Copyright Infringement - Understand the consequences of illegally downloading music.

This past July, a Federal Jury ordered Joel Tenenbaum (a Boston University graduate student) who admitted illegally downloading and sharing music online to pay $675,000 to four record labels.

His crime: the illegal download and distribution of...... ...... ......30 songs.

In his closing statement, Charles Nesson (Tenenbaum's Attorney) suggested the damages should be as little as 99 cents per song, roughly the same amount Tenenbaum would have to pay if he legally purchased the music online.

But Tim Reynolds, a lawyer for the recording labels, recounted Tenenbaum’s history of file-sharing from 1999 to 2007, describing him as “a hardcore, habitual, long-term infringer who knew what he was doing was wrong.” Tenenbaum admitted on the witness stand that he had downloaded and shared more than 800 songs.

The recording industry focused on only 30 songs in the case.

And this past June, a federal jury in Minneapolis ruled that Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, must pay $1.92 million, or $80,000 on each of 24 songs, after concluding she willfully violated the copyrights on those tunes.

But to understand the fairness or unfairness of Copyright law, you must know how/when/why copyright law was created.

Subsequently the Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) authorized copyright legislation: "To promote the Progress of Science..., by securing for limited Times to Authors.... the exclusive Right to their... Writings."

The Rights of the Copyright Holder is as follows:
1.)the right to produce the work,
2.)the right to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work,
3.)the right to public distribution of copies of that work,
4.)the right to public performance of the work,
5.)the right to public display of the work, and
6.)the right to perform copyrighted sound recordings publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Copyrights generally exist for the life of the author plus 70 years.

Copyright Infringement is the violation of any of the six exclusive rights (see above) granted to the copyright owner.

Under the Copyright Act, willful infringement is a criminal offense if done for commercial advantage or financial gain. A second type of criminal offense was added to the Copyright Act following an incident in which a college student posted copyrighted software on a web site for others to download for free (we're talking about Napster here). This is the No Electronic Theft Act which imposes criminal penalties for willful infringement in which a person during any 180-day period reproduces or distributes one or more copies of copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $1,000. Depending on the number of copies reproduced or distributed, the penalties may range from a fine of $100,000 and imprisonment up to one year to a fine of $250,000 and imprisonment for three years.

The best thing we can do now as consumers is to understand copyright law as well as its repercussions so that we do not end up in similar situations over a couple handfuls of songs.

Besides, you don't want to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a handful of songs that you could have purchased for ninety-nine cents, right?

Dodd introduces bill to freeze credit-card rates - MarketWatch

Dodd introduces bill to freeze credit-card rates - MarketWatch

Posted using ShareThis

Credit Card Act of 2009

I received some EXCELLENT feedback from my readers about the Credit Card Interest Rate Law so I decided to follow it up with the Credit Card Act of 2009.

This was signed into law by President Barack Obama on May 22nd 2009. However most of the provisions go into effect Feb. 22, 2010, unless otherwise stated. Here's what the Credit Card Act of 2009 means (with caveats) and what to keep an eye on at the bottom of this post.

1. Retroactive rate increases
Issuers can't raise rates on an existing balance unless a promotional rate expired, the variable indexed rate increased or you paid late by 60 days or more. No longer will they be able to punish borrowers for late payments on unrelated accounts under the practice of universal default or due to "anytime, any reason" clauses.

If the cardholder does trigger the default rate because of a 60-day delinquency, the bank must restore the lower rate once the cardholder demonstrates six months of consecutive on-time payments. This provision takes effect in August 2009.

In general, rates can't be raised in the first year after issuance, and promotional rates must last at least six months. Exceptions include expiration of a promotional rate, termination or completion of a workout plan, a change in the index rate or a 60-day delinquency.

Caveat: Issuers can raise rates at any time for any reason on new balances with 45 days' advance notice. Cardholders will still need to read correspondence from their creditors.

2. More advance notice of rate hikes
Consumers get 45 days' notice before key contract changes take effect, including rate increases. Under the current Truth in Lending Act, cardholders only receive a 15-day heads up. This change takes effect Aug. 20, 2009.

