Professor Susan Crawford continues her posts on the history of telephony:

For an entire generation after the telephone was introduced, the Bell system managers resisted its use for social purposes. Yes, there are memos and reports from the early years saying that managers were trying to get people to stop gossiping on the telephone. The president of Bell Canada, in 1890, complained he couldn't stop trivial conversations, and a manager in Seattle in 1909 wanted to limit use of the telephone for purely idle gossip.

A little different than today's cellphone marketing, eh?

It's a great post, explaining how incumbents don't always grasp the potential of new products and services. And it implicitly raises the perennial question of just how much weight one should give an incumbent's arguments. Think back to early copyright law - (Johann Christian) Bach v. Longman, the case that extended the Statute of Anne to musical works. Music publishers had been skeptical of copyright's benefits until J.C. Bach brought this case. Apparently, they've lost all such skepticism (see, e.g., Grokster). But what if the pre-Bach publishers were the ones with the right idea, after all? Is socializing on the telephone analogous to distributing free music online? Are record labels missing the boat on a fundamental shift in their industry? Only the future will tell us, I suppose.

Inside Higher Ed reports a "cheating scandal":

"An 'alarmingly large fraction' of the first-year class of economics graduate students at the University of Virginia were involved in a cheating incident that came to light this month, according to the department chair."

The problem, it appears, is the existence of online answer keys to the textbooks used. It's hard to say much without knowing all the details, but it may not be as bad as it's being made out to be. Most graduate economics departments encourage group cooperation and work, and problem sets are generally assigned to be understood, not just answered correctly. It's grad school - everyone should be getting A's anyway. And, from what I've seen, a lot of the answer keys online are from professors that post their solutions to assigned problems online. (A quick Googling of the exact wording from a graduate econ textbook question frequently yields a solution.)

Now, if UVA officials have made it clear such acts are not acceptable, there's an obvious violation. Likewise if the cheating were for something assigned entirely for the purpose of skill evaluation (i.e. an examination). But let's not jump the gun.

The honor committee does not launch investigations during the summer, but the economics department has assembled a panel of its own. Stern, [the director of graduate studies,] who said he is not yet ready to label the actions “cheating,” is the head of that group. He hopes that the newly formed department committee will soon figure out the extent of any problem, and “construct reasonable ways of dealing with it,” he said, which might be less severe than expulsion.

Also wise:

For now, Stern said the best way to launch a preemptive strike on future cheating is to "have instructors make their own problems, just not assigning any book problems."

Finally (and slightly off topic), a comment from a third-year econ grad student at UVA, explaining why it's not surprising the answers were shared among students, serves to highlight one of the most fundamental differences between law school and grad school:

"There’s sort of a communal feel in that everybody’s trying to help each other out a lot."

The BBC reports that UK physicians are to debate lowering the time limit for abortions for the first time since 1989.

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA's [ritish Medical Association's] head of science and ethics, said: "Medical advancements mean that some babies born before 24 weeks are surviving.

"The majority still die, but because more live than they used to - quite often with disabilities - it is time to have this debate."

In the US, Roe v. Wade is moored in the language of "viability". Some have seen this as a "safety valve" of sorts; i.e., that if you're opposed to abortion you should increase the medical technology so as to decrease the point of viability. But, in any event, increased debate over the definition of viability could mean a new abortion case in the next few years.

29 June 2005

To the Lady Three Rows Behind Me on the Airplane:

Nobody cares that your daughter is getting married. Or that her fiancé is from England. Or that his mother is English and his father is Canadian. Or that the wedding is in Barbados and both families will be there for the barefoot ceremony on the beach. Or that he promised to buy your daughter horses and goats. Or that, as a child, you once slept in a barn so you could watch your neighbor’s horse foal. And so on ad infinitum.

In short, nobody cares to hear every detail about your life. Not the poor lady next to you, who also had to see the accompanying photographs, and least of all me, a full three rows in front of you. Use your “inside voice” on the plane, please.

Earnestly yours,

DAG

After a week in Charlottesville, VA, I’ve spent the last few days in Tacoma and Seattle, Washington. This was my first trip to the Pacific Northwest, but I’m thoroughly impressed. Seattle is large enough to have any big city amenity, yet small enough to still be quite charming, with a small-town feel walking down the downtown streets. And one can’t forget to mention the cool weather and beautiful landscapes.

Only two law schools in Seattle, though: University of Washington and Seattle University. I wonder if either is looking for a new (very) junior faculty member?

It was a little eerie to read this post (by the non-conspiring Volokh), which largely mirrors my own TV-on-DVD rental history from Netflix. I'm finished with Buffy, finishing Season 2 of Angel, done with the original Star Trek, in the middle of Season 4 in Star Trek: The Next Generation, and up to Star Trek VI in the movies.

And I completely agree with the analysis of the show, especially:

TOS has a curious attitude towards violence. In one out of every two or three episodes of season 1, the Enterprise encounters an alien race of superior beings who have renounced violence and look on humans as inferior and not very interesting. ... Yet when Kirk confronts problems with a violent approach - often prematurely, in my opinion - he is portrayed as a hero, not a thug.

