mi_guida: (hate school)
I have given up on my Civil Litigation Research Memo, and am sitting in the LPC library playing with online virtual bubblewrap.

This is all I have to say.
mi_guida: (Default)
Things revision is making me realise and ponder:

Some subjects are easier in Garamond, others in Calibri, still others hand written.

Is the fact that revision is easier if I colour code it with 12 pens a consequence or a cause of my OCD tendencies?

All the subjects refer to each other - all of them! This is very good news.

Lectures are awesome.

I have been using some of my personal shorthand symbols in the same way for a lot long than I realised. I was convinced that my shorthand for "right" only came into being in Paris when I nicked it from someone as a shorthand for "droit", but it seems to be used in that sense on my lecture notes from MT05.

No, none of this is interesting to anyone but me. It's keeping me happy though.
mi_guida: (Default)
Problem: utter failure to learn jurisprudence

Solution: dig out A2 ethics revision notes

Result: laugh hysterically at over-simplified nature, think wistfully of the days when philosophy was easy, and wonder what I was thinking when I wrote "P3 revision: To Be Learnt"
mi_guida: (Default)
Oh god. I have gone from studying the qualities needed to constitute a state and a governement, to assessing the legality and implications of "Wet Wet Wet: The Unauthorised Biography".

No, I don't have other content.
mi_guida: (demons of stupidity)
A person with citizenship granted by Germany is German.

A person with citizenship granted by Switzerland is Swiss.

A person with citizenship granted by Australia is Australian.

What the blazes is someone with citizenship granted by Liechtenstein?!

(Yes, this is a serious question. It's really bugging me. I've only just realised Liechtenstein isn't the same as Lichtenstein, but still don't know how to refer to this chap.)

Answers on a postcard (or, y'know, in an LJ comment) please... there may be a prize if any amuse me particularly (or are even right!)


Mar. 31st, 2008 06:07 pm
mi_guida: (cookies)
I need help deciding my lecture notes.

In one of my public international law lectures, in the section on history and origins, I've written that IL was based on the divine right of kings under natural law until this idea was challenged by e.g. the French revolution.

After this, I have a margin note - c.f. Monty Python: Where's your mandate?

Where is this from?? And does this mean I can legitimately watch Python and call it revision?
mi_guida: (terrible creatures squirrels)
So, I'm finally writing an essay on the question that everyone gets asked when they become a law student. Sadly, I will no longer be able to dodge the question. Oh dear.

Unfortunately, the answer is still, it seems, "I'm not really sure, no one can quite agree." Still, nice to know I wasn't lying all the times I said that before.

For those who are curious: Consider whether the following actions were lawful and, if so, what was their legal basis: (a) the coalition usage of force against Iraq in 1991 in order to retake Kuwait and the US-UK use of force against Iraq in 2003; (b) NATO’s intervention in Kosovo; (c) the Anglo-American intervention in Afghanistan.
mi_guida: (corrupt ye)
I'm sitting here poking cases, swearing at[1] grumbling in the general direction of my tutor for giving me the wrong citations for all of them.

One of the cases reads: The applicant applied to register a trade mark... known as "the dark mark"

Yes, boys and girls, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is alive and well, and exploiting legal measures to regulate competition and access to the market.

I need tea.

[1] Having realised that I've started swearing like a navvy, I am giving it up for Lent. I have a pot in which to put monies as a self-imposed fine when I break this...
mi_guida: (corrupt ye)
I'm back in Somerset now, and not actually too discontent about living out of numerous boxes. It appears that I'm not actually going to be here very much long this vac, due to social/work commitments, which just is (in that it is neither particularly good or bad).

There has been much excitingness in the last week - admittedly much of it came from me quietly thrilling over little nuggets of law, and greeting half-remembered, re-discovered cases with squeals of delight, like they were old friends I hadn't seen for years, but I digress - and it wasn't all work related.

However, you will all have to wait with baited breath, because right now I'm quite tired, and a long rambly post about the events of last week will have to wait until tomorrow.
mi_guida: (discworld lawyers)
t seems to me that, if it be correct to isolate the phrase "for the purpose of criticism or review" then, although the tongue has to perform an act of no small intimacy with the cheek in making the argument, it is arguable that the offending publications can be characterised as criticism or review

This is why I like reading cases. Sometimes, I end up giggling and trying not to spit tea into my laptop.
mi_guida: (Anne boleyn)
It's called Glyn v Weston Feature Film Co, [1916] 1 Ch 261

It's all about parody, and whether it infringes copyright - in this case, it's burlesque films based on a novel, and they say that despite burlesque being "as old as Aristophanes" there are no cases where it's been held to be an infringement of copyright.

However, they also said that the novel didn't deserve the protection of the court, because it was on a "hackneyed theme" and was "grossly immoral", being a "sexual adulterous intrigue".

