posted
Quis, care to go over the infamous "Twinkie Defense" for everyone? I remember it fairly well from Criminology Class, but I wonder what your take on it will be...
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by minesurfer: A new question for the esteemed Mr. Esquire...
A few action figure customizers on another board/mailing list I peruse have wandered about the implications of selling (on ebay) their custom figures based on the intellectual properties of others (DC and Marvel most notably).
There have been many rumors like as long as you don't sell more than three customs of a figure within a year, you are not violating any copyrights. This led to the question of whether a custom Bruce Wayne was the same as a custom Batman. Another rumor that surfaced is that you can sell as many as you want as long as you are not mass producing them (like on an assembly line I guess). Some have said that selling one is a copyright infringement, while others have said as long as you don't make so much money that the big companies notice, you aren't violating anything.
As you can probably tell, most customizers have no legal knowledge... Could you share any insights you might have on this topic please.
quote:Originally posted by Leap Year Lass: Regarding APAs...
I gathered that these didn't veer into trademark infringement lawsuits because DC (or any other company) saw it as a beneficial arrangement: no one was making money from APAs and they served to maintain enthusiasm (therefore sales, therefore money) for the DC product rather than compete with it.
But what about selling old APA issues on eBay, or anywhere?
Well my knowledge of copyright law is very minimal. My understanding is that a copyright is a copyright regardless of how much money youmake off of it.
I do remember hearing of a case (back in the 80s) where Disney sued a nursery school for copyright infringement for having a mural of Disney characters on their walls. (The story also said that Warner Brothers came in and re-painted the walls with the Looney Tunes characters.) Presumably the argument against the nursery school was that the use of the Disney characters on the wall would attract more clients and thus make the nursery school money.
I imagine part of this is whether DC hears about you making and selling custom figures (I also imagine that Bruce Wayne is as much a copyrighted figure of DC as Batman is) So I imagine that if someone makes a few figures for some friends (who pay him/her) You;ll have nothing to worry about. However, when you start putting them on E-bay, then DC will probably hear about it and may try to shut the custom figure maker down (If it is worth the cost of a lawsuit)
As for the APA (I know someone told me what they were but I forgot, I am thinking fan zines) I imagine DC would have a harder time suing someone selling the back issues on Ebay, especially if they never sued the original publisher of the zine for copyright infringement. DC does not have to sue everyone for copyright infringement, however the decision not to sue could set a precident for future cases in which they would want to sue.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by He Who Wanders: Sounds to me like Brainy had an "irresistable impulse" to destroy the world.
I've heard this phrase before, and I've often wondered how it can be used effectively to defend someone against, say, murder. For example, I may have an irresistable impulse to go to the restroom, but that's at least a physiological impulse. To have such an impulse to commit murder seems far-fetched to me.
What exactly constitutes an "irrestistable impulse"? Could any super-villain, for example, claim they had an irresistable impulse to take over the world?
I am 99.99% sure that there is no exact definition of what constitutes an "Irresistible impulse". That is a question that is usually left for the Trier of Facts (In most cases a jury, but it would be the judge if it was a no jury trial)
Certasinly the defense would bring on their expert witnesses to escribe the "irresistible impulse". I do believe that when you are talking about an irresitible impulse, it would mean say pulling the trigger of a gun rather than an elaborate plan to lure someone to a deserted area, shoot them, and then dispose of the body.
Therefore, most supervillians would not benefit from this defense.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cobalt Kid: Quis, care to go over the infamous "Twinkie Defense" for everyone? I remember it fairly well from Criminology Class, but I wonder what your take on it will be...
Well the "Twinkie Defense" is part of a broader defense called "Diminished Capacity", which I think (They say that the day you take the bar exam is the day you know the most law) is just a form of the insanity defense and goes towards whether a person was able to form the intent to commit the crime.
The actual case where we get the term "Twinkie Defense" was from Dan White's trial for shooting and killing SF Mayor Moscone and City Councilman Harvey Milk. White's defense said that he suffered from depression and consumed a lot of junk food. The sugar from the junk food, worsened his depression and gave him diminished capacity. The jury agreed with this explanation. I believe he got a lesser sentence because of it. He didn't get off scott free.
While I believe that there is such a thing as diminished capacity that could mitigate a crime, I have a hard time accepting the "Junk food made me do it" argument.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you say makes sense to me. A copyright is a copyright, and the rumors I reported sounded like people trying to justify soemthing to me. I told the person that asked the question on the other board basically what you said.
From my experience with DC/ebay on the subject (I have watched other people's custom auctions, but have never sold my work), I think DC has been trying to shut down the custom figure selling based on their properties at the Ebay source.
