Boneless Chicken Wings with Bones

Posted on December 15, 2024 by Tom Liberman

It’s hard to believe I’m just now hearing about the Ohio Supreme Court case involving boneless chicken wings with bones which was decided back in July, but here we are.

What is this boneless chicken wings with bones case all about? It’s not quite as straight-forward as you might imagine. Michael Berkheimer had some boneless chicken wings at a restaurant named Wings. He ordered his usual boneless chicken wings. He ate them. A small bone got lodged in his esophagus and ended up causing extensive damage requiring multiple surgeries.

He sued and that’s where it all gets legal.

Is it a violation to have boneless chicken wings with bones?

The case went through several courts before arriving at the Ohio Supreme Court. The court decided that boneless is a term meaning cooking style, not an absence of bones. They dismissed the case with the author of the opinion writing the following: A diner reading ‘boneless wings’ on a menu would no more believe that the restaurant was warranting the absence of bones in the items than believe that the items were made from chicken wings, just as a person eating ‘chicken fingers’ would know that he had not been served fingers.

I think it can be argued that it’s possible a bone might accidently slip into a boneless chicken wing and therefore Mr. Berkheimer is not entitled to sue Wings or their supplier. I disagree, but I do think it’s an argument.

Can a Jury Decide if Boneless Chicken Wings with Bones is actionable?

Here’s where things get incredibly dubious, at least in my opinion. The Ohio Supreme Court argues that Mr. Berkheimer cannot even bring the case to a jury. They dismissed the case as unwinnable. No reasonable person might think the boneless chicken wings with bones is actionable.

It’s clear to me, and virtually everyone else who’s been writing about this case since July when it first appeared, a reasonable person might well find Wings and their suppliers liable. Of course, it’s possible they might not find them so. But to suggest the case is unwinnable, that no reasonable person would find for Mr. Berkheimer, smells deeply of corruption. Of judges bowing the will of their moneyed masters.

Conclusion

The system is rigged against people without the financial resources to influence court cases. That’s the facts.

Tom Liberman

Law Enforcement Destroying a House

Posted on November 26, 2024 by Tom Liberman

The United States Supreme Court just ended an interesting case involving law enforcement destroying a house while pursuing a criminal. There is no question about what happened, just the financial responsibility of the McKinney, Texas government to pay for the damages.

What happened is fairly straight-forward. A fugitive with a kidnapped child entered a house and refused to leave. After the child was released, the McKinney police force did an enormous amount of damage to the home in an effort to force out the criminal.

The municipality refused to pay for the damages and the Supreme Court let stand a ruling supporting their non-payment.

Is Law Enforcement Destroying a House reasonable?

The first question to answer is if law enforcement destroying a house is a legal action. There seems to be little question about this, at least from the court’s perspective, my own opinion is different. The courts seem to accept without question that law enforcement can pretty much destroy whatever they want in the name of public and personal safety.

Going into the house eliminated a potentially dangerous criminal and using explosives and bulldozes was safer for law enforcement officers than risking their lives by entering personally.

The criminal in this case committed suicide and the destruction proved unnecessary but law enforcement did not know this.

Is Compensation Required?

The second question is if the suburb of McKinney owes the home owner money to pay for the damages. The initial verdict seemed to think so, awarding $60,000 in damages. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and vacated the judgment. The Supreme Court agreed with the Fifth Circuit and refused to hear the case.

Insurance Company being an Insurance Company

The insurance company refused to pay for damages because the destruction is an act of government and not covered by the policy.

Not as Isolate as you might Imagine

While this case of law enforcement destroying a home is fairly extreme, it is hardly an isolated incident. Police kick in doors, ransack homes, and otherwise cause damage every day in the United States. Often times they catch criminal, sometimes they do not. In either case, the courts largely agree they did their job and do not owe any money to pay for repairs.

That is the underlying problem. You might say to yourself, why doesn’t the government of McKinney just pay out this one egregious case? The reason is they’d then have to pay out for hundreds of other, smaller, cases just like it. As will cities all across the United States.

As things currently stand, if law enforcement destroys your property in the legitimate pursuit of a criminal, whether or not the crime is actually taking place, they owe you nothing. You must foot the bill.

What do I think?

I mentioned earlier that while the courts do not object to such wanton destruction, I do. I think the local government agency should always pay for the damage, even if the destruction occurred in pursuit of a criminal in order to safeguard the community.

Anything else just leads to abuse of the system. If law enforcement can always damage your property without fear of any financial renumeration, they will do so. They are doing so. It happens to poor people disproportionality and often involves the failed policy we call the war-on-drugs.

The people who have the least recourse and the least money to pay for such destruction are the ones suffering from it the most.

Equal protection? Ha.

Tom Liberman

Will Deregulation Prevent Synapse Collapse?

Posted on November 22, 2024 by Tom Liberman

People are losing their lifesavings everywhere and the Synapse Collapse is just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of people are making extremely risky financial decisions involving Crypto Currencies, NFTs, and other get-rich-quick schemes.

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who lose their money to such schemes but the Synapse collapse and others like it are not of the same ilk. Fiscally careful investors are losing their money all over this country.

What is the Synapse Collapse?

I’m sure most of you haven’t followed the story of Synapse, fintech, and Yotta or even heard about it but I watch a few YouTube channels that cover this stuff regularly. That being the case, I’ll go over it briefly but for a detailed examination you should visit those channels and read the articles.

Basically, a company, Synapse, took money from a variety of investors all over the United States who deposited it with startup companies like Yotta and Juno. Synapse used something called fintech to deposit the money in Evolve Bank. By having the money in a bank backed by the U.S. Government, people assumed that it was safe.

Sadly, this turned out to be false. The money wasn’t deposited properly although there is still a great deal of confusion about what happened to it in the maze of transactions through fintech, Yotta, Juno, and Evolve Bank.

Where did the Money Go?

The money may never be found. It’s a maze of transactions without a clear trail. What’s clear, it is the money is gone. Regular folks deposited at least $64.9 million through Yotta although there are likely many more investors from different startups. Now they are being offered $11.8 million in payment returns.

That’s about an 80% loss for most investors. It is their life savings. It is college funds. It is retirement money. It is real life and real suffering.

Sympathy for the Gullible

I mentioned earlier that I don’t have a huge amount of sympathy for people who make risky investments. I personally consider the entire Synapse Collapse a bit of a risky investment but for a lot of people that required more financial sophistication than they had. They don’t have a great team of financial advisors like me.

While I don’t have a huge amount of sympathy for the risky investors, I still feel their pain. This is real suffering. These are real people and what happened to them is brutal, even if it was through their own decisions.

In many cases the foolish decision was believing the lies of a convincing scammer. This sort of thing isn’t going away any time soon.

The Regulatory Roll

Much as my fellow Libertarians will hate me for it, I do think government led regulatory organizations are way behind the Synapse Collapse. This is not an isolated incident. There are many potential problems brewing in the industry. Many have lost their money to scams, schemes, and even well-intentioned investment advisors.

We don’t want people to put their money in a bank and then lose it. It’s bad for everyone. Regulations have a role here in helping people recover money and preventing them from losing it.

Creating good and useful regulations is another matter and a topic for a different time. That being said, I’m on board to get regulatory organizations up to speed on the new paradigms we face in the financial world.

Tom Liberman

Local Law Enforcement and The Marlow Murder Club

Posted on November 19, 2024 by Tom Liberman

I just finished watching the Marlow Murder Club and took away something from it that I did not expect. I’m not going to get into a detailed review of why the show is good or bad but instead talk about the real-world ramifications that I’m not sure were even intended. Law enforcement isn’t engaged with the citizens they are supposed to protect and serve.

The Marlow Murder Club tells the story of Judith Potts, a retired woman living in a large estate she inherited from an aunt, and her involvement and investigation of a local murder.

The Basic Plot of The Marlow Murder Club

It’s important to understand the plot of the Marlow Murder Club in order to understand the topic of today’s post. Judith Potts is swimming along in the river when she overhears an argument followed by a gunshot. She immediately begins to investigate.

Eventually there are more murders and Potts involves Suzie Harris, a local dogwalker, and Becks Starling, the wife of the town’s church leader.

Local Law Enforcement

The constabulary is led by DS Tanika Malik who is new to the job and eager to prove her worth although suffering somewhat from imposter syndrome. Malik’s team of investigators is able enough but the leads they follow don’t get them any closer to solving the crime. Meanwhile, Potts finds useful clue after useful clue.

Eventually Malik recognizes Potts is helpful and hires on the trio to aid in the investigation. That’s the point I’d like to discuss today.

It neatly coincides with the brilliant but hard to watch miniseries We Own this City. In that show Treat Williams plays Brian Grabler, a retired Baltimore detective now teaching at the police academy. At one-point Grabler gives a monolog where it lambastes the Baltimore police department’s personnel as unable to investigate crime. They do not have the skills nor the contacts. They never get out of their cars, he says.

This is, in my opinion, an enormous disconnect which impacts both citizens and law enforcement in a negative fashion. The officers just are not in the communities they protect serve. The people in those communities don’t know the officers and the officers don’t know the people.

Officers spend their off hours drinking at the union lodge, not in the community at the local pub. They don’t go have breakfast at the diner where everyone who is anyone in town meets. They don’t get their hair cut at the barbershop. Thus, they are unable to solve crimes with the help of the locals. The focus isn’t even really on solving crimes, it’s on generating revenue but that’s another topic.

The Rural and Urban Divide

All the problems I just listed here are exacerbated by a large population. In rural areas with small populations, it’s easier for law enforcement to be a part of the fabric of the community. In urban areas the opposite is true and I think, sadly, a lot of law enforcement departments have just given up trying to be part of the community. They don’t live there, they don’t socialize there, they avoid the places they patrol.

In rural areas people find it difficult to understand why urban dwellers don’t trust the police. While in urban areas people don’t understand unconditional support for law enforcement. What’s wrong with those idiots? Don’t they see how it is?

They do see, they just see it from their own lens.

Solutions

Solutions are not easy in a densely populated urban region. Police have outreach programs where they visit schools and what not but that really doesn’t solve the disconnect problem. Law enforcement officers must be part of the community they serve. There must be trust.

I think the slow way back involves local police offices scattered liberally throughout an urban center. A small number of officers who remain in that area patrol on foot, have breakfast, grab a brew, and create relationships with the people. It will take time, it will take money, and it will take the desire to change.

Is all that possible in today’s climate of distrust, even hate? I’m not sure. Still, I advocate the effort.

Tom Liberman

Dark Chocolate with Cadmium and Lead is not Premium

Posted on November 14, 2024 by Tom Liberman

I just read about an interesting false advertising legal case making its way through the U.S. Court system involving dark chocolate with cadmium and lead. In this particular case it’s Lindt Chocolate made in Switzerland.

I’ve written about false advertising in the past and I do think manufactures should give a fairly reasonable description of the product. In this case, Lindt advertises its chocolates as expertly crafted with the finest ingredients. They do not write dark chocolate laden with cadmium and lead on the label, for obvious reasons.

Study Reveals Dark Chocolate with Heavy Metals

The reality is that dark chocolate is usually laden with at least some heavy metals. The Cadmium generally arrives from the cocoa plant itself while lead gets there during the processing phase. The study that led to the lawsuit examined a number of dark chocolate brands including Lindt.

The result from Consumer Reports showed Lindt dark chocolate contained high-levels of Cadmium. Cadmium is generally considered a dangerous heavy metal that can lead to a variety of negative healthy effects.

Of the dark chocolate tested, Lindt wasn’t the highest for cadmium and lead nor was it the lowest.

The Lawsuit over Dark Chocolate with Cadmium and Lead

At issue is the advertising statement of expertly crafted with the finest ingredients. The argument goes that this statement might lead a consumer to pay for Lindt with the expectation that it did not have some of the problems associated with dark chocolate of a lower quality.

Lindt lawyers call the advertising statement puffery. Puffery is a legal term indicating that a reasonable consumer knows it’s merely exaggeration, boasting, and blustering. That it isn’t a real indication of the product quality. Anyone who has ever seen any advertisement knows all about puffery.

Lindt Dark Chocolate Conforms with Regulations

There are regulations about how much cadmium and lead is allowed to be in various food products and there is no question that Lindt chocolate comes in under this level. The Food and Drug Administration considers it safe for consumers in the United States.

The Fate of the Lawsuit

I strongly suspect the suit will result in no damages for the plaintiffs but that, perhaps, is not the point. The lawsuit, in my opinion, aims to educate the average buyer as to what they are consuming when they eat dark chocolate. Which is often advertised as healthier than milk or white chocolate.

We’ve seen quite a few lawsuits of this nature. Tuna in Subway sandwiches. Strawberries in Pop-Tarts. Various ingredients in supplements. It’s an interesting way to illustrate, Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware.

While I suspect the lawsuit is going nowhere, I do applaud the effort. In this modern age it pays to be aware of what you are consuming. The origin of the product, the quality of the product, the way labor is treated by the manufacturer, the environmental impacts of production.

Whether it be dark chocolate with cadmium and lead or any other product, I think most people want to make the world a better place. The government can’t save us and neither can the courts. Your purchasing power is the last line of defense. Use it wisely.