Here's how it was described:

The plaintiff is the authoress of the novel in debate. It is entitled "Three Weeks." First published in 1907, the book was from the point of view of notoriety fortunate enough to be condemned almost unanimously by the critics and to be banned by all the libraries. In consequence, I doubt not, of these attentions it has enjoyed a vogue denied to less daring rivals, and it has reached a sale in this*266 country and America in numerous editions, expensive and cheap, of, I was told, far over a million copies.
The book is said to be an episode in a young Englishman's life without any real beginning or end. In a sense this is a correct enough description of the novel, but the episode referred to absorbs little more than half the book - 160 pages out of a total of 319. The rest is taken up with a description of the young man's life and surroundings before the episode commenced and with a portrayal of the permanent influence upon his moral character and career which the authoress is pleased to attribute to the experience he went through during the episode in question.
The episode itself is a chance meeting at a Lucerne hotel between a beautiful lady of uncertain age and mysterious origin and the young Englishman sent by his parents on the grand tour to cure him of an unsuitable attachment at home. The meeting developed into a liaison which lasted for three weeks, after which the lady returned to the shadowy realm from which she had emerged and of which she was, as it happened, the queen. There, having given birth to a son of whom the young Englishman was the father, she was murdered by her husband, the dissolute king of the country. He in turn was assassinated by a faithful attendant of the queen's, leaving the child, the image of his handsome English father, to succeed to the throne.
In all its essentials the so-called episode is as hackneyed and commonplace a story as could well be conceived. If it is to be distinguished at all from innumerable anticipations in erotic literature, the distinction is to be found in the accessories of the tale. Mystery surrounds the lady. Of a loveliness unaffected by the passage of time, she is said to be polished, blasee, soignee. Even in a Swiss country hotel, but notably at Lucerne and Venice, she is pervaded by a luxury as sybaritic as it is incongruous: no wine can pass her lips which is not either of the deepest red or the richest gold; the roses she wears are matched in colour only by the red of her lips; the fruit with which she toys has to be out of season in order that it may be fabulously expensive. Although attended only by an elderly dignified male servant, the lady apparently carries about with her to Lucerne and Venice - if one may omit so-called mountain excursions to the Right and the Burgenstock - baggage*267 sufficient to fill an ordinary train; it is no extraordinary achievement for her dignified attendant in the space of a week-end to go from Lucerne to Venice, engage a palace on the Grand Canal, supplied with the essential convenience of a side door, and have it equipped with a retinue of Italian servants and, it would seem, an orchestra from Paris, in time to receive the lady on the following Monday travelling from Lucerne with all her baggage and apparently quite unaccompanied. These exaggerated incidents or others like them are of course quite absurd enough to be destitute of novelty in literature of the kind; but if the particular cachet of the plaintiff's novel is not to be found in this setting, then, so far as I can see, it has no cachet at all. At the best, the plaintiff has chosen a hackneyed theme for her episode, and her privilege as an authoress must be strictly confined to the method of treating it which she has adopted.

Stuffy lawyers, much? I now want to find the book and see if it's as badly written as he thought...

Godamnit, why can't law be dull? Then I wouldn't keep getting distracted!
mi_guida: (timeless books)
IP (intellectual property) is a wonderful subject to study. The articles with impenetrable economic theory littering their pages aside, other academics fill their articles with quotations from Yeats and references to Les Misérables.

What I'm actually studying at the moment is copyright, which is in my opinion the most interesting area of the subject. More specifically, I'm looking into the question of the duration of copyright protection.

Cut for what appears to have almost turned into my essay for this week. Please read and discuss? I'd love to know what people coming at it from a non-legal point of view think of it all... )
mi_guida: (blackadder - it's french)
..."never hit your tennis partner with the racket, only with the ball."

No, seriously. If you hit them with the racket, even if it slips out your hand, they'll sue you for injuring them; however, they can't sue you for hitting them with the ball because (1) during the game they've got equal powers of control over it and (2) you can't prove any fault on their part for hitting it wrong.

Thankfully, if I ever do play tennis here, hitting the ball straight in front of you when you're serving (instead of on the diagonal) doesn't constitute a fault on your part, meaning they can't sue you for damages if they get hit. Not sure what happens if, like me, you hit it into a different court though...
mi_guida: (bite my thumb)
OK. More advice seeking. Sakes, I'm useless.

Here's the list of options available:

Commercial Leases
Company Law
Comparative Law of Contract
Copyright, Patents & Allied Rights
Copyright, Trademarks and Allied Rights (erm, I think this is meant to be the same as the one before...? It's not in the handbook with descriptions) - apparently it is different. So now, I have to decide which...
Criminal Justice & Penology
EC Competition Law and Policy
Environmental Law
EU Human Rights Law
Family Law
History of English Law
International Trade
Labour Law
Personal Property
Principles of Commercial Law
Public International Law
Roman Law:Delict
Taxation Law

Ok. Ones crossed through I definitely don't want to do (have done much history already, interesting as it would be...), ones in bold I am keener on than others.

PIL seems to include some Human Rights, as well as some of the internation crimes I studied in DPI . I enjoyed DPI - do I want to do something different, though? But, do I want to do just Human Rights? Edit: According to College Father Of Joy, his PIL didn't have much HR or Crim in it. INternational Court of Justice and other such fun things, though...

