<-- December 2005 | Main | February 2006 -->
January 27, 2006
So Long, TAL...
Gak! What is with Chicago these days? First Marshall Field's, then the Berghoff, and now something I actually care about: This American Life.
The move is apparently precipitated by deal with Showtime (Showtime??!) for a one hour television version of the show. I'm happy to see the show expanding and I think some aspects of it will work well on television, if done right. However, I call bullshit that it needs to move to NYC to do it. Chicago has an extensive production community, including a huge array of post-production houses. If the format of the television show stays true to the radio format (i.e. correspondents and field stories) then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the show could not remain in Chicago... the community that's loved and nurtured it all these years.
And worst of all, I don't even get Showtime!
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
January 26, 2006
James Frey, I Don't Hate You
See, here's the thing: I never read your book. I will someday. My wife bought it and loved it. I told her I'd read it when I had time and I will. Even now. When she told me about the "no anesthesia dentist" thing, I said, "No way. That's not true." It would seem I was right. Still, it sounded like a good story and I like good stories.
I don't know what you did to piss off the guys from the Smoking Gun, but I did read their article. Wow. They do not like you. It read to me less like an expose and more like a griping tale of revenge. They seriously had it out for you. Not that you didn't lie, I'm not an apologist. But the article they wrote was less investigative reporting and more hateful screed. Here's the thing: people are all bent out of shape because they feel you betrayed their trust or something, but I think those people were just reading to wallow in your misery.
It's clear you exaggerated some things and perhaps even invented some. But that doesn't change the fact that you battled addiction and overcame it. I think people are losing sight of that. I've known a couple of people in my life who have battled addiction (some who have overcome and some who haven't) and I think the fact that you felt the need to make yourself a little edgier, a little more badass, to tell your tale and get people to read it isn't a horrible crime against humanity. In fact, from the people I know who've battled addiction, the struggle to overcome it comes along with a fair share of lies.
The reality is that most people who are addicted to alcohol or drugs are normal people leading as normal lives as they can. Sure, there are some who are in the deep shit and end up dead in the gutter; but most addicts plod along, slowly killing themselves while repeatedly hurting those who love them. The "waking up on a plane bleeding and not knowing how you got there" moments are, in reality, a lot less frequent than the "I forgot Janey's birthday because I was drunk" moments. But no one wants to read about that reality. Page turners about the life and times of Jim, the functional-alcoholic-middle-manager-who-started-attending-AA-meetings-when-his-wife-left-him aren't flying off the shelves, now are they?
I suspect the people who read your book and were touched by it--really touched by it--are disappointed. The same way that a parent might be disappointed the first time they catch their child in a lie or when a loved one they thought had sobered up stumbles. They have a right to be hurt and angry with you and disappointed. But they aren't raising their fists to call you a horrible man and a liar. They are disappointed, yes; but it confirms what they know. That addiction can cause people to screw up, but that mistakes won't make you hate someone you really, truly love.
The people who shout, and scream, and melodramatically proclaim you are villainous scum, those are the people who just wanted to see the fall. They didn't read your book for redemption--forgiveness and redemption isn't what it was about to them. To them, it was about misery. Wallowing in your misery. Maybe it was to make their lives a little less miserable. You're actually giving them more of what they paid for when they bought your book: buy one, get one free tales of falling from grace! Screw the redemption, they get more misery and a heapin' helpin' of righteous indignation!
So when I heard Oprah turned on you today on her show, I just thought I'd write a letter (which you'll probably never see and which she probably will never see) to say that I'm glad you overcame addiction and I hope this mess doesn't change that. Also to let you know as disappointed as I may have been with you, I was just as disappointed in Oprah. Not that I'm a huge Oprah fan or anything, but when she called in to Larry King, I thought she genuinely got it. She said that she was disappointed but that it didn't change the message of the book which was about redemption. I guess the focus groups pulled off the studio tour got the better of her and she forgot all about that. Which is a shame, because she had the chance to really stop the rubber-necking and add some perspective. Another opportunity lost.
