Is greed good? I think the correct answer is “to a certain extent.” Greed has some good attributes about it. It pushes a person to strive for more. Greed does not allow a person to “settle for.” Greed is the reasons some of the greatest accomplishments in the world have happened. For example, the beloved city I was born and raised in was constructed out of greed. Las Vegas. NV a.k.a. Sin City was a town constructed by the mafia. It was Italian and Jewish greed for gambling profits that led them to the state of Nevada. Now, about 100 years later, Las Vegas is considered one of the greatest cities on earth. In this case greed was good. Always wanting more can also be bad though. If someone is constantly taking more than they need it can tend to affect others. For example, Bernie Madoff is the epitome of a person who was too greedy. He stole 150 billion dollars from customers, and co-workers at his company. This affected many different people around him. Some of those people affected by Madoffs stealing went broke, lost their homes, and lost their families. This type of greed is unacceptable. This is a case where greed was horribly bad. With cases like the previous two mentioned I feel that greed is good only to a certain extent.
If I could create a “wack-me” doll in any persons image it would have to be a police officer. I am not a big fan of the police. I do understand that they are suppose to “serve and protect,” but a lot of the time they are engaged in discriminatory and illegal activities. My doll would not be based on one particular officer, but just a random cop that I could beat up when I feel upset.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Supreme Court Ruling-Part 1/Facts of the case
"The Court has made clear in its decision that services whose clear intent is to foster infringement are liable for the illegal behavior of third parties using their software. As the Court stated, 'The unlawful objective is unmistakable.'
"BMI has been at the forefront of licensing music for digital transmission, and this ruling today will strengthen the environment for legitimate businesses.
On June 27, the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in a precedent setting case concerning peer to peer file sharing. The Court overturned the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and held in favor of the plaintiffs in the case of MGM, et al. v. Grokster, Ltd. The Court ruled that services whose clear intent is to foster infringement are liable for the illegal behavior of third parties using their software.
The primary issue was whether Grokster intentionally induced infringement. The unanimous decision (9-0) of the Court was that distributors of peer-to-peer file sharing software may be liable for inducing copyright infringement even if the software is capable of substantial non-infringing uses, which was the test set forth in the Sony Betamax case. The Court stated that .one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties. After explaining that the defendants Grokster and StreamCast Networks, Inc. distribute free software products that allow computer users to share electronic files through peer-to peer networks, the court stated that MGM brought suit, alleging that the defendants should be held responsible for the copyright infringement of their users, because they knowingly enabled the users to infringe.
Grokster and StreamCast conceded the infringement in most downloads, and there was considerable evidence that they advised recipients to download copyrighted works and encouraged infringement. Nevertheless, the District Court held that the distribution of the software didnt give rise to any liability because the use of the software did not provide the defendants with actual knowledge of specific acts of infringement. The Court of Appeals came to the same conclusion, saying that a defendant would be liable as a contributory infringer when it had knowledge of direct infringement and materially contributed to the infringement. Furthermore, they were not liable under the theory of vicarious liability either, because the defendants did not monitor or control the use of the software, had no agreed-upon right or current ability to supervise its use, and had no independent duty to police infringement.
The Court explained that there was clearly a tension between supporting creative pursuits through copyright protection, and promoting innovation. But the court recognized that the argument for imposing indirect liability in this case is, however, a powerful one, given the number of infringing downloads that occur every day using StreamCasts and Groksters software. When a widely shared service or product is used to commit infringement, it may be impossible to enforce rights in the protected work effectively against all direct infringers, the only practical alternative being to go against the distributor of the copying device for secondary liability on a theory of contributory or vicarious infringement.
http://www.bmi.com/news/entry/234484
"BMI has been at the forefront of licensing music for digital transmission, and this ruling today will strengthen the environment for legitimate businesses.
On June 27, the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in a precedent setting case concerning peer to peer file sharing. The Court overturned the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and held in favor of the plaintiffs in the case of MGM, et al. v. Grokster, Ltd. The Court ruled that services whose clear intent is to foster infringement are liable for the illegal behavior of third parties using their software.
