I spent about 6 hours over the weekend and made some improvements to my mySQL based digital bookshelf. New menu, 3d appearance, and a touch of javascript make this a worthy update. Check it out!

Introduction 

It’s been a while since I posted on any LEGAL matter, and I must say it’s good to finally get around to the legal posts again.  Anyway, I’m not vouching for the LEGAL correctness of any of this… but I though I’d post the text of my final Copyright Exam just in case you were interested in Copyright as a general matter.  The exam was intended to be the analysis portion of a legal opinion discussing Google’s “book search” and the Copyright issues raised with Google’s scanning and indexing activities.

Let me know what you think?  I’d be interested to hear from law students and novices alike.  (Do I deserve and A?  

Update:  It turns out I DID get an ‘A’.   niiice. 

OVERVIEW

Google, an online search giant, is undertaking a project to catalogue and digitally index the contents of books in libraries across the country. To accomplish this project, each book added to the Google database must be scanned and the text converted into a digital format. Google then stores a graphical copy of the book as well as an indexed database of all words and phrases that is then searchable by the end user. For works in the public domain, Google allows users to access the work in its entirety. In the case of Copyrighted material, Google selects individual pages to be displayed in order for the user to preview the book before having the option to purchase or obtain the book by alternate means.

As a result of these activities, Publishers have sued Google for “massive” copyright infringement. They claim that the act of copying and indexing a Copyrighted work is itself an infringing activity and further assert that the opt-out policy is evidence of indifference to the rights of authors and publishers. Google asserts that the opt-out program removes them from Copyright liability and even if not, they are protected by the “fair use” doctrine.

Read the rest of this entry »

Here they are … in no particular order:

1.  He supported Scholarships for ILLEGAL immigrants (link)

2.  He supported drivers’ licenses, government benefits and in-state tuition rates for illegals (link)

3.  He opposed a bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote. (link)

4.  He established a partially taxpayer-financed Mexican consulate office in Little Rock, a scheme involving the lease of building space to the Mexican government for $1 a year.  Why is the media not hounding him for this? (link)

5.  His dangerous views on terrorism and his inability to understand their motives and purpose (link).

“We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts – which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope. The United States’ strategic interests as the world’s most powerful country coincide with its moral obligations as the richest.”

As Selwyn Duke at the American Thinker put it… “does Huck know that Osama bin Laden is worth about $300 million?  I’ll also note that there is no moral obligation to use other people’s money for your government-run charities.“

4.  He says he would favor a national smoking ban (and I’m not even a smoker.  This kind of activity is just not the role the FEDERAL government should be playing.  It’s unconstitutional and reeks of an anti-freedom mentality) (link). 

5.  He is pro Taxes and Big Government (link)

5a.  Spending increased 65% from 1996 to 2004 in Arkansas while he was in office there. (link)

6.  He has expressed an ability to be easily bought with campaign contributions (link)

In Arkansas, Mr. Huckabee was investigated by the state ethics committee at least 14 times. Most of the complaints centered on what appears to be a serial disregard for government rules about gifts and outside financial compensation. He reported $112,000 worth of gifts in one year alone, nearly double his $67,000 salary… Five of the 14 investigations resulted in admonishments: Two for failing to report gifts (one was later overturned), the other three for some $80,000 that Mr. Huckabee and his wife received but failed to initially report. One of these admonishments involved a $23,500 payment to Mr. Huckabee from an opaque organization called Action America that he helped found in 1994 while lieutenant governor, and that was designed to coordinate his speeches and supplement his income.

8.  The mainstream media likes Huckabee… this is reason enough for any conservative to think twice about supporting him. (link)

Since the beginning of 2007, the Democratic National Committee has released 102 direct attacks on Mitt Romney. Rudy Giuliani has warranted 78; John McCain 68; Fred Thompson 21. Mike Huckabee? Four. The most recent of these landed back in March. GOP voters may not have examined Mr. Huckabee’s record, but the left has–and they love what they see.

