Thread of legal hubbub

MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29189
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:47 pm

I’m assuming that ruling can be appealed?

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:50 pm

The court issued the TRO to block them starting work today, and was supposed to have a proper hearing on it today. I haven't heard how that went. I don't know if the TRO is appealable but the result of the most recent hearing should be subject to review I'm sure.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby tifosi77 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:57 pm

Read a bit more into it. The injunction was lifted today, so that's good. Apparently it had to do with the fact that the first hospital was the only Level II trauma center in the region, and losing this many staff simultaneously would've hampered their ability to have people on call to provide trauma care 24/7 and impact their accreditation. I don't think that justifies the initial ruling, but that's some useful context.

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:01 pm

It's interesting, but not relevant. Your failure to plan does not constitute an emergency on my part, etc. The workers told them well in advance they were leaving if they didn't match the offer. They simply opted not to and then cried foul when the people actually left. The original employer willfully created this situation and the departing employees were punished for it.
It's shitty because the workers could lose their individual licenses if they failed to continue working for the first employer. I usually give employees **** for being told what to do by employers, but in this case they actually had no choice. Work against their will for an employer they are actively trying to leave because they refuse to pay the market rate or lose their license to work anywhere.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:45 pm

Agree with dodint. The fact that the hospital would hampered by the loss of those employees does not mean that it can prevent those employees from leaving or otherwise force them to work there. It boggles the mind that a judge--even for a few days--thought he had the authority to order that.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby tifosi77 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:54 pm

I'm not siding with the judge, but I think I can see the initial thinking. It's not so much that the hospital would be harmed as a business as much as it is a broader consideration for the community. If they are the only accredited Level II trauma unit within x number of miles, leaving them shorthanded and de-accredited(?) could actually create a public health risk. I mean, poo on the first hospital for creating that environment. But it's not as loopy of a decision as it was at first read imo.

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:58 pm

If they all packed up and left on Friday with no notice, maybe. But the facility steered the situation to this result knowingly and willfully. Their accountant is the reason the facility is not staffed. They choose to not hire replacements or match the benefits package. The employees didn't even have to extend that courtesy.

You can't enslave people for the public good, Lee.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:46 pm

Yeah, even if the departure of those employees created a harm for the community, you just can't force people to work somewhere they don't want to work. And if public health is grounds to do that, where would it stop? Say the best surgeon in Bumblescum, Alabama retires. Now the Bumblescum Hospital, Bar & Grille, and Tire-Care Center can't do surgeries, which risks public health. Does that mean it could go to court and get a court order that some surgeon at UAB Health System in Birmingham must move to Bumblescum and work there?

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby tifosi77 » Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:27 pm

You guys don't have to convince me of you arguments. lol

I'm just saying I think I see a vector to the ruling that wasn't clear to me after reading the initial post on the story.

Troy Loney
Posts: 27513
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Troy Loney » Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:32 pm

Are we shitting on the judge that issued that ruling? Good, that was incredibly **** up and any precedent for employers using the court to compel employees like that is our own little dystopian reality.

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:32 pm

Repent!

Truthfully this is Shyster's fault. I read about this last week, thought I was over it, and then he brought it back to my attention. :lol:

MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29189
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Tue Jan 25, 2022 1:06 pm

I played a game of "Charlotte-opoly" this weekend and was a confused when I realized that parker brothers didn't produce it. After some research, apparently the gameplay of a board game (or any game) isn't protected under copyright law and that, from what I understand, you'd need a patent for it

why does copyright end at things like words and phrases and not gameplay? could I make a game with the same exact gameplay as Battleship but call it "airplanes"?

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby tifosi77 » Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:54 pm

Copyright is a work fixed in a tangible medium of expression. The moment the work is produced, it is copyrighted; filing with the government just eases enforcement in cases of infringement.

What can be copyrighted?

Literary works
Musical works, including lyrics
Dramatic works, including associated music composed for the piece
Pantomimes and choreographic works
Pictures, graphics, and sculptures
Movies and associated music composed for the work
Audio recordings
Architecture (Ask my counterpart paralegal at PlayStation about clearing all of the real-world buildings rendered in the Insomniac Spider-Man game a few years ago, and he'll probably just punch you; some of those structures are also subject to trademark protection, so double yay.)

To me, gameplay falls under the classification of an 'idea', and ideas can't be copyrighted. A certain expression of that idea (e.g. the rulebook for Battleship) can be copyrighted. But if you take that same idea and express it differently, it's not infringement. West Side Story is not an infringement of Romeo & Juliet. (Bad example in real terms, but you get the point.)

count2infinity
Posts: 35612
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby count2infinity » Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:53 pm

TIL in PA, taking pictures and video are okay in public, but audio is not due to a PA wiretapping law. For some reason I always thought things in public were fair game for recording.

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:58 pm

That's not wholly correct.

You can not record audio of private conversations in public. So you couldn't bug a park bench with a microphone and/or camera and record what people are saying. But you could walk around with a camera recording a parade or flag football game, or whatever.

This comes up often when recording police. They themselves are public officials and can be fully recorded when on duty.

count2infinity
Posts: 35612
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby count2infinity » Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:03 pm

And should a conversation arise while you’re recording, your within your rights to ask them to stop recording, yeah?

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:08 pm

I think so.

Every fiber of my being wants to use the phrase "expectation of privacy" but I don't know for sure how courts have interpreted the law. I mean, wandering around with your friend at the school play telling Karens to stop filming her kid performing because you want to have a private conversation nearby doesn't feel right either.

I am intrigued and will take a look.

count2infinity
Posts: 35612
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby count2infinity » Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:13 pm

Yeah. It came up as my wife had a very confrontational student who asked to record their conversation and she told her no. I asked if it was because it wasn’t considered a public location, but in a building that she could do that and she explained the wiretap law to me.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:16 pm

The PA wiretap law incorporates an "expectation of privacy" requirement through the definition of "oral communication" in 18 Pa.C.S. § 5702, which defines the term as "Any oral communication uttered by a person possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation."

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:19 pm

The state website must have been overwhelmed by both of us loading that page simultaneously.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:29 pm

I have a personal interest in the "recording the police" cases, so I've read a fair bit into cases on the Wiretap law.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby tifosi77 » Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:41 am

The police have taken to streaming copyrighted music from their phones when incidents are recorded to get at least the audio blocked on social media.

MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29189
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Fri Jan 28, 2022 11:24 am

The police have taken to streaming copyrighted music from their phones when incidents are recorded to get at least the audio blocked on social media.
lol what a clown world we live in

Tomas
Posts: 3444
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:28 am

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Tomas » Tue Feb 15, 2022 2:54 pm

Can any law experts here explain why a judge in Palin vs NY Times would rule against one party WHILE the jury was still deliberating? The jury came up with the same decision and allegedly did not know about the judge's ruling. But, in the world of internet - is it really feasible to successfully withhold such info from the jurors?

MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29189
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Tue Feb 15, 2022 2:57 pm

how does that even work? why have a jury if the judge can make a ruling themselves?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], nocera, skullman80 and 129 guests