Groovenstein

Ah, the power of 504( c). Not wanting to be sued for defamation, I offer no comment on this, despite the fact that truth is a defense. There are two prerequisites to federal copyright protection. You have to have (1) an original work of authorship (2) fixed in a tangible medium of expression. The standard for "original work of authorship" is pretty loose. Courts have used terms like "minimal degree of creativity." For a case discussing this idea as well as the fact/expression dichotomy, see Feist. Even if you can't get copyright protection, you might be able to get trademark protection for a phrase like that if you're using it in connection with a business.

You asked for it. I too am musical. I mainly play bass, but can also do a little piano, guitar, and some drums. I play bass in a rock band whose CD I will tell you about until your ears bleed, and that I co-manage and co-produce. Before law school, I did my undergrad in your neighborhood, at the Berklee College of Music. I like good drummers. Particularly, let's see, Carter Beauford, Danny Carey (sp?), Stewart Copeland, Mike Portnoy. Who are some of your favorites? Bad drummers, on the other hand, can crawl into a corner and die. They ruin my funky bass groovaliciousness.

I disagree, Megan. Let's take the income tax as an example. If you stay in MA instead of moving to NH, are you voluntarily paying income taxes in MA? If you do move to NH, are you then voluntarily paying higher property taxes? I think the best example I can think of is rape. Is it stupid to wear tiny clothes and hop into a car with several strange drunk men? Of course. Does such extreme stupidity mean you consented when they got on you? Of course not. Taxes and other property confiscation works the same way. Would it be dumb to stay in a country with 80% taxation when there was a neighboring country identical in all respects except that it has 20% taxation? Probably. Does that make the 80% voluntary? No.

This was at dinner following my graduation. Note my awesome long hair and excellent shirt and tie combination. Also note that my niece is officially the cutest thing ever. (And she may end up the tallest thing ever, as she is 4' at 6 years old. ) This one is me the next day at the Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha, which is one of the biggest there is. I'm doing my best to mimic that fish. Finally, me in front of what is now officially an alma mater. [Edit: fixed photos.]

Note: This is not legal advice. No one may rely on this as such. If you have questions about your situation, talk to a lawyer. I am not one--yet. softwareNerd, an original work of authorship is protected as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. 17 U.S.C. 102(a). You write a song and put it on paper, or record it on a CD or your computer, or type it up on music software like Finale, that's fixed in a tangible medium of expression. You sing it to yourself in the shower but never write it down, you get no federal protection. (You might still be protected under state law. The federal Copyright Act preempts state law only to the extent of its coverage, which does not include works not fixed in a tangible medium.) The announcement doesn't mean anything insofar as copyrightability is concerned. Basically, what David said, but with a couple citations. I also can't think of anything apart from copyrightability that the announcement would do. Would it help prove access (one of the required elements of a successful infringement claim)? I don't think so. It also wouldn't affect an innocent infringer/independent creation defense that I can see. This isn't a copyright notice on an actual copy of the work, as in 401.

Please do not bring this up ever again. It is logical nonsense. What about modeling? Doing a nude scene in a movie? Doing a scantily clad scene in a movie? Being on a bikini team? Maybe women on a "bikini" team should be wearing these? I mean, there's some hot action. Shoot, all they're missing is a bonnet.

I raise my hand as one such man. I go to strip clubs on occasion. The entertainment value is tremendous at $12 to get in and a couple sodas at $2.50 each for what can be from 3 to 6 hours of hanging out with friends from both outside and inside the club. I do not generally attend live events of the activities you listed, but I do sometimes watch them on TV. Form, grace, and athleticism? You got that right. In my teen years, I had a crush on Dominique Moceanu. And don't forget the women's beach volleyball they show on FSN sometimes. Oh, and figure skating! Sasha Cohen . . .

What is your evidence for this sweeping assertion? It is a mathematical fact that some casino games can have a positive expected value. For example, some types of video poker with certain payout structures. Those at the top got there by causing pain and suffering? Are you suffering when you buy your groceries? Somebody at the top had to arrange for those to be made available for your purchase. What precisely is your problem with capitalism? That some people are wealthy at all? There is such a thing as a responsible gambler. Furthermore, people make bad decisions to spend money on all types of things, not just gambling. Read some bankruptcy cases and see where some people's money goes. Finally, a note on personal stories. Strongly though they might affect you, they are irrelevant as concerns the propriety of something. "My brother has a gambling problem" does not mean gambling should be banned. If you think that it does, you may find it helpful to look at discussion here on the proper function of government.

You broke down that statute like a champ, Jenni. Ever think about law school? I'm not much for a detailed response at the moment, as I soon leave for an area music conference. Before I go, however, I offer a link to this law review article I found on the subject. I haven't read it in its entirety, so don't assume I agree with any of it.

Mr. Van Horn, that is among the funniest things I have ever seen. It would be the funniest thing I saw this week were it not for another poster who linked to wholesomewear.com. Plenty of comedy this week. Bless you all.