I'm pretty sure I want to do the Copyright (Imtellectual Property). Or maybe something else entirely?

Help and advice rewarded with drinks and eternal gratitude...
mi_guida: (hate school)
I am back, though this is not the proper post to speak of my trip away (or rather, back to the right place, depending how one chooses to look at it...).

I need help.

I start lectures tomorrow and I don't know what to do. I know I want to do INtellectual Property (copyright, trademarks, etc) and will also probably do it for Finals (need to pick them too, but that's a slightly less pressing concern). However. Out of the others, narrowed down as below based on Things That Clash Or Happen On Friday Or Saturday (I need my weekends. I need to be able to get away...), which should I do? You know me, you know stuff I like and how much of a geek I am...

[Poll #915836]

Oh - and also, the History of Obligations (Contract and Tort) which had been my first original thought. Comment if you think that one *nods*
mi_guida: (count von count)
Fact for the day:

According to Mlle. Gannages of Paris II, the notion of "genocide" appeared at the end of WWII in the work of a Polish jurist, Raphael Lemkin, who referred to it from 1944 onward

Well, I'm excited. It's a fact, and not a useful one - hence I will know it for ever. Don't ever let me set a pub quiz....

Oh, and the title is lyrics from a song by Carla Bruni, which my computer put on as I started the section on genocide. Clever little goblin in the computer!
mi_guida: (blackadder - it's french)
Chambre des deputes: He's not the President, he's a very naughty boy!

Senat: Oh no he isn't!

Chambre des deputes: Oh yes he is!


Mac-Mahon: Mwahahahaha! You cannot foil my evil plan! Especially not on the 25th June 1877!
[Waves magic wand and Chambre des deputes dissolves, possibly in a large and entertaining pile of goo]
There! Once you manage to reform yourself, you will bend to my will! Mwahahahaha!

Villagers: [Looking very French in stripy tops and berets]
Not when we have zee powerrr to re-elect them!

[Business – oh now, well, how do we do this – well I think we have to do this voting thing…]

Random woman: Can I join in?

Villagers: NO!

[Continue business]

[Chambre comes back to life looking just as mean as ever]

Chambre des deputes: So! We meet again! What will you do now, hmm?

Mac-Mahon: [Throws hands up in air]
Alright! I accept! I will no longer criticise my ministers who have your support, ever again! They are just too strong and mighty – and to be honest, you’re a bit scary.

Chambre des deputes: Good. Glad to hear it. Now, shall we all go and have coffee – being all French, we don’t know what tea is, do we, mes amis…

[General mutters of ooh-lala, non non non, &c.]
mi_guida: (hmph)
Somehow, however much I try to get up early and get work done, Monday mornings always disappear far too quickly.

Applications being utterly soul destroying doesn't help much either. Still - if I do it now, it's done and then I can do fun stuff Civil law tonight. And some writing.
mi_guida: (Default)
My glop cooking skills remain unparalleled, it appears. Tomatoey tuna glop tonight.. though it's only half 5. Curious.

It's very strange. I feel horribly unprodtuctive today, despite the fact that I've written a constit essay in French and done 1000 words of NaNo, and gone to Denfert to do a huge food shop.

I think it's maybe because it's dark outside. Also, I slept in till 10 - it was lovely snuggled up under my duvet and double throw, looking out the window and deciding that though it was cold and crisp, I had a bed to be in, and I could do the cold and crisp thing later.

The other exciting thing that hasn't happened yet today but will do in a few hours is dressing up and going out to Rocky Horror! We are told to take a small bottle of water, rice, toast, a bell, toilet paper, playing cards, a lighter and a newspaper. However, absolutely no eggs, ketchup or flour, apparently. Glad they made that clear :)

I shall let you all know how it went when I return... assuming I don't get arrested for indecent exposure, but y'know, that's what the CPSD's for, right? *grins*
mi_guida: (whee!)
That is, wonderful in a surreal fashion, rather than wonderfully surreal, which would be surreal in a wonderful fashion. Surreal, because it's things I wouldn't expect - partly because they are odd, partly because I'm not used to things being good!

Just did an hour and 15 minutes trip to Boulevard St Germain on a top hunt... got off the metro and got swept into a crowd dancing in front of L'eglise St Germain des Pres to Dixie music played by a band who included a man wearing a washing board which he played with metal finger caps. It was just shiny.

I excused myself from the dancing and took myself along to the shop I'd spotted, went in, immediately found a top, tried it on, had a long discussion with the lovely lady about it... Result: I have a top which is dark grey with black lace to go with my skirt for the ball, which has straps, and lacing at the back so it doesn't corset as such, just accommodates the fact that my waist now goes in somewhat.

This morning was also wonderful, as I went to the Chocolate show and ate far too many free sample and got fed free Baileys and ended up feeling a little ill afterwards, but that may have been the lack of breakfast first!

Also, work - don't understand the civil essay, writing it anyway; constit gets poked now and then; it can all darn well fit round me writing a novel, too!

Final piece of joy: Rocky Horror night on Friday....


mi_guida: (Default)

June 2009

21222324 252627


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 09:27 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios