intellectual property piracy

According to an LA Times article, the Justice Department is in the business of prosecuting online piracy, the downloading of music and movies that enjoy copyright protection. This isn't exactly news to me, but I guess after almost a year of law school, something just occurred to me.

These are essentially violations of copyrights, intellectual property violations. Now I haven't taken any IP classes yet, but I understand (or deduce) that the purpose behind IP laws is to encourage innovation and enterprise, by allowing innovators to have exclusive control and use of their own ideas for a certain period of time. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, the laws also give holders of copyrights the legal standing to sue pirates for violating their copyrights (and I actually just realized how the word "copy-right" originated as I typed that).

So why in the world doesn't the Justice Department just let the music and movie industries sort this out on their own? If they believe that turning to the courts is the best way to resolve the piracy problem, why not let them hire their own lawyers to do so? Why does the Government need to devote its own legal resources to prosecuting copyright violations? I don't think the Justice Department actively intervenes on behalf of Nike, Louis Vuitton, and other major apparel brandnames, does it? So why do the music and movie industries get the special treatment? Considering how much money they make, it seems unlikely that they lack the resources to vindicate their rights in court. I guess I'm not exactly crying a river for businesses that can afford to give their artistes multi-million dollar contracts.

In fact it seems like it might almost be good public policy not to intervene on behalf of the Industry. If online piracy really will eat into their earnings (I don't think there's much doubt about that), perhaps it will give them a good incentive to re-invent how they do business, and to stop paying stars so much. I'm a modest fan of market regulation because I think there's a substantial inequality of bargaining power between corporations and consumers, and if left to their own devices, corporations tend to freely exploit consumers in pursuit of profit. But for once, now that Everyman has a way of effectively challenging corporate power and pinching them where it hurts, maybe the Government should take a more hands-off approach and let market mechanisms (and file-sharing innovation) sort this one out.

flipping international law in the Supreme Court

You can read the NY Times article here, but the Supreme Court has ruled that when a statute says "any" crime, it only refers to crimes committed in the United States. So who do you think formed the majority on that one? I'll admit I thought Scalia would be running in that pack (if not leading it), but apparently not. The more liberal justices formed the majority, with Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy (yes, Kennedy!) dissenting. The CJ didn't vote.

I was a little surprised, considering how Scalia is against applying international law to interpret or influence American law. Although one could say this is purely a textual interpretation issue, in which case the way the Court came out isn't that surprising.

Oh, and the opinion apparently mentions Singapore's strict vandalism laws - 3 years for vandalism (they forgot the caning). A brief moment of authoritarian pride swelled in my breast, before I realized I'm late for Con Law.

speaking truth to power

There's an article in today's LA Times that I think serves as a pretty good reminder in the ongoing religious-cultural-political "war" that America seems to find itself in (whether by definition or by fact, I'm not sure). It's entitled, "Jesus was no GOP lobbyist." Word.

like sorting out the recycling

You'd think that after 16 years of school, I'd have learned how to take good notes in class. Yet after having to sift through a semester's worth of Contracts and Property (we start Con Law tomorrow, woohoo), I have come to the conclusion that my note-taking skills are woefully uhm. woeful (no comments about my elegant prose please). Especially when I come across sentences like, "A deed of trust is a deed of trust." Coffee at 8:30 in the morning can only do so much, I guess.

In fact, here's a hint to anyone who's thinking about going to law school: when you're taking notes, take them as if you were preparing your outline for the finals. Oh wait, you probably don't have a clue about what an outline is. Lucky you, treasure your blissful ignorance while you can. :)

correlation is not causation?

I just realized... I blog more often the closer it gets to finals. That's got to be a sign of something.

David and Goliath - in pre-trial litigation

I love this story... :)
a) the lawyers win.
i. oodles of billable hours.
ii. minimum work - apparently they just cut-and-paste motions from previous cases.
b) the small fry wins.
i. Microsoft eventually settles the case.
ii. He gains invaluable legal experience (too bad he wants to go into pharmaceutical research).
c) Microsoft probably drops a bomb on legal fees and gains bad press for a silly decision (i.e. it loses).
i. I don't own any stock in Big Brother, so I don't feel too bad about this.
ii. I think they make way too much profit anyway.
iii. I am still a Microsoft user out of necessity, not choice (I will run Linux one day, I swear).
iv. I don't like monopolies or monopolistic practices in general.

And the rest of us get to grin, laugh, or sigh about less than intelligent (or conscientious) lawyering and corporate decision-making.


Kill Bill
Microsoft's army of lawyers was no match for a kid from Kent State.
BY DENISE GROLLMUS

David Zamos doesn't look as if he could single-handedly humiliate the world's largest software maker.

The well-built 21-year-old sips a jumbo cup of Starbucks coffee in the University of Akron's student union. He's looking dapper in pin-striped slacks, a navy pea coat, and a necklace of wooden beads that hugs his wide neck.

