Sunday, January 1, 2012

My assignment for school turned in today

    "Both Indiana and Ohio have laws that prohibit male skating instructors from having sexual relations with their female students. This misdeed, called "the seduction of female students," is prosecuted as a felony. This statute applies only to male teachers. It seems female skating instructors may have sex with male students." ( (Strange) Sex Laws)

    In the states of both Ohio and Indiana, their exists a law strictly made only for male skating instructors regarding female students. The male instructors are not to have sexual relations with students of the fairer sex. They do not say anything about female instructors, or relations with the same sex so apparently it is in fact only considered bad if you are male and she is female. They classify this "horrible" act as the male seducing his student of the female variety. Apparently they do not consider the female might actually be the one seducing, and they also seem to leave out age, wreather or not the law is well thought out is debatable, and this one avidly advocates checking up on that. A very "strange" law indeed.

    On an audio or image oriented file it is only OK to use in a very broad way, even if you have a copy right. The copy right, really only makes you more favorable and eligible for legal fees to be covered. It seems more for appearances and recovery either way is possible. The broad range of the phrasing "educational and other uses"(Fair Use and Other Considerations,, is often interpreted many ways. In reality the law itself is merely a technicality that is easily overcome and overlooked due to poor wording on the laws part. It really only depends on the judge you acquire, the lawyer you have, and the amount of money you can fork out to protect your claim. As "other uses" is not clearly defined, the broad scope leaves no real protection for copy right users, and really is only to cushion the pockets of the government. It is easily over come and one must be lead to believe that as long as you know this, copy rights are null, however the law also states that although not reimbursed, those without copy rights may also defend their work and win, however they are not entitled to be reimbursed for their legal fees. This seems to be the only difference in the copy right laws. One could further venture that in reality, a copy right doesn't truly protect any work of any one person or company. In a nutshell, as long as you can legally defend your actions through this law on either end of it, you can do whatever you please. The copy right laws do not truly protect anything but the governments pockets. The laws presiding over plagiarism do not cite wreather or not a copy right is needed and as such, a copy right gives you no special protection as this law generally covers everyone.

    Morally, it is never OK to purposefully infringe however not knowing of said infringement shouldn't put you in any form of  bind as long as you do not know. Morally it is not OK to do so unless you do not gain money from it, and properly give credit where credit is due. Truly moral is the only big deciding factor in copy right laws. The biggest factor being how said moral is influenced in those either enforcing or violating the sacred creation of both music and imagery. The only thing the copy right laws do is place a stipulation of money that decides who is more worth defending than others. The law itself is discrimination against those who could not otherwise afford the copy right or the lawyer fees to otherwise defend their work.

(works sited)
Dec, 27th, 2011, <> paragraph, page 1 of 1-cted as, dribbled (Strange) Sex Laws

-"Fair Use and Other Considerations
According to the copyright law, the "fair use" clause allows for a portion of the work to be reproduced without permission for the purpose of commentary, news reporting, educational and other uses. This section of the copyright law is subject to broad interpretations. Although "for the purpose of commentary and news reporting" is reasonably clear and precise, "educational and other uses" is not. Many infringements and subsequent lawsuits occur when this portion of the law is interpreted too broadly. As a user, it's always best to ask permission or pay the fee. That's always cheaper than the lawsuit.
Another gray area is that of "limited specific guidelines." The law is not specific nor does it define how much may be used before infringement occurs."-

The above was found at and can be used in reference to the second portion of this assignment.

     In addition to this assignment, it should be noted that on the website, was also read and combining the two, it would actually be found that by this one phrase, that those under copy right laws trade monetary coverage of lawyer fees for a single technicality that actually affords them less entitlement for their works to be protected, as the loose definition in the copyright laws separates them and afford less protection than simply leaving sleeping dogs lie so to speak. In this, one must wonder as it is not specified that copy right laws are "in addition to" the plagiarism laws, just how many people are paying money to our government to be technically less covered under the law. Copy right's are a technical bribe as while those with them are technically less protected, they are enforced more than your average every day person who is either ill informed about the existence of copy rites, or ill funded to afford them.

Blessed be

No comments:

Post a Comment