![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ichabod is my soulmate, apparently
Oct. 3rd, 2013 09:48 pm
gifs gakked from alchemicalalice
I want to be there when he finds out about personal income tax, and his head explodes.
gifs gakked from alchemicalalice
I want to be there when he finds out about personal income tax, and his head explodes.
Taking Star Trek (Too) Seriously
Dec. 26th, 2012 09:19 pmCleaning out my email I found a message I sent to myself over a year ago (!!!) to post about Prof. Ilya Somin's interview on the Institute for Humane Studies podcast regarding Themes of Liberty in Star Trek. Although the podcast is really for lawyers/policy wonks who are interested in pop culture portrayals of liberty, it's fun for seasoned fans, too. Of course, Star Trek is a story, not a philosophical blueprint, but like much of science fiction it has strong themes that are meant to comment on the world we live in, so I often find enjoyment in exploring the internal consistency and implications of those commentaries.
Prof. Somin obviously does as well, as he's given some serious thought to how to reconcile the pure socialism of the Federation's proclaimed economic system ("we've evolved beyond money," etc) with the unfortunate experience of such systems (e.g., that humans have not yet found a way to implement a socialist economic system that does not also include a great curtailment of personal liberty, contra the portrayal of expansive personal liberty in ST), and the implications of calling the union a "federation," where it is likely not all planets share the same economic, political or cultural systems. He resolves the inconsistencies by proposing a (Piece of the Action-style) protection racket:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
eldritchhobbit on Firefly.
Prof. Somin obviously does as well, as he's given some serious thought to how to reconcile the pure socialism of the Federation's proclaimed economic system ("we've evolved beyond money," etc) with the unfortunate experience of such systems (e.g., that humans have not yet found a way to implement a socialist economic system that does not also include a great curtailment of personal liberty, contra the portrayal of expansive personal liberty in ST), and the implications of calling the union a "federation," where it is likely not all planets share the same economic, political or cultural systems. He resolves the inconsistencies by proposing a (Piece of the Action-style) protection racket:
Well I think obviously the way Gene Roddenbury intended it is as a utopia. The idea of a predatory, imperialist racket is something I came up with tongue-in-cheek as a possible way of reconciling the federalism and the socialism in a way that only Earth is socialist, while the rest of the federation has either a mixed economy or a more capitalist system, and then Earth seems to dominate Star Fleet, the military division, and that may be because what Star Fleet really does is force the other planets to pay tribute and support Earth’s socialism.He expanded on his 'theory' in his 2007 essay. The podcast reminds me of a presentation on "The Economics of the Star Trek Universe" given by an economist some years ago at Shore Leave, which reached similar conclusions regarding the irreconcilability of the purported economic socialism of the ST universe, and the level of production/material abundance portrayed. The podcast was part of a series on Themes of Liberty in SciFi which included a fantastic interview with
eldritchhobbit on Firefly.(no subject)
Dec. 22nd, 2010 12:49 pmLaw and the Multiverse:Superheroes, Supervillians and the Law. Oh my goodness, I think I'm in love:
Who among us has not spent hours contemplating this issue? Or how governments react to extra-governmental law enforcement systems? Can Batman testify in court without revealing his identity? I have never heard Superman Mirandize anyone. Can injured bystanders sue their erstwhile rescuers? Should we be seeking to shut down the Guild of Calamitous Intent with a RICO suit? Professor X's telepathy and the hearsay problem may be my favorite thus far, though I think, in an actual telepathy-enabled world, we would almost certainly develop a new Fourth Amendment doctrine (or at least legislative protection) for individuals to be secure in their own thoughts from telepathic reading, at least without judicial warrant (at least, for evidential purposes).
Most of the time when property is damaged, the property owner has insurance that will pay to restore their property to approximately the state it was in before the loss occurred. But when Doomsday goes on a rampage of destruction across at least three states or the Joker blows up half of downtown Gotham, insurers aren’t actually going to want to pay for that, and there is reason to believe that under the terms of standard insurance contracts, they wouldn’t have to.
Who among us has not spent hours contemplating this issue? Or how governments react to extra-governmental law enforcement systems? Can Batman testify in court without revealing his identity? I have never heard Superman Mirandize anyone. Can injured bystanders sue their erstwhile rescuers? Should we be seeking to shut down the Guild of Calamitous Intent with a RICO suit? Professor X's telepathy and the hearsay problem may be my favorite thus far, though I think, in an actual telepathy-enabled world, we would almost certainly develop a new Fourth Amendment doctrine (or at least legislative protection) for individuals to be secure in their own thoughts from telepathic reading, at least without judicial warrant (at least, for evidential purposes).
Sherlock Fic Rec
Dec. 12th, 2010 04:05 pmAJHall's Bedtime Story is wonderfully rendered pre-series story about a law student dragooned into sitting for wee!Sherlock. AJ has a talent for conveying a great deal in a small space, particularly through clever allusions. She makes the most of POV to deliver character insights with a distinct tone. Sample:
The unexpected but delightful bonus, for me, is the babysitter's reference to a well-known, almost legendary case studied by most American law students, The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens.