I know the portrayal of women on the starship in careers like communications officer and nurse was supposed to be a big step for women's rights in 1966, especially for a black woman. But from today's perspective, it looks demeaning. The women only serve as assistants to the men. When something scary or dangerous happens, they invariably panic before being told to pull it together. And for some unfathomable reason, they go around half-naked all the time.

One major difference, though: I refuse to identify myself as a Star Trek "fan". There's just too big a stigma. I realize that one can be a fan without being a "trekkie", but it's just too great a risk, as not everyone is cognizant of the sometimes subtle difference between fan and fanatic. (This is why I also refuse to call myself a Star Wars fan.)

And while I'm on the subject of TV-on-DVD, I have to make a recommendation. I've become strangely obsessed with Dallas - and the third season comes out on August 9th. Also extremely notable is the August release of ALF: Season 2.

Battery by emesis? Apparently so. A high school boy vomitted on his Spanish teacher, allegedly intentionally. According to the article, conviction would likely result in probation and an apology.

"I think a message is being sent by both the school district and the district attorney that this behavior will not be tolerated," Young [the teacher] said.

If you ask me, it think that, if it was intentional, it was the student who sent sent a message... and a rather strong message at that.

During divorce, this Ohio couple agreed to sell the husband's casket, kept in the garage. The Columbus Dispatch classified ad reads "Marriage died before husband did".

But why? To pay attorney's fees, of course:

"I'm really pressed for money, and I'm hoping I can use some of it for attorney fees," she said.

Drunk pilots convicted; sentencing (up to five years) scheduled for next month.

The highlights:

Police said Cloyd's blood-alcohol reading was 0.091 and Hughes' was 0.084 in tests given about three hours after they entered the cockpit. Florida law considers a vehicle operator drunk if his blood alcohol level is 0.08 or higher.
...
They left the bar around 5 a.m. after running up a tab for 14 jumbo glasses of beer — the equivalent of nearly 22 pints (10.5 liters) — and showed up late for the 10:30 a.m. flight.

And the part that makes one proud to be part of the legal system:

Defense attorneys said the pilots should not be convicted because they were not really operating the plane at the time in question. They said it was under control of the tug truck driver towing it to the runway.

The tug driver, who was the lone defense witness, testified that the plane's engines were off and the steering disabled but acknowledged he acted only on orders from the pilots.

Terrific.

Now I'm not one to get overly worried about flying. In fact, I rather enjoy it. But when drunk pilots get "about five or six minutes away from flying," I begin to realize how much faith we pretty unwittingly put in pilots. How often do they actually take off after 22 pints?

Since moving to New York City, I started noticing (and am amazed at) just how New York-centric so many movies tend to be. A huge number are set in and constantly reference aspects of life unique to NYC. And characters in some movies even live in apartments at 5th Avenue & 12th Street, directly across 12th street from Cardozo.

Madagascar, however, takes this NYC-centrism — and specifically Manhattan-centrism — to new heights. As Christine Hurt at Conglomerate noted:

Unless your five-year-old lives in the five boroughs and reads the NYT Book Review, this movie may miss its mark.

When I went (10:45 p.m. last night), there were, understandably, no five-year-olds. But there were a number of adults. And lots of laughter. I'm pretty sure kids wouldn't have understood very much of the dialogue, though. And the animals-eating-other-animals scenes would likely be more than a little disturbing to some children.

The best line was very early, when Marty the Zebra (Chris Rock) was deciding what do with the rest of his life, after realizing it was half-way over. Among the options: go to law school.

July 11th is Fair Use Day! (via Copyfight):

Fair Use rights have been under siege for a long time and from every direction. Sometimes it seems that almost anyone who makes or sells anything wants to eliminate another piece of Fair Use rights for their own gain. Manufacturers of cars and printers, media corporations, even garage door opener companies have tried to undermine Fair Use, often by hiding behind the DMCA.

... Fair Use isn't just about what you can play on your ipod. Fair Use promotes interoperability and the advancement of learning and expansion of knowledge. It impacts every thing from the computer in your car to accessing material at your public library, to playing a DVD you purchased or rented on your Linux computer.

I'm frequently amazed at how obsequious even academics are to the dicta of publishers. I think it's less so in law schools, but still prevalent. Authors are "forced" to give up all rights to their work and threatened not to make use without express permission, even where the use clearly fair. "Celebrating" fair use, then, doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

Quick and Easy Fair Use Primer:
Electronic Frontier Foundation's Fair Use FAQs
Stanford Libraries' Copyright & Fair Use Site

I've been at George Mason University for the week, at the Summer Institute for the Preservation of the History of Economic Thought, along with co-blogger (and soon-to-be active blogger!) Bridget. Hence the lack of blogging.

Lots of thinking hard. Lots of long, grueling days with a roomful of some of the sharpest minds on the history of economic thought. Lots of ideas. Lots of laughing. Lots of friends, old and new.

This is my second year at the Summer Institute and it proves to be at least as good the second time 'round. Unlike most conferences, there's lots of time for all the speakers (only five-a-day --up from four-- but still 8:30-5:00 days equals almost 1 1/2 hours each), and a fairly small, but highly knowledgeable audience. Good stuff. Look for next year's call for papers.