Due to the popularity of the original Napster and other early file sharing services, a large segment of the population believes it should not have to pay for the rights to digitally download music, movies, or other forms of Internet accessible entertainment. The Recording Industry Association of America has led the fight to stop the wholesale theft of intellectual property rights from its members. According to the RIAA's website, global music piracy causes more than $12.5 billion dollars in economic losses every year and the loss of more than 71,000 jobs.
Love or hate Apple, the company created an easy to use device, the iPod and set an unofficial price point of $.99 for each entertainment segment that is downloaded. In 2007, Radiohead provided fans the opportunity to pay whatever a fan wanted for the right to download their songs. Recently, Linkin Park was a driving force behind another pay what you want effort for non-profit Music For Relief that supports the Haiti relief effort. This business model may work in some cases, but the free rider dilema where too many people don't want to pay a fair price for a product or service is still a challenge that social media content providers must confront.
Amazon recently tried to replicate Apple's business model and industry position in the book business with their price point of $9.99 per Kindle download. However, major publishing house, Macmillian has refused to accept Amazon's price point and a legal dispute may be in the works.
As an active user of social media, I am fully aware of the cost of content creation and usage. Most social media websites are financially supported by advertising. Some have paywalls that offer a teaser before requiring a user to pay and others are fully subscription based. In the pornography industry, there are group subscriptions where belonging to one site automatically enables you to access other sites with your subscription or provides a reduced rate for membership.
The newspaper industry is on life support and it appears that Senator Cardin's proposal to allow newspapers to become non-profits has not been embraced by the marketplace. In contrast, Rupert Murdoch has been preaching about charging for his newspaper's content. As a Wall Street Journal subscriber, I believe the paper is one of only a couple of news organizations in the world that offers content that its users are willing to pay a subscription premium for. However, if I was offered a flat fee to access premium content for 25 of my most visited social media websites, I may be willing to pay for it if it was priced correctly. This subscription model would be based on the way cable companies offer premium channels on top of their basic packages.
There may be antitrust issues if a group of the most popular news organizations/social media content providers formed an entity and began offering their content in a pooled subscription. The Sports Broadcasting Act enables professional and collegiate sports leagues to package and sell pooled broadcasting rights. Even though member teams/schools are individual entities, Congress has carved out an exemption for this industry.
Why can't Congress carve out the same type of exemption for news organizations and/or social media and/or entertainment entities that would enable them to pool their resources? If professional sports leagues and NCAA member schools enjoy this type of special exemption why can't the news and/or the social media/entertainment industry also receive a special exemption under the law?
The bottom line is that content creation is not free and imaginative business methods must be utilized that may require new laws or a rethinking of some of our current laws. I believe now is the time for the business, legal, and political community to come together to draft a plan that accounts for this change in how people view, price, and protect intellectual property. To learn more about these issues you may contact me www.shearlaw.com
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Legal Definition of a Twitter Follower
Twitter has become one of the most popular social media websites. In 2009, there were several highly publicized lawsuits that were based on what people have tweeted (communicated) through twitter. Until recently, to find out what has been tweeted by someone you needed to "follow" someone's twitter feed. However, search engines Google and Bing now incorporate twitter feeds in their search engine results. For those who are not familiar with Twitter, it is a form of communication limited to 140 characters and a twitter feed is analogous to the the old stock tickers on wall street.
In order to keep abreast of the information posted by a Twitter account holder another Twitter account holder needs to become a "follower" of the account holder he or she wants to follow. Becoming a "follower" of another's twitter feed only means that you now have the ability read that person's tweets. Unlike Facebook in which someone has to be accepted as a "friend" before being able to essentially follow that person's posts, Twitter does not have that same restriction.A Twitter account holder has the ability to delete unwanted followers or to protect his/her tweets from non-followers.
According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, the word "follower" is a noun and its top two definitions are:
1 a: one in the service of another : retainer
b: one that follows the opinions or teachings of another
c: one that imitates another
2 archaic : one that chases
I tried to unsuccessfully find a legal definition for "Twitter Follower" on Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary and several other online reference sources. The reason for creating a legal definition of a "Twitter Follower" is that the U.S. legal system may one day need the definition to determine possible attorney or witness conflicts of interest, alleged juror misconduct, jury tampering or connections between those involved in a legal matter.
c: one that imitates another
2 archaic : one that chases
I tried to unsuccessfully find a legal definition for "Twitter Follower" on Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary and several other online reference sources. The reason for creating a legal definition of a "Twitter Follower" is that the U.S. legal system may one day need the definition to determine possible attorney or witness conflicts of interest, alleged juror misconduct, jury tampering or connections between those involved in a legal matter.
"A person or entity who has a Twitter account who has gained access or the ability to follow or read another Twitter account holder's tweets."