The primary issue was whether Grokster intentionally induced infringement. The unanimous decision (9-0) of the Court was that distributors of peer-to-peer file sharing software may be liable for inducing copyright infringement even if the software is capable of substantial non-infringing uses, which was the test set forth in the Sony Betamax case. The Court stated that .one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties. After explaining that the defendants Grokster and StreamCast Networks, Inc. distribute free software products that allow computer users to share electronic files through peer-to peer networks, the court stated that MGM brought suit, alleging that the defendants should be held responsible for the copyright infringement of their users, because they knowingly enabled the users to infringe.
Grokster and StreamCast conceded the infringement in most downloads, and there was considerable evidence that they advised recipients to download copyrighted works and encouraged infringement. Nevertheless, the District Court held that the distribution of the software didnt give rise to any liability because the use of the software did not provide the defendants with actual knowledge of specific acts of infringement. The Court of Appeals came to the same conclusion, saying that a defendant would be liable as a contributory infringer when it had knowledge of direct infringement and materially contributed to the infringement. Furthermore, they were not liable under the theory of vicarious liability either, because the defendants did not monitor or control the use of the software, had no agreed-upon right or current ability to supervise its use, and had no independent duty to police infringement.
The Court explained that there was clearly a tension between supporting creative pursuits through copyright protection, and promoting innovation. But the court recognized that the argument for imposing indirect liability in this case is, however, a powerful one, given the number of infringing downloads that occur every day using StreamCasts and Groksters software. When a widely shared service or product is used to commit infringement, it may be impossible to enforce rights in the protected work effectively against all direct infringers, the only practical alternative being to go against the distributor of the copying device for secondary liability on a theory of contributory or vicarious infringement.
http://www.bmi.com/news/entry/234484
Week 7 EOC
The owners in the movie Pacific heights were gullable. They allowed a tenant to move in to their building without the proper background check. The owners had the right to properly find out the tenants information, but rushed into allowing him to move in without even paying a deposit. Once the least was signed, the tenant now had rights. Even after not paying the rent, the owners could not evict the tenant. The owners then tried to deter the tenant from staying there by shutting off the power and heat. The tenant called the police. The police came and said that the owners were breaking the law by doing that, and that they had to turn the utilities back on. It seems as if they were stuck with a “bad” tenant. The movie was not one hundred percent accurate in its interpretation of the laws. I believe that in real life the owners would have had more rights to get the tenant out of their building. One fact missing from this description of events is the fact that the tenant was stalking one of the owners. If proven, this fact alone could have gotten the owners out of the lease with no hassle. Also, the way in which the place was being taken care of affects the terms of the lease. The owners found out there was a roach nest coming from the tenants apartment, they had the right to go in his place and find the source. Having an unsafe environment like a roach nest in your home is definitely grounds for getting evicted. I do not think the owners were properly informed about their rights. On the other hand, depending on the exact terms of the lease, the renter may not have been at fault, or made to leave the property.