I'll be sure to read your book when I get a chance--I'll probably enjoy it. I wish you hadn't made things up and passed it off as true, but you did, and we can't change that. Chalk it up to one more thing in life you shouldn't have done, but did. If anyone wants to crucify you for it, maybe they missed the point when they read it the first time. Putting what you did into perspective, of all the horrible things people do to one another every day, lying in a book about being an addict is pretty far down the list. You did what addicts often do: you lied. You did what people often do: you lied. But instead of garnering that insight into the mind of a recovering addict, instead of pausing to reflect on that moment of shared human weakness, your millions of adoring "fans" decided to forget that the book touched them. So much for redemption. So much for forgiveness. But you know what? I don't hate them either. I'm just disappointed. I guess they are as human as the rest of us.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
John Kerry: Still Irrelevant After All These Years...
So, John Kerry is calling for a filibuster of Alito. I don't speak for the whole Democratic party, but I have a feeling there are a lot of liberal Democrats (sometimes) out there like me. So I'd just like to say for the record:
John, we barely supported you then, and we sure wish you would just go away. We need new, fresh leadership with genuine ideas to turn around a party in crisis, not rabble rousing suicide missions that won't accomplish anything of value. You're wasting political capital. Challenge Bush on breaking Federal Law, find an issue that will stick and that won't be at best a waste of time and energy and at worst a galvanizing event for the Republicans. Seriously: please, shut up.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
January 25, 2006
Sometimes...
Law students do something to renew faith in the legal system.
Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." But I don't see that as one of the administration's talking points. This "public relations" campaign being waged by an administration that has pretty clearly violated Federal Law is beyond the pale. It's refreshing to see students stand up for rights and in a way that is both peaceable and effective. To each and every student who participated, this student says, "Thank You".
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
January 23, 2006
Pincushion Dave!
Over the holidays, my brother was back from school in Portland--he's studying Eastern medicine, herbal and acupuncture. So what do you do when you have pain from RSI (carpal tunnel) and access to free acupuncture? Give it a try!
First, you should know that when it comes to needles, I'm a total and complete wimp. It helps keep me secure that I'll never develop a heroin habit, because the idea of actually sticking myself with a needle nearly makes me pass out. The acupuncture needles themselves are actually quite small. My brother uses Japanese needles, which he claims are superior to Chinese needles because they are better made. They are more expensive, but you know, when you've got a stainless steel needle shoved two inches into your flesh, do you want to cheap out? No. I didn't think so.
They come in these little tubes, which double as protection and an insertion guide. When you press them against your skin, they help pull the skin taught right around the point of insertion, making for a smoother and less painful stabbing. Actually, they don't really hurt, they feel sort of like someone pinching you, nothing even close to a shot from a regular hypodermic, which by comparison, look like aluminum baseball bats.
The whole process involves a lot of poking before any needles even come out. Think pretty typical doctor, "Does this hurt? What about this?" kind of stuff. What gets odd is that, even though you have pain in your hands/wrists, you start getting your feet poked. In fact, for my wrist/hand pain, I received three needles in each foot, but only one in each arm. Go figure.
Once the needles are inserted, you just have to relax for about 20-25 minutes. Yeah, you have needles sticking out of your feed and arms, very conducive to relaxation, let me tell you. I just sat there, trying not to be too tense. It's a very strange sensation, quite hard to describe. You can feel the needles in you, but I honestly couldn't say how much of that was physical versus how much of that was psychological. I mean, it's not every day you have needles poking in your flesh and then sit around. The most astonishing thing though is that you also start to feel... better.
When it's time for the needles to come out, it's a much easier process: yank. You actually feel them more coming out than you do when they went in, at least for me. Thankfully, there was no blood; just a tiny dot where the needle was that disappears almost instantly. No acupuncture track marks for me, shucks. Best of all, the pain in my wrists felt much better both during and after the treatment. My brother the doc said that the treatments can be effective for a few weeks, and I did spend the rest of my holidays pain free! I'd like to have the treatment again next semester after exams... I wonder if it works for pain in the ass?