I'm watching Law & Order SVU. The episode deals with people who break the law to sell organs. There's an amazing exchange between Detective Stabler and a young boy in his hospital bed. The young boy is days away from death if he doesn't get a transplant. His father has just been arrested for illegally buying a kidney to save his son's life. I was filled with sadness and rage when I saw this. To hear such simple words from a child that so accurately capture the essence of the situation was amazing. I can't remember it verbatim, but here's the essence of the exchange: Boy: Where's my mom? Stabler: She's down in the cafeteria. Boy: Where's my dad? Stabler: He's not here. He did something wrong. Boy: Did he rob a bank? Stabler: No. Boy: Did he hurt somebody? Stabler: No. [pause] He broke the law when he bought a kidney to try to save you. Boy: What's wrong about that? Wow. So, in my spare time I now have another interest to pursue: the body of law dealing with the banning of organ sales. What are the relevant statutes, what arguments have been raised in favor of and against them, etc. Maybe one day I'll get together a plan to take them down. It will probably be tough, but the fight is just if I decide to take it on. Step one: statutes. It looks like we start with 42 U.S.C. 274e. My preliminary reaction to the statute: crap. The first challenge that comes to mind is substantive due process, but that one is well, tough. If and when I have more to say on this subject, I'll say more on the subject.

Why is no one talking about banning the cod and octopi from eating lobsters, too? They're violating the lobster's rights just as much as we are . . . David Odden, there are times when your comedic skills surpass your love of canines. This is one of those times.

It would still be an issue, perhaps an even stronger one. People are going to go where life is better. If welfare and minimum wage laws were eliminated, how much better of a place to live would America be? Lots. And you think this would keep people away?

The bottom of page 4, top of page 5 of the PDF explains that knock and announce is not required when (1) circumstances present a threat of physical violence, (2) there is reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given, or (3) knocking and announcing would be futile. The court stated further that only reasonable suspicion under the circumstances for one of these grounds is required. The showing is not high. It cited to Richards v. Wisconsin. [Edit: I just skimmed Richards. The Wisconsin Supreme Court had created a per se exception to the rule for felony drug cases. In other words, the police never had to knock and announce for a felony drug case. http://forum.objectivismonline.com/uploads/emoticons/default_smile.png' alt=':)'> Good thing SCOTUS didn't go that route, although I have my doubts about the reasonable suspicion "standard.]

Hudson v. Michigan. Exclusionary rule is not an available remedy for a knock-an-announce violation. Some choice words: "[E]xclusion may not be premised on the mere fact that a constitutional violation was a 'but-for' cause of obtaining evidence." "[T]he social costs of applying the exclusionary rule to knock-and-announce violations are considerable; the incentive to such violations is minimal to begin with, and the extant deterrences against them are substantial--incomparably greater than the factors deterring warrantless entries when [Mapp v. Ohio] was decided. Resort to the massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt is unjustified."

Right you are, DO. I forgot about South Dakota v. Dole. I am now officially screwed for the bar exam.

If this is a Title IX issue only (and not an analogous state law issue), it's hard to blame the school people on this one. They're probably just trying not to get reamed. Blame the federal lawmakers who made the law.

I think that makes sense for situations where you can't separate the proper from the improper. For example, consider a weapons dealer who supplies guns, ammo, vests, etc., to the police. Clearly there should be police, and just because some of the laws they enforce are bad doesn't make it wrong to supply them with weapons they need to enforce the good laws. I'm not so sure, however, about a scenario which is just totally wrong under all circumstances. Again, let's consider a weapons dealer. This time, however, it is considering whether to take a government contract for weapons it knows are being sought to pursue an immoral war. This is not rebuilding, where somebody could morally do it, just not the government. This is a scenario in which it is flat out wrong. As an example, consider contracting to supply arms to Nazi Germany for its upcoming invasion. [Edit: This is a response to post #9. Post #10 was not up yet when I was replying. ]

Sadly we didn't hear it played. Our first radio play (that we know of) and we didn't hear it. Poo. I hope they mentioned the site. The link I put up was to an Omaha message board where they post their playlist every week. That's how we found out we were on there. It is good news, and thanks for the congrats. Now we go to the River Music Summit on Saturday and see if we win this contest of theirs. There are about 20 entries left out of a couple few hundred. If we win, they put us in regular rotation. [holds breath]

Linkara, before I can address your points I must ask you an important question. If I show you that the existence of evil renders the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god impossible, will you acknowledge your error and correct it, or will you retain your belief in such a god without regard to logical defects?

Reason is the process used to arrive at a conclusion. That conclusion is knowledge. I'm not sure what you mean by "personal reasoning." If by that you mean faith, then you should say faith. Reason and faith are not synonymous. You may. I have no reason to think it was. It just exists. If you think the universe requires a creator, then why doesn't the creator require a creator? And why doesn't that creator require a creator? And so on and so on, and you have an infinite regress.

Omnipotence is impossible. Power is an attribute. Attributes can not exist in infinite quantities. If he's beyond human consciousness then why do you claim to know anything about him? If you are comfortable saying that God and angels simply were, why wouldn't you be comfortable saying the same thing about the universe? Put another way, why do you need creation to explain the universe if you are comfortable with the idea of something having always existed? By the original question, you mean can one be an Objectivist and a Christian? I think that question has been answered with a resounding "no." Is there some particular point for which you seek clarification?

Tonight we got spun on Planet O, a program on 89.7 The River which is one of the biggest college radio stations around. Rungs on a ladder, friends. Rungs on a ladder.

To prove the existence of God (or anything, for that matter), you must first define "God." What is "God"? Provide the best definition you can. Otherwise, any other discussion is rather silly (simply substitute "Hlsjeidusy" for "God").

Yes they do, because it's arbitrary. You need some evidence to even suggest something as a possibility. "Anything is possible" is not evidence. Therefore, any attempt to prove that God might exist on the theory that "anything is possible" must be rejected as arbitrary. If you think God's existence can be proven using reason, why mention faith at all?