- Sep 22, 2013
- 4,956
- 250
- 85
Capitalism related legal cases can be extremely complicated to analyse, since there may be multiple interests and multiple parties interested.
In the Napster case, we saw an example of limiting distribution of intellectual properties. In the Microsoft case, we saw a modern example of anti-monopoly prosecution even in the case of highly-used technologies.
Capitalism creates potential breaches in customs/etiquette, since, of course, profit may be a key priority in the minds of the individuals/groups involved. While legal procedures do not need to necessarily be 'relaxed,' more pedestrian concerns regarding legal 'policy' may become important (e.g., confidentiality).
If there is no strong legal hold of capitalism 'development,' the players may become susceptible for basic piracy. No one wants to look like a pirate(!) in the modern age, so the law becomes the arm of intellectual control. That's why the WikiLeaks (eg., The Fifth Estate) 'saga' was so symbolic (if under-appreciated somewhat, arguably!).
If people of the modern age are paranoid about appearing as 'pirates,' then legal analysis of capitalism is crucial for the proper governance of commerce and corporate success.
Take, for example, the modern media-culture case of Heidi Fleiss and imagine a hypothetical relevant capitalism-analytical analogous situation involving an NFL cheerleader and a suburban housekeeper in America. We can try to build 'models' of modernism capitalism puzzles (for legal analysts!).
====
Amanda was a New England Patriots (NFL) cheerleader accused of trying to sabotage a rival cheerleader's tryout-session with the team. Amanda was young, skilled, and attractive, and her rival (Lisa) was dismissed from the cheerleading squad before it was discovered that there may have been foul-play. Amanda used the Internet to circulate slander about Lisa, claiming that such 'rumors' were still 'free-speech chatter' in the domain of public access dialogue (e.g., World Wide Web). Amanda simply wanted to win, and Lisa may have threatened her position on the cheerleading squad. Lisa was as attractive and skilled as Amanda, but to Amanda, all was 'fair game.'
Alyssa was an attractive housekeeper working for a maid-service which visited suburban homes in New Jersey (USA). Alyssa had several clients, and one of her clients was a drug-dealer with connections to the underworld in Moscow and British Columbia. Alyssa was engaging in an extra-marital affair with this client and his neighbors began noticing and soon rumors flew. When one neighbour began chatting about this gossip on Facebook, Alyssa found out and panicked. She told her client that their triste was no longer confidential because of third-party circulations on the World Wide Web. Who would win such a legal contest? This was crazy but it was also modernism.
The case of Amanda and Alyssa revealed a modern interest in traffic and 'pedestrianism' based legalese-consciousness, a consciousness which was representative of new age customs/etiquette. Indeed, Hollywood (USA) was busy making multiple films about legalese-evolution such as Philadelphia (Tom Hanks), Erin Brockovich (Julia Roberts), and Argo (Ben Affleck). How would Shakespeare comment on the evolved aesthetics of Shylock-oriented legalese (e.g., class-based grudges)? This was the legal microscope for modern capitalism flowery, and it could potentially impact sports-betting, corporate malfeasance investigations, and even social perceptions of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and DreamWorks (profit-centric American movie company)!
====
In the Napster case, we saw an example of limiting distribution of intellectual properties. In the Microsoft case, we saw a modern example of anti-monopoly prosecution even in the case of highly-used technologies.
Capitalism creates potential breaches in customs/etiquette, since, of course, profit may be a key priority in the minds of the individuals/groups involved. While legal procedures do not need to necessarily be 'relaxed,' more pedestrian concerns regarding legal 'policy' may become important (e.g., confidentiality).
If there is no strong legal hold of capitalism 'development,' the players may become susceptible for basic piracy. No one wants to look like a pirate(!) in the modern age, so the law becomes the arm of intellectual control. That's why the WikiLeaks (eg., The Fifth Estate) 'saga' was so symbolic (if under-appreciated somewhat, arguably!).
If people of the modern age are paranoid about appearing as 'pirates,' then legal analysis of capitalism is crucial for the proper governance of commerce and corporate success.
Take, for example, the modern media-culture case of Heidi Fleiss and imagine a hypothetical relevant capitalism-analytical analogous situation involving an NFL cheerleader and a suburban housekeeper in America. We can try to build 'models' of modernism capitalism puzzles (for legal analysts!).
====
Amanda was a New England Patriots (NFL) cheerleader accused of trying to sabotage a rival cheerleader's tryout-session with the team. Amanda was young, skilled, and attractive, and her rival (Lisa) was dismissed from the cheerleading squad before it was discovered that there may have been foul-play. Amanda used the Internet to circulate slander about Lisa, claiming that such 'rumors' were still 'free-speech chatter' in the domain of public access dialogue (e.g., World Wide Web). Amanda simply wanted to win, and Lisa may have threatened her position on the cheerleading squad. Lisa was as attractive and skilled as Amanda, but to Amanda, all was 'fair game.'
Alyssa was an attractive housekeeper working for a maid-service which visited suburban homes in New Jersey (USA). Alyssa had several clients, and one of her clients was a drug-dealer with connections to the underworld in Moscow and British Columbia. Alyssa was engaging in an extra-marital affair with this client and his neighbors began noticing and soon rumors flew. When one neighbour began chatting about this gossip on Facebook, Alyssa found out and panicked. She told her client that their triste was no longer confidential because of third-party circulations on the World Wide Web. Who would win such a legal contest? This was crazy but it was also modernism.
The case of Amanda and Alyssa revealed a modern interest in traffic and 'pedestrianism' based legalese-consciousness, a consciousness which was representative of new age customs/etiquette. Indeed, Hollywood (USA) was busy making multiple films about legalese-evolution such as Philadelphia (Tom Hanks), Erin Brockovich (Julia Roberts), and Argo (Ben Affleck). How would Shakespeare comment on the evolved aesthetics of Shylock-oriented legalese (e.g., class-based grudges)? This was the legal microscope for modern capitalism flowery, and it could potentially impact sports-betting, corporate malfeasance investigations, and even social perceptions of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and DreamWorks (profit-centric American movie company)!
====
