Blog Ipsa Loquitur

There’s a problem with giving away someone else’s music for free. The people who made it want some money for making it. This is a less than unreasonable proposition. However, there is a storm a-brewing in the backyard of internet radio stations, who, like terrestrial radio stations, play music that you can listen to for free.

I won’t retrace the history of the process, but as it stands today, an internet radio station owes the record companies some money per song per listener. A terrestrial radio station (that is, the regular FM and AM station) pays no such fee based on play statistics. There are certainly fees to pay when you broadcast copyrighted material, but charging per song per listener is physically impossible with terrestrial radio: there’s no way to know how many listeners you have at any one point.

Computers, however, are powered by magic: on any given internet radio station, you know precisely how many people are listening to each song. As such, the digital age has obviated the need to guess how much a radio station owes a musician (or his record company). In theory, the two sides sit down and negotiate a fair rate for each song each listener… err… listened to.

No theory survives contact with reality unscathed, however. Pandora is one of the biggest internet radio stations, and because it can’t afford to pay the fees established to compensate the musicians and their record companies, they’re going broke. Currently, the royalty fee sits at eight-hundredths of a penny per song per listener. According to Pandora, this represents an annual cost of $17 million dollars in royalties alone. That’s 70% of their projected revenue this year. To make matters worse, in two years, the fee will go up to nineteen-hundredths of a penny.

You don’t need to be a mathologist to realize that this does not bode well for Pandora’s bank account. They’re trying to decide whether or not the situation is dire enough to close up shop. For smaller internet radio stations, the situation is already past “dire” and well into “burn the joint down and collect the insurance money” territory. Fortunately for insurance companies, you can’t burn down the internet.

sidebar: …or can you? Note to self: take out insurance policy on the internet.

The record companies are making $17 million this year in royalties from just one radio station. There are literally thousands of these prospective sources, and as the internet becomes an ever more ubiquitous part of our lives, the number of total listeners will only increase. This is literally free money: the music has already been made, it’s already been sold, it’s already being played on terrestrial radio, and there’s no added cost to the record company associated with getting the music onto the internet. (Hell, I think they spend a lot more money trying to keep their music off the internet.)

And yet, the federal agency that sets the fees keeps raising the royalty rates for internet radio. It’s in the best interest of the radio stations to keep the fees low, so they can stay in business and make money. It’s in the best interest of the musicians to keep the fees as high as the radio stations can pay. They should both be working together trying to halt the hiking of the royalty fees, but instead, negotiations seem to have stalled.

The internet as a mass-medium is still very much in its infancy. No one’s quite sure exactly how much money you can make on all this stuff. Billboards? Magazines? Commercial breaks? This stuff is down to a science at this point. But making money on the internet? Facebook is valued at $15 billion, but hasn’t turned a profit. YouTube still hasn’t turned a profit, almost two years after its acquisition for $1.6 billion. Some companies are doing very well, and some are not.

I applaud Viacom, Fox, and NBC for their experimentation with putting popular shows such as the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, South Park, and hundreds of other shows on the internet for free. I’m sure they have a rough idea that they won’t lose (a lot of) money. There are automated bean-counting machines at this point which can ensure that the ad revenue should at least cover the bandwidth and server operation costs.

Of course, these two situations aren’t perfectly analogous. Piracy of audio files is much more rampant than video files; record companies are right to be more wary of the digital age than television studios. But with internet radio as we know it being strangled, I can’t help but wonder if the record companies would be better served by experimenting with generating revenue on the internet, and not just trying to quash digital distribution because it threatens the traditional model.

Filed on under The News

When we last left off (because I was tired and I’m on vacation), I had finished an orientation video which began by observing, essentially, that “no one likes jury duty, but it’s better than trial by boiling oil.” I found that kind of logic unassailable, if cold comfort. Although it’s worth noting that the jury in Ye Olde Boiling Oil Trials didn’t actually have to dip their hands in boiling oil, and probably didn’t even have to pay attention. From their perspective, jury duty might seem positively onerous.

After sitting around for a couple hours, a large group of us were herded off to a small room where we were seated briefly before being herded up twenty floors to the courtroom. The trial sounded pretty high-stakes: the indictment was for attempted murder and a whole bunch of assault charges.

sidebar: For any one act, you can be indicted on a number of crimes. Say, for instance, that a jury doesn’t find you intentionally ran over the judge’s dog, and intent is an element of Riding Dirty in the First Degree. They decide you weren’t paying attention; they say you were negligent (an element of Riding Dirty in the Second Degree) in your driving. If the D.A. didn’t charge you with the Second Degree crime, but decided he could get a conviction of the First Degree crime, you would be free even though the jury decided you had committed a crime. You can’t be convicted of crimes you were never indicted for. The D.A. is just hedging his bets.

