Sunday, December 11, 2005

"New" house

I was reading a blog post I did right after moving into our "new house" which was about a year ago now.

http://legaljargon.blogspot.com/2004/11/new-house.html

I thought I would remark on the year and our house at this point. We have been here a year now, and I still love the house. We have done quite a bit now. We painted the cabinets in the kitchen. Oddly that was the day I found out I was pregnant with Violet. I had started getting sick, and couldn't understand why.

We changed out at least five light fixtures. We have recarpeted and laid vinyl tile in the kitchen. Put in new counter tops. My husband painted my kitchen a peach color for me. I had never had nonwhite walls before. We put cat in the hat stickers on the walls and painted diamonds in Lucy's room. In Violet's room we painted it blue and stenciled yellow stars. She has a Sesame Street theme.

We also got three estimates and had the house painted grey this summer. The color was called software. Oh the irony! Now I am getting estimates to tear out the deck and put in a patio with pavers in the back. I am excited still. Eventually, I will redo the bathrooms and kitchen.

Bruce has been working on cleaning out the garage now, for extra storage. It has been a fun year. Also, housing costs have gone up probably 20% since we bought. We wouldn't be able to afford this house now. I am so glad we bought when we did.

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Copyright Law a la L. Ray Patterson

My copyright teacher was a wonderful mentor. He taught one of the more interesting classes I took during law school. Did I mention he called on me every day? You might wonder why, if you knew me, and you knew my classmates there would be no question.

In Athens Georgia, I was one of the more liberal students in lawschool. Alright, maybe the most liberal. Professor Patterson had studied the IP clause of the Constitution for many years before I met him. He said it derived from the Brittish statute of Anne. That makes sense. Most US inventions have some roots in our previous traditions.

Unlike the DMCA, he understood the IP clause to be there to benefit the public good. Basically it was his opinion that copyrights existed to enhance public domain, promote learning and secondarily give the author some right. By ensuring a limited monopoly, you would encourage the creation of things that would eventually end up in public domain. In this respect, copyright was never supposed to be like property rights.

It troubles me how far copyright law has gone. I went to Kinkos today and they told me I needed a release from the photographer to print pictures of my own children. Whatever. This isn't the first time Kinko's has given me crap about copyrights. I had gone last year to create an overhead projector page so I could draw a cat in the hat picture on my daughters wall. They told me this was infringment (this would fall into fair use by the way), but because of the litigiousness of all of these people essentially even things you own are off limits for craft projects.

Professor Patterson passed away last year. I miss his thoughts.

http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/jipl/old/vol1/patterson.html

Friday, December 09, 2005

RIAA, RIAA, RIAA

Aren't they worried at all about a backlash from all the civil lawsuits they are filing? Shouldn't they be. Make a better product and people will stop downloading songs for free. I think the IPOD phenomenon and pay music services completely bear out my postulation. Take all this energy and money and throw it into product development. The marketplace will support this!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1700AP_Downloading_Music.html

That's one way to stop Jehovah's Witnesses from coming to your door.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Doorway_Beating.html

Crazy story!

Monday, December 05, 2005

Wikipedia

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051205/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_rules

I don't understand this flat out. Why didn't this guy edit his own article? That is the beauty of the Wiki. If he knew that the Wikipedia said he was thought to have assasinated Kennedy why didn't he just change it, and if not who cares? Obviously no one who knows him or about him read the article during that time. Someone would have let him know. Maybe he posted the false information to get an op-ed piece out of the deal.