Thanks to massive doses of caffeine, Zamos (whose name rhymes with "famous") anxiously taps his Camper lace-ups against the table. A laptop sits to his right, a fat black binder to his left.

The only thing setting him apart from the other late-night crammers is that his notebook isn't filled with study guides. It's overflowing with documents from the federal lawsuit Microsoft brought against him on December 21.

For the past four months, Zamos has been fighting four high-powered attorneys. They claimed he violated trademark and copyright laws by selling two unopened pieces of software on eBay for $203.50.

Cleveland lawyers Robert Chudakoff and Edward Simms, along with San Francisco lawyers Roy Bartlett and Cameron Alston, allege that the sale cost Microsoft hundreds of thousands of dollars in "irreparable damage." They demanded that Zamos hand over his eBay profits ($143.50) and cover the company's court costs and legal fees.

The honchos at Bill Gates' empire probably thought it would be an easy, open-and-shut case, just like the 1,045 similar suits they have filed.

"They're crazy," Zamos says of the blizzard of suits. "I think they just pump these things out. And if you look at how many go to a decision, it's none. People just don't show up or bother to defend themselves."

Economically speaking, it was a lopsided fight. Last year, Zamos earned approximately $3,500. Microsoft: $38 billion.

During the whole debacle, Zamos says, he actually talked to a company lawyer only once. Robert Chudakoff, who has specialized in intellectual-property law for 25 years, apparently believed he had the kid on the ropes.

"I asked him what he wanted from me," says Zamos. "He said I needed to pay restitution. I said I had nothing to pay with, and he said, 'You have a car.' Yeah, like they're gonna take my 2002 Ford Escort. I looked it up anyway, and they can't take your car unless it's collateral."

Though Chudakoff and the other Microsoft lawyers declined comment, it appears that ganging up on a college student will prove embarrassing to them and to the software titan they represent.

It wasn't any particular genius or advanced legal skills that made Zamos different from the other defendants. It wasn't even that he was right. He simply did his homework -- and outplayed the lawyers at their own game.

"Like I said, man, I totally looked up everything," he says.

Goliath, meet David.

(read the rest of the article.)

treasures in the property backlog

While putting my Property outline together, I found another one of those unique Property words - "usufruct." Fame and recognition for whoever knows what that means - no checking Black's Law Dictionary or any other lexicon, please.

woah

One of my classmates pointed out to me that today was the last day we would ever have to take Friday classes in the Law School, ever. And that we were in the last four minutes of our last Friday class, possibly for the rest of our lives.

That was pretty momentuous. Unfortunately the gravity of the situation didn't overwhelm the weight of my needing to catch up on Property outlining, so I'm spending the rest of the day in the library, reluctlantly but hopefully diligently trying to make sense of adverse possession and fee simples subject to condition subsequent. Anyone know the chances of my passing Property by just citing the Toddler Property Laws?

judicial activism

I wonder how so many congressmen, on both sides, can accuse the other party of supporting judicial activism, without at the same time acknowledging that they do it too. Every law student who's been through first year knows that judges engage in activism all the time. Hello, it's called the common law, duh.... Judges have traditionally always made law from the bench. And while they're not the sole interpreters of the Constitution, they certainly do have a role to play in enforcing it, especially against the government itself.

Judicial activism and the threat of judicial activism has, however, been taken to a whole new level lately. In the fight over Bush's judicial nominations, some Republican congressmen have made downright irresponsible remarks regarding the judiciary, and regarding the Christian faith. The subtext of what they've been saying really is, "You can't be a Christian and not support the Republican agenda." Which I of course, don't buy, even though I'm not a Democrat.

What really strikes me as sad, is the absence of any sort of moderate voice in the media. Given how hugely important it is in directing the political attention of the United States, it's almost a crime that the media focuses almost entirely on the extremists of either side, and not the stable middle that, if given the chance, might actually help lead this country in some constructive and rational dialogue that could actually bring us together and not tear us apart.

I'm not saying anything new, I know. I'm ranting, I'll admit that too. I blame having to decipher my Contracts notes and make sense of it all.

20/20 vision

I read Matthew 20:20-28 today. Where the sons of Zebedee (and their mom, always helps to get parental support) come to Jesus and ask to sit at his right and left in his coming Kingdom. And he asks if they are willing to drink the cup that he will drink. He goes on to explain what greatness in the Kingdom of God means: not lording it over people as their rulers do, not exercising authority over them as their high officials do. But rather, to be great means being a servant, and being first means being a slave (doulos in Greek).

He speaks in riddles and he speaks in rhymes, saying nothing and everything at the same time (that's a plagiarized line from Third Day). But the deep truth of those words struck me today, another example of how followers of Christ are called to be counter-cultural and show a new way. I suspect that following Christ and being a servant and a slave, in order to be a leader, is pretty hard in most law firms, where there is an established pecking order (the stories I hear from people who have gone that route have not been very encouraging).

another step towards...