Week 4 EOC
Group Members: George Teh, David Thomas, Ryan Edwards1. Trade Libel- Tampering with video - crime2. False Advertising- “mile of cars”- crime3. Illegal gambling on footall game- Crime4. Vandalism, property in bar; salt mirror; umbrellas- crime5. Perjury, woman lies in court- crime6. Illegal drugs mentioned at car lot- crime7. Stolen vehicles- crime8. Underage drivers- crime9. No driver’s license for students- crime10. No seatbelts- crime11. Sexual harassment at the lot on the woman- tort12. Speeding- crime13. Reckless driving- crime14. Running from the police at the car wreck scene- crime15. Drinking on the job with other car lot owners- tort16. Assault with deadly weapon- gun during car chase and chains17. Battery at the bar- crime
What my classmates think of the legal system
What do my classmates think of the legal system? When trying to find the answer to this question I found that the opinion varied from person to person. Each student’s background and upbringing forms and determines what he or she thinks about the legal system. In one example Crystal B. wrote, “The legal system sets up laws and if you break them you suffer the consequences. I feel that it offers a balance in the society. It has its fingers in everything that we do. I see it as a collar on a dog’s neck. The collar is used as a training tool that is used to keep the dog in line. You get a new dog and at first, he does not quite understand the rules of your house so naturally he just runs around doing whatever he wants until you establish what he can do and where he can go. He does not take you seriously until you get that collar out and once you do, the dog understands that you mean business.” I disagreed with her opinion. I believe she has not had the same experiences with the legal system that I have had. In another example Zenobia S. wrote “I think the legal system is unjust we live in a world where money rules everything even our judicial system. Such as here in America where we are celebrity obsessed. We let people like Paris Hilton drive drunken numerous times and the longest she gets in jail is a month. If that was any other person without money they would be looking at six months and no license.” I agreed with her statements one hundred percent. She sounds like someone who understands the legal system we live in. Lastly, I read another example from Andrew V. who said, “To me, the legal system is a wonderful way to determine the line between right and wrong. It also allows for repeat offenders to be removed from harming a society and or coning a society but at the same time though I find it to be a double standard kind of representation.” I agreed with this blog as well. I think he also has an understanding of our legal system, and I believe most of the students here at the AiLV do also.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Week 6 EOC
Warren,Ryan,Wakonda,Roger
Product Name: AAH702’s Headphones
Company Name: AAP (All Around Products)
Slogan: “ Keep Doin What You Doin”
EOC: keep doing what you doing
Our company AAP, (All Around Products), just came with a new innovative product called the AAH702’s. They’re new top of the line headphone that everyone can use and love. You love music? You love internet? You love TV well now you can get a product that can give you all that and more! The AAH702s are new noise canceling head phones that give the top of the line sound quality. Which is great for the music you love best. But not only that, but these head phones have its own mini screen that slides out and you can watch TV and you can get on the internet. Why use an I-pod to download your music when you can do it right off of your head phones. These headphones are very convenient especially for the people who love always listening to their head phones.
The AAP Company came up with the idea of all around head phones
Product Name: AAH702’s Headphones
Company Name: AAP (All Around Products)
Slogan: “ Keep Doin What You Doin”
EOC: keep doing what you doing
Our company AAP, (All Around Products), just came with a new innovative product called the AAH702’s. They’re new top of the line headphone that everyone can use and love. You love music? You love internet? You love TV well now you can get a product that can give you all that and more! The AAH702s are new noise canceling head phones that give the top of the line sound quality. Which is great for the music you love best. But not only that, but these head phones have its own mini screen that slides out and you can watch TV and you can get on the internet. Why use an I-pod to download your music when you can do it right off of your head phones. These headphones are very convenient especially for the people who love always listening to their head phones.
The AAP Company came up with the idea of all around head phones
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Me as the Consumer week 2 EOC
I am a young African American male. I am 28 years of age and apart of generation Y. I was raised in the western part of the United States in Las Vegas, Nevada. Even though I was born in the west my parents who raised me are both from Louisiana. Growing up with southern parents in Las Vegas shaped my demographic. I am into many different types of music, but I primarily like old school R&B and Hip-Hop. I usually enjoy listening to artist like Marvin Gaye, The Temptations, Tupac, and Ice Cube. I also enjoy eating many different types of food. I like Italian, Chinese, and Mexican, but I really enjoy southern dishes commonly known as “Soul Food.” “Soul Food” consists of dishes like red beans and rice, gumbo, jambalaya, fried chicken, collard greens, and much more. When I go shopping for clothes I have a certain style that I try to “put on.” I like certain designers like Polo by Ralph Lauren, Nike, New ERA, Kenneth Cole, and Reebok. I like watching a variety of things for entertainment such as the NBA, NFL, NCAA sports, and MLB. My favorite athletes are people like Kobe Bryant, Floyd Mayweather, Mike Vick, and Ryan Howard. The TV shows that I like to watch are The Sopranos, Sports center, The First 48, and Pardon the Interruption.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)