|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:lmao someone buy me this av and I will repay you in Abita and/or bourbon of your choosing if you come to New Orleans
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:lmao Make it so Number 1.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Make it so Number 1. hahahaha thanks, hit me up via PM when you get here
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:hahahaha thanks, hit me up via PM when you get here What do I have to buy you to get you to buy me lunch at Galatoir's or Cochon?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 17:41
|
|
|
Adar posted:hey guys I'm old here are some names of old things for old street cred I've got Led Zepplin and Pink Floyd records on real vinyl that I bought when I was a kid, I win.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 17:47
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:lmao If I had known you'd av it I would've put the text a bit lower because it doesn't look perfect OH WELL
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:What do I have to buy you to get you to buy me lunch at Galatoir's or Cochon? Galatoire's is weak but if you show up with a package of hand made tortillas I'll gladly treat you to Cochon
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:I've got Led Zepplin and Pink Floyd records on real vinyl that I bought when I was a kid, I win. you are the oldest person in the world what was it like before the big bang, law-grandpa
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
fougera posted:I applied to become a TestMasters instructor this semester, good idea or bad idea? I'm a little worried how I can pull this off with job searching (lol), possible journal, and coursework. On the other hand it pays so well it should be able to cover Aren't they being sued by LSAC for using questions without paying for them or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 18:26
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:If I had known you'd av it I would've put the text a bit lower because it doesn't look perfect Perfect it and av me and you too can sweat and drink Blanton's SWATJester's reward will still be payable of course
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 18:29
|
|
|
I'm seriously poor right now so the only way I could afford to go to NOLA would be a full ride to law school which I will then lose and be forced to live on the streets for a while
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Galatoire's is weak but if you show up with a package of hand made tortillas I'll gladly treat you to Cochon You and me, we got a date. Fun fact: The El Milagro factory is 4 miles east of my office. But you'll be getting better tortillas than that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:I've got Led Zepplin and Pink Floyd records on real vinyl that I bought when I was a kid, I win. A friend of mine bought those but he did it in 2007. old credit not affirmed
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Aren't they being sued by LSAC for using questions without paying for them or something? Yeah, they got in a lot of trouble last year for not paying licensing fees. Pretty hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
Day 3, or maybe 4, of intense bar studying; time has become a blur. Get out of bed and start studying, don't stop until 8pm. Boring poo poo. the horror. have managed to escape for a few minutes; send he;lpentris posted:Having dissenting citizens just breaking laws is generally a terrible idea for a democratic society. Obviously, there are exceptions to that rule, such as the civil rights movement, but we're not talking about a generation of oppressed young people who are struggling to gain their freedom, we're talking about a bunch of lazy, semi-wealthy young people who don't want to pay for music, movies, and software despite the fact that they have money for housing, electricity, a computer, internet access and probably an mp3 player of some kind.  Entris, thanks for this ridiculous rendition of the issue. Given that you agree there are exceptions, though, I'll follow in your footsteps and open one up for unjust enrichment, and the exaltation of the unworthy. Problem solved, piracy is now a-okay.Also, your earlier, blind support of the law is odd. Learned gentlemen apply, but are not touched by, the law. Laws are for the commons, who are more familiar with such things as the mechanical arts. gg; cheerio quote:I'm 29! Hardly "old man." But this will be my last post on piracy in this thread. okay old man Lykourgos fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jul 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 20:37
|
|
|
entris posted:Having dissenting citizens just breaking laws is generally a terrible idea for a democratic society. Obviously, there are exceptions to that rule, such as the civil rights movement, but we're not talking about a generation of oppressed young people who are struggling to gain their freedom, we're talking about a bunch of lazy, semi-wealthy young people who don't want to pay for music, movies, and software despite the fact that they have money for housing, electricity, a computer, internet access and probably an mp3 player of some kind. As I understand it, the proliferation of pirated copyright material has nothing to do with slow inefficient businesses failing to market compelling products and has everything to do with immoral lazy middle class kids!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:You and me, we got a date. This is the part where I tell everyone in NY to take the trip to tortilleria nixtamal again. edit: it's like twelve hours away from everything on the 7 train (hi John Rocker) but well worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 20:45
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:As I understand it, the proliferation of pirated copyright material has nothing to do with slow inefficient businesses failing to market compelling products and has everything to do with immoral lazy middle class kids! Are businesses really slow and inefficient if the activity that is causing them to bleed money is illegal and ignores long-standing legal rights meant to protect the generation of that content? I don't like the RIAA, but just saying record companies and musicians should "just make better music" or "be like iTunes" really doesn't solve the problem that a massive infrastructure is there to allow people to avoid buying stuff that they legally should be paying for. Whether the present system of intellectual property right protection is tailored enough to fulfill its original purpose is another issue altogether. Likewise, just because you don't feel like giving Justin Beiber or Metallica money doesn't mean that you're entitled to use a non-sanctioned channel to take the music he and his company produced and have a validly legislated right to control.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 20:50
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:slow inefficient businesses failing to market compelling products
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
Entris, what's your opinion on film studios removing movie trailer uploads from Youtube?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
TyChan posted:Are businesses really slow and inefficient if the activity that is causing them to bleed money is illegal and ignores long-standing legal rights meant to protect the generation of that content? Look at starbucks, nearly everyone has a coffee maker at home but people (myself included) pay $2.22 for a large coffee. I even prefer Starbucks to the FREE coffee at work. Clearly pirating is against the law but Starbucks doesn't sue my coffee machine as a business model. They make a superior product at a better value (to me anyway).