I found out today that I made Law Review, and burning half of my Spring Break to write an article on how the constitutional right to confront the witnesses against oneself at a criminal trial applied in the case of child abuse victims, paid off.

I'm happy, and excited. But also quite cognizant of what some of my friends have said: that the reward of doing all this work, is just more work. :) It's a good thing I actually kind of enjoyed Law Review Write-On.

I guess next year I'll find out what the actual tangible benefits of being on Law Review are.

But until then - today is also day 14 in the countdown to finals. Erk. Outlines and practice exams, here I come!

word of the day - contracts

Aleatory - Dependent on the throw of a die; hence, dependent on uncertain contingencies.

1693 URQUHART Rabelais III. xlii, So continually fortunate in that aleatory way of deciding Law Debates. 1818 H. COLEBROOKE Oblig. & Contr. I. 17 If the equivalent consist in the risk of loss, or the chance of gain, dependent on an uncertain event, the contract is contingent and aleatory or hazardous. 1879 MOTLEY in Holmes Life xxi. 168 Such an aleatory process seemed an unworthy method in arbitrations.

(from the OED online - the best dictionary out there, mostly because it covers both the Queen's and the Yanks).

It appears that Contracts is the runaway leader in terms of strange new words that have been added to my vocabulary. Apart from peculiarly Property-ish terms ala "seisin."

the dread of first year property

Contrary to what a good friend said, the Rule Against Perpetuities isn't the dread terror of 1L Property (my professor pretty much just skipped it all). Instead, I have concluded that the most abjectly depressing part of Property, is Deeds and Titles. Specifically, the history behind Deeds and Titles, and "The Recording Acts," specifying how deeds and titles are recorded (what? notice? race? notice-race? Someone fix the system already!).

Which is a shame - Professor Property (names changed to protect the unknowing) is a great professor.

a political endorsement

So, following section-mate matthewb's lead, I'm actually going to endorse a candidate for the upcoming UCLA Law SBA election. Heck, outright copying matthewb's lead, I'm going to endorse Matt Demblowski for secretary. Why?

1. I think he's the only one I know personally running for that post.
2. He's got a website for his campaign.
3. The things he states on his website are mostly true.
4. He's real down-to-earth.
5. He's a cool guy.
6. He instinctively knows when the Campus Shuttle is approaching the Weyburn stop and always leaves his apartment just in time to catch it.
7. I think he'd write pretty good weekly e-mails.

darkness and light.

So I just attended a slideshow presentation by a photographer who sneaked into Darfur, Sudan. And was painfully reminded of how fractured this world is, how far off the mark we are from where we are supposed to be. This is supposed to be "good"? I hardly think so. And walking out of the law school, I'm painfully aware of all I have. Sunglasses to keep the sunlight out of my eyes. A laptop. Clothes to wear; none of which have to be worn two days in a row. I can take a shuttle, so I don't have to walk a mile and a half. Some refugees in Darfur walked for 20 days to get to a camp. I can go to school when some people don't even know how to read.

As the shuttle rolled through Westwood, and I saw cars and people pass by, I mused that some of them probably thought they were having a crummy day, thought they were in living hell, and were glad that the day was over. Compared to some places in this world though, Westwood is heaven. We talk about how we would rather be gatekeepers in the house of God, than to dwell in the tents of the wicked. Some people would rather be homeless in LA, than remain where they are.

The darkness can be overwhelming sometimes. There is darkness right here in our city, there is darkness in Africa, in China, in Southeast Asia, in Europe... There is darkness blatant and darkness insidious. It crows out loud, it whispers in the shadows. And yes, the darkness is in me too. But I also know light. And in me I have seen what light can do. As a child of light though, all that darkness, like a deep dark cavern, is frightening. I want to see the lion lie down with the lamb. Will it ever be? All I see seems to say no.

But I don't want to give up. I cannot give up. If I spend my life and spill my blood for the kingdom come, then let it be. It's been said that until someone finds something worth dying for, that person has found nothing worth living for. Thy Kingdom come, and thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. As it was meant to be from the beginning.

as iron sharpens iron

I think new lawyers who seek to follow Christ need mentors; people who have gone before them on that same path, and can offer guidance, experience, and support. Counsel for counsel, if you will, but in a spiritual sense.

Because I think it's too easy to walk out into the legal world, and get blindsided by everything out there - the temptations and other sirens that call out to you. To cut a corner, withhold the truth, tell a small lie, fudge the facts. To be less than nice to a secretary, fellow associate, opposing counsel...

I'm starting to see that there is a great and desperate need for Christ-followers to be out there in the world, especially the legal world. I think we can make a sea-change in legal culture. The Kingdom is supposed to impact every sphere of life. And I think that includes the law.