Tom Liberman

Taxes and Perrier a Study in Law

Posted on May 1, 2024 by Tom Liberman

Do you think of Perrier as water? I do. I’d imagine the vast majority of people reading this do. Do you consider it soda? I don’t and I’d think the vast majority of people agree with me, including Perrier itself.

Sparkling Natural Mineral Water is what it says on the bottle. It is naturally carbonated, whatever that means and sourced and bottled at the site it emerges from the ground. I don’t drink a lot of Perrier, nor do I drink much soda but then again, as the saying goes, I don’t know art, but I know what I like. Perrier is water.

Why am I asking you about the nature of Perrier? Because the United States legal system decided Perrier is soda. Why you ask? Money. Taxes.

The Perrier is Water Lawsuit

Jennifer Montgomery filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania when she paid a tax of twenty-four cents on a 16-ounce bottle of Perrier. She wants a refund because it is illegal to tax water in the United States. It being considered essential to life and all.

Let me pause for a moment to praise Montogomery. Filing this lawsuit required time and money. When the original case was decided against her, she appealed. You go, girl! Sadly, the Pennsylvania Department Board of Revenue Appeals court decided that revenue is the most important factor. We need those tax dollars and nothing is going to stop us from getting them.

Nix v. Hedden

I haven’t put on my Time Travel hat in a while and there was a case back in 1883 involving a similar tax situation and tomatoes. Something about fruits and vegetables. Let’s go back and see what happened then. Now, where is the cap, we did a bit of Spring Cleaning involving the We Got Junk people recently and I hope it didn’t get tossed out along with that hideous lamp.

Hmm, not in the closet. In the fridge? Nope. Here it is, in the Gloomhaven Box, what’s it doing there? Well, never mind, let’s plop it on, spin three times, focus on 1883 and kapow! Here we are. Wowzer, am I poorly dressed, look at all those suits and dresses. I’ll just observe here in back, that constable with the baton looks like he’s ready to use it.

“A tomato is a fruit,” says the lawyer holding the delicious red object in one hand and a large book with the other. “Right here, your Honor, it’s science!”

Bang, down comes the gavel. “It seems obvious, any counter-argument?” says the judge looking at the other lawyer.

“If a tomato is a fruit it’s exempt from the vegetable tariff.”

Bang, down comes the gavel again. “I declare a tomato is legally a vegetable in the United States forevermore.”

“Your Honor …,” says the first lawyer.

“Shut yer yap, contempt of court. Ten days.”

Oops, that constable is giving me the side-eye, spin three times, poof, back home! Remember where I put the hat, I say to myself as I toss it on a shelf.

Well, I guess it’s good to know some things haven’t change. Tax revenue is more important than reality. Yay!

Conclusion

Perrier is soda, the courts have spoken and the courts can’t be wrong.

Tom Liberman

California Pork Supreme Court Ruling is good for Small Farmers

Posted on May 12, 2023 by Tom Liberman

The Supreme Court recently ruled California pork rules for items sold within the state are constitutional. The ruling itself came from an unusual 5-4 split decision but that’s not really what I want to discuss today.

The ruling is roiling politicians from pork producing states like Iowa and the leaders of factory farm proponents. Scott Hays of the National Pork Producers Council and Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst of Iowa all lambaste the ruling as working against small farmers. They are lying. Those three and others like them are not the friend of small farmers. Let’s get into it.

The Rise of the CAFO

Small farmers are being decimated by Concentrated Animal Feed Organizations. I wrote about them recently in a ruling that went in their favor in Missouri. The rule upheld by the Supreme Court for California hurts not the small farmer but the CAFOs.

Small farmers are under tremendous pressure from CAFOs. We’re losing small farmers at a tremendous rate to these enormous operations. Bankruptcy, suicide, and the selling of the family farm to bankers. That’s the reality of being a small farmer today.

Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst aren’t on your Side

Small farmers are largely not affected by the California rule or, at the worst, can fairly easily comply. That’s why a number of organizations that support small farmers filed briefs in favor of the California rule. The organizations that are badly hurt are CAFOs. They cannot easily change their operations to treat animals in a more humane fashion.

When Grassley, Ernst, and Clark begin their wailing and weeping they show their true colors. They are all for the destruction of the traditional family farm. They hate the family farm. They want the big CAFO and the big campaign contribution. This is largely the state of the Republican Party. People in rural communities are voting for politicians that actively work to destroy the family farm all the while lying and telling the farmers the exact opposite. It’s vile.

Your Vote Matters

If the rural community continue to support politicians like Grassley and Ernst then it gets exactly what it wants and exactly what it deserves.

Conclusion

I’m not telling you for whom to vote but I am saying there are alternatives. It’s easy to get into a mindset where one party is the cause of all your ills and you vote the opposite. Remember, there are third- and fourth-party choices who offer a different vision.

Tom Liberman

Buy Marijuana in Missouri

Posted on April 13, 2023 by Tom Liberman

Everyone once in a while I need a reminder as to why I’m a Libertarian and my recent attempt to buy marijuana in Missouri gave me such. You see, I wasn’t trying to buy marijuana in Missouri for myself, that’s what the whiskey is for, I was trying to buy marijuana in Missouri for an 84-year-old woman with degenerative arthritis in her hip which causes chronic pain. Hint, it’s my mom.

Turned away. Why? Because I was buying for someone else. I can purchase recreational marijuana for myself. No problem. Credit card please. It’s for my mother who is in chronic pain, can’t walk, and can’t really get into the store without causing herself agony. Out you go, Tom. No demon gummies for you.

The Purpose of a Law

What is the purpose of this law? All I need do is go in and tell the clerk I’m buying it for myself. It’s not an impediment. This is the sort of thing that gets my Libertarian blood in a huff. A huff, I tell you. I rolled my eyes and left. I suppose I could have stayed and purchased the marijuana for myself but I figured I didn’t want to get the clerk in trouble. I’ll go back later.

Who Wrote this?

Someone wrote this law. A group of legislators voted to pass it. The governor signed it. I understand some people don’t like the fact marijuana is legal in the Missouri. That’s fine, at least that’s a defendable position, one I disagree with categorically, but at least an opinion.

Even if you oppose the sale of legal marijuana in Missouri you can’t possibly defend this nonsense. It’s totally useless. It does nothing. It stops nothing.

What could you do?

The simple solution is to limit the amount of marijuana I can buy. If I’m buying for ten people then this precludes me from purchasing so much. It’s still pretty stupid even then as the ten people can just come in themselves and buy it on their own, they don’t need me.

The Problem with the Law

My mother does need me to purchase because she isn’t particularly mobile. The only effect of this law is presumably to prevent me from buying marijuana for my mother, although, it obviously does not do that. Useless law.

Conclusion

Stupid laws are stupid. Legislators that pass stupid laws are stupid. Vote Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

The Coffeezilla and Logan Paul CryptoZoo Kerfuffle

Posted on January 5, 2023 by Tom Liberman

*** UPDATE ***

Paul has apologized to Coffee and dropped all threats.