Mrs. Holmes is correct; these books cost a fortune.
Or, as my fellow students termed it, The One Where They Ate The Cabin Boy.
This is, of course, precisely the sort of story that would appeal to seven-year-old Sherlock. It also held a deep appeal for my creepy, septuagenarian professor, who experienced the utmost glee in presenting the case. He started by playing an clip from Pirates of Penzance, then proceeded to illustrate the facts through stick figure drawings: a boat, four survivors, smiles turning to frowns as their days on the open sea grew longer, then a sea-turtle, killed to give the survivors a few extra days, and eventually, a similar fate for young Mr. Parker.
Artist's recreation
Disturbing, but effective. To this day, when someone mentions the defense of necessity, the professor's chalk drawing is the first thing that comes to my mind.
Law texts, especially criminal law and torts, are chock-a-block with murder, misadventure, and depravity. If he could have put up with the proceduralism and his fellow students, Sherlock might have had a lot of fun at the bar.
Being read to created a particular sort of tense, coiled unhappiness within him. People's voices were too loud, and they always put the emphasis in the wrong place, and looked at him with false, cheery expressions as if they were expecting him to react to the ridiculous banalities they were parroting.
... The caterpillar had – with frustrating disregard for realism, relative body-weights or gastro-intestinal capacity – consumed its way through one red apple and two green pears when, mercifully, the phone in the hall rang.
The unexpected but delightful bonus, for me, is the babysitter's reference to a well-known, almost legendary case studied by most American law students, The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens.
Mrs. Holmes is correct; these books cost a fortune.
Or, as my fellow students termed it, The One Where They Ate The Cabin Boy.
This is, of course, precisely the sort of story that would appeal to seven-year-old Sherlock. It also held a deep appeal for my creepy, septuagenarian professor, who experienced the utmost glee in presenting the case. He started by playing an clip from Pirates of Penzance, then proceeded to illustrate the facts through stick figure drawings: a boat, four survivors, smiles turning to frowns as their days on the open sea grew longer, then a sea-turtle, killed to give the survivors a few extra days, and eventually, a similar fate for young Mr. Parker.
Artist's recreation
Disturbing, but effective. To this day, when someone mentions the defense of necessity, the professor's chalk drawing is the first thing that comes to my mind.
Law texts, especially criminal law and torts, are chock-a-block with murder, misadventure, and depravity. If he could have put up with the proceduralism and his fellow students, Sherlock might have had a lot of fun at the bar.
It's Only Logical...
Nov. 4th, 2010 11:36 pmVia vretallin, Texas Supreme Court judge mentions Spock in concurrence:
Appropriately weighty principles guide our course. First, we recognize that police power draws from the credo that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Second, while this maxim rings utilitarian and Dickensian (not to mention Vulcan21), it is cabined by something contrarian and Texan: distrust of intrusive government and a belief that police power is justified only by urgency, not expediency.
Footnote 21:
See STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN (Paramount Pictures 1982). The film references several works of classic literature, none more prominently than A Tale of Two Cities. Spock gives Admiral Kirk an antique copy as a birthday present, and the film itself is bookended with the book’s opening and closing passages. Most memorable, of course, is Spock’s famous line from his moment of sacrifice: “Don’t grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh . . .” to which Kirk replies, “the needs of the few.”
vretallin, Texas Supreme Court judge mentions Spock in concurrence:Appropriately weighty principles guide our course. First, we recognize that police power draws from the credo that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Second, while this maxim rings utilitarian and Dickensian (not to mention Vulcan21), it is cabined by something contrarian and Texan: distrust of intrusive government and a belief that police power is justified only by urgency, not expediency.
Footnote 21:
See STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN (Paramount Pictures 1982). The film references several works of classic literature, none more prominently than A Tale of Two Cities. Spock gives Admiral Kirk an antique copy as a birthday present, and the film itself is bookended with the book’s opening and closing passages. Most memorable, of course, is Spock’s famous line from his moment of sacrifice: “Don’t grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh . . .” to which Kirk replies, “the needs of the few.”
Warriors for Legal Knowledge
May. 30th, 2007 09:02 pmI think there are a lot of folks spinning their wheels about this Warriors for Innocence/Mass Incest-Pedophelia Deletion Incident who are missing a couple of key points:
1) The First Amendment does not force a webhost/broadcaster to carry a particular type material or host discussions related to that material. LJ cannot be guilty of enforcing a "thought crimes" law or otherwise violating your constitutional rights because they're a private organization, not a branch of the government. They can decide not to carry discussion of or fiction related to pedophelia or incest. You can decide not to use/pay for the service. You can protest their decision (via letters or with your wallet) and hope their lawyers change their mind about their risk assessment or their executives reevaulate the public relations implications. Those are your options.
2) You don't have to be a law enforcement-associated organization or registered non-profit to complain about pedophilia- or incest-related material on LJ. Anyone can complain to a private company/broadcaster about the materials they carry/broadcast. Ask Don Imus.