The case sounded interesting enough (I’m afraid I was kind of morbid even before law school), and I was eager to serve on the jury. However, there were nearly sixty of us jurors, and only twelve seats in that jury box. The process by which you whittle the many down to the few is called “voir dire” - essentially, the judge and the attorneys take turns asking the jurors questions. The judge wants to make sure the jurors are impartial, and the attorneys want to make sure the jurors are partial. Sadly, after two rounds of voir dire, a full jury (and a couple of alternates) had been selected. I was not on said jury.

In fact, I never even got asked questions. But I did get to sit any listen to a lot of people explain that they were unfit for jury duty. Some people admitted to being unabashedly racist. Some people admitted to being convinced that the police are all a bunch of crooks. A couple of people confessed that they didn’t feel comfortable convicting a person based on the testimony of a single witness.

One particularly plucky young juror claimed that she would not be able to listen to the judge’s instruction on the law if she didn’t personally agree with the law. It was a pretty good ploy, apparently. For one reason or another, she was dismissed.

Another juror was dismissed, I think, in part because he was unbelievably chatty during the voir dire process. The interview between judge and juror consists of mostly biographical information: age, hometown, family, and any brushes with the law. This juror gave long, rambling replies that initially answered the question, but veered off into unrelated, irrelevant, or downright personal territory. He was the subject of hushed snickers from the rest of the jurors (during the interview process, all sixty of us were in the room, even though only twelve were being interviewed), because most of us assumed he was batty.

He was, however, batty like a fox. While the judge and attorneys conferred about which jurors they wanted to dismiss, the jurors were removed from the courtroom. While we waited in the hallway, Chatty Juror confessed that he gets himself out of all kinds of jobs by pretending to be so desperate for human contact that he rambles on to no end. It was by far the most sinister ploy I saw all day.

If not sinister, at least it was more inventive than “yes, your honor. I am definitely prejudiced against whatever ethnicity that defendant over there is.”

Anyway, after being dismissed from that trial, the remaining jurors and I returned to the jury waiting room, where we were informed that there were no more trials requiring jurors, and that we were free to go. Rumor was that the truck full of hot oil had finally arrived.

Filed on under A Day in the Life

I found myself in a jury waiting room last week. It’s a good thing, too. A jury duty summons is not something you want to ignore. I mean, it’s been a while since I read up on what the penalty is for contempt of court, but I’m pretty sure you’re sentenced to be the judge’s butler or something. With this in mind, I went to court.

sidebar: At the risk of perpetuating some unsavory stereotypes about law students, I have to say that one of my favorite parts about going to court is telling people that I’m going to court. Technically, this time it was as a juror, not even in the pseudo-lawyerly capacity that I do for work. But it’s still pretty cool to tell civilians that you had to go to court.

First, I showed up at the New York State Supreme Courthouse in Kings County about ten minutes before the time printed on my summons. As it turns out, that was a mistake. Apparently, New York State (rightly) assumes that most people will show up late, so they print a time on the summons that’s actually thirty minutes early.

When someone did show up, it was a rather genial clerk wearing a bright pink halter top dress. I only note that because the jury duty summons specifically requested I show my respect for the proceedings by dressing respectfully. As I’d spent the bulk of my commute sweltering in a shirt and tie, I was almost jealous. Many people just wore t-shirts and jeans.

The first thing we did was watch a hilariously awful juror orientation video with Ed Bradley and Diane Sawyer. It was done at some point in the 90s, but everyone involved had 80s hair. The video kicked off by describing the process of “Trial by Ordeal” that was used in barbaric times to determine a defendant’s guilt. Then someone made a grim joke about jury duty being as painful a process as sticking your arms into boiling water, and the point was thoroughly missed.

Now, you’re probably saying to yourself “but Dominic, you’re a student and an intern with the government! Why do you not ride out of jury duty on a litter borne by twenty burly eunuchs?” And this is a fair question, although it does seem a little outdated. I mean, eunuch-borne litter hasn’t been a popular mode of travel since like the 1960s.

Apparently, New York has drastically reduced the amount of exemptions, deferrals, and generic “Get Out of ‘Sending Someone to Jail’ Free Cards” in the last few years. Being a student no longer gets you removed from jury duty. Nor does “accidentally” parking in the judge’s parking spot. I assume flat-out claiming to be an unabashed racist still works, but nobody played that gambit while I was in court.