*** END UPDATE ***

I know most of my loyal fans have no interest in Coffeezilla, Logan Paul, or CryptoZoo but I’m afraid that’s today’s topic.

In reality, my discussion is more about defamation lawsuits and frivolous lawsuits. It’s an interesting topic to me because it comes down to wealthy people using the law to stifle those who criticize them. It’s not something new and it’s growing.

Who is Logan Paul

Logan Paul is a media personality, athlete, and actor who specializes in self-promotion. There’s nothing wrong with someone hustling to promote themselves and make some money. Paul did so in questionable ways in the past; filming a corpse of someone who committed suicide and posting it on his YouTube channel as an example.

He’s largely been successful in his promotional activity and has a big following on YouTube.

What is CryptoZoo

CryptoZoo is a project headed by Logan Paul. In it he hoped to make a game where people purchased digital eggs, largely in the hopes of making a profit. Eggs were sold for millions of dollars. The game has thus far not materialized and several people involved in the project have lengthy criminal backgrounds.

Several of those people apparently made off with a great deal of the money although Paul is not one of them.

Who is Coffeezilla

Coffeezilla is a YouTube personality who specializes in exposing scams. He became interested in this when any number of people tried to scam his ill mother with phony cures. His coverage of several large financial situations including FTX and Save the Kids Token earned him a great deal of respect in the industry and he is now well-regarded.

What’s the Point of all this Tom-o?

I know you’ve been reading for a while and now I’ll get to the point. Coffeezilla ran a three-part episode in which he indicated his opinion that CryptoZoo was largely a scam from the beginning. The developers hired for the project had little or no ability to deliver the project. Millions of dollars in sales were made with only basic development on the project. Meanwhile Paul, when confronted with angry investors demanding refunds, continually claimed it would soon be finished.

Coffeezilla declared the entire project largely a scam from the beginning. Paul claims he too is a victim of the scam as his developer and main stakeholders absconded with most of the money. Paul is now threatening to sue Coffeezilla for defamation.

This is my point. Paul is quite likely guilty of mismanagement at the best. He’s probably lucky he didn’t cash out, like his partners, as there might well be fraud charges if he had done so. The point of the lawsuit is, I suspect, to silence Coffeezilla and Paul is not alone in using this tactic.

Frivolous Lawsuits

Frivolous litigation in the United States was once framed as lawsuits filed against big business in order to delay a particular activity. Weirdo crackpots trying to stop progress. If a judge determines a suit is frivolous the person filing might have to pay the legal fees of the other party and also face a fine.

In reality the law has been twisted from its original intent. Now, wealthy people and companies file such suits forcing their critics to hire expensive lawyers and spend a great deal of time, effort, and money to defend themselves. Meanwhile, if the suit is determined to be frivolous, it’s not a big deal to the wealthy person who can afford such activity, it’s simply the price of doing business.

If they can silence critics, force settlements for smaller sums from those who run out of money to defend themselves, cover-up wrongdoing, etc., why not file?

Cryptozoo Case

I’m not a lawyer. I can’t say whether a case against Coffeezilla brought by Paul will be successful, a failure, or determined frivolous. That being said, it seems extremely frivolous to my eyes. Paul has to prove Coffeezilla intentionally lied and from the videos I’ve seen, Coffeezilla did quite a bit of research and appears to believe his assertions completely. He makes a convincing argument.

Paul, on the other hand, seems largely eager to silence a critic using his financial advantages.

Conclusion

The law is perverted to help the rich, again. We’ve got a problem in this country and it’s with the legal system. The system was designed to be blind. To help the poor get justice when they are in the right. It’s not working anymore.

Tom Liberman

Special Rules for Puerto Rico to enter the Union?

Posted on December 15, 2022 by Tom Liberman

I just read an interesting article about legislation passed in order for Puerto Rico to vote to enter the United States or separate from it. The reason it’s interesting to me is because the process of admitting a new state to the Union is spelled out directly in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

Why is any special authorization needed in order for Puerto Rico to apply for admission? It makes no sense to me at all, but maybe someone can explain it.

It’s all there Already

The entire process of joining the Union is completely laid out in the Constitution. Anyone territory or region that wants to join has a referendum and, if successful, can apply. Generally speaking, there is a waiting period while the territory or region puts together their state constitution and then Congress votes on whether or not to accept it into the Union.

It’s not rocket science. Are special rules required for Puerto Rico to apply for entry into the United States as a new state? It’s ludicrous. There is nothing to prevent any region or territory from applying. If some far-off country decided they wanted to apply, so be it. Congress is under no obligation to admit any territory or region.

Who is the United States to tell Puerto Rico they can or cannot Apply?

Since when do we make the rules for application for admission. It’s not up to us to determine if you want to apply or not, it absolutely is up to us to decide if we accept the application. Nothing else even begins to make any sense to me.

Why can’t anyone apply? It’s insane that Puerto Rico can’t apply. They’ve had a number of referendums ever since the United States took over from Spain in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. Puerto Rico has been a territory ever since with the people being United States citizens but without voting rights, no Congressmembers, and no federal income tax on earnings made in Puerto Rico.

Good Idea or Bad?

I’m not saying it’s a great thing for Puerto Rico to join the United States nor am I saying it’s a good thing for them end territorial status and become an independent nation. I’m saying it’s up to them and always should have been. Why would they need a special law to leave or join? It’s a baffling mystery to me.

Add States to the United States

I will say that I think it’s a terrible shame we’ve admitted no new states since Hawaii in 1959. The United States should never have let partisanship prevent the entry of states. I won’t get too deeply into this topic or the sham that is West Virginia but I do think we should be growing and incorporating more of the world in the grand experiment, not cutting ourselves off.

Conclusion

If the people of Puerto Rico want to join the Union, so be it. They can apply. It’s as simple as that.

Tom Liberman

Gambling is a Problem for a Libertarian

Posted on November 30, 2022 by Tom Liberman

I’ve written on the topic of gambling numerous times over the years and generally from the perspective of a Libertarian. That is to say, it’s your money and how you choose to spend it is up to you.

That being said, I’ve seen the destructive potential inherent in gambling from when I worked in the golf industry. Even then I thought the problem so wide-spread and influential on young golfers that I made a point not to gamble just to be a possible role-model.

Gambling in the United States is now easily accessible to just about everyone. Casinos are everywhere. Video games have Loot Boxes. Smart phones give access to betting games at all times of the day and night. Problem Gambling is an incredibly destructive addiction and, with greater access to gambling, more people are affected.

What’s a Libertarian to say about Gambling?