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
TyChan posted:Are businesses really slow and inefficient if the activity that is causing them to bleed money is illegal and ignores long-standing legal rights meant to protect the generation of that content? Pretty sure he is talking about the RIAA price-fixing CD's at a time when they should have been finding a way to digitally release music, but instead, allowed Napster to operate unchallenged as it did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
TyChan posted:Whether the present system of intellectual property right protection is tailored enough to fulfill its original purpose is another issue altogether. Likewise, just because you don't feel like giving Justin Beiber or Metallica money doesn't mean that you're entitled to use a non-sanctioned channel to take the music he and his company produced and have a validly legislated right to control. Nobody is saying that the only reason they're entitled to take it is because they "don't feel like giving justin beiber or Metallica money". Everytime you boil the issue down to some ridiculous statement like that, you're making a fool of yourself. People have given many reasons why they feel entitled to take it without paying, ranging from the fact that beiber and metallica are lowly entities not worthy of great wealth or respect, to the lack of a substantial connection between beiber and the bytes that somebody downloads. You are completely missing the arguments raised when you post things like the above, and just creating a strawman that doesn't exist. You also say they were "validly legislated"; by whose measure? I see many low-born, moneyed people in the legislature, and these issues often get resolved in civil court with private attorneys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 21:01
|
|
|
Who the gently caress is justin biber? Metallica I know, I have their last album (And Justice for All)
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 21:06
|
|
|
I downloaded it 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 21:07
|
|
|
With my modem 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Who the gently caress is justin biber? He won North Korea's Next Pop Star about 6 months ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 21:16
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:Nobody is saying that the only reason they're entitled to take it is because they "don't feel like giving justin beiber or Metallica money". Everytime you boil the issue down to some ridiculous statement like that, you're making a fool of yourself. I'm not saying everyone pirates because they want to stick it to celebrities, but when I'm seeing posts like this... Defleshed posted:I approach it from the fact that the only people who care if I download their song instead of pay for it are people who don't need any more money so gently caress them. I don't think I'm creating a "straw man" here and I think you're making way more than you should out of my casual statement. quote:You also say they were "validly legislated"; by whose measure? I see many low-born, moneyed people in the legislature, and these issues often get resolved in civil court with private attorneys. The IP legislation everyone rails against got sponsored by an elected representative. They got passed by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch. Whether we agree with the law or not, the law as it stands was passed the way our Constitution and/or legislative procedural rules provide for it. If that's not validly legislated, than I don't know what to say for the vast majority of laws on the state and federal level. For decades, if not centuries, we have lived in a country where the garnering of votes and the trading of favors among a powerful few have generated laws that we view as binding. Most laws are aren't passed because of Athentian-style direct democracy from the grass-roots level. What you're bringing up seems to me more like an issue with the legitimacy of our government than anything else. EDIT: Roger_Mudd posted:Look at starbucks, nearly everyone has a coffee maker at home but people (myself included) pay $2.22 for a large coffee. I even prefer Starbucks to the FREE coffee at work. Clearly pirating is against the law but Starbucks doesn't sue my coffee machine as a business model. They make a superior product at a better value (to me anyway). Well, I hate to be obtuse here and I see your point, but you should keep in mind that the existence and use of your coffee machine is also not an illegal activity, so they couldn't sue for that. Personally, I think the music industry is finally having to deal with the fact that most people don't care enough about music to want to pay for it or pay enough for it to keep the traditional industry alive in its present condition. Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jul 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
TyChan posted:The IP legislation everyone rails against got sponsored by an elected representative. They got passed by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch. Whether we agree with the law or not, the law as it stands was passed the way our Constitution and/or legislative procedural rules provide for it. And the question of legitimacy is one that helps answer our problem of whether the law is valid (although it does not answer the question of whether we are of proper station to actually question the law to begin with). The product of an illegitimate system is not presumptively valid; the result may be shown to be proper, but your side of the fence is just making an assumption. If you start building a stable with warped and rotten wood, you know what sort of structure you're going to wind up with. The appropriate presumption is that this final product, this law you're