ok to rob a store at gun point with the excuse that she was hungry and that people do it all the time. Though the statement is true, those people go to jail. I hope that she gets convicted of the felony conspiracy charges because the extent of the crime really is like pulling the trigger. I cannot imagine what the nerve a person might have to say that the world would be a better place without her in it.
Does the faceless nature of the internet make it easier to say such vile things to people easier? Would the people responsible ever say those things to her face, or even over the phone? For their sake I hope they would. At least with that in mind we can get these people some mental help because it is just plain wrong.
This type of incident only makes me wonder what goes on in these people’s heads. It is like there is no conscious effort to tell the truth anymore. Sad. Where this takes us all in the internet age, I do not know.
Does the faceless nature of the internet make it easier to say such vile things to people easier? Would the people responsible ever say those things to her face, or even over the phone? For their sake I hope they would. At least with that in mind we can get these people some mental help because it is just plain wrong.
This type of incident only makes me wonder what goes on in these people’s heads. It is like there is no conscious effort to tell the truth anymore. Sad. Where this takes us all in the internet age, I do not know.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
What I think about lawyers
What I think about lawyers…
I have all my life been under the assumption that lawyers are the protectors of citizens’ rights in the legal realm of our society. It was to my understanding that all lawyers were the same, and that law was as concrete as the ground that we walk on. I have been fooled. I have been led astray with this belief.
Prior to this year I had no actual experience with lawyers, nor had I been in the need of legal representation. With my recent arrest for D.U.I., I was in the need of legal assistance. I sought out a lawyer and had a most satisfying result. He treated me with understanding that my situation, with his legal representation, can be resolved with limited consequences. He was right.
The circumstances of my case were as followed:
· a Bac of 0.192
· failing to make a complete stop while attempting to make a right turn
· speeding at 45mph in a 35mph zone
My lawyer got my fines reduced from an excess of $3,000, down to $600. The BAC was high enough that an interlock breathalyzer was in order, but we beat that! I managed to get less than the minimum punishments for my conviction and keep my license for an addition 4 months letting my finish my spring quarter of school. Wow! That is all I can say, he even did this as about half price. I never asked why. It may have been possible that it was because I was referred to him from a friend. It may have been that he trusted that I would never make such a mistake again. I never asked, and I will more than likely never know how or why he did this.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that many people put down lawyers for the unethical and/or unmoral practices. I beg to differ, and looking back on my experience I would have to give full credit and my deepest gratitude to him. I believe lawyers are just as capable of doing great things as any other professional in any other field would strive for.
I have all my life been under the assumption that lawyers are the protectors of citizens’ rights in the legal realm of our society. It was to my understanding that all lawyers were the same, and that law was as concrete as the ground that we walk on. I have been fooled. I have been led astray with this belief.
Prior to this year I had no actual experience with lawyers, nor had I been in the need of legal representation. With my recent arrest for D.U.I., I was in the need of legal assistance. I sought out a lawyer and had a most satisfying result. He treated me with understanding that my situation, with his legal representation, can be resolved with limited consequences. He was right.
The circumstances of my case were as followed:
· a Bac of 0.192
· failing to make a complete stop while attempting to make a right turn
· speeding at 45mph in a 35mph zone
My lawyer got my fines reduced from an excess of $3,000, down to $600. The BAC was high enough that an interlock breathalyzer was in order, but we beat that! I managed to get less than the minimum punishments for my conviction and keep my license for an addition 4 months letting my finish my spring quarter of school. Wow! That is all I can say, he even did this as about half price. I never asked why. It may have been possible that it was because I was referred to him from a friend. It may have been that he trusted that I would never make such a mistake again. I never asked, and I will more than likely never know how or why he did this.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that many people put down lawyers for the unethical and/or unmoral practices. I beg to differ, and looking back on my experience I would have to give full credit and my deepest gratitude to him. I believe lawyers are just as capable of doing great things as any other professional in any other field would strive for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)