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (4)
Nevat
Nevat is a Spanish goat's milk cheese, made from pasteurized milk. It's ripened with penicillin, so it has that characteristic creaminess near the rind with a more solid, chalky interior. The name comes from the Catalan word for "snow" and although that's supposedly because of the white, flakinesses of the rind, when I bought it from the shop already cut, I didn't notice so much.
Overall, it's a pretty creamy cheese, not unlike Brie, but firmer and more "goaty" toward the center. The flavor was delightful... delicate and smooth, with just a hint of the citrus tang that I really like from goat cheeses. I would add Nevat to the list of truly outstanding goat's milk cheese that everyone should try at least once.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
January 22, 2006
Noscitur a socii
Having just had "Legislative Process" (which could more accurately be called "Theories of Stautory Interpretation" last semester, I got a kick out of this. Here's my results:
You are "Noscitur a socii"! You look to neighboring words to shed light on the meaning of ambiguous words. You're a sociable canon, and always look at everything in context. However, you're useless by yourself.
[Via Divine Angst and Ambivalent Imbroglio]
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
January 17, 2006
I don't know about you...
...but this makes me nervous:
Now, I understand marketing and overall, it's a good idea. But speaking as someone who lives within the blast radius of a Target store, I do wish they had a different logo.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
January 16, 2006
Four on the Floor
I've been tagged by In Limine for the four meme... so here goes:
Four Jobs (paid professional positions):
- Writer
- Producer
- IT Director
- Associate Director
Four Movies I Could Watch Over and Over (This was very hard...):
- Waking Life
- Der Himmel Uber Berlin
- Magnolia
- Network
Four Places I've Lived:
- Bloomginton, IN
- Berkeley, CA
- San Francisco, CA
- Chicago, IL
Four TV Shows I'd Love to Watch (Notice a theme?):
- Invader ZIM
- Futurama
- The Simpsons
- The Daily Show
Four Places I've been on Vacation:
- London, UK
- Paris, FR
- Tokyo, JP
- Sao Paulo, BZ
Four Websites You Visit Daily:
- Bloglines
- YahooMail
- My Work "Portal"
- Seriously, that's it...
Four of My Favorite Foods:
- Sushi!
- Asparagus
- Spinach
- Pizza
Four Places I'd Rather Be:
- Paris
- London
- Grand Cayman
- In Bed
Four Albums I Can't Live Without (This was virtually impossible...):
- The Smiths, The Queen is Dead
- Beautiful South, Welcome To
- X, Los Angeles
- Interpol, Turn on the Bright Lights
Four People to Tag:
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (4)
January 10, 2006
Alito for Law Students: The Drinking Game
I've had the Alito hearings on NPR playing on my computer all day at work. Interesting at times, other times it fades into the background. But I have noticed a bit of a theme. So for all the legal groupies out there, I present the Alito Confirmation Hearing Drinking Game. It's pretty simple, but guaranteed to get you drunk as a senator skunk:
- Every time a Senator (R) asks an essentially rhetorical question, like, "Judge Alito, you don't believe that the executive has the raw, unchecked god-like power to command all his subjects to do his evil bidding, now do you?" Take a shot.
- Every time a Senator (D) says "Vanguard," take a shot.
- Every time a Senator (R) uses more than 10 minutes at a stretch describing the amazing qualifications of the demigod of jurisprudence, take a shot.
- Every time a Senator (D) asks how Judge Alito feels about the supreme authority of the executive, take a shot.
And finally, every time Judge Alito references the "Twilight Zone created by Justice Jackson" chug whiskey until you are in the twilight zone created by Justice Jackson.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
IntelMac!
Well, they are here: Intel Based Apple Laptops.
