Facebook and Your Political Views
NM SCT Cautions Judges on Social Media Use (State v. Thomas)
(Menlo Park, CA)
Oculus seeks a Lead Counsel to support its virtual reality content business. Oculus invents, manufactures and sells industry leading virtual reality headsets and operates a global virtual reality content and social platform. Success in this position will require you to provide creative and practical guidance to clients on different potential legal and business strategies to help foster a thriving ecosystem of developers, partners, and vendors. You will also be drafting and negotiating a wide variety of contracts, including game distribution agreements, content and software licenses, and developer-facing contracts and terms. This is a unique opportunity to work on cutting-edge issues in a fast-paced start-up environment, as Oculus leads the field of virtual reality.
Be a product counseling and transactional generalist: support business objectives related to games, social platforms, mobile, video, developer relationships, consumer products and live ops services
Contract drafting, negotiation and advisory responsibilities for Oculus’ virtual reality content and social platform business
Build positive and influential relationships with executives, product teams and peers across Oculus and Facebook
Collaborate with subject matters experts at Oculus and Facebook to analyze and communicate legal risks
JD degree with membership in at least 1 state bar
6+ years of experience, including prior in-house experience with technology or gaming companies and/or at a global law firm
Experience with platforms, video gaming, entertainment media, and/or mobile.
Ideal candidate will have demonstrated success building influence with technology entrepreneur executives and advising business and software teams directly
This NY Times article discusses some of the legal issues that arise when celebrities advertise on social media.
Lara Abigail Bazelon
Abstract: Shaming sanctions have a long history in the United States. In the colonial era, judges routinely subjected criminal offenders to a variety of public humiliations that included branding and even maiming. These punishments were designed to exact retribution, deter future misdeeds, and to impress upon the offender the importance of adhering to community norms. Shaming sanctions largely disappeared in the early 1800s with the rise of the prison industrial complex, only to reappear in courtrooms across the country in the early 1990s, when trial judges began to demand that offenders write public apologies, mop streets they had desecrated, and wear signs proclaiming their offenses to the world.
Now a new shame sanction is on the horizon with a wholly unexpected cast of characters. The shamers are federal appellate judges; the shamed are prosecutors who vigorously defend criminal convictions that are infected by state-sanctioned misconduct. At stake are the reputation of the prosecutor’s office and the outcome of the case. The federal judges have no legal means of granting relief because of a statute that bars overturning state court judgments except under the most extreme circumstances. Hands tied, the judges turn oral argument into a public theatre in which they deploy shaming sanctions against prosecutors in live-streaming video that is later posted to YouTube and watched by thousands if not tens of thousands of people. In these arguments, the judges use moral condemnation to attempt to persuade the prosecution that its position is morally abhorrent.
This article explores the use of this new shaming sanction from an ethical and efficacy perspective, asking if it is a proper use of judicial authority and more practically, if it works. The Article draws three conclusions based on a small sample of cases. First, that as judges grow more social-media savvy and video-streaming oral arguments becomes a more common practice, this shaming sanction will likely continue. Second, the efficacy of the sanction depends upon the ability of the lawyers to publicize the oral argument so that it reaches the greatest number of viewers possible. It is only when the moral outrage become a matter of public knowledge that the prosecutor’s office is likely to reconsider its position because of mounting political pressure. Finally, while shaming sanctions are arguably “extra-judicial” in that they are not rooted in legal doctrine, there is nothing unethical about using them. To the contrary, the Article concludes that by shaming prosecutors in this particular, case-specific way, federal judges are carrying out their essential mandate: to protect the individual – however powerless and despised – against the abuse of authority by the State.
Backpage.com vs. the U.S. Senate
In the article below, Arstechnica provides a good overview of the ongoing battle between the U.S. Senate and Backpage.com CEO, Carl Ferrer. As some may recall, Mr. Ferrer is fighting a subpoena by the Senate to testify about Backpage.com’s business practices as they relate to the trafficking of people.
John T. Cross
This chapter examines the holdout problem involving a copyright holder’s refusal to license digital content to internet users or third-party intermediaries despite the possibilities of socially valuable uses. It begins with two case studies illustrating the classic holdout problem, which often arises when transaction costs are high or when parties have drastically different expectations. The first case study focuses on the developments concerning Google Books. The second case study examines YouTube and the emergent development of user-generated content. The chapter concludes with three sets of preemptive legal responses that can help address the internet-related copyright holdout problem: limitations and exceptions in copyright law, compulsory or statutory licensing arrangements, and exogenous constraints imposed by competition law.