 I’ve got some readers that support Huckabee… and I respect their opinions… but seriously, i think we can do better… even McCain (who I dislike) would be a more reliable candidate with a better record. 

I wanted to pass along a really amazing piece in the Wall Street Journal by Thomas Fleming.  The historical story is revealing in 2 ways.

First, it is amazing to see the parallels with the War in Iraq and the revolutionary war. Washington was metaphorically knifed in the back by a handful of his generals… he was smeared, lambasted, and under-funded.  Many in congress openly opposed his leadership.  Funny how things don’t change much in 200 years of American military engagements.

Secondly, It is self-evident how important of a role Washington played in the formation of our Country.  It is further evident how his faith and belief in God shaped his life and his character.  Washington was a man completely removed from the desire for power… even after winning the Revolutionary War, he humbly stepped aside and resigned his power as commander in chief.  Fleming believes the moment of his resignation to be “the most important moment in American history.”

Addressing this scandal-tarred enemy, Washington drew a speech from his coat pocket and unfolded it with trembling hands. “Mr. President,” he began in a low, strained voice. “The great events on which my resignation depended having at length taken place; I now have the honor of offering my sincere congratulations to Congress and of presenting myself before them to surrender into their hands the trust committed to me, and to claim the indulgence of retiring from the service of my country.”

He continued: “I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last solemn act of my official life by commending the interests of our dearest country to the protection of Almighty God and those who have the superintendence of them [Congress] to his holy keeping.”  

For a long moment, Washington could not say another word. Tears streamed down his cheeks. The words touched a vein of religious faith in his inmost soul, born of battlefield experiences that had convinced him of the existence of a caring God who had protected him and his country again and again during the war. Without this faith he might never have been able to endure the frustrations and rage he had experienced in the previous eight months.

Washington then drew from his coat a parchment copy of his appointment as commander in chief. “Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great theater of action and bidding farewell to this august body under whom I have long acted, I here offer my commission and take leave of all the employments of public life.”

I wish I could have been there for that moment.  How powerful. 

What a cool guy. Is it just me or has his English improved from the last video clip?

Can we all put the “bush lied” mantra behind us now? 

[the definitive post on the subject]

Unfortunately I am a bit behind on current events–law school exams have been known to have such an affect–but even though this is a few days late, I still think an analysis of the NIE report is in order.

As you no doubt know, the report has concluded “with high confidence”… I might add, that “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program… We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.”

Now, this report can be either believed (although doing so… how does one say… requires a willing suspension of disbelief) or be attacked for a number of valid reasons. Allow me to address both alternatives in order.

First, if we believe the report, how is it that our intelligence is 4 years behind the curve in finding such information out? Is it not entirely possible under this logic that Iran might have started it’s program back up in 2005–giving them a 4 year head start until our policy changes again in ‘09? Hardly re-assuring.

Secondly, if we choose to disbelieve the report, there are a variety of good reasons for doing so. To begin, it is unclear whether the new intelligence responsible for the 180 degree about-face based on reliable sources.  It is quite possible Iran may be leaking information to try to mislead western intelligence officials.  One only needs to look at the the statements of Iranian officials on a weekly basis to figure out they are a peace-loving nation.  The pursuit of nuclear weapons quite simply fits the mold.

Secondly, the International Atomic Energy Agency does not share the same degree of confidence in the U.S. assessment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the agency said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.” (WSJ).

Third, the three authors of the report are all admittedly opposed to Bush’s current Iranian policy. This isn’t to say that Bush’s interpretation of the intelligence isn’t equally tainted by ideology, but at least Bush’s position until now was based on intelligence documents that re-enforced his position. Given the astonishing new findings, one can’t but wonder if the report was designed in part to undermine the Bush strategy.

What is perhaps the most unfortunate result of the release of the report is how quickly it’s findings were put to partisan political purposes. Democrats quickly ran to the microphones–unquestionably accepting the intelligence report as inherent truth (which I found a bit odd given their qualms about previous WMD intelligence)–claiming Bush’s policy was incorrect and re-articulating the need for a diplomatic solution.