talking about, is no better than the process that bore it. Your post illustrates how base and vile that process can be; "we have lived in a country where the garnering of votes and the trading of favours among a powerful few have generated laws that we view as binding." A simple note that power is often measured by vulgar popularity and monetary wealth really brings the message home. It's confusing, then, that you say this is "our" system. It's not ours in any real sense of the word; you've admitted as much by saying that it's controlled by a precious few powerful, and historically whole races and genders have been excluded. If you're just saying it's ours in the sense that we were born into it, or that it has been imposed unquestionably upon us, then fine; but that doesn't at all help your idea that the laws were validly passed. Anyway, enough pointing out problems with your post. That the process is not grass-roots in any real sense is not a problem; just before Charles lost his head, he said something we ought to all remember, that for the commons governance "is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clear different things." The issue here is that the ruling class, noble judges and lawyers, are presently disenfranchised and subject to the wicked laws of vulgar and base peoples Lykourgos fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jul 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 21:41
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:And the question of legitimacy is one that helps answer our problem of whether the law is valid (although it does not answer the question of whether we are of proper station to actually question the law to begin with). The product of an illegitimate system is not presumptively valid; the reult may be shown to be proper, but your side of the fence is just making an assumption. If you start building a stable with rotten wood, you'll need rotten wood to complete it. We can only assume that this final product, this law you're talking about, is no better than the process that bore it. At this point, you're playing semantics here and avoiding my point that the copyright laws that people are complaining about are binding laws that are are part of the government we have developed and will continue to be until people successfully use the process to change those laws. Either that or you want to move beyond the realm of lawyers and legal obligations and procedure, which is what I was getting at when I said "validly legislated," and to the more nebulous questions about whether these laws are right or wrong or whether they have popular legitimacy. quote:It's confusing, then, that you say this is "our" system. It's not ours in any real sense of the word; you've admitted as much by saying that it's controlled by a precious few powerful, and historically whole races and genders have been excluded. If you're just saying it's ours in the sense that we were born into it, or that it has been imposed unquestionably upon us, then fine; but that doesn't at all help your idea that the laws were validly passed. It is "our" system in that we participate in it and, as lawyers, we have sworn to uphold. The copyright laws are a product of the system and the people, either through apathy or silent consent, or actually benefitting from those laws, have let those laws pass through the checks and balances of our system of government. Basically my meaning of valid is apparently more limited than yours is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
TyChan posted:
Haha as soon as I read what he wrote I knew someone would quote me from the last page. I download for a lot of reasons, but mainly because I can. I have a voracious appetite for music that I couldn't legally satiate even if I made 5x my current salary. A lot of times I download something, listen to it, find out it sucks poo poo and never listen to it again ... 15 bucks saved It's not like artists get no money from me. I always go see acts I like when they're in town. I've been known to buy a CD if really desperate. In the days before downloading I bought many because that was all you could do. I have a library of 1,000+ CD's I bought legally. I have a drawer full of concert tshirts I never wear. I have a loathing for people who solely exist (and get rich) by being a middleman. My wife is friends with an "insurance broker". She owns her own business wherein she simply serves as go-between for small business owners/the self-insured and the insurance companies. Her "workday" as far as I can tell, involves making about 3 phone calls in between running personal errands all day. And this woman is wealthy from this business. Why is that? Similarly I don't like the fact that empty suits became ridiculously wealthy doing nothing but "marketing" music. The fact that it makes worthless people whine that they can no longer get rich is not the reason I download, but it is a nice side benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
I feel this argument I'm having with Lykourgos is an example of why so many people are unhappy with law school and being a lawyer. I think a lot of applicants come in thinking they're going to litigate or draft against injustice and they realize that the law isn't necessarily about wrong and right, but it's about rules and agreements that hopefully reflect our sense of what is wrong and right.Defleshed posted:Haha as soon as I read what he wrote I knew someone would quote me from the last page. Well, you are proving me right in that there is a lot of music you are downloading because you don't feel like (or can't) pay for it. I probably should have been more nuanced, but basically I was pointing out that that many people downloading music through free, illegal channels are downloading it because they simply don't want to pay for it and don't want to go without it. And at the same time, I don't think you're saying that what you are doing is legal either, correct?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 22:01