Becoming a Twitter Follower of another Twitter account holder does not mean that the "Follower" or "Followee" have ever met or have any type of personal or professional relationship. For example, entertainer Ashton Kutcher has more than 4,430,000 twitter followers and he is following at least 300 other Twitter accounts. I am willing to guarantee that Mr. Kutcher does not know 99.99% of those who are following him.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Facebook Five and Alleged Juror Misconduct in Baltimore Mayor's Trial
The recently concluded trial of Baltimore's soon to be former Mayor Dixon ended when Mayor Dixon was found guilty of embezzlement for stealing gift cards from the poor. Numerous times throughout the trial and prior to jury deliberations, Hon. Dennis M. Sweeney, who presided over Ms. Dixon's trial, admonished the jury not to discuss the case with anyone. This jury instruction is standard throughout the country. After Ms. Dixon was found guilty of embezzlement, but before she was sentenced, it came to the attention of her legal team that 5 of the 12 members of the jury (the "Facebook Five") became "Facebook Friends" and started communicating with each other on Facebook.
Mayor Dixon filed a motion to set aside the verdict and one of her arguments was that the Facebook Five's Facebook activities constituted jury misconduct under Maryland law. This argument became moot when the Mayor agreed to withdraw it after a plea agreement was entered that resolved all of the Mayor's outstanding legal issues.
The State of Maryland like most states does not have an official social media policy relating to court room behavior for judges, attorneys, witnesses, or members of the jury. According to my research, there are no reported cases in the country that have had to determine whether Facebook Friending and/or Facebook posting about a case during a trial by a juror is juror misconduct. Maryland has ruled that juror Internet research during deliberations is juror misconduct. In Wardlaw v. State of Maryland, 971 A.2d 331 (2009),the court reversed an assault conviction after a deliberating juror used the Internet to perform research about the case and notified other deliberating jurors about the research.
If the Facebook Five discussed substantive issues about the case outside of the courtroom in any medium, including Facebook, there is no doubt there was juror misconduct and the conviction would most likely have been overturned. However, if the Facebook Five were just Facebook friending each other and not discussing substantive issues of the case, this issue is just a red herring that was deftly used by the Mayor's legal team to secure her Alford plea and enable her to keep her $83,000 annual pension and enable her to eventually run for public office again in the future.
Courts throughout the country should expand upon the jury instruction that prohibits jurors from talking about the case or performing one's own independent research to specifically include prohibiting jurors from discussing anything pertaining to the case on social media. By acknowledging on a Facebook wall that you are on a jury for anyone, let alone someone as high profile as the mayor of a major metropolis, invites all of your friends to comment and possibly influence your opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant, something clearly prohibited by current jury instructions.
Mayor Dixon's high profile case demonstrates the need for state bar associations throughout the country to work in conjunction with their respective state legislatures and judiciaries to create social media policies that address the reality of today's technology and citizens' social media habits. Therefore, I urge state bar association presidents throughout the country to create social media law committees to work with their legislators and members of the judiciary to craft uniform court room social media policies. Continuing to ignore the realities of the Internet/Social Media Age is a recipe for injustice. To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Mayor Dixon filed a motion to set aside the verdict and one of her arguments was that the Facebook Five's Facebook activities constituted jury misconduct under Maryland law. This argument became moot when the Mayor agreed to withdraw it after a plea agreement was entered that resolved all of the Mayor's outstanding legal issues.
The State of Maryland like most states does not have an official social media policy relating to court room behavior for judges, attorneys, witnesses, or members of the jury. According to my research, there are no reported cases in the country that have had to determine whether Facebook Friending and/or Facebook posting about a case during a trial by a juror is juror misconduct. Maryland has ruled that juror Internet research during deliberations is juror misconduct. In Wardlaw v. State of Maryland, 971 A.2d 331 (2009),the court reversed an assault conviction after a deliberating juror used the Internet to perform research about the case and notified other deliberating jurors about the research.
If the Facebook Five discussed substantive issues about the case outside of the courtroom in any medium, including Facebook, there is no doubt there was juror misconduct and the conviction would most likely have been overturned. However, if the Facebook Five were just Facebook friending each other and not discussing substantive issues of the case, this issue is just a red herring that was deftly used by the Mayor's legal team to secure her Alford plea and enable her to keep her $83,000 annual pension and enable her to eventually run for public office again in the future.
Courts throughout the country should expand upon the jury instruction that prohibits jurors from talking about the case or performing one's own independent research to specifically include prohibiting jurors from discussing anything pertaining to the case on social media. By acknowledging on a Facebook wall that you are on a jury for anyone, let alone someone as high profile as the mayor of a major metropolis, invites all of your friends to comment and possibly influence your opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant, something clearly prohibited by current jury instructions.