Let me say that a little better... I think DC is trying to get Ebay to police the custom figure sales, and not trying to go after every individual customizer.
I also wanted to give a quick note of thanks to Mr. Esquire, for giving his time to such a thread.
Thanks.
-------------------- Something Filthy!
From: NOVA by way of NOIN | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cobalt Kid: Quis, care to go over the infamous "Twinkie Defense" for everyone? I remember it fairly well from Criminology Class, but I wonder what your take on it will be...
Well the "Twinkie Defense" is part of a broader defense called "Diminished Capacity", which I think (They say that the day you take the bar exam is the day you know the most law) is just a form of the insanity defense and goes towards whether a person was able to form the intent to commit the crime.
The actual case where we get the term "Twinkie Defense" was from Dan White's trial for shooting and killing SF Mayor Moscone and City Councilman Harvey Milk. White's defense said that he suffered from depression and consumed a lot of junk food. The sugar from the junk food, worsened his depression and gave him diminished capacity. The jury agreed with this explanation. I believe he got a lesser sentence because of it. He didn't get off scott free.
While I believe that there is such a thing as diminished capacity that could mitigate a crime, I have a hard time accepting the "Junk food made me do it" argument.
I've met Dan White's lawyer - very nice guy by the way. He actually received death threats after the verdict in that case. I've also met the prosecutor from that case, and discussed the case with him. He's now retired and also a very nice guy. Much has been made of the so-called twinkie defense, and most of it is inaccurate. A google search of "twinkie defense" will provide further information. Here is a typical exerpt:
"The media, who get paid to keep track of these things, got it screwed up too. She's talking about the infamous "Twinkie defense," a term that entered the national vocabulary two decades ago following a brutal double murder in 1978.
It all started on November 27, 1978 in San Francisco. Dan White, an ex-policeman who had recently resigned as city supervisor, climbed in the basement window of City Hall to avoid metal detectors, walked upstairs to the office of mayor George Moscone and demanded his supervisor job back. When Moscone refused, White shot him twice at close range, then stood over the body and put two more bullets into the mayor's brain to finish him off. Then he reloaded, went down the hall, and killed Harvey Milk, a popular supervisor who was also America's first openly gay public office holder, shooting him five times.
At trial, White's lawyer argued that he was suffering from "diminished capacity," a controversial defense then permissible in California courts. White supposedly was suffering from depression and thus incapable of premeditated murder. As evidence of this, psychiatrist Martin Blinder testified that the formerly health-conscious White had recently become a junk food junkie. Blinder commented that too much sugar can affect the chemical balance in the brain and worsen depression, but didn't blame the crime on bad diet. Rather, he offered junk food use as proof of White's mental state--in other words, Twinkie consumption was an effect rather than the cause of White's problems. But the media and public immediately--and misleadingly--dubbed the defense's argument the "Twinkie defense." " The Straight Dope
[ January 05, 2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Semi Transparent Fellow ]
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by minesurfer: What you say makes sense to me. A copyright is a copyright, and the rumors I reported sounded like people trying to justify soemthing to me. I told the person that asked the question on the other board basically what you said.
From my experience with DC/ebay on the subject (I have watched other people's custom auctions, but have never sold my work), I think DC has been trying to shut down the custom figure selling based on their properties at the Ebay source.
Let me say that a little better... I think DC is trying to get Ebay to police the custom figure sales, and not trying to go after every individual customizer.
I also wanted to give a quick note of thanks to Mr. Esquire, for giving his time to such a thread.
Thanks.
I think you are right in that DC is probably trying to get Ebay to police their site rather than go through litigation.
Definitely DC has an interest in keeping the figurine business for themselves.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Semi Transparent Fellow: I've met Dan White's lawyer - very nice guy by the way. He actually received death threats after the verdict in that case. I've also met the prosecutor from that case, and discussed the case with him. He's now retired and also a very nice guy. Much has been made of the so-called twinkie defense, and most of it is inaccurate. A google search of "twinkie defense" will provide further information. Here is a typical exerpt:
"The media, who get paid to keep track of these things, got it screwed up too. She's talking about the infamous "Twinkie defense," a term that entered the national vocabulary two decades ago following a brutal double murder in 1978.
It all started on November 27, 1978 in San Francisco. Dan White, an ex-policeman who had recently resigned as city supervisor, climbed in the basement window of City Hall to avoid metal detectors, walked upstairs to the office of mayor George Moscone and demanded his supervisor job back. When Moscone refused, White shot him twice at close range, then stood over the body and put two more bullets into the mayor's brain to finish him off. Then he reloaded, went down the hall, and killed Harvey Milk, a popular supervisor who was also America's first openly gay public office holder, shooting him five times.