Caveat: This provision doesn't apply to credit limit changes. If your issuer slashes your limit, notification isn't necessary unless the reduction would trigger a penalty, such as an overlimit fee.

The new rules also don't cap interest rates. The increased rate can still be triple your existing APR.

3. Fee restrictions
Cardholders will not face overlimit fees unless they elect to allow the creditor to approve overlimit transactions. Issuers can't charge more than one overlimit fee per billing cycle.

In general, banks can't charge consumers a fee to pay their credit card debt, a cost some cardholders encounter for payments made by telephone or Internet. They can impose a fee to expedite a payment.
advertisement

Payments received by the due date -- or the next business day, if the bank doesn't accept mailed payments on the due date -- won't trigger a late fee. If the cardholder pays at a local branch, the payment must be credited the same day.

The new law limits fees on "fee-harvester" subprime cards as well. In the first year after issuance, nonpenalty fees cannot take up more than 25 percent of the initial credit limit.


4. Restricts card issuance to students
Consumers under age 21 who can't prove an independent means of income or provide the signature of a co-signer aged 21 or older won't get approved for credit cards. The provision protects young people who lack the means or the knowledge to handle credit cards from miring themselves into debt, but could backfire by pushing students to payday lenders and pawnshops, says Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com.

According to a recent Sallie Mae study, college students carried an average balance of $3,173 on their credit cards last year, a record high since the first analysis in 1998. A whopping 82 percent revolved a balance each month.

5. Ends double-cycle billing
The new law bans double-cycle billing, the practice of basing finance charges on the current and previous balance. Under this method, the issuer could charge interest on debt already paid off the previous month.

6. Fairer payment allocation
A close look at your card agreement will likely reveal a clause that explains that payments will be applied to lower-rate balances first. Not so anymore. The Credit CARD Act requires above-the-minimum payments to be applied first to the credit card balance with the highest interest rate.

7. More time to pay
Card companies must send statements 21 days before a payment is due. Current law requires a mere 14 days' notice. This provision goes into effect Aug. 20, 2009.

8. Gift card protections
The legislation includes protections for gift cardholders. The new law prohibits gift cards from expiring for at least five years. Issuer cannot assess inactivity fees unless the card has gone unused for 12 months.

(courtesy of www.bankrate.com)

Enhanced Consumer Disclosures

* Clear disclosure on how long it would take to pay off a credit card balance if cardholder makes only the minimum payment each month.
* Clear disclosure on the total cost in interest and principal payments if a cardholder makes only the minimum payment each month.
* Late payment deadline and postmark date are required to be clearly shown and disclosed to cardholders.


What to watch out for in the coming months

Because most of these new rules will not take effect for four months, it is important that you remain vigilant between now and then, and consider the affect this legislation might have on you.

Watch for:
-interest rate hikes on your credit cards. Some issuers may try to raise rates while they can.
-an accelerated loss in terms of the value of your rewards points. You may see your 5% gas rewards cut to 3% or 4%. Or your airline miles may not go as far as they could.
-the possibility of being charged an annual fee to participate in rewards programs. “Premium” reward programs have been emerging recently, but you may see more of them in coming months.
-watch your mailbox carefully for “opt in” agreements for the over the limit transactions.Who knows how the credit card companies will try to implement this, but you know that they will want you to opt in.

It’s good practice any time, but be especially careful to read everything you get from your credit cards in the coming months.

This American Life: Someone else's money - a podcast that gives a deeper look into the health insurance industry.

Someone else's money

Chicago Public Radio: This American Life - "This week, we bring you a deeper look inside the health insurance industry. The dark side of prescription drug coupons. A story about Pet Health Insurance, which is in its infancy, and how it is changing human behaviors—for example, if you have the pet health insurance, you bring your pet to the vet more often, and the vet makes more money and...well, you can see the parallels. And insurance company jargon, frighteningly decoded."

Health Insurance has been and will continue to be a major topic for all Americans. Please take the time and listen to this podcast. It will be the most informative hour you will have all week.

Control Room - A documentary about Al Jazeera news network

"The pen is mightier than the sword." - Edward Bulwer-Lytton

Who would want to be an Attorney especially in THIS economy?