1) The First Amendment does not force a webhost/broadcaster to carry a particular type material or host discussions related to that material. LJ cannot be guilty of enforcing a "thought crimes" law or otherwise violating your constitutional rights because they're a private organization, not a branch of the government. They can decide not to carry discussion of or fiction related to pedophelia or incest. You can decide not to use/pay for the service. You can protest their decision (via letters or with your wallet) and hope their lawyers change their mind about their risk assessment or their executives reevaulate the public relations implications. Those are your options.
2) You don't have to be a law enforcement-associated organization or registered non-profit to complain about pedophilia- or incest-related material on LJ. Anyone can complain to a private company/broadcaster about the materials they carry/broadcast. Ask Don Imus.
Via ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
fanficrants, the topic of fanfiction and copyright law is back on the metafandom radar.
A rather strongly worded rant claims:
YOU DO NOT MAKE MONEY OFF OF FANFIC.
EVER.
Do you realize the trouble you could bring down on the fanfic 'industry', such as it is, if you did? No, of course you don't, 'cause you're special and copyright laws apparently don't apply to you, or something.
If fanfiction is copyright infringement (that is, if it is a derivative work), it is copyright infringement regardless of whether money is made or not.
If fanfiction is infringement, one can attempt to make the defense of 'fair use', however, whether or not money is made is not determinative of whether a use is fair use. The test judges use to consider the defense of fair use has four elements:
(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.
Whether you make money is only one element of the four considered by a court in determining whether a use is fair use; it doesn't determine whether a use is fair or not. A use that makes no money but destroys the market for derivative works produced by the copyright holder is a lot more damaging (and likely to cause a successful lawsuit) than a use that makes some money but has no effect on the copyright holder's market for selling derivative works. A fair use defense is typically difficult to make (the courts apply test rather stringently), so if fanfiction does infringe on copyright, both zines and netfic are likely to fail the fair use test.
Of course, whether a copyright holder wants to go through a trial (with the expense and attendant negative publicity) is entirely another matter.
Selling fanfiction (ie, zines) is not some unique indicator that the work violates copyright, nor does offering your work for free provide a guaranteed 'out' (see this page for some basic information about common copyright myths, including the myth that if you don't make money, it's not infringement).
Also, "making money" does not necessarily "draw attention" to fanfiction. One might make the very strong argument that netfic is much more risky to the fanfiction world because it is so easily discoverable. All the copyright holder has to do is put the name of one of his/her characters into Google and s/he is bombarded with fanfiction. In most cases, zines are no more prominent than netfic, and there are many fewer zines than netfic websites at this point.
I think the poster might be conflating American copyright law with the common fannish custom that a zine maker would not build a profit margin into her publication, since doing so would be profiting off of the fans (her fellow community members, more friends than customers), something which used to be considered gauche.
fanficrants, the topic of fanfiction and copyright law is back on the metafandom radar.A rather strongly worded rant claims:
YOU DO NOT MAKE MONEY OFF OF FANFIC.
EVER.
Do you realize the trouble you could bring down on the fanfic 'industry', such as it is, if you did? No, of course you don't, 'cause you're special and copyright laws apparently don't apply to you, or something.
If fanfiction is copyright infringement (that is, if it is a derivative work), it is copyright infringement regardless of whether money is made or not.
If fanfiction is infringement, one can attempt to make the defense of 'fair use', however, whether or not money is made is not determinative of whether a use is fair use. The test judges use to consider the defense of fair use has four elements:
(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.
Whether you make money is only one element of the four considered by a court in determining whether a use is fair use; it doesn't determine whether a use is fair or not. A use that makes no money but destroys the market for derivative works produced by the copyright holder is a lot more damaging (and likely to cause a successful lawsuit) than a use that makes some money but has no effect on the copyright holder's market for selling derivative works. A fair use defense is typically difficult to make (the courts apply test rather stringently), so if fanfiction does infringe on copyright, both zines and netfic are likely to fail the fair use test.
Of course, whether a copyright holder wants to go through a trial (with the expense and attendant negative publicity) is entirely another matter.
Selling fanfiction (ie, zines) is not some unique indicator that the work violates copyright, nor does offering your work for free provide a guaranteed 'out' (see this page for some basic information about common copyright myths, including the myth that if you don't make money, it's not infringement).
Also, "making money" does not necessarily "draw attention" to fanfiction. One might make the very strong argument that netfic is much more risky to the fanfiction world because it is so easily discoverable. All the copyright holder has to do is put the name of one of his/her characters into Google and s/he is bombarded with fanfiction. In most cases, zines are no more prominent than netfic, and there are many fewer zines than netfic websites at this point.
I think the poster might be conflating American copyright law with the common fannish custom that a zine maker would not build a profit margin into her publication, since doing so would be profiting off of the fans (her fellow community members, more friends than customers), something which used to be considered gauche.
(no subject)
Sep. 5th, 2005 03:42 pmA good beginner's guide to copyright myths. Particularly useful for American fans who aren't lawyers (are there any left?).