The mainstream media has responded no better. The New York Times immediately published an article titled “The Good and Bad News About Iran“. In relevant part:

The good news:
Tehran, we are now told, halted its secret nuclear weapons program in 2003, which means that President Bush has absolutely no excuse for going to war against Iran. We are also relieved that the intelligence community is now willing to question its own assumptions and challenge the White House fevered rhetoric….

And the bad news:
But there’s also a lot of worrisome news in there that must not be overlooked… Tehran’s scientists are working to master the skills to make nuclear fuel — the hardest part of building a weapon. Anyone who wants to give the Iranians the full benefit of the doubt should read the last four years of reports from United Nations’ nuclear inspectors about Iran’s 18-year history of hiding and dissembling. Or last month’s report, which criticized Tehran for providing “diminishing” information and access to its current program.

As James Toranto (one of my favorite cynics) concluded… “In other words, the bad news, per the Times, is that a lunatic theocracy may soon become a lunatic theocracy armed with nuclear weapons. The good news is that that there’s nothing President Bush can do to stop it.” I haven’t come to expect much support for bush from the Times; therefore, this article didn’t come as a surprise. You can imagine my shock then at the Time’s op-ed article the following day which seems to conclude the very opposite:

…[T]he report contains the same sorts of flaws that we have learned to expect from our intelligence agency offerings. It, like the report in 2002 that set up the invasion of Iraq, is both misleading and dangerous.

Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran’s, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors — all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them?

We should be suspicious of any document that suddenly gives the Bush administration a pass on a big national security problem it won’t solve during its remaining year in office. Is the administration just washing its hands of the intractable Iranian nuclear issue by saying, “If we can’t fix it, it ain’t broke”?

I happen to think the second article has it right; Iran has no need for nuclear fuel with their massive oil reserves; we cannot just blindly accept Teran’s “peaceful uses” explanation given their hard-water facilities. However, what is maddening about these two articles is that within the space of 24 hours, the Times went from bashing Bush’s “fevered rhetoric” to lamenting that the report removes Bush from the responsibilities his “fevered rhetoric” would otherwise require! Can it be said any differently then the times wants it both ways!? They praise Bush’s political defeat yet demand he be held accountable for their preferred “diplomatic” policy should it fail!  If read together, the Times has essentially praised the use of dangerous and misleading intelligence.  I really do not know how to react to such an evasive set of policy positions.

What many fail to realize is that in the end, the danger with Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology was with the pursuit itself… not necessarily the weapons that may still be decades away. It is really a question of responsibility; the Iranian regime has proven time and time again that it is not responsible enough to be entrusted with such potential power.

I believe the Bush administration has taken the proper approach to Iran–bringing countries together on issues like sanctions and increased diplomatic pressure. Unfortunately, the NIE report has wasted much of the political capital the Bush administration — including Condalesa Rice, John Bolton, and others — have worked hard to earn over the past few years.

It seems the drafters of the NIE have in both advocated a policy and have yet managed undermined that very policy within the pages of a single document. If this is not bad drafting… then I don’t know what is.

[flv]http://www.mmisi.org/flv/lectures/v000187_cicero_102207.flv[/flv]

Unfortunately, I seem to have stumbled across this debate after-the-fact… but that in no way makes it any less pleasurable for the first-time viewer.  As they say… if you haven’t seen it… you get the drift.  Anyway, here’s a quick teaser:

Christopher Hitchens (a favorite personality of mine) debates Dinseh D’souzda on the topics of Christianity and Faith.  Hitchens gave his usual “rationality alone provides all the answers we need” montra… which was not entirely un-persuasive… and Dinseh countered with scientific metaphysical arguments for a creator and the moral foundation Christianity has given Western culture — a foundation Hitchens almost entirely hijacks for his own purposes.  Dinesh pretty much destroys Hitchen’s premise that Christianity has been behind the horrible evils of the past mellenia… but at the expense of allowing Hitchens to counter with effective attacks on the “vindictive” and therefore undesirable nature of God– criticisms I wish D’souza would have more fully addressed.  

