Category: Mass Communication Law

To Google or not to Google, that is a Juror’s question

Social networking among jurors is trying judges’ patience

The Washington Post had an interesting article about the problem of jurors using the internet to communicate and research outside of the confines of the courtroom and deliberations.

Judges and legal experts are particularly concerned about how technology and culture are affecting jurors and a defendant’s right to a fair trial. The Internet has provided easy and instant access to newspaper archives, criminal records, detailed maps, legal opinions and social-networking sites, such as Facebook, all at the anonymous click of a mouse in jurors’ homes or on the tiny keyboards of their cellular phones.

While the article naturally discusses that judges might warn jurors not to use the internet during a trial, I wonder if other forces might work to combat the effects of this phenomenon.

It has been argued that lawyers have changed their strategies of argumentation in court to fit storylines familiar in public relations and popular culture (perhaps at the sacrifice of linear or logical argumentation).  If jurors use the Internet when they go home for the evening, perhaps there will be a push towards shorter one or two day trials. Perhaps lawyers will begin presenting arguments that are relevant to what is going on outside the courtroom (ie: arguing against media reports).  While the greater impact of these on the justice system isn’t immediately clear, many would embrace the idea of shorter trials.

An account of being served with a subpoena

Here’s a wonderful, detailed account of a journalist being served with a subpoena for their reporting information.  Included is a great plug for formal Journalism education:

When someone in uniform orders you to do something, most travelers’ first instinct is to comply immediately. As a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen, that was certainly my reflexive response when a federal agent visited my home.Thank God for that journalism law class I was required to take as a graduate student at Berkeley. Had I missed it, I might have rolled over and let the government have its way. But then I heard myself say, “I need to talk to my lawyer” and the agent’s response: “I had a feeling you’d say that.” He was still smiling.

via Insider tips for dealing with the TSA – Christopher Elliott- msnbc.com.

DRM – Driving us to piracy?

Dan Wallach tipped me off to a Times article explaining Hollywood’s latest effort to get consumers to buy new DRM-wrapped videos. Danielle Levitas, an analyst at IDC, remarked “The market desperately needs this, but in some senses it is already moving past it toward rental of content over ownership.”

I think to most consumers of digital media, this is a bit of an oxymoron.  The studios will be the first to admit that they see consumers as only licensing content (especially digital)–never really owning it. Can one ever really own DRM protected content?  I may have a library full of DRM protected music in my iTunes library, but despite the move to iTunes plus, something interesting has happened. A number of songs I “bought” cannot be upgraded, even though they are available in the store.

With lousy customer service like this (…make that customer service based in restrictive copyright policies), is there any wonder consumers are becoming slow to “buy” DRM protected media. Strangely enough, those who download “unauthorized copies” of their media don’t have these sorts of problems.

Many will expect to get it free

Bono: ISPs should filter music, Steve Jobs should make cars.

Ars writes a scathing review of a Times Op-Ed by U2’s Bono. They take him to task for arguing for ISP filtering, despite the fact that concert revenue has been on the rise.

Bono makes one statement that grabs my interest:

The immutable laws of bandwidth tell us we’re just a few years away from being able to download an entire season of “24” in 24 seconds. Many will expect to get it free.

The funny thing about the “free expectation,” I would argue, is that it’s based on our collective media experience over time. We’ve been receiving shows like 24 and music by U2 for free for years via the airwaves, though it’s supported by advertising. One might even argue that a cable bill is much like an bill from an Internet Service Provider–a cable company simply provides a conduit into homes and does not (can not) block Maury Povich, Fox and Friends, or The Colbert Report simply because someone objects to the content.

Just because the post office technically could have opened letters, or ISPs technically could examine packets does not mean it should be done–especially to protect businesses that are more interested in their bottom line than quality content and customer service.