Week 8 EOC: Questions

1.When are you allowed to accuse someone of copyright infringement?

2.Is their any specific person that is liable for infringement?

3.Are their ways of using someone else’s work without being liable for infringement?

4.Why should you register all of your copyrights early?

5.Can an employer use an employee’s work without giving them credit?

6. What if the employee makes something outside of work?

7.What if somebody wants to use your work but you don’t work for them? How could they go about using it?

8. What f they decide to use all the rights if you only give you a portion of them?

9.  Would it be more beneficial if I kept my work, or to sell it to other people?

10. Is there any time that a client should have all right to my work?

Week 9 EOC: Used Cars

Bribery

Assault and Battery

Week 10 EOC Lawyer Jokes

A man who had been caught embezzling millions from his employer went to a lawyer seeking defense. He didn't want to go to jail. But his lawyer told him, "Don’t worry. You’ll never have to go to jail with all that money.” And the lawyer was right. When the man was sent to prison, he didn't have a dime.

Your own arguments and opinions

Rule of Law

Reasoning of the Law

The Questions

Legal Authority

TBC

Week 8 EOC: Bratz Brawl

One of the more epic IP battles has come to an end. Mattel (Barbie) and MGA Entertainment (Bratz), have spent most of a decade in various courtrooms hashing out the ultra-serious question about which of these companies is entitled to the Bratz millions.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121019/17344420768/its-finally-over-8-years-mattel-vs-bratz-no-ones-getting-paid-lawyers.shtml

I don’t understand why the person who made bratz wants all the money for creating them, if he was working for Barbie, then his inspiration for it obviously came from them, I think he could at least spare some of the profits from what he made, and just working for Barbie, he probably only gets paid like an original employee, but if he made something for for the company that made millions, he would probably be paid a lot more than an original employee.

Long story short, a former Mattel employee left the company and crafted one of the first serious threats to Barbie's dominance, the Bratz dolls. Mattel, of course, was none too happy because the designer was still employed by Mattel when he came up with the idea. Mattel felt it owned the idea and sued the designer in an effort to make that a reality.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121019/17344420768/its-finally-over-8-years-mattel-vs-bratz-no-ones-getting-paid-lawyers.shtml

Forget everything I just said about what I thought the creator of bratz should do. If he came up with the idea while he was working for mattel, that means he had an idea, he could have done nothing and then Barbie wouldn’t have done anything, but he quit before he actually pursued the idea and created his own thing, I don’t know why mattel thinks they own the idea, it doesn’t even make sense why they think they own it, if somebody had an idea and made it for mattel that wasn’t that good, they would probably let them keep the idea and let them make what they want from it, but if somebody tried to make their own idea and it was good, and it wasn’t an idea for them, they would claim it as theirs even though the creator no longer works for them, to me that’s just greed.

Mattel, which had originally filed the suit, was being hit with a judgment for $309 million in damages, including MGA's court fees. Adding that together with Mattel's legal expenses, and this fight over dolls put Mattel on the hook for nearly $700 million.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121019/17344420768/its-finally-over-8-years-mattel-vs-bratz-no-ones-getting-paid-lawyers.shtml

I think for just an idea, that is a bit much for them to pay, I think mattel overreacted a bit when they wanted all future plans for bratz but I don’t see any reason why they should pay so much for court charges, the only people I think that are winning this case are the lawyers .

Week 7 EOC: Lawyers

William J. Wray

Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)

702.938.6873 

Jennifer Ko Craft
Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)

702.796.5555

Brian R. Hardy

Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)

702-979-2405

Joseph R. Ganley

Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)

702-385-2500

Natasha Landrum

Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)

702-475-9056

Lars A. Perry
Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)

775-850-1500

James D. Boyle

Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)

702-763-9530

Michael D. Stein

Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)

702.784.5280

Ryan R. Gile

Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)

888-336-9296

Edward J. Quirk

Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)

702.938.6883

Week 6: EOC: Supreme court prayer

A divided Supreme Court, debating Wednesday whether public prayers at a New York town's board meetings are permissible, looked at the country's history of religious acknowledgment in the legislature and the court's own traditions.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/supreme-court-board-meeting-prayers/

I don’t get why its such a big deal to people that they do a prayer, people say it offends them because they are not religious or they believe in a different religion, I think its been going on long enough for people to get used to, and I don’t understand what is so offensive about it, its people saying a prayer, if you don’t want to listen to it you don’t have to, just respect what others believe in and don’t complain about it and annoy anyone else who believe in that religion.

The town of about 94,000 residents outside Rochester began allowing prayers to start its meetings in 1999, after years of having a "moment of silence."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/supreme-court-board-meeting-prayers/

Why couldn't they just stick with this? And if people have such a big problem with it, they can go back to having a moment of silence. If 94,000 people can accept having a prayer, then why cant a ew other people accept it,  where were these people when they began accepting prayer, and after it had been accepted for so long why do they suddenly think that its inappropriate and has to change.

"It's very divisive when you bring government into religion," Stephens told CNN from her home. "I don't believe in God, and Susan is Jewish, so to hear these ministers talk about Jesus and even have some of them who personally question our motives, it's just not appropriate."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/supreme-court-board-meeting-prayers/

This doesn’t make any sense, they did a prayer to start the session, in what was did the ministers question their motives, and what makes it inappropriate, I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying a prayer before a session, and I’m not religious, but even if I was I’m not going to go on tv and make up reasons why I think its inappropriate, they act like its going to kill them if they don’t get what they want, so they make a huge case about why a little thing that effects nobody should be changed.