Because fewer people get out of it, more people serve. Because more people serve, people get called fewer times. The end result is that no citizen of New York State is required to serve jury duty more than once every eight years.

Filed on under A Day in the Life

I’ve been summoned for jury duty.  Doubtlessly, myths and songs of my legal prowess have reached the ears of the king, or whoever is in charge of the Kings County courtroom.  I can’t wait to get Sam Waterston’s autograph.

Details forthcoming.

Filed on under A Day in the Life

I’ve never actually seen The Paper Chase. After your first year of law school, your friends from your former life will want to see it with you, so you can explain about the time you were stuck in the 1950s and something crazy happened to you. Or something. I told you, I didn’t see it. So if this is redundant, please feel free to skip this post.

Law school is steeped in tradition. It’s generally unchanged for hundreds, if not thousands of years. You don’t show up to class to learn the law: you show up to class to learn how some very smart people came up with the law. Like watching a Grand Master play chess, you’re not trying to memorize the game that he plays; you’re trying to figure out why he moves the way he moves. There are individual principles at work: sacrifice a knight to capture a bishop, sacrifice a bishop to capture a rook, and so on.

sidebar: That’s probably a horrible analogy. I know virtually nothing about chess beyond how the pieces move and that I’m not supposed to yell “king me!” when I get one of my pieces to my opponent’s back row. Let’s just imagine that I’ve written out some profound chess strategy that would make Deep Blue look about as brilliant as a TI-86 with a cracked display.

This methodology of dissecting the law has apparently not changed in thousands, if not millions of years. One of the other big traditions is that professors call students by their last names: Mr. McDonald and Ms. Kim and so on. A precious minority have made the move to a first-name basis with students, but frankly, it’s so much cooler to throw around Mr. and Ms. all the time.

We as students are not immune to the lure of needless formality, either. I greatly enjoy calling acquaintances by their last name, sometimes out of necessity until I know their first name. It’s quaint. Much like my practice of using the word “howdy” to greet people, I find joy in outmoded customs.

Hell, I spent a full year with 120 of these people, and there are many that I still know on a last name basis only; I know her as Ms. Connolly, and nothing else. Somehow, I think it would be less odd to just know your fellow students by face only, and not have to ask in November, “Mr. Singer, what’s your first name again?” At least when Mr. Singer is 22 and punctuates the majority of his sentences with “bro.”

One exception to this unspoken rule seems appropriate to mention. The most brilliant student in my class is one Ms. Gatsby. My friends and I are certain that she is destined for such greatness that in private conversations, we refer to her as Justice Gatsby. I notified her of her nomination and subsequent confirmation, and she was greatly pleased, humble though she is. More on her later, I’m certain, as she has figured in precisely one of my law school tales to date.

Filed on under A Day in the Life

I am not a lawyer. You know, yet. Therefore, I’m not allowed to give out legal advice. So this isn’t what you’d call legal advice: don’t put incriminating photos on the internet. That’s just advice from someone who’s not a gigantic idiot.

There are some really dumbfounding stories in that AP article. Boy crashes car while drunk, injuring woman. Woman lies in hospital. Boy goes to halloween party dressed in an orange jumpsuit. Boy gets photographed and put on Facebook. Prosecutor searches Facebook. Prosecutor uses incriminating photos to put boy in prison for two years.

sidebar: I recall a number of stories a few years back with college kids caught drinking in their dorm rooms because they posted pictures of themselves drinking in their dorm rooms on MySpace or Facebook or whichever. That’s stupid in and of itself. They cried foul because, like, bro, no grown-ups allowed.

But these kids have already committed a crime, and they’re still leaving fantastic evidence for prosecutors. Some are even posting new evidence for prosecutors during the trial. One girl got her recommended sentence increased from probation to two years in a DUI car crash that killed her passenger. (I’d say her lawyer was doing a fantastic job in the first place.)

As if the internet weren’t enough of a public place already, when you put yourself on Facebook and Myspace, you are quite literally advertising yourself to the rest of the world. That’s fine. Cute girls have to find you somehow, I’m certain.

To be fair, we’re really the first generation for whom this problem has come up. I’m sure at some point, someone has accidentally mailed incriminating photos of himself to a prosecutor. These things are bound to happen. But it’s a whole new world with the internet involved. My generation’s going to have to figure this stuff out quickly.

But how long does it take, really?

Filed on under The News