But now, Global Gaming Factory is agreeing to pay US $7.8 million for the file sharing website, tracker, and community of users.  Global Gaming’s business plan is weird to say the least. It plans to pay royalties to the copyright owners for the files that are transferred using the tracker and make money using a mix of advertizing and the selling of bandwidth on the peer-to-peer network to internet service providers and other entities. The latter means that if a user is downloading or uploading a bit torrent file using Pirate Bay, their spare CPU, memory, and internet connection capacity will be sold to a third party who can use it for anything from SETI to DDoS attacks. The company is also planning a revenue-sharing program to kick back a part of the earnings to its users.

All of this sounds great (or not so great in the case of DDOS attacks, but the company assures us that it is legitimate), there’s just one problem: Global Gaming does not seem to have any plan on making this happen. Case(s) in point: they have not approached any of the copyright holders to attempt to negotiate prices. They have no idea how much they will have to pay to make Pirate Bay go legitimate. Analysts are also saying that ISPs will likely balk at buying bandwidth back from its own users. Users selling bandwith (which they are if there’s a revenue sharing plan) is also against the Terms of Service of most ISPs.

To add to their problems, Global Gaming is now being investigated for insider trading. Authorities noticed an unjustified spike in the price and trading volume of the company’s shares weeks before the announcement to purchase Pirate Bay was made. AktieTorget, the Swedish exchange on which the company was listed is also saying that it will broaden its investigation into the activities of the company once the sale is completed. Any illegal activities (such as distributing copyrighted content without permission) are grounds for removal from the exchange.

I find the move to buy the Pirate Bay to be a little bit weird. Global Gaming seems to be a legitimate company that owns internet cafes and produces software. It is highly unlikely that they would put out $7.8M USD if they did not have a plan. There’s something missing. For now, Pirate Bay’s previous owners are optimistic and there’s some cautious optimism in the Pirate Bay community as well. If Global Gaming manages to pull off what they’re promising, they have found a brilliant new business plan that may legalize all kinds of file sharing. The costs of failiure however, are very high. Global Gaming has a huge uphill battle ahead.

The title of the article is a bit misleading.  Osler is one of several firms mentioned.  This is a sign of the times and an unfortunate consequences of something that is inevitable.  Those of Judeo-Christian heritage will recall that in the Old Testament, Joseph dreamt of seven skinny cows eating seven fatted cows.  The boom-bust cycle has been with us for that long.  It is as old as the human race.

Those of us who have lived through previous recessions know that this too will pass, but my heart goes out to all of the young people graduating.  It is painful to finish school with a mountain of debt, eager to work to pay it off and start building for the future only to find that there isn’t any work.

In my opinion, young people face more difficulties finding employment than the older among us during tough times.   After all, if a company has laid off experienced workers,  it will higher them back before it will invest in training someone new.  What’s worse, it takes years for the backlog of experienced workers to be reclaimed as the economy recovers.

That being said, I have no doubt that the legal profession will suffer less than most other sectors.  But the rising tide lifts all boats … and the falling tide lowers them all too.

In an age where powerful lobby groups are advocating a copyright regime that looks much more like tyranny than sound public policy, here is evidence that other voices are being heard.   Realistically, Mr. Clement’s comment is VERY tepid.  He merely admits that we are in a “somewhat different” public policy environment and that he will undertake broad consultation.  This could be lip service.  If I was a gambler I’d bet money on it.   However, lip service is a paradigm shift of unparalleled proportions.  WOW!

Ms. Haji was detained on May 17 when she tried to board her flight back home. She is out on bail now with the next court hearing due on July 21. According to Ms. Haji, she tried to get Canadian consular officials’ help: ”I phone them three times again today and nobody calls me back.” Foreign Affairs in Ottawa said that they are “working with Kenyan authorities to verify the identity of the individual.”

What exactly they are doing and why it has taken almost six weeks, the Foreign Affairs spokesman did not say, according to the Star.

I don’t know what to say to Ms. Haji, stuck in Kenya.

Happy Canada Day?