Week 5 EOC

One of the major issues with the internet today is people being paranoid about the government tracking what they are doing online, personally I don’t understand why so many people hate that the government can do this, what are the odds of the government actually monitoring what you are doing, I don’t care if they monitor what I do because it would be pointless, they wouldn’t find anything, if they were monitoring me I would laugh because usually when I’m on the internet, it’s because I’m bored, so now they get to sit there and be bored with me. There are actually people trying to make it legal to monitor what you are doing online now though.

Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) allows the government to obtain access to digital communications -- including email, Facebook messages, information sitting in your public cloud provider's databases, and a variety of other files -- with only a subpoena and not a warrant once those items are 180 days old.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/031213-privacy-laws-267614.html

I don’t know what they are thinking, but I think this is one of the stupidest things they can possibly do, when people were told that the government was monitoring what people were doing, people started complaining about how the government should respect their privacy, and I think its funny how people complain about their privacy and they start trying to pass laws that would legally allow them to see what people are doing, even though its after 180 days, it’s still a bad idea, especially since it’s the people that vote them into office to start with.

Even with laws like these trying to be passed, there are other bills that are trying to be passed that actually help people with their privacy concerns.

The Right to Know Act has been getting a great deal of attention. Civil liberties organizations, privacy advocates and women’s groups have been urging the state legislature to pass the bill — and if the will of the people were the only consideration, it would seem destined to pass speedily. But powerful tech companies are lined up against the bill — and it’s looking like it will be a tough fight.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/30/internet-privacy-a-new-bill-finally-offers-protections/

I don’t understand how a law like this would have trouble being passed, the ECPA would allow the government to monitor what people are doing after 6 months, and people are complaing about why it shouldn’t be passed because it’s an invasion of privacy, and the right to know act demands that companies tell the public what they are doing with their personal information and would probably make the public feel a lot better about what they put online (or teach them what not to put online) and all different groups are supporting it, and it is still having trouble being passed.

Week 2 EOC: Supreme Court

My views on abortion are that if somebody is pregnant and doesn’t want to give birth, they should be allowed to have an abortion. I don’t understand why people think it should be illegal, and there are cases where people threaten, or even kill doctors that do abortions. I believe that nobody should be allowed to tell someone else what to do with their child. I would say if I was against abortion, I would think that there are some reasons to let someone get an abortion, one example being if they were raped, but really its none of my business what someone else should do with their child, whatever they want to do is their choice.

People who support a federal ban on abortion believe that the federal government has a moral responsibility to protect fetuses and embryos, and that there is no constitutional right to abortion. Most supporters of a federal abortion ban would allow exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the woman.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/qt/abortion_opins.htm

I’m glad that some people who are prolife can have exceptions for why someone should be allowed to have abortians, but I don’t get the people that say that people have no constitutional right to abortion, we don’ have any constitutional right to breath but we do that too, or is everything we do supposed to be in the constitution, it doesn’t make any sense.

Most Americans, and most members of the U.S. Supreme Court, believe that there is a constitutional right to abortion. Under this view, most definitively articulated in the Supreme Court's majority ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973), abortion must remain legal in every state. State laws that ban abortion, or pose an undue burden on women seeking abortions, are unconstitutional under this standard.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/qt/abortion_opins.htm

Though this is pro choice and I am pro choice myself, I still don’t understand why people think that it’s a constitutional right to have an abortion, in my opinion, it’s a right as a human being to have an abortion.

Week 4 EOC: Copyrights

Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works. 

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

Copyright is a form of intellectual property law that protects works of authorship and artistic works, however does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although in se ways it ca protect the way they are expressed. Patents are different because they protect inventions and discoveries, copyright only protects intellectual property. Trademarks are different because they protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifies them from one party and distinguishes them from others.

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

You don’t have to register for a copyright, but you do have to register if you want to bring a lawsuit for an infringement of U.S. work. Some reasons it is recommended to register is that many people prefer to do this so they have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration, and registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney’s fees in successful litigation. The last reason is if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law, Prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prima+facie

Your Copyright is good in other countries but it is not good in all countries, most countries honor citizen’s copyrights but some countries like Afganistan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq and many more don’t.

Week 3 EOC: Erin Brockavich

Erin Brockavich got into a case with PG&E for polluted water that caused multiple families to get sick. The first settlement PG&E wanted was $200,00, but after they had refused to accept it and found more evidence of how PG&E was responsible for the polluted water, the next settlement was $20,000,000, and by the end of the case, 643 hinkley residents had hired Masry & Vititoe  to sue PG&E, and the final settlement came out to $333 million dollars, which became the biggest direct-action lawsuit in U.S history. I have mixed feelings about this because Erin Brockavich got over $2,000,000 from this and I think that is way to expensive, but then again I’m not an expert when it comes to law so I don’t really have that much to say about it, the victims of the case got a little over $300,000 from it, I’m not really sure if that would be enough because of how long the water had been bad but then again, if Erin had never done anything to begin with, they probably wouldn’t have seen any justice in the case at all, and since the lawyers get paid part of what the clients are paid, then it is worth it and since there was almost 700 people involved in the case and their was probably a lot more that were harmed that didn’t come forward, then it must have been pretty hard to divide the money up anyway. I also don’t get why they finished on a settlement instead of taking it to court, I get the company was trying to make a settlement so they wouldn’t lose a lot of money, but they were also trying to go on a settlement so the news of the case wouldn’t go out to the world, and even on a settlement they broke a record for biggest direct action lawsuit in U.S history, so its not like they were going to keep much of it a secret.