Today, the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) held a forum for prospective law school students to gather more information about the law schools of their choice regarding the admissions process, the LSAT, and financing. Their was 180 law schools represented from across the country (trust me, I received about 50 emails this week inviting me to stop by their booth).

I abstained from attending this event.

I started to really think long and hard about my law school decision. The main point being that there seems to be more graduates of law schools then there are jobs.

When I break it down by my area (Chicago) and think about the law schools in Illinois alone...

-Northwestern
-University of Chicago
-Chicago-Kent
-University of Illinois
-Loyola
-DePaul
-John Marshall
-Northern Illinois University
-Southern Illinois University

(which by the way, the Chicago market is the 2nd largest market behind New York for law schools)

AND if you want to get really technical, throw these schools into the mix because of their proximity...

-Notre Dame
-Marquette
-Valpo
-Purdue*
-Wisconsin*
-Michigan*
-Indiana*

(*=a stretch but where do you think they are going to look first for jobs? Maybe a major metropolitan city like a Chicago)

...this reaffirms my concern for employment.

There is a total of 16 law schools that graduates, in theory, could be competing for the same small number of jobs.

Can any of these law schools guarantee a job after graduation? No.

With the U.S. Economy in a recession, how can one justify going to law school, not working for three years, adding a minimum of $100,000 of debt, and then not have a guarantee about a job afterwards? Not to mention that lawyers are not immune to a recession. I spoke with my Powerscore LSAT teacher about this and he said "Now is one of the worst times to be graduating law school." Sure, he's referring to the market in today's time and under today's economic terms. Could the market turn around? Definitely. Will it in three years? That's debatable. If I was in Vegas, I would bet no (especially in the legal field).

I think in three years not only will law school graduates deal with competing against each other for jobs, but also graduates of today that couldn't find steady work and just did random jobs to make ends meet. I also think it would be obtuse to think that partners and individuals with several years of legal experience are immune to this recession. So graduates would have to compete with them as well.

I recently stumbled upon this article in a discussion forum that I think strengthens my reasoning to reconsider law school:

Well unlike med or dental school there is a huge glut of law schools. There are much more people graduating law school than there are available jobs. The simple answer is that the higher tier the law school the more chance and I do say chance you will get a decent job out of law school. Lawyers are a dime a dozen, go medical. Heck, there is a shortage of pharmacists and their median wage is $98,000K well above lawyers. Dentists 180,000K median and there is a shortage, and of course a shortage of MDs.

From US News, Poor careers for 2006 Attorney.
If starting over, 75 percent of lawyers would choose to do something else. A similar percentage would advise their children not to become lawyers. The work is often contentious, and there's pressure to be unethical. And despite the drama portrayed on TV, real lawyers spend much of their time on painstakingly detailed research. In addition, those fat-salaried law jobs go to only the top few percent of an already high-powered lot.

Many people go to law school hoping to do so-called public-interest law. (In fact, much work not officially labeled as such does serve the public interest.) What they don't teach in law school is that the competition for those jobs is intense. I know one graduate of a Top Three law school, for instance, who also edited a law journal. She applied for a low-paying job at the National Abortion Rights Action League and, despite interviewing very well, didn't get the job.

From the Associated Press, MADISON, Wis. (AP) - A lawmaker who persuaded the Assembly to eliminate all state funding for the University of Wisconsin law school says his reasoning is simple: There's too many lawyers in Wisconsin.(Too many lawyers in Wisconsin)

From an ABA study about malpractice claims, More Sole Practitioners:
There appears to be an increasing trend toward sole practitioners, due partly to a lack of jobs for new lawyers, but also due to increasing dissatisfaction among experienced lawyers with traditional firms; leading to some claims which could have been avoided with better mentoring.

New Lawyers:
Most insurers have noticed that many young lawyers cannot find jobs with established firms, and so are starting their own practices without supervision or mentoring. This is likely to cause an increase in malpractice claims, although the claims may be relatively small in size due to the limited nature of a new lawyers

“In a survey conducted back in 1972 by the American Bar Association, seventy percent of Americans not only didn’t have a lawyer, they didn’t know how to find one. That’s right, thirty years ago the vast majority of people didn’t have a clue on how to find a lawyer. Now it’s almost impossible not to see lawyers everywhere you turn."