Mayor Dixon's high profile case demonstrates the need for state bar associations throughout the country to work in conjunction with their respective state legislatures and judiciaries to create social media policies that address the reality of today's technology and citizens' social media habits. Therefore, I urge state bar association presidents throughout the country to create social media law committees to work with their legislators and members of the judiciary to craft uniform court room social media policies. Continuing to ignore the realities of the Internet/Social Media Age is a recipe for injustice. To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Legal Definition of a Facebook Friend
According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, the top two definitions of the word "friend" are:
1 a: one attached to another by affection or esteem b: acquaintance
2 a: one that is not hostile b: one that is of the same nation, party, or group.
The New Oxford Dictionary's 2009 word of the year was "unfriend." The New Oxford Dictionary recognizes "unfriend" as a verb, and defines "unfriend" to mean "to remove someone as a 'friend' on a social networking site such as Facebook."
Therefore, I would deduce that the New Oxford Dictionary would define the verb "friend" to mean, "to add someone as a 'friend' on a social networking site such as Facebook." When I looked for the definition of a "Facebook Friend" on Facebook, I could not find a definition. As far as I could determine, it is not defined on Facebook. When I looked on other online dictionaries, Black's Law Dictionary, and other online legal dictionaries, I could not find a legal definition for "Facebook Friend."
I would like to create a legal definition for a "Facebook Friend." A "Facebook Friend" is someone whom is added to your network on a social media website. A "Facebook Friend" may or may not be someone with whom you have ever met or interacted with other than requesting that he or she be added to your network or that you confirmed that he or she be added to your network.
Some "Facebook Friends" are close friends with whom you keep in touch with on a regular basis. Some "Facebook Friends" are people with whom you have not spoken with for 10-20 years, while others may only be "Facebook Friends" of "Facebook Friends." Some people are "Facebook Friends" with movie stars and other people deemed famous only because a "Friend Request" was sent and accepted.
If a "Friend Request" is accepted and two people are "Facebook Friends" that does not mean that these two people are actual friends or have any contact other than an acceptance of a "Friend Request." A Facebook user has the ability through his or her privacy controls to limit what some "Facebook Friends" are able to view about them. For example, some "Facebook Friends" are able to view personal information about their "Facebook Friends" while others are not.
The reason for creating a legal definition of a "Facebook Friend" is that the U.S. legal system may one day need to create a definition to determine possible attorney or witness conflicts of interest, or jury tampering.
The bottom line is that just because two people are "Facebook Friends" does not mean that either person actually knows each other. In other words, "Facebook Friending" may be just the online equivalent of handing out your business card to a complete stranger. To learn more about this issue you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
1 a: one attached to another by affection or esteem b: acquaintance
2 a: one that is not hostile b: one that is of the same nation, party, or group.
The New Oxford Dictionary's 2009 word of the year was "unfriend." The New Oxford Dictionary recognizes "unfriend" as a verb, and defines "unfriend" to mean "to remove someone as a 'friend' on a social networking site such as Facebook."
Therefore, I would deduce that the New Oxford Dictionary would define the verb "friend" to mean, "to add someone as a 'friend' on a social networking site such as Facebook." When I looked for the definition of a "Facebook Friend" on Facebook, I could not find a definition. As far as I could determine, it is not defined on Facebook. When I looked on other online dictionaries, Black's Law Dictionary, and other online legal dictionaries, I could not find a legal definition for "Facebook Friend."
I would like to create a legal definition for a "Facebook Friend." A "Facebook Friend" is someone whom is added to your network on a social media website. A "Facebook Friend" may or may not be someone with whom you have ever met or interacted with other than requesting that he or she be added to your network or that you confirmed that he or she be added to your network.
Some "Facebook Friends" are close friends with whom you keep in touch with on a regular basis. Some "Facebook Friends" are people with whom you have not spoken with for 10-20 years, while others may only be "Facebook Friends" of "Facebook Friends." Some people are "Facebook Friends" with movie stars and other people deemed famous only because a "Friend Request" was sent and accepted.
If a "Friend Request" is accepted and two people are "Facebook Friends" that does not mean that these two people are actual friends or have any contact other than an acceptance of a "Friend Request." A Facebook user has the ability through his or her privacy controls to limit what some "Facebook Friends" are able to view about them. For example, some "Facebook Friends" are able to view personal information about their "Facebook Friends" while others are not.
The reason for creating a legal definition of a "Facebook Friend" is that the U.S. legal system may one day need to create a definition to determine possible attorney or witness conflicts of interest, or jury tampering.
The bottom line is that just because two people are "Facebook Friends" does not mean that either person actually knows each other. In other words, "Facebook Friending" may be just the online equivalent of handing out your business card to a complete stranger. To learn more about this issue you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)