At trial, White's lawyer argued that he was suffering from "diminished capacity," a controversial defense then permissible in California courts. White supposedly was suffering from depression and thus incapable of premeditated murder. As evidence of this, psychiatrist Martin Blinder testified that the formerly health-conscious White had recently become a junk food junkie. Blinder commented that too much sugar can affect the chemical balance in the brain and worsen depression, but didn't blame the crime on bad diet. Rather, he offered junk food use as proof of White's mental state--in other words, Twinkie consumption was an effect rather than the cause of White's problems. But the media and public immediately--and misleadingly--dubbed the defense's argument the "Twinkie defense." " The Straight Dope
I imagine he did get death threats. There was rioting when the verdict was announced.
And it was Supervisor not Councilman. I knew councilman was not correct but couldn't remember what term was used.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Legion World (theirs not ours) was first created, it was hidden through various means of intentional deception - it wasn't just in a remote corner of the galaxy, behind a large rock. Would they be guilty of avoiding property assessment and taxes, not to mention building codes? (There may be parts of the galaxy in the 31st century without building codes, but I can't believe that any sector will go untaxed.)
quote:Originally posted by Fat Cramer: When Legion World (theirs not ours) was first created, it was hidden through various means of intentional deception - it wasn't just in a remote corner of the galaxy, behind a large rock. Would they be guilty of avoiding property assessment and taxes, not to mention building codes? (There may be parts of the galaxy in the 31st century without building codes, but I can't believe that any sector will go untaxed.)
Well first we can assume that Legion World was constructed in space. Second, I am assuming that space acts much like the oceans do in our time. That is there is a 12 mile limit out into the ocean that is considered part of a country. Beyond that, it is considered international waters and is subject to no one. I would say that the planets, their atmospheres, and satellites are sovereign, but the space beyond is not subject to any planet's laws.
However ships passing through space would be subjected to the laws of their planet of registry.
Now that Legion World is in Orbit around Earth, that would make them subject to Earth Laws. However, the Earth government could pass a law allowing Legion World to retain their own sovereignty.
With their own sovereignty, Legion World would not be subject to the taxes of any planet. The United Planets seems to work as more like the UN rather than as a ruling body.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a creature for which there is dispute over its sentience is killed, would this question require a definitive answer before trial could proceed?
-------------------- My views are my own and do not reflect those of everyone else... and I wouldn't have it any other way.
quote:Originally posted by Sanity or Madness?: If a creature for which there is dispute over its sentience is killed, would this question require a definitive answer before trial could proceed?
yes or no, depending on what charges are brought against the defendant. (oh I know you want more of an answer than that)
Let's use Proty (Before he was declared a sentient being) as an example. Mano pets one of Proty's kin completely disintergrating him. The prosecutor charges Mano with murder. Mano's lawyer files a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that the Proty was not a sentient creature and therefore the charge of murder is wrong. (Assuming that murder would apply to just sentient creatures by Legion time. Killing a non-sentient creature could result in violations of other laws. Killing an endangered animal violates a law in the US but is not murder. Killing a family pet could cause a person to be charged with cruelty to animals and a civil suit for Conversion, but not murder.)
The court would then hold a hearing on the motion (no jury) to determine if the charges should be dismissed. The Prosecutor would argue why the charges are correct (and that the Proty was sentient) and the Defense attorney would argue that the charges should be dismissed because the Proty wasn't sentient and therefore could not be murdered.
If the judge finds that Protys aren't sentient, then the charge of murder would be dismissed. The Prosecutor could then bring Mano up on the other charges mentioned. Also the judge could find another reason to dismiss the charge without ruling on whether Protys are sentient or not. If the judge finds that Protys are sentient, then the case would then go to trial provide that there are not any other motions.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quis, do you think you'd be able to repress a smile if suddenly someone in the courtroom yelled:
"I'm out of order? You're out of order! This whole damn court is out of order!!!"
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cobalt Kid: Quis, do you think you'd be able to repress a smile if suddenly someone in the courtroom yelled:
"I'm out of order? You're out of order! This whole damn court is out of order!!!"
Well seeing as I have never really seen the movie that quote is from, I would say yes. Also I have already had to suppress smiles while doing intakes for the legal group I volunteer with. We deal with homeless clients and some have mental health issues.
I do remember from my Trial Practice class having to say "Objection!" for the first time. I wasn't the only one to giggle after saying it.
I do have a couple of stories from my Trial Practice class and will relate them if people would be interested.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