In various blogs on the subject my position is fairly clear. The government should not be in the business of enforcing gambling bans and putting people in prison for gambling. If people want to gamble, they will find a way and the prohibitions only create black markets and misery.

I also think government shouldn’t be facilitating gambling. Government should tax gambling houses in the same way it collects revenue from any other store. The rational being the government provides roads, utilities, and other things necessary for the operation of the store. The only special tax on gambling should be used to fund treatment facilities.

State run lotteries are antithetical to my understanding of how government should operate. They should not exist.

Problem Gambling

The reason I’m writing this article is the increase in problem gambling. It’s a serious problem. Gambling addiction is real and it destroys lives. The greater access we have to gambling, the more lives are destroyed.

Prior to 1979, gambling was largely in the hands of the states and quite restricted. With the advent of Native American Gaming, that all changed. Soon lotteries followed, video poker, sports gambling, and more.

As a child, I remember reading the raffle games rules on the back of cereal boxes. Not valid in Missouri was often in the footer text. Such games were illegal in my state. Not anymore, not by a long-shot.

I’m not going to try to pretend because I’m a Libertarian and support legal gambling that it’s all wine and roses. It’s not. It’s a big problem and growing fast. It’s likely you know a problem gambler, I’ve known a few over the years.

What’s a Libertarian to do?

Where does that leave me? Should I change my mind and support prohibitions on gambling? Can I just pretend the people who suffer terribly in part because I advocated for gambling don’t exist? That their problems are not my fault, not my business?

My position is not simple or easy. As I’ve mentioned before, I think Critical Thinking skills must be taught to children starting at the earliest levels of education and reinforced every year thereafter. These lessons must include the basic principles of gambling. How it affects the human mind, the methods used to entice gamblers.

Biology classes should discuss the release of Serotonin and Dopamine into the human brain and why some people are much more likely to become addicts.

Treatment

Facilities for treating gambling addiction are on the rise, as can be expected, and that’s a good thing. As I mentioned above, I don’t think it unreasonable to have added taxes on gambling to fund these places.

Conclusion

I don’t think banning gambling works and I’m strongly opposed to the government funding itself from gambling. Banning gambling means those who are capable of doing it responsibly cannot do something they enjoy.

The only real solution is not a complete solution at all. It relies on educating people to the potential dangers, giving them the information they need, and then trusting those individuals to make good decisions.

Will this solve problem gambling? No. People will still make bad decisions. Brain chemistry will still bring on addictions. People will suffer and partially because I advocate legal gambling. I bear some responsibility for this enormous problem and that’s why I say gambling is a problem for a Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

Full Movies on Twitter and Section 230

Posted on November 20, 2022 by Tom Liberman

There’s an interesting situation in regard to Full Movies on Twitter being posted without repercussion. I can’t pass an opportunity to discuss any situation at Twitter but, in full honesty, I absolutely find this a fascinating from a legal perspective. It’s not just a matter of me piling on.

Twitter and other Social Media websites are generally immune to being sued for the content posted on their platforms under Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code. What I find interesting is the number of people who think this section makes Twitter immune to fines in this situation.

I’m a bit of a legal buff but not a lawyer. Therefore, if any actual lawyers out there wish to correct me, please have at it!

Is Posting Full Movies on Twitter Illegal?

Absolutely. Those movies are owned by entities with copyrights. Anyone who posts something like that on Twitter is subject to prosecution. This usually ends up with users banned from the social media platform rather than fines but repeated offenses will land the offender in the courts.

Is Twitter in Legal Trouble for what Others Post?

Reading the first few stories on this developing situation there are a number of people citing Section 230 as a reason Twitter and Elon Musk as the owner are under no legal peril. I disagree. Now, Twitter is absolutely not responsible for what other people post, that’s true.

The Motion Picture Industry and others actively monitor Twitter and other social media platforms for copyright violations. These entities and their agents then make copyright strikes against the person posting the movie, song, or other copyrighted media.

Once the automated system sees a copyright strike, the content is generally removed until a full review can be managed. There are problems with this system as well; people can and do use copyright strikes as weapons against social media users they dislike rather than as legitimate complaints. Let’s not get into that today.

The problem here is the copyright strike system seems to be broken. So, the industry is fulfilling their legal obligation but Twitter is failing to remove the movies after the strike. I think this is a serious violation and could end in enormous fines. Copyright infringement has stiff penalties pushed through the legal system by the entertainment industry. Stiff. Real stiff. Large fines for each violation. Every violation. Tens of thousands of them, potentially millions. As long as the copyright strike system remains broken more and more violations are piling up every minute.

Conclusion

Posting full movies on Twitter is a violation by the user and not Twitter under Section 230. Failing to promptly act on copyright strikes is outside the scope of Section 230. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Twitter shut down at least temporarily.

Naturally, I could be wrong and invite those with actual legal expertise to correct my mistakes.

Tom Liberman

Who is your Daddy Identical Twin Child Support

Posted on November 16, 2022 by Tom Liberman

I just read a fascinating legal case recently adjudicated in Brazil and it brings up some interesting questions, for me at least. It involves identical twin child support payments. It seems a pair of brothers have long used their identical twin status to impersonate one another, particularly in regards to swapping sexual partners without the knowledge of the woman.

In any case, a girl was impregnated by one of them and a DNA test proves this but not which one. The judge ordered both the men to pay child support in lieu of a second, more refined test that only sometimes differentiates between identical twins.

The Legal Ramification of Identical Twin Child Support

The case is salacious and thus getting headlines in the news but what interests me is the more esoteric legal questions. If it is sometimes impossible to use DNA to differentiate between identical twins, then who is the criminal, or in this case, the father?

In the United States the standard for conviction is proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defendant has an identical twin and neither of them has alibis for the time of the crime, how am I to convict one or the other?

In the case of the identical twin child support, we know for a fact that a man who is not the father is now legally required to pay for the upbringing of the child. In the case of a murder or other crime, the punishment might well be years in prison.

What’s a juror to decide? What’s a judge to decide on appeal? Certainly, an appeal of any conviction is perfectly reasonable, I didn’t do it, it was my identical twin.

Wrongly Convicted

There are all sorts of expert witnesses who end up sending the wrong person to jail. I wrote years ago about how Blood Spatter Analysis is largely a bogus science and yet it still results in convictions.

In the case of DNA analysis, the chance for an unjust conviction is greatly reduced, which is a great thing. It’s not perfect and this case illustrates one of the problems.

I recognize the situation of the identical twin child support is quite rare in the annals of criminal law but I still find it fascinating.

Conclusion

If a case like this went to trial and you found yourself as a juror, what do you think is the correct resolution?

Loading ...

Tom Liberman

We Own this City Review

Posted on May 31, 2022 by Tom Liberman

I watched the last episode of We Own this City on HBO and largely enjoyed it. It’s based on a book by Baltimore journalist Justin Fenton and created by David Simon of The Wire fame. It focuses on the Gun Trace Task Force led by Sergeant Wayne Jenkins in Baltimore.