Growth of Legal Sector Lags Broader Economy; Law Schools Proliferate,
For graduates of elite law schools, prospects have never been better.
Big law firms this year boosted their starting salaries to as high as $160,000. But the majority of law-school graduates are suffering from a supply-and-demand imbalance that's suppressing pay and job growth. The result: Graduates who don't score at the top of their class are struggling to find well-paying jobs to make payments on law-school debts that can exceed $100,000. Some are taking temporary contract work, reviewing documents for as little as $20 an hour, without benefits. And many are blaming their law schools for failing to warn them about the dark side of the job market.

The law degree that Scott Bullock gained in 2005 from Seton Hall University -- where he says he ranked in the top third of his class -- is a "waste," he says. Some former high-school friends are earning considerably more as plumbers and electricians than the $50,000-a-year Mr. Bullock is making as a personal-injury attorney in Manhattan. To boot, he is paying off $118,000 in law-school debt.

A slack in demand appears to be part of the problem. The legal sector, after more than tripling in inflation-adjusted growth between 1970 and 1987, has grown at an average annual inflation-adjusted rate of 1.2% since 1988, or less than half as fast as the broader economy, according to Commerce Department data.

On the supply end, more lawyers are entering the work force, thanks in part to the accreditation of new law schools and an influx of applicants after the dot-com implosion earlier this decade. In the 2005-06 academic year, 43,883 Juris Doctor degrees were awarded, up from 37,909 for 2001-02, according to the American Bar Association. Universities are starting up more law schools in part for prestige but also because they are money makers. Costs are low compared with other graduate schools and classrooms can be large. Since 1995, the number of ABA-accredited schools increased by 11%, to 196.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, the inflation-adjusted average income of sole practitioners has been flat since the mid-1980s. A recent survey showed that out of nearly 600 lawyers at firms of 10 lawyers or fewer in Indiana, wages for the majority only kept pace with inflation or dropped in real terms over the past five years.

Many students "simply cannot earn enough income after graduation to support the debt they incur," wrote Richard Matasar, Dean of New York Law School, in 2005, concluding that, "We may be reaching the end of a golden era for law schools."

Now, debate is intensifying among law-school academics over the integrity of law schools' marketing campaigns.

David Burcham, Dean of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, considered second-tier, says the school makes no guarantees to students that they will obtain jobs.

OK, I have to interject right here. Did a dean of a law school basically say you could go through all the nonsense of getting into law school, law school, ethics exam, bar exam and you should not expect some sort of gainful employment after you are through? You might as well go to Las Vegas and put your tuition money on the roulette table and let it ride, you may have better odds of making money than going to his school and getting a decent paying law job. This guy is a jerk.

Yet economic data suggest that prospects have grown bleaker for all but the top students, and now a number of law-school professors are calling for the distribution of more-accurate employment information. Incoming students are "mesmerized by what's happening in big firms, but clueless about what's going on in the bottom half of the profession," says Richard Sander, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles who has studied the legal job market.

But in law schools' self-published employment data, "private practice" doesn't necessarily mean jobs that improve long-term career prospects, for that category can include lawyers working under contract without benefits, such as Israel Meth. A 2005 graduate of Brooklyn Law School, he earns about $30 an hour as a contract attorney reviewing legal documents for big firms. He says he uses 60% of his paycheck to pay off student loans -- $100,000 for law school on top of $100,000 for the bachelor's degree he received from Columbia University. "Most people graduating from law school," he says, "are not going to be earning big salaries."

Adding to the burden for young lawyers: Tuition growth at law schools has almost tripled the rate of inflation over the past 20 years, leading to higher debt for students and making starting salaries for most graduates less manageable, especially in expensive cities. Graduates in 2006 of public and private law schools had borrowed an average of $54,509 and $83,181, up 17% and 18.6%, respectively, from the amount borrowed by 2002 graduates, according to the American Bar Association.