Denish deserves kudos for even attempting this battle and I think he performed very well all things considered.  He is definitely on my radar now as someone to follow closely.

I highly recommend spending 90 minutes and watching this debate in its entirety; it is quite an education to say the least.

Yesterday, I was enjoying my usual lazy morning routine: sipping Starbucks coffee with some ghirardelli chocolate on the side while reading the Wall Street Journal (there is almost nothing I enjoy more). That simple pleasure was rudely interrupted by a shocking quote in the middle of an article discussing Angela Merkel’s problems articulating a consistent foreign policy.  See if you can spot the portion that so affected me (hint: I italicized it)

Angela Merkel is tougherning her country’s approach to authoritarian regimes in China, Russia and Iran, but the switch hasn’t delivered the kinds of policy changes that might help reign them in.

Her views, including strong backing for Israel and suspicion of Iran, have moved Germany closer to the U.S. on some of the West’s most important foreign-policy challenges.

“Quiet diplomacy doesn’t work if you’re not prepared to stand up for your beliefs in public,” says Eckart von Klaeden, foreign -affirs spokesman for Ms. Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats. He wrote the party’s new Asia strategy, which said Germany should assert its democratic values more strongly.

That view worries many German foreign-policy specialists… “The idea that Western democracies can write the rules for successful autocracies is fanciful,” says Eberhand Sandschneider, director of the German Council on Foreign Relations.

After almost choking on my semi-dissolved chocolate square, I continued to read the remainder of the article–causing what had once been a perfect morning to become a worse-than-average sick day.

What, If I may ask, is WRONG about Germany–or any other democracy for that matter–”asserting” it’s values? What kind of sick, fatalistic, insecure, impolitic person thinks that the qualities of freedom, tolerance, justice, are values to be concealed, withheld from the gambit of topics available to be discussed in the international arena? Why should the West be mute on the very idea responsible for it’s greatness? Did he really just say this?

Furthermore, the concept that a fundamental quality of an autocracy is its un-questionable Perpetuality (*if I may coin a phrase*) is at best an ignorant opinion, at worst a dangerously revisionist version of history. Phrased differently, where is it written that autocracies are destined to continuous inevitability? The simple answer is that this is pure BS.

History is not lacking in examples of formerly-totalitarian regimes that have either become democratic (or are beginning to move in that direction. Here are just a few exmples off the top of my head (in no particular order):

• East Germany (Post WWII)
• South Korea (with U.S. help)
• Italy (cerca 1948)
• France (post-revolution)
• Britian
• Japan (Post WWII under the Marshall plan)
• China (to a degree)
• Spain
• Venesuela (with the latest political defeat of Chavez)
• India
• Niger
• Kenya
• (If I have forgotten any major ones, please add to the comments)

As these examples make clear, it is Mr. Sandschneider’s distorted history (and distorted understanding of human nature) that is “fanciful” — not Ms. Merkel’s foreign policy.

And to make a broader point; this kind of reasoning happens all too often in both Democrat and Republican circles (and, to be fair, in Libertarian circles as well). The concept that “those people” , “over there” do not want freedom or cannot handle freedom should we give it to them is dangerously nationalistic and perhaps even anti-ethnic to a degree. Can anyone having fully known oneself, having tasted of the freedoms Democracy provides then assume that people living under oppression WANT to remain in such a state? Is this assumption not based on the idea that these unfortunate souls are not as “enlightened” as we are in the West, that they are the product of a backwards culture and therefore doomed to stupidity? If this is not the case, then please explain how one can conclude differently.

To underestimate the human desire for freedom is to be ignorant of ones-self. Let us not fall victim to this distorted way of thinking.