They discuss the new popularity of religious lawyering, which they attribute to the “crisis of professionalism.” They identify three main objections to religious lawyering movement: effectiveness, fairness, and compatibility with liberal democracy.
The author explores how intra-Catholic dialogue can persuade reasonable persons to transform modern culture, leading to the elevation of gender equality, human rights, pluralism and fairness.
Araujo insists that Catholic teachers of law should impress upon their students that the justice of God is an acknowledgement of what each individual is due and is more than a concept of fairness before the law.
With regard to divorce Wagner emphasizes that the attorney must respect the marital bond and seek fairness in the disposition of marital assets and provision for children.
Ethics in negotiation can involve expectations of fairness, equity, and honesty but, sometimes, despite your best intentions, one or more of these four forces might lead you to behave unethically during job offer negotiations: …
Negotiators usually have strong feelings about fairness. Unfortunately, our fairness perceptions tend to be biased in a self-serving manner. Research has shown that, at the end of a negotiation, most people feel they were more cooperative …
Marens argues that current events suggest that if the field is to remain relevant it needs to return to examining social and economic fairness, and Rawl's approach to social contracting suggests a way to start.
Getting to yes is not the same as getting results. In , international negotiation expert and mediator shows that the key to winning unbeatable, long-term results in today’s complex economic landscape is to negotiate solid, long-term relationships. Traditionally, negotiation has been approached as an isolated activity, separate from the business relationship. But those who focus only on getting the deal closed often find their victory doesn’t translate into sustainable profits. Any deal is as fragile as the paper it’s written on. Countless disputes arise and deals easily collapse when the negotiation process leaves one party unhappy, feeling forced into unfair terms, or even disgruntled at a change in circumstances. In five clear steps, Billings-Yun takes the pain and fear out of negotiation with her proven GRASP method. Filled with real-life examples of negotiations that have gone right and wrong, this groundbreaking book shows how fairness, honesty, empathy, flexibility and mutual problem-solving lead to sustainable success. (Jossey-Bass/John Wiley & Sons)
With the explosive international growth of the multi-media entertainment industry and its domination by American-owned copyrights, the money involved in performance-rights licensing continues to grow, and so do the questions about the inherent fairness of the system. ASCAP's total money collected jumped from $200 million to $350 million from 1983 to 1990. With the explosive growth of the internet, there also remain numerous questions of how copyright royalties will be regulated in cyberspace. Exactly what the average person or music business participant can do to learn more about the system or to reform it is unclear. ASCAP will probably not start policing itself, and just start paying money to starving artists. Change will be slow, and only if groups of individuals organize and contact their congressional representatives or appeal to ASCAP or the District Court of New York does there appear to be much hope of change in the near future. ASCAP is currently lobbying very hard to impose a tax on DAT (Digital Audio Tape), and it is likely that they will find more and better ways to reach into our pockets when we seek entertainment. The old days when everybody made their own music are gone forever, and gone also are the old ways of paying the piper or the fiddler for the music.
In order to prevent the chaos of each music copyright owner trying to supervise any performance or broadcast uses of their work, and the equally large problem of each user having to seek out the owners of each song for permission, the intermediary licensing organizations (namely ASCAP, SESAC and BMI) sell licenses to anyone who uses copyrighted material that belongs to their members. ASCAP claims that "the public interest demands that such an organization exist" and that it is "the only practical way to give effect to the right of public performance which the Copyright Law intends creators to have." Permission is essentially always granted in the form of a yearly blanket license, that entitles a buyer to use anything in the ASCAP or BMI catalog during a calendar year. The price for this blanket license is determined by an elaborate formula that involves the demographics of radio and TV stations, concert ticket price, seating of the room, the form of music (radio, solo, band, show, theater, etc.) and number of hours per week music is being used. (Although people have written me recently and said that the rates are based on fire-code "potential occupancy" and not something real like attendance or cash register sales.) Currently, television comprises 46% of ASCAP's revenues, radio 35%, and presumably performance venues provide the other 19%. ASCAP may not deny a license to anyone, nor discriminate in their prices, and all similar users must supposedly pay the same rate. The cost of the blanket licenses, however, varies widely, and many complaints have been filed about unreasonableness of the fees. A small nightclub might pay anywhere from $200-1000 per year to ASCAP alone. (There is a built-in but seldom used appeals process involving the U.S. Southern District Court of New York, whereby any purchaser of a license may contest the reasonableness of their fees to the court. The burden of proof of reasonableness is reportedly on ASCAP.) Muzak®, jukeboxes and some other groups like Ringling Brothers Circus and Disney on Ice have arranged their own special licenses at lower rates. Any organization that fails to buy a license is at risk of being sued by a licensing organization on behalf of the copyright owner, who need not be present in the courtroom, incidentally, even though they are a party in the lawsuit. Even parades and political fund-raisers with a marching band have been sued, and the courts handed down a landmark judgement against The Gap clothing stores chain (Sailor Music vs. Gap Stores, Inc., 1982) that has launched an aggressive new ASCAP campaign against all manner of retail stores that play the radio or tapes for shoppers. (This ruling was recently overturned in appellate court, however) Even aerobics and yoga instructors who use music have been notified by ASCAP of their need for licenses for the dance music they use in exercise programs! The legalese states that: "a singer is performing when he or she sings a song; a broadcasting network is performing when it transmits his or her performances; (whether simultaneously or from records); a local broadcaster is performing when it transmits the network broadcast... and any individual is performing whenever he or she plays a phonorecord... or communicates the performance by turning on a receiving set."
ASCAP, BMI and SESAC have field agents on payroll, employed by their 23 field offices, who watch the newspapers and radio (and even hire clipping services) and when a new nightclub starts offering live music, for example, an agent will either show up or write a letter demanding money for the license. The PRO's have recently adopted a clever new way to find out where the live music venues are. Musicians are invited to submit lists of where they have performed, and are promised some money in payment for their having played original music. This is very tempting, especially for unknown musicians, who tend to get little or no money in royalty payments from ASCAP or BMI. This way the PRO's can find out where music is being performed, and they also have written testimonial evidence from a writer member of their organization that copyrighted music was performed there. This saves ASCAP and BMI from having to find the venues and then send spies in to observe copyrighted music being performed in venues that do not have licenses, and it looks just like an attempt to be fair to unknown songwriters and no doubt costs very little in payouts. There are reports that SESAC offers monetary rewards to members who "turn in" music venues that do not have licenses.
When an individual is arrested for a criminal charge (not probation violation/ bench warrant/ bondsman off bond/ticket), that individual is required to go before a Magistrate Court judge within 48 hours of their booking, which is referred to as first appearance/bond hearing. The purpose of the First Appearance hearing is to let the inmate know what they have been charged with, answer any questions from the judge, and to give the inmate access to an attorney (Public Defender) or the ability to request a form for a Public Defender (on the weekends), and most importantly notify them of their rights. The judge may or may not set a bond depending on the charge or whether or not that person qualifies to receive a bond. First Appearance hearing are generally conducted via video, with the judge at Magistrate Court and the inmate located in jail in a multi-purpose room. The hearings are held every day with the exceptions of Sunday and county holidays. They are generally held at 2:00pm, but can (at the judgeâs discretion) be held at a different time. The public can view the First Appearance hearing from the courtroom located at the 24 hour entrance (Central Control).