(post sponsored by advicescene.com)

If you read no further, know that Waddams’ book is much more about the study of law than it is about law school per se (hence its required status). Hutchinson, on the other hand, deals more with what it is like to be a law student – what to expect and how to handle it. In short, both are extremely useful, but if you are pressed for time (or cash) pick Waddams over Hutchinson for your summer reading and then pick up Hutchinson sometime during first term when his more practical tips will be better appreciated.

Introduction to the Study of Law

Waddams is upfront about who he is writing for, which are those considering or undertaking the study of law but who are as yet unacquainted with it. What is clear, though, is that Waddams’ way with words can become cumbersome, especially when mixed with unfamiliar terms and concepts. There is no doubt in my mind that he is an extremely intelligent and erudite individual, but it is apparent that ease of reading was either not one of his priorities or one of his gifts.

In terms of content the Introduction is quite comprehensive. Waddams deals with the distinction between public and private law as well as the various meanings and uses of civil and common law and he even discusses the basics of legal reasoning. He also touches upon the theory behind legal education itself which provides a useful view into the heads of Canadian law school administrators everywhere (forewarned is forearmed). Similarly, he provides an outline of not only the structure of the Canadian judicial system, but also the structure of both the English and American courts. In fact, he goes so far as to provide a brief overview of the historical difference between equity and the common law. Incidentally, this was one of two chapters that Western said wasn’t required reading (the other being the last chapter on the legal profession) and I can now appreciate why; the difference is rather difficult to grasp for the non-initiated and, as a result, the limited space available only serves to confuse the issue. Not that this is Waddams’ fault by any means, but it is worth noting that nothing, apparently, is lost from skipping the chapter and I found little, if anything, was to be gained from reading it. Waddams closes with some revealing commentary on the relationship between legal practitioners and the public. In fact, it was this last chapter that I found most engaging.

Here, Waddams muses that only in business settings are lawyers really appreciated because in almost any other setting they are seen as, at best a necessary evil, and at worst a parasite. Either way, lawyers are seen to, he claims, merely complicate what is rightfully the clients anyway. The exception is cold comfort, however, as a reputation in the local penitentiary that a good criminal defence lawyer develops is probably not what draws most to the profession. Whether Waddams is being hyperbolic or simply cynical is hard to gauge. Though perhaps this is why so many law students dream of a plum corporate job.

It should be noted  that the Introduction is largely a theoretical text. By this I mean it aims largely to provide a kind of conceptual map to the uninitiated in order to allow them to orient themselves on their upcoming adventures in this heretofore unknown territory. That said, the examples Waddams does provide are, almost without fail, of a civil nature. This is not wholly surprising as Waddams’ other published works are in the field of contract law and he is a professor of the subject at UofT. Do not misunderstand me, the examples illustrate the points he is trying to make, but they are not exactly exciting. Not that I expected high stakes drama in a book entitled an Introduction to the Study of Law, but it would have been nice to have seen other aspects of the law used if only to broaden the reader’s own understanding of how it is applied.

The Law School Book

Hutchinson’s intended audience is much the same as Waddams’; he is writing explicitly for those seriously considering applying to law school, those who have already been accepted and are eager to get a handle of what exactly it is they have gotten themselves into, or those already in first year and who need some help learning the ropes. The difference, however, is in the writing style. Not only is Hutchinson irreverent and witty, but his prose is simply easy to read. Now, this is not to suggest that law students or presumptive law students are unable to read complex texts. Indeed, I would hope this is not the case, however, it is true that even a hardened academic can appreciate a simple and straightforward approach to a problem. Add to this the likelihood that Hutchinson’s reader is currently enrolled in an academic program and it stands to reason that he would not want to make his work too much like just another academic treatise.

In his book Hutchinson provides a great introduction to the non-legal aspects of the study of law. By this I mean that The Law School Book introduces you to legal research, writing, exams, and mooting among other things. It is not that Hutchinson ignores the law itself, that would be rather hard to do in a book about law school after all. What he does, however, is condense his introduction to the study of law into one chapter. In so doing he successfully provides context for his other chapters, but he also leaves the reader free to explore what they are really curious about: life at law school. It is also worth noting that Hutchinson does not ignore theory (again not surprising given his research interests), in fact he has a whole section devoted to differing approaches to the application of law. In fact, it is not just that he addresses legal theory, but the way in which he does it that is interesting; by attaching it to the practical application of law he identifies its universal applicability. While theory and practice are often quite separate, it is also often the case that theory precedes and informs practice and it is this relationship that Hutchinson highlights.