|
|
|
My memory is fuzzy but it's the uploading and not the downloading that's actionable yes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 22:07
|
|
|
TyChan posted:At this point, you're playing semantics here and avoiding my point that the copyright laws that people are complaining about are binding laws that are are part of the government we have developed and will continue to be until people successfully use the process to change those laws. Actually, you're the one playing semantics, trying to heap terms of honour and respect upon your side of the argument. If you want to use the term "valid" to mean "in accordance with these particular, internal rules" then okay, but given that nobody is saying there was a procedural error, the adjective is completely pointless. The "nebulous" questions were opened a long time ago, at the very beginning of this topic. If your whole point is "it's a law that was passed in accordance with this particular procedure, so it's illegal," then congratulations on being entris. As soon as you say "it's illegal so it's not right to do it," however, then you, yourself, are opening the nebulous door on what is right and wrong, when exceptions exist, and what the legislature ought to consist of. quote:It is "our" system in that we participate in it and, as lawyers, we have sworn to uphold. The copyright laws are a product of the system and the people, either through apathy or silent consent, or actually benefitting from those laws, have let those laws pass through the checks and balances of our system of government. You must have a pretty low standard for participation, given voter turnout and input. As for lawyers being sworn to uphold the system as it is today, the answer is an emphatic no. I see nothing in the oath that says that, whatsoever. At best, I see a line in the illinois oath saying that we'll uphold the federal and state constitutions; no particular definition or interpretation offered. There is nothing I can see in the illinois oath that suggests we at all have to uphold the current state of affairs; not to mention that the constitution itself admits of being amended. TyChan posted:I feel this argument I'm having with Lykourgos is an example of why so many people are unhappy with law school and being a lawyer. I think a lot of applicants come in thinking they're going to litigate or draft against injustice and they realize that the law isn't necessarily about wrong and right, but it's about rules and agreements that hopefully reflect our sense of what is wrong and right. Speak for yourself; the law is most certainly about wrong and right. It is the field of learned gentlemen discussing what ought to be, and using the law to make manifest their godly will. I am very pleased with the legal work I have had the privilege of doing, and it has accorded with my interpretation of what law consists of. You are most certainly incorrect to classify it as you do. Lykourgos fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jul 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 22:07
|
|
|
Too many words in this discussion, going to LF, see you all later
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:The "nebulous" questions were opened a long time ago, at the very beginning of this topic. If your whole point is "it's a law that was passed in accordance with this particular procedure, so it's illegal," then congratulations on being entris. As soon as you say "it's illegal so it's not right to do it," however, then you, yourself, are opening the nebulous door on what is right and wrong, when exceptions exist, and what the legislature ought to consist of. I was just saying it's illegal and have been repeatedly saying that I'm not saying whether it is right or wrong. It is, however, against the law. Jeez. quote:You must have a pretty low standard for participation, given voter turnout and input. Is there any system of government that will ever make you happy? quote:As for lawyers being sworn to uphold the system as it is today, the answer is an emphatic no. I see nothing in the oath that says that, whatsoever. At best, I see a line in the illinois oath saying that we'll uphold the federal and state constitutions; no particular definition or interpretation offered. There is nothing I can see in the illinois oath that suggests we at all have to uphold the current state of affairs; not to mention that the constitution itself admits of being amended. So when a law is passed according to the system laid out in the state or federal constitution, it's the lawyer right to decide whether he wants to obey it or not without any fear of consequences? Come on. Now you're just trolling me. Elotana posted:My memory is fuzzy but it's the uploading and not the downloading that's actionable yes? You're basically correct as far as file sharers go. The theory behind the RIAA lawsuits was that by going on to various file sharing networks, users were infringing on the copyright holders' exclusive right of distribution of the songs. They would then seek statutory damages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
TyChan posted:Is there any system of government that will ever make you happy? Have you ever read Leviathan?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
gently caress all y'all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 22:17
|
|
|
Mookie posted:gently caress all y'all. ________/______ 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
Elotana posted:My memory is fuzzy but it's the uploading and not the downloading that's actionable yes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 22:28
|
|