But just as common -- and much less publicized -- are experiences such as that of Sue Clark, who this year received her degree from second-tier Chicago-Kent College of Law, one of six law schools in the Chicago area. Despite graduating near the top half of her class, she has been unable to find a job and is doing temp work "essentially as a paralegal," she says. "A lot of people, including myself, feel frustrated about the lack of jobs," she says.

The market is particularly tough in big cities that boast numerous law schools. Mike Altmann, 29, a graduate of New York University who went to Brooklyn Law School, says he accumulated $130,000 in student-loan debt and graduated in 2002 with no meaningful employment opportunities -- one offer was a $33,000 job with no benefits. So Mr. Altmann became a contract attorney, reviewing electronic documents for big firms for around $20 to $30 an hour, and hasn't been able to find higher-paying work since.

Some new lawyers try to hang their own shingle. Matthew Fox Curl graduated in 2004 from second-tier University of Houston in the bottom quarter of his class. After months of job hunting, he took his first job working for a sole practitioner focused on personal injury in the Houston area and made $32,000 in his first year. He quickly found that tort-reform legislation has been "brutal" to Texas plaintiffs' lawyers and last year left the firm to open up his own criminal-defense private practice.

He's making less money than at his last job and has thought about moving back to his parents' house. "I didn't think three years out I'd be uninsured, thinking it's a great day when a crackhead brings me $500."

What the above article did for me is provide me with a new perspective that law schools are producing more graduates than there are jobs available. It's almost, a recession within a recession. And new graduates are finding themselves in unfortunate situations (burdened with debt, unemployment, under-qualified, etc, etc) and are scrounging for any type of work and experience.

And to that I say thanks, but no thanks. I am already dealing with one recession, I don't need another.

Credit Card Interest Rate Laws

Welcome to the first post of a new segment of my blog conveniently titled: "Laws". Since I am pursuing higher education in the form of a Juris Doctor I figured it would be a good idea to get familiar with the Law of the land.

First on my agenda is Credit Card interest rates [ENTER EVIL MUSIC].

They are ridiculous, scary, and somewhat uncontrollable. Yes, uncontrollable. I say that because your credit card company can raise your rate AT ANY TIME regardless of payment history, credit history, your good name or your state's Usury laws.

This is perfectly LEGAL (as much as it pains me to say it).

How? Well that came from the Supreme Court ruling in the 1978 case Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp.

In summary, the Supreme Court ruled that a national bank could charge the highest interest rate allowed in their home state to customers living anywhere in the United States, including states with restrictive interest caps.

So for example, I am a cardholder and my state of Illinois has a restrictive cap of 15% but my lender is located in Utah which has a cap of 24.9%...well this means that my lender will probably charge me the 24.9%.

When it comes to credit card interest rates, the law in a lender's home state rules. It doesn't matter what kind of rate cap exists in a customer's state.

This is what is knows as an Usury Law. In the United States, usury laws are state laws that specify the maximum legal interest rate at which loans can be made. Congress has opted not to regulate interest rates on purely private transactions, although it arguably has the power to do so under the interstate commerce clause of Article I of the Constitution.

So keep in mind that each state has its own statute which dictates how much interest can be charged before it is considered usurious or unlawful.

Understand that there is a glimmer of hope and that glimmer is YOU. You are in control of your credit history. Keep it clean by paying on time and paying off the balance every month (although this is one of many techniques to keep your credit clean) and your interest rate will be in your favor.

"If you lend money to any of my people that is poor by you, you shall not be to him as an usurer, neither shall you lay on him usury." - [Exodus 22:25]

No End in Sight - a documentary

Remember this photo? (note the banner above his head)



Just what was accomplished? Here's a fantastic documentary on the Iraq War titled "No End in Sight". This is a jaw-dropping, insider's tale of wholesale incompetence, recklessness and venality. Based on over 200 hours of footage, the film provides a candid retelling of the events following the fall of Baghdad in 2003 by high ranking officials, Iraqi civilians, American soldiers, and prominent analysts. "No End In Sight" examines the manner in which the principal errors of U.S. policy -- the use of insufficient troop levels, allowing the looting of Baghdad, the purging of professionals from the Iraqi government, and the disbanding of the Iraqi military -- largely created the insurgency and chaos that engulf Iraq today.