They feature:
- Intel Core Duo (Dual Core CPUs)
- 667MHz frontside bus
- Serial ATA hard drive
- SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW)
- Built-in iSight Camera
- Cool looking MagSafe power connector
- The same stupid piece of sh*t one button track pad
Oh yeah, and a price only a Mac fan could love. Me wantee, but me not wantee that bad for Apple first gen hardware.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
January 7, 2006
Chicago Area Law Blogs
I'm working on an article for a publication and I would like to list Chicago area law blogs. If you have or know of a Chicago based or themed law related blog that you would like listed (and maybe featured) in the article, please drop me a line. I'd also be interested in Illinois based law blogs in general, too. Thanks!
Posted by Dave! Permalink
January 6, 2006
Copyright Basics
First, this is important: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I'm currently a law student, in the process of learning to "think like a lawyer" hence this disclaimer; I am learning to cover my ass. Anyway, you should worship me and idolize me, but you should always check with a licensed attorney in your own jurisdiction when it comes to legal advice.
That said, I have a lot of friends who are artists, musicians, writers, etc. and from time to time, they will ask me a question, such as, "Hey, you're in law school! Is it true that I can copyright my story/song/drawing by sealing it in an envelope and mailing it to myself?" To which I usually respond, "Hell if I know." Sometimes they will ask, "How can I protect my blog entries from being stolen?" To which I usually respond, "You can't."
That second response is, unfortunately, the truth. If you want your work read, listened to, or viewed, you're going to have to face the reality that someone may, in fact, be able to steal your work. Once the work is out there for others to see, it's out there for slimeballs to steal. This isn't anything new… when 16th Century monks wrote erotic poetry for the aristocracy, the only thing that kept it from being copied far and wide was rampant illiteracy.
So, learn to live with the fact that some jerk out there may try to steal your work. Instead, know that 1) you are the talented one that created the work in the first place, so they aren't going to get very far ripping other people off; 2) the higher a profile they gain by ripping you off, the better your chances of catching them. And really, that's what most people really want to know when they ask me about copyright, "If someone does steal my work, what can I do once I catch them?
Copyright Basics
First, let's start with what copyright is and what it isn't. It's all about one thing: property. When we talk about "property rights" in law school, an analogy frequently used is a "bundle of sticks". Each stick represents a right you have in property you own, and collectively, they are the property rights. So, for a piece of land, you might have the right to rent it, the right to invite people onto it, or to kick trespassers off, etc. When it comes to your ideas, there are similar property rights. In the case of your business logo, you can obtain a trademark to prevent other businesses from using it. Or if you've invented a great new mechanical reaper, you can patent it to prevent others from stealing your design and marketing it. When it comes to your original works, such as writings, songs, paintings, drawings, even computer code, the collective rights are talked about as copyright.
The rights you have under copyright include things like the right to sell copies of your work, the right to prevent other people from copying your work, the right to allow others to use portions of your work, perform your work, etc.
So how do you get copyright on your works? Well, first, the work has to be original; and you have to put some creative effort into creating it. That said, it doesn't have to be as original or creative as you might think, but you can't just copy the dictionary in blue ink and say that your creativity has resulted in a new work that's original. Chances are, if you aren't trying to rip somebody off, and you're genuinely creating something from your own imagination, you're going to be okay. You can't, however, copyright an idea, you have to copyright something tangible--words, pictures, symbols, etc.
So these rights are wonderful and you want to protect them. So how do you go about that? The nice thing about all of this is that you have a copyright on your work as soon as you create it. That is, as soon as it is fixed in some tangible form, you are protected by copyright, you don't have to do anything. You will probably want to do some things to protect your rights, which we'll get to in a minute, but you don't have to.
Generally speaking, you control the copyright of your works for life, and then your estate controls them for 70 years after you die (life of the author plus 70 years). That will vary if it's a corporate authorship or if the work was created "for-hire" but we're not going to get into that here. If you're creating works for-hire and you don't have a contract which was reviewed by your attorney, you're risking getting screwed.
Now, recall that I said you don't have to do anything. But you should do some things if you really want to protect yourself.