The Wire is a great show about the problems of drugs in Baltimore specifically but all across our nation and, indeed the world. It doesn’t sugarcoat the violence and spares neither the police nor the drug dealers. We Own this City continues in the same manner and I came away discouraged about the world in which we live.

That being said, I think it’s a good show and well-worth watching, particularly by those invested in perpetuating the War on Drugs.

The Premise of We Own this City

The Gun Trace Task Force in Baltimore engaged in criminal activity that resulted in many of its members being given lengthy prison sentences, particular their leader, Jenkins. They stole money, stole and resold drugs, took money from taxpayers for overtime they didn’t actually perform, and engaged in generally despicable and illegal behavior with impunity. Bullying, harassing, assaulting, framing, and otherwise attacking the citizens of Baltimore.

The six-episode mini-series details their behavior in horrifying detail and ends with the sentencing phase of their crimes.

The Quality of We Own this City

The acting, writing, sets, camera work, and everything else in We Own this City is excellent. It’s a slick and well put-together show. It’s a bit jarring seeing actors like Jamie Hector in role-reversal from The Wire but I managed to overcome that eventually.

The biggest problem with the quality of the show is the non-linear time flow. I understand they wanted to start with the arrest of Jenkins but the constant back-and-forth with time made the show difficult to process. They tried to make it easier by having Jon Bernthal, who played Jenkins with frightening aplomb, adjust his facial hair indicating the time frame.

The display of dates on the screen didn’t really help me follow the story. Is this happening before the scene we just saw? After? When is this? Has the previous scene we just watched already happened when we’re watching this scene or is it going to happen later? Very confusing. That’s pretty much my only problem with the show.

Who Watched We Own this City?

I wonder if the target audience of We Own this City actually watched it or is it a case of preaching to the choir. I have no doubt Simon and Fenton are passionate. They well-understand the War on Drugs and the horrors it begat.

The sad truth is the people who will watch this show already understand the problems associated with the War on Drugs. The people who must be convinced of its folly are not going to watch, at least I don’t think so. They don’t want to see beloved police officers turned into nothing more than the single largest criminal enterprise in the history of the world. Hyperbole? No, I’m afraid not. Police are the worst criminals in the United States.

Treat Williams Daggers the Problem

Now, having read the previous paragraph I feel certain you think I’m anti-police. Let me explain why that is not the case.

Treat Williams plays Brian Grabler, a retired officer who understand the real problem. He tries to explain its nature to Wunmi Mosaku. She plays Nicole Steele an attorney from the Civil Rights Division of the Justice department.

Near the end of the last episode, Grabler asks Steele what’s not in the report detailing the many systemic problems in the Baltimore Police Department. What’s not in the report? She doesn’t understand and he must lead her to the answer.

The problem isn’t law enforcement officers. It’s not a legal system willing to stomp the rights of citizens. It’s not the violence on the streets committed by those plying the drug trade and those trying to stop them. It’s not that police departments are completely at odds with the communities they serve, enemies unwilling to cooperate.

The problem is the War on Drugs. It’s the root cause of everything else. Its corrupted our legal system. Its corrupted our police departments. Its corrupted city hall. The War on Drugs hasn’t stopped drugs, its just created an army of amoral criminals. Police officers, lawyers, judges, politicians. All engaged in criminal activity wrapped in good intentions and driven by the money the drug trade creates.

The system forces law enforcement officers to become criminals. Judges to twist the Constitution into a laughable parody of words used to enact that which it is designed to prevent. Politicians to actively work against their constituents.

Conclusion

We Own this City is an excellent show marred by a confusing timeline. It’s also a show that clearly illuminates the errors of the War on Drugs. Sadly, the people who need to understand the root cause of the problem have little interest in fixing it. Those who understand the problem don’t have the power to fix it.

Tom Liberman

Depp and Heard are a Billion Dollar Industry

Posted on May 18, 2022 by Tom Liberman

Depp and Heard are in the middle of contentious legal battle and it’s a billion dollar industry. I’m conflicted. I’m talking about Amber Heard and Johnny Depp but I don’t think anyone needs that clarification. Who isn’t cashing in on the Depp and Heard drama?

I’m conflicted about this blog. Writing it means I’m part of the legion of Depp and Heard opportunists. Am I expressing genuine thoughts here or do I just want clicks and eyes on my blog? Maybe this post will go viral and indirectly result in the sale of millions of my novels.

On the other hand, the sheer volume of people trying to cash in on this terrible and tragic story is nauseating. I suppose it’s all moot in the end, you’re reading this and that means I wrote it. Let’s get on with it.

Depp and Heard Trial

The trail is all over the news and I’m not going to expend any time talking about the awfulness of one party versus the other. It’s a terrible tragedy. A marriage gone horribly wrong. Two people whose love turned into an international tragedy and lawsuits.

Cashing In

Who is the big winner in all of this? Not Depp and Heard. It’s mainstream news channels. Alternate news channels. Misogynists, social justice warriors. It’s social media personalities, all the influencers. Even morally bankrupt politicians are trying to garner a few votes by picking sides. Scalpers! Yuck.

Twitch watch parties with some of the biggest streamers. YouTube personalities with millions of subscribers releasing daily videos with sensationalistic titles. Depp this! Heard that! The Big Moment! Twitter is trending Depp and Heard. TikTok. Name a social media outlet and I’ll show you opportunists trying to take advantage of the situation to make some money.

Sick to my Stomach

I’m honestly feeling nauseas just writing this. I’m regretting it. I’m thinking I shouldn’t be doing it just because it means I’m part of the problem. Still, I think it’s important to call out everyone profiting off this situation.

I know this lurid story is interesting and people are genuinely picking sides. That being said, there is no doubt that a YouTube video that suddenly generates millions of watches is a strong motivator to make more such content. A Twitch streamer watching the legal case live with thousands of viewers is cash in the bank. It’s money and its gross money, at least I think so.

Human Nature

People love a train wreck. It’s undeniable. People cheer at the hockey game as much during a fight as they do for a goal. Many people enjoy the lurid, the sensational, the exciting. Depp and Heard is all that. Everyone has an opinion and if they can make some money expressing it, all the better.

I suppose I’m tilting against windmills here, just the same as when I rail against drafting in professional sports.

Conclusion

I think I’ll wrap this up quickly and then go wash my hands. Gross. It’s all so gross.

Tom Liberman

Sheriff Hickman and the Blacks

Posted on April 14, 2022 by Tom Liberman

I just read a fascinating article about Sheriff Rick Hickman and his response to an emergency call in the neighborhood of Des Arc, Arkansas. Sheriff Hickman responded to the call by asking where the triple-shooting took place. When informed it was a particular apartment complex he responded, “Oh really, black people then.”