Some Pre Olympics GDP and Post Olympics GDP Articles

Interesting article regarding GDP the year after a country hosts the Olympics: Spotlight on China Olympic Games and GDP Growth

In summary, his article points out that GDP decreases substantially the year after the Olympics is held.

Here's an article about the economic impact prior to the Olympics: The Economic Impact of the Olympics

In summary, it shows that there's great robust growth in GDP about three years prior to the Olympics, BUT like the article above, it shows a decline in GDP post Olympics.

More info on hosting the Olympics: Sports Industry: The Economics of the Olympics

Why Chicago (taxpayers) dodged a bullet by not getting the Olympics

One of my favorite movies is The Matrix (the first one). My favorite scene (perhaps of all time) is when Neo faces off with the agent on top of the building and starts dodging bullets left and right. You see the bullets pass him and rotate (and yes, bullets REALLY do rotate) in slow motion.


This morning I found out (much like everyone else) that Chicago did not get the Olympics and I was EXTREMELY happy.

Much like Neo, we dodged a bullet on this one.

Approaching the Olympic decision, there were two categories; those who wanted the Olympics, and those who did not. There was no in between.

Those who wanted the Olympics argued that the Olympics would bring in new infrastructure, money and international appeal (putting Chicago on the world map).

Those who did not want the Olympics argued that our focus and money should be invested elsewhere (public schools, public transportation, police, etc, etc) and also argued that taxpayers will eventually have to pay for these games (even though the Mayor said they wouldn't...and when have politicians ever lied to us?).

Chicago faces many more important issues financially. The Olympics would have taken our focus off of what truly matters in our great city; like education, public transportation and law enforcement.

For example:
-As of March, 2009, the Chicago Public School's (CPS) had a $475 million deficit (which has been called the biggest in history). And that stimulus from the Government is only covering $50 million. This deficit has caused more staff and faculty cuts (i.e. teachers) and even higher property taxes (from home/business owners) to fill that void. These are our children we're talking about here. OUR CHILDREN! What's more important than focusing your time, energy and money in the children of your city? Absolutely NOTHING!
-The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is $87 million dollars in the red. That deficit includes sales-tax revenue ($42 million), the Real Estate Transfer Tax ($33 million) and discretionary funding ($12 million). Since I have lived in Chicago, there has been two (2) "Doomsday" experiences when routes/services were cancelled. The CTA continues to struggle with this deficit and must look towards the state for additional money just to keep it on life support.
-The Chicago Police Department hasn't had a contract or wage increase in 5 years. 5 YEARS! This is YOUR POLICE that enforce THE LAW and protect you from CRIME! Think about this: If you're a Chicago Police Officer, it is a requirement for you to live in the city. And if you own a home and pay rising property taxes, you have to deal with NOT receiving a wage increase for 5 YEARS to compensate for these rising taxes. PLUS - I can't even remember when the police academy was open. Can you?

All of these are valuable points that we need to focus on for making Chicago better.

For those of you that do not think that the Olympics would've gone over budget, consider the following:
-Vancouver will be in debt for the next 55 years because they are currently 500-600 million dollars over budget for their 2010 Olympic games.
-The 2012 Olympics in London is 9 BILLION euros OVER budget (that's the equivalent to 13 BILLION DOLLARS). Imagine that...13 BILLION DOLLARS!

If Chicago would've gotten the Olympics, it wouldn't have been "If" Chicago was over budget, it would've been a matter of "How much".

So thank you IOC for doing your homework and calling out Chicago for what it is...a city that is financially in the red and one that struggles to improve its quality of life.

Listen, I am a Chicagoan and I LOVE this city and I will continue to love this city. No longer do we have to be satisfied with the way business is conducted in our city. We need to use this opportunity as motivation to believe in something better for Chicago.

And when we believe something better for our city and invest more efforts to improve our quality of life, we won't have to dodge bullets of budget crises in education, transportation and law enforcement...

...because we'll stop them.