First, you should always put a copyright notice on your works. You've probably seen them:
Copyright © 2006 David Gulbransen
This is a good idea, because it puts anyone seeing your work on notice that the work is copyrighted, when and by whom. That makes it hard for them to claim they thought the work was free just because they saw it on-line and everything on line is free.
Second, in the U.S. (with apologies to my throngs of international readers) you should register your work with the U.S. Copyright Office. It's very easy to do and it only costs you $30. But what it buys you is well worth it: prima facie evidence in court that you own the copyright to the work (if registered within 5 years of creation). That's good. In some cases, it may also entitle you to more damages (money!) and attorney's fees if you have to go to court to defend your rights. All of these are good things and well worth $30 up front.
Now, that sounds fine and dandy for most things… but what about blogs? Are you supposed to register every post?! Suddenly, that $30 fee doesn't sound as reasonable. Well, remember, you have the copyright as soon as you post. So don't sweat immediate registration. If you're really concerned about it, register your posts collectively (as a compilation) once a year. $30 a year buys you registration piece of mind without breaking the bank. And if you're really strapped for cash, register the works as a collection once every 5 years. Pennies a day!
Copyrights and Blogs
When it comes to blogging, there are really two issues with copyright: protecting your works and making sure not to violate the works of others!
Protecting yourself is pretty easy: don't steal other peoples work. Okay, you wouldn't do that blatantly, would you? Of course not, but there are some steps you can take to make sure you don't accidentally run into problems either:
1. Don't use images from another source unless you have obtained permission from the author, or unless they are from a "royalty free" collection or database.
2. If you reference another person's blog, post, article, etc. give them attribution and a link. This isn't just good for protection, it's polite.
3. If you must quote to make a point, reference, etc. do so sparingly and selectively. Don't quote three paragraphs when one sentence will do.
If you stick to those guidelines, chances are you'll be okay. But should someone get nasty with a letter from a lawyer telling you to take something down: take it down. Unless you are willing to end up in court defending your use on principle--in which case, talk to an attorney and make sure you would even have a case.
Which is a nice lead in for what you should do if you find someone is stealing your work: sue them!! Sue them into oblivion!! Whoops, lawyer thinking again… sorry. Actually, court is really the last place you want to be. Here's the thing about court: it's not cheap. It takes forever to work through the litigation process, filing fees aren't cheap, and lawyers are not cheap. It's going to cost you a fortune to really take legal action, so your first question if you find someone is gankin' your goods is to ask yourself if it's worth the trouble to defend that blog post you wrote about the cute shit your cat did. Probably not.
But it's easier to say, "let it go!" than it is to actually let it go. So what do you do? Well, first contact the thief and politely ask them to remove your work from their site. Polite is the key, you'll (generally) get better results that way. Which would you respond better to:
"I noticed you have liberally quoted one of my blog entries and in the format of your blog, it isn't clear to the reader that you did not write it. I'm glad you enjoy my work, but would you please link back to the original or remove the post."
Or:
"You goddamn thief! You lying whore of a bastard!! You've stolen my post and I'm going to get a lawyer and sue you into bankruptcy you festering waste of flesh!!!!"
ALL CAPS ARE ALSO A BAD IDEA.
If you don't get results that way, you can take it one step further with the "cease-and-desist" letter, courtesy your attorney. It won't cost you nearly as much to have an attorney draft one of these letters, and often times, the mere presence of an attorney's letterhead will get results without resorting to a lawsuit. Remember, you don't want to be in court unless you really have to be--and unless there's more at stake than just your pride.
Licensing
So you've got your copyright notice plastered all over your site. You have your registration packet lined up for last year's post. And suddenly it occurs to you: wait, I want some people to be able to use my work--as long as they aren't MEGACORP profiting from it without paying me. Say hello to licensing!
You may have thought licensing was only for your car or Major League Baseball, but you, too, can license your works. In the blog world, you've probably seen references to the "Creative Commons". Or you may have even applied a "Creative Commons" License to your blog. If you did, I hope you understand what it means.