The upshot of the response is Sheriff Hickman is being called a racist. Sheriff Hickman claims the apartment in question is largely occupied by black people so his response was not racist, but natural. Now, it turns out the attacker and victims are all white but that is not relevant to the point I’d like to analyze today.

Is Sheriff Hickman a racist?

The Event and Aftermath

The event itself is a horrific example of the gun violence rampant across all sections of the United States, urban and rural, white and black. Three people died in the shooting. It’s horrible and my sympathies to all those who lost loved ones and those who respond to such events and see the horrors.

Sheriff Hickman and his Other Comments

Sheriff Hickman, now accused of being a racist, was asked if he ever used racial slurs before. He responded that he does not use the most egregious racist word often but has in the past and a lot of people around him do. He also thought his response when told about the location of the shooting was natural and not of racist implication. Black people live in that area so that’s what he assumed.

My Analysis

The case seems pretty open and shut but I think there is a great deal more nuance than people who view the world in simplistic, good and evil, terms will admit. Now, I don’t know Sheriff Hickman at all besides his few quotes so I’m merely stating an opinion here.

I found the response to the question of his own usage of racial slurs to be refreshingly honest. In this day and age where the standard law enforcement line generally includes something like: that sort of attitude has no place in our department. We never put up with it. I’ve never known a racist law enforcement officers. Blah blah blah blah blah. Bullshit.

I’ve lived in small towns. I know all about sheriffs, both good and bad. Fire marshals, both good and bad. Good old boys, both good and bad. The fact that Sheriff Hickman answered honestly about his own use of racial slurs when his brethren officers consistently lie in similar situations makes me like the man. It makes me think he’s one of the good guys.

I think if I sat down with Sheriff Hickman and asked: what do you think you’d say if the shootings took place in a predominantly white area? Would you have said, “Oh really, white people then.”? I suspect Sheriff Hickman might pause, look at me, thought about it, and replied, “You know what, Tom. You’re right. I wouldn’t have said that. Maybe I do have some unconscious racial biases and it affects the way I do my job and the way underlings look to my lead. I need to do something about that.”

Now, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe he wouldn’t reply that way. Maybe he’d remain in continual denial about a problem that isn’t just overt racism, hatred of all black people. It’s subtle, it has nuance, and it causes problems in many ways, both small and large.

Conclusion

I think it’s important to have conversations with men like Sheriff Hickman. Difficult conversations where I understand his point of view and he understands mine. I think that’s the way forward. This rush to judgement, to cancellation or whatever you want to call it, just widens the divide instead of helping to heal it.

What do you think?

Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Cremated and Unable to Rapture Lawsuit

Posted on March 24, 2022 by Tom Liberman

There’s an interesting lawsuit making its way through the courts in Arkansas against a funeral home that cremated the remains of man against his and his family’s wishes. The man believed that if cremated his body could not ascend to heaven during the rapture. The lawsuit indicates the cremation caused significant emotional distress on the family.

It’s been a while since I wrote a legal blog as I’ve been preoccupied with entertainment and I thought I’d chime in on this one, particularly after reading the comments. The comment thread on the story seems focused on the idea that god can do anything and the man’s beliefs and that of his family are wrong.

I’m happy to say your beliefs are not on trial, whatever they might be.

The Rapture Lawsuit

It seems pretty clear to me that when the Roller-McNutt Funeral Home cremated the remains of Harold D. Lee they violated a contract. They certainly acknowledge as much, waived all fees and returned the deposit to the family.

The family members believe Lee’s cremation means he cannot ascend to heaven. Thus, the rapture lawsuit. I’m not going to get deeply into religion in this blog as we’re talking law, but we must consider it to some degree. Here in the United States, we have something called Freedom of Religion. People can have whatever religious beliefs they want without fear of legal ramifications.

Anguish

If the Lee family believes Harold can’t get into heaven, then that’s what they believe. It doesn’t matter the vast majority of comments involved the idea an all-powerful deity isn’t restricted by a cremation. The comments largely ridiculed the family for this belief. The Lee family believes it so, and that is their right. That’s all that matters. Not your opinion nor my opinion of their grief.

It’s important to understand mental anguish in regards to the rapture lawsuit is not debatable. If they claim to be anguished, they are anguished. You cannot prove someone is or is not suffering mental anguish. As nonsensical as this atheist finds their beliefs, I cannot argue against their anguish.

Damages

The thing the court must decide in this rapture lawsuit is what actual damages the family suffered. Seeing as the funeral home refunded all fees there are no immediate financial damages. However, if the family can prove the anguish of the event caused them to miss days of work, firing from work, suffering financially, then the rapture lawsuit has merit.

It’s clear the funeral home made a terrible mistake. Personally, I want to be chucked, wearing only my beloved St. Louis Cardinals jacket, into a hole and left to the worms. Sorry for any damage that image burned into your brain. If the funeral home did something else, it’s possible my family members might be anguished. No matter her or his anguish, they have to prove damages in the lawsuit.

Getting into Heaven

The court cannot offer damages for the ascension, or lack thereof, of Harold into heaven. You cannot assign a price that. Nor could my family sue religious organization if they performed some rites that supposedly sent my non-existent spirit to heaven.

I won’t mince words here. I don’t want to go to your imaginary heaven. I’m morally and ethically disgusted by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god as depicted in your holy books. I want no part of it. But my family can no more sue for damages for you believing I ascended than the Lee family can sue for their belief in the lack of his ascension.

Conclusion

If the Lee family can prove their emotional distress caused them damages, the funeral home will have to pay. They made a terrible mistake and the family member’s anguish cannot be debated.

Tom Liberman

Sweet Drinks Advertised Deceptively

Posted on November 21, 2021 by Tom Liberman

I just read an interesting article about how beverage manufacturers advertise sweet drinks directly to children. This advertising, along with lower prices, steers consumers to those products. This is aided by deceptive labeling on bottles that confuse parents.

When children consume sweet drinks, they become unhealthier. There is no question about the link between poor diet and health. There is also no question that advertising works. Advertising designed to make a product appealing to a child does so. Labeling designed to fool people does so.

The question the article poses is if government has any role in all of this. I’ve certainly written about the role of government in sweet drinks in the past. Taxes were my topic of discussion at that time but today I want to talk more about regulation.

Regulating Sweet Drinks

As a Libertarian I’m not as opposed to regulation as you might think. I think false and misleading advertising definitely fall under the purview of criminality and the government. The problem is that we have laws to prevent false labeling and false advertising and, as usual, manufacturers find ways to bypass those laws.

