Top Law Schools

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but seriously, what's the point of this? LSAC has what is charitably a weak contract claim against students who post their materials. They know this, so they'll never file an actual suit--not to mention that they wouldn't be able to fund such a suit. I suspect they've threatened the owner of TLS and other such boards to cajole cooperation in their effort to censor any discussion of the LSAT, but why bother to go along with it? What do you think they can do to you? If they're the ones with the claim, why are you doing all the work? DMCA safe harbor provisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Cop ... tation_Act) likely protect you, and if the LSAC really feels strongly about it, they can send you takedown notices like other IP holders send Youtube every day. What other third-party contracts of adhesion would you go out of your way to further?

very interested to see the direction that this thread goes in...if it goes anywhere at all

thederangedwang wrote:very interested to see the direction that this thread goes in...if it goes anywhere at all

You never know. Honest, thought out disagreement turns into a ban more frequently than you'd think.

Isn't it because a lot of folks still haven't taken the LSAT?

Sabbath observers take it on this upcoming Monday, and perhaps people in Asia/Europe also have yet to take it?

But don't they receive different forms of the LSAT?

And c'mon now, is there really 100% compliance with the non-disclosure policy beyond TLS and other such boards "cajoled" into cooperating?

I would guess it has to do with the idea that since we took the test to become lawyers, encouraging people to break a written contract without punishment would be breaking the spirit and principles of the test. Also, I don't think everyone has taken it, yet.

I agree btw, interesting argument. Compelling points. I hope free speech wins.

Monte.Cristo wrote:Isn't it because a lot of folks still haven't taken the LSAT?

Sabbath observers take it on this upcoming Monday, and perhaps people in Asia/Europe also have yet to take it?

Taking that as true (those are often non-standard tests so it isn't), why should the mods here care? This isn't an LSAC-sponsored forum.

Monte.Cristo wrote:Isn't it because a lot of folks still haven't taken the LSAT?

Sabbath observers take it on this upcoming Monday, and perhaps people in Asia/Europe also have yet to take it?

No, because Sabbath test are complete different non-disclosed tests.

Part of it is because there is material, such as exp sections, that will be used again. Other part is just in general, it wants to keep its secrets, and not cheapen itself by allowing anyone and everyone to talk about it.

And for this site, the site doesn't want to be liable for a suit, and wants to be helpful to organizations that some people that use the site use.

A very extreme example would be if a site allowed such talk as where to get kiddy porn to go down. Sure, the site owners did not do anything wrong, but to allow such talk would be near criminal.

To allow something as people breaching contracts would be somewhat dodgy, even though it in itself not illegal/breaking a contract.

Nightrunner wrote:Short answer: because Ken says to do so.

Slightly less-short answer: because TLS is owned and operated by an upstanding T14 grad who would like to keep positive relations with all of the governing bodies of the profession.

The LSAC is not a governing body of the profession. It's a glorified scantron collection service founded and funded by several law schools to standardize admissions. It submits to the will of the collective and has no real authority beyond the administration of the LSAT.

dietcoke0 wrote:And for this site, the site doesn't want to be liable for a suit, and wants to be helpful to organizations that some people that use the site use.

A very extreme example would be if a site allowed such talk as where to get kiddy porn to go down. Sure, the site owners did not do anything wrong, but to allow such talk would be near criminal.

To allow something as people breaching contracts would be somewhat dodgy, even though it in itself not illegal/breaking a contract.

This is incorrect. See the DMCA safe harbor provisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Cop ... tation_Act

Nightrunner wrote:Short answer: because Ken says to do so.

Also, even if LSAC isnt a governing body, authority over the LSAT is, imho, pretty damm important, like u said

"It's a glorified scantron collection service founded and funded by several law schools to standardize admissions. It submits to the will of the collective and has no real authority beyond the administration of the LSAT."

the will of the collective is to glorify LSAC, therefore, LSAC is important, kinda like fiat currency

quakeroats wrote:

Nightrunner wrote:Short answer: because Ken says to do so.

Slightly less-short answer: because TLS is owned and operated by an upstanding T14 grad who would like to keep positive relations with all of the governing bodies of the profession.

The LSAC is not a governing body of the profession. It's a glorified scantron collection service founded and funded by several law schools to standardize admissions. It submits to the will of the collective and has no real authority beyond the administration of the LSAT.

Operative word.

quakeroats wrote:

thederangedwang wrote:very interested to see the direction that this thread goes in...if it goes anywhere at all

You never know. Honest, thought out disagreement turns into a ban more frequently than you'd think.

quakeroats wrote:

thederangedwang wrote:very interested to see the direction that this thread goes in...if it goes anywhere at all

You never know. Honest, thought out disagreement turns into a ban more frequently than you'd think.

There is a thin line between disagreement and conspiracy