Probably the best aspect of The Law School Book from the perspective of an incoming law student or a 1L is Hutchinson’s continued emphasis on real life examples and experience. For example, if you wanted to learn about law school exams and how to prepare for them, then what better place to go than a law school professor who has marked hundreds, if not thousands, of said exams. He provides similar practical advice on conducting research, mooting, and legal writing. In fact, at the end of his book he has four appendices that provide examples of a factum, two memoranda, and some exams. This is why, even if you don’t read The Law School Book during the summer before your first year, you will certainly want to pick it up once it gets under way.

Conclusion

Before I properly conclude, I want to touch upon one thing both texts have in common and this is their age: 2004 and 2000 respectively. I am not so much of a geek as to believe that information published more than a year ago is of no value. What does become apparent, however, is that certain aspects of the law school experience, as discussed by Waddams and Hutchinson, have become dated. No where is this more noticeable than in their respective discussions of legal research. Now, they both touch upon electronic forms of research and they both note that this is the way of the future, but there is little mention of the internet as a tool with more emphasis on CD-ROMs (remember those?) and the like. So, while I would take the sections on electronic research with a grain of salt, I see no reason to discount the rest of their advice as past its sell-by-date.

Keeping in mind that I touched upon Hutchinson’s book in a previous post where I suggested it was mandatory reading for the applicant or those thinking about law school in general. I haven’t changed my mind in the last week, I still think that the Law School Book is an excellent introduction to law school, but once you have decided that law school is for you and once you’ve been accepted it is more imperative that you get a handle on what it is you go to law school for: the study of law. The differing emphasis is simply evident in the books’ respective titles.

In sum, then, Western’s appraisal of the priority to be placed on each book is entirely accurate – if you are already committed to attending a law school. If not, you may want to take my previous advice and start with Hutchinson. Both books achieve the goals they have set for themselves, though not without some difficulties. These minor problems are entirely forgivable, however, as they spring more from the age of the books and the ccentricities of their authors than any objective failing.

A final note, Waddams’ book does seem to be harder to get a hold of. I ended up ordering it directly from Carswell which, though not an unpleasant experience, did involve paying for shipping. Hutchison’s book, on the other hand, was readily available on Indigo which meant, with the purchase of a second and unrelated book, I received free shipping. This is not a comment on the books, of course, but merely a word to the wise.

Cross-posted on EricGrigg.ca.

I’ve offered some very strong criticisms of the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court (ICC), especially as it relates to Sudan and the Darfur Crisis.  It’s not that an international judicial mechanism for addressing heinous crimes isn’t a progressive step.  It’s the concern that this “justice” will be applied unequally and unevenly to different state parties.

The rule of law means that nobody is above the law, even the most powerful.  And when dealing international law and the ICC, we’re unlikely to see some of the more politically contentious complaints against dominant states addressed in an equitable manner any time in the near future.  This weakens the perception of the court in the developing world, and in their mind creates questions of its legitimacy.

With violence returning to the Southern Sudan, concerns about Africa’s longest civil war are also being resurrected.

An interesting and related discussion on the subject was covered recently on Change.org in What Right Do We Have to Advocate on Darfur, an interview with Neha Erasmus, who worked with NGOs in Darfur,

Let’s acknowledge that values vary from people to people. The application of Western values to knowledge therefore, will result in the production of Western (and not universally applicable) wisdom which may or may not be suitable or ‘wise’ in other contexts and this is where great care must be taken. Whilst you do not need to know what it’s like to be displaced to speak out about Darfur, having the wisdom of knowing what to do about Darfur is very different…

While I agree that there are basic shared human principles or ‘truths’, I don’t think they have been captured in human rights discourse, which is the guiding foundation for ‘international’ activism. Human rights discourse is an essentially individualistic framework, whereas most cultures of the global South (or third world) are formed on a communitarian value system.

In the second part of her interview, she explains how the voices of Sudanese people themselves should be central to any discussion on solutions to Darfur,

In terms of the strengthening of Sudanese voices (ouch by the way!), if you look at the Amel Centre or Khartoum Centre – how many people not intimately involved with Sudan have heard about them? How much power do Darfurians have in expressing their vision for the future of Darfur, compared with Save Darfur? There are very real challenges to successfully organise in Darfur and in Sudan in general. A lot of division has been created and manipulated, and civil society is generally very weak, mainly through disunity as well as the international donor community.

In order for Sudanese organisations to be heard, they have to have resources. In order to have resources they have to be very good at playing the organisational game of writing proposals (in a language is not their mother tongue), planning projects, creating up indicators etc. etc. What this does is stymie any real motivation, passion and drive that people have and create bureaucrats who are bent on sustaining their livelihood. If we want Sudanese to solve their problems, we should try to help them face these challenges.

In the third part of the interview, Erasmus discussed Who Gets to Define Justice? and the concept of equitably distributed justice,

I don’t think the question is about validation, or the “right to speak out”, but about what will work best and that looks to what the means are. Indian thinking emphasizes that means are not important, they are everything. Leadership by example will work every time, whereas we cannot count on success if we do not practice what we preach.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a perfect example. It is not the ICC that is problematic or impartial, but the entire international system which does not allow space for equitably distributed justice. The question of whether the [Bashir indictment] decision was right or not is debatable, but what has happened as a consequence is not. Bashir has had a basis to refute the ICC’s legitimacy and rally support and many African states (who form nearly one third of the signatories to the Rome Statute) have sided with him on this. Whatever the reasons, this is a sad loss.

The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly.  It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.

But Sarkozy is not really talking about the burqa, he’s referring to the niqab.  His nomenclature is borrowed from his selected exposure via media to the Afghan chadri, which  is almost never worn outside of Afghanistan or neighbouring countries.  It may seem like semantics, and some neo-cons have argued banning both.

Ignorance over terminology is not the only issue here.  It’s premised on the assumption that it’s involuntary, and not a bona fide religious requirement.

There are certainly disagreements among Muslims about the use of face-coverings, and certainly those that believe it is mandatory.

The assumption that these garbs are forcibly imposed on women by men living in France reflects its own type of patriarchy about the empowerment and ability of minority women.

If there are cases where women are being forced, it would not be upheld under any human rights standards.  But for women who are being forced, is not the most likely outcome that they would now be forced to stay inside: leading to further disempowerment?

For women who are choosing to dress in this way, Sarkozy’s ban would have a difficult time justifying necessity or protection of rights and freedoms under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights,

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

If his ban was to proceed, it would likely receive a challenge to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).  If brought by women wearing a niqab out of their own volition and a belief that it is part of their religion, any such uniform ban is unlikely to succeed.

Such a ban could potentially impact non-Muslims as well, as Islam is not the only religion where some women wear full body covering. For example, a small Jewish sect has a similar garb:

Modesty: Some ultra-Orthodox women in Israel are wearing burqas.

Despite the commentator’s position in these videos, full-length garb for men and women, including hair-coverings, have a very long history in Judaism.

1870

1890

Photos courtesy of Jeremiah bin Salaam (ben Shalom).

Whatever religion ends up affected, what will happen if the niqab and similar garments are banned?

Will the state really say ‘in order to liberate a woman from an oppressive garment, it will be necessary to throw in her jail.’

Religion and politics have long – and sometimes fatally – been entangled in France. Maybe the state should not be in the business of telling people how they can or cannot express their religion.

Although the initial reaction to this story may be focused on the discrimination, whether you approve it or not, Canadians’ civil rights and access to justice are at stake here. The government has discretion in screening sponsorship applications. It means there is little recourse in rejected cases and the government doesn’t have to give you reasons.

Fair?

(post sponsored by advicescene.com)

Another effect of the status quo is a growing scarcity of mentors for young lawyers, according to Professor Tanovich. Should the state indirectly subsidize young lawyers’ training in the private bar? I say, yes. Or only the rich will afford good lawyers, while middle-class clients will be stuck with lawyers who use them to train themselves.

(post sponsored by advicescene.com)