It’s incredibly difficult to create an effective law to modify human behavior. We often see a law designed with the best intentions ending up being more harmful than that which it purports to stop. We need go no further than the War on Drugs to see this.

Deceptive Advertising and Labeling

If we examine the picture included in this blog you see Glaceau vitamin water with a label clearly reading Naturally Sweetened. We also see a wonderful reference to electrolytes which any fan of Idiocracy will appreciate. A perusal of the nutritional content on the back reveals a large amount of sugar in the drinks.

What is naturally anyway? If companies are not allowed to use the world naturally or electrolytes, they will find other deceptive words, it’s an endless cat and mouse game. That’s the problem with trying to regulate human behavior, be it through the War on Drugs or buzzwords like Organic and Naturally.

Companies will find ways around your rules.

The Goal

What we want is people to have healthier diets. If people have healthier diets, it is good for our society. Our healthcare system is largely broken. In part because of the enormous number of unhealthy people in this country. People, particularly poor people in rural areas, need the services of Doctors without Borders as if we were a Third World Country. I hesitate to use the words “as if” but I don’t want to get into that debate today.

The Solution

The manufacturer loves obfuscating the product and does so with misleading labels and advertising that comes right to the edge of legality. No matter how much we try to regulate this, companies will find a way.

I’m convinced the most helpful remedies to the problem lie with us, with the store owner. Don’t stock sweet drinks on the same shelf as unsweetened drinks is one that comes to my mind. One shelf is marked Sweetened and the other marked Unsweetened. If the store owner refuses, if the manufacturer pays extra to be on a certain shelf, there’s not much to be done, unfortunately.

I don’t think there are magical solutions to these problems but I also think individuals can focus on both informing the consumer and making the world a better place. Go to your local grocer and ask if they’ll separate the sweet drinks onto their own shelf, the worst that can happen is you’re told no.

Tom Liberman

Texas Gun Law if there is no Crime why do Time?

Posted on June 29, 2021 by Tom Liberman

Crimes that No Longer Exist

A new Texas gun law overrides previous illegal activities, particularly in regards to rules for carrying a firearm. Yet there are many people in prison for violating those laws in the past. Should we release those prisoners immediately?

The same goes for prisoners serving time for drug behaviors no longer considered criminal. I find it an intriguing question worth exploring and that is my aim today.

It was a Crime Then

Some will say the prisoners committed crimes at that time. Or at least a jury found them guilty of doing so. Just because carrying a weapon without a permit or training is now legal thanks to the new Texas gun law doesn’t mean people doing so didn’t break the law in the past.

I understand the argument although I disagree with it. Now, if you argue someone who drove fifty miles per hour down a thoroughfare with a speed limit of thirty but where the limit is now sixty should be released, I don’t agree. Driving over the speed limit is still a crime. Just because the limit changed on that particular street doesn’t absolve someone of breaking the existing rule.

I think a crime like carrying a weapon without a permit is different than running a red light at an intersection that no longer exists. If the state decides it’s perfectly legal to carry a firearm without a permit or training, then immediately release anyone incarcerated for doing so in the past.

What is a Crime?

To a large degree my argument comes down to defining a crime. It is my opinion, if we decide a certain activity is not criminal any more, then it behooves us, in the name of justice, to release anyone who committed that supposed crime during the period it was considered against the law.

What is the point in declaring something a crime in the first place? It’s largely designed to protect the people of region from some negative outcome. One of the biggest problems we have in the United States, in my opinion, is that we use the legal system to punish people we don’t like.

If the state legislators of Texas declare people can carry a gun without a permit, then no one should be in jail for doing so. Who exactly are we serving when we keep such offenders in prison? They did something now considered perfectly legal.

If you want to keep people in jail for committing that particular crime, then you should be against changing the law now. Freedom is not something to take away lightly.

Tom Liberman

Apple Buy or Rent Lawsuit

Posted on April 23, 2021 by Tom Liberman

What is the Difference between Buy or Rent?

A federal judge allowed a class-action lawsuit against Apple involving the difference between the options buy or rent to continue. At question is the option at offer in selling music, should customers of Apple Buy or Rent their music, movies, and television shows? I love the law so let’s examine the issue.

As it stands in the Apple Buy or Rent conundrum the company offers people the option to buy but in reality, if the owners of that content ever decide Apple no longer has rights to it, the customer also loses the ability to consume the media.

When you buy something from Apple you are not really buying it. Apple gives you the opportunity to consume that media on your device at the time of your choosing but nothing more. People seem to think the store should use the word rent instead of buy because you never actually own the content.

I have a couple of problems with the lawsuit; primarily I ask what end result the litigants hope to get. I also see no damages resultant of the difference and therefore I’m not sure if compensation is in order.

Compensation for Apple Buy or Rent

I don’t want to, and am not capable of, getting into an in-depth discussion of Tort and Contract law but one of the principles involved is damages. In order to receive compensation, the plaintiff must show damages. If Apple does not lose rights to the media in question and revoke it; there are no damages. Therefore, the entire lawsuit seems aimed at making a point. What is that point?

What Result do Litigants Want?

Change it to Rent

If the Apple Buy or Rent wording changes, what difference does it make? I rent something rather than buy it but that doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the business. It’s exactly the same either way. The consumer is not helped in any way.

If the content creator revokes the license from Apple the customer loses rights, exactly as things currently stand.

Rent the Content from the Creator

If the litigants want to force Apple to allow us to purchase the content outright it essentially drives Apple out of the business entirely. Customers must buy directly from the content creators who do not have convenient stores available to the consumers.

Essentially, every content creator will make their own store front and buyers will navigate a myriad of avenues in order to purchase their content, and, in reality, things don’t even change. When we purchase the media from the content creator, we still merely rent it. If they revoke the license, we’re exactly where we started.

Buy the Content Outright

The final intended goal is possibly that we simply purchase the content outright from the creator. In this case we have to store the content and that costs money. After years of purchasing, we have enormous volumes of media stored on the cloud by Apple. That’s really what our payment is all about. Apple holds all our content on enormous servers and grants us access to that content when and where we desire.

If we want to own the content outright, just like any physical product, we must take care of it ourselves. Ford doesn’t make a garage for our car and keep it shiny and clean and away from thieves. We do that, or we don’t, but it’s up to us in the end.

If I decide to store the media on a home server and there is a fire, it’s gone. If I rent a server from some company and they go out of business, likewise, all my content is gone. I prefer the current model and I think the vast majority of people agree with me.

Conclusion

The convenience Apple offers us through Cloud Storage is the reality of the Apple Buy or Rent question. The remedies to the lawsuit seem to be either pointless or actually an enormous inconvenience. They only make things worse for everyone.

What difference do the words Buy or Rent really make? Nothing. Yet, if this lawsuit somehow persists and proves triumphant in the courts; we lose. Great.

Tom Liberman