Remember that "bundle of sticks" that make up the copyright? Well, you can give away your rights, one stick at a time--allowing people the right to do something with your work while prohibiting others. For example, with the "Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives" license, people can copy your works and distribute them, so long as they give you credit (attribution), don't make money (non-commercial) and don't change the work (no derivatives). There's a smorgasbord of licenses to choose from over at the Creative Commons, and if you decide to go that route, you'll want to consider which you choose. Think about:
1. Who do you want to be able to use your works? Anyone? For profit or for non-commercial use?
2. Do you want them to be able to change your work, or use it in/as a starting point for their own works? Or do you want to prohibit derivatives in any form?
3. If you do allow derivatives, do you want that person to be able to make money from those? Or do you want them to be required to share any derivative works just like you shared yours?
Those are all considerations for a Creative Commons license. One advantage of a Creative Commons license is that they are presented with a nice, clean "human readable" description, which helps you select the license that is right for you. One drawback is that the description isn't actually the license. For an interesting discussion of this, you can check out the debate over at Between Lawyers. What it boils down to is that you should think about it before you just slap on a Creative Commons license. It may very well suit your needs, but the first step is to identify those needs.
You could also roll your own license, although this will certainly be more costly, and involve getting an attorney to draft it (or at the very lease, review your draft) to make sure you are adequately protecting your rights. Again, deciding to spend the money will depend on the nature of your blog. What are you blogging about? Your kids? Your cats? Your stock market recommendations? It should be obvious that one of those topics requires closer legal scrutiny than the others. Cats are so very litigious.
Conclusion
I hope this has cleared up some of the questions you may have had regarding copyrights, so you can throw away those printouts of your blog that you'd planned on mailing to yourself. There are some really great resources on the web if you want to learn more about copyrights:
- U.S. Copyright Office
- Stanford University: Copyright and Fair Use
- Copyright Management Center
- Creative Commons
- 14 Copyright Tips for Bloggers
And of course, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on the web-but I like to be helpful.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (5)
January 3, 2006
One Down...
One exam grade in! CivPro, which has an unusually dedicated professor to have turned those around so quickly! That's a load off... I'm pretty pleased, now just two more to go...
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (4)
What does this actually mean?
Over at The Long Tail, there's a post called The Decade the Blockbuster Died with a handy graphic that points out that of the Top 100 selling albums of all time, only 2 have come from the years 2001-2005.
But does that really mean the Blockbuster has died?
It might. There are so many more choices of music available now that maybe the blockbuster is dead. Back in the pre-MTV days, people learned about new music primarily from the radio--which meant everyone heard (roughly) the same thing. Even post-MTV, the sources for new music were still pretty limited. When the Internet globalized communications, it also made is so much easier to find more music--genres many people never had access to before, that it makes sense that the homogenized "blockbuster" that everyone "must have" should go the way of the dinosaur.
Or it could just mean that the music from 2001-2005 sucked. Bad.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (3)
January 1, 2006
Weekly Law School Roundup #1 (or #60)
E.Spat has brought back the Weekly Law School Roundup! She's posted her first edition over at WWFFD, but it looks like the future editions will alternate between there and the Legal Underground.
Thanks, E.Spat and Evan... I know this was a feature that was very missed among the law student bloggers...
Posted by Dave! Permalink
Kuntener
If you are a true cheese fan, and can take a strong assertive cheese, then you might find Kuntener to your liking. I found it very similar to the Cowgirl Creamery's Red Hawk.
Both cheeses are a washed rind cheese, with that characteristic red-orange rind that just draws me to them. The cheese itself is a softer, creamy-textured nice golden yellow as well. Kuntener differs, however, in that it is made from raw cow's milk (while Red Hawk is pasteurized). That difference turns the flavor intensity know all the way up to 11 for Kuntener. If you're a true cheese aficionado, or if you've had the Red Hawk and enjoyed it, then give this one a try and I think you won't be disappointed. But if you're like my wife and the phrase, "what the hell is stinking up the fridge" is in your commonly used phrase book, stick to a less intense cheese.
Posted by Dave! Permalink