Why I Love Twitter

I recently tweeted that if I could work for any social media company it would be Twitter. Really, given my love for social media, I’d likely work for almost anyone, but Twitter easily tops the list. Why? Because they actually have integrity and some pretty smart lawyers and geeks running it. What’s my evidence? That is the subject of my blog today.

In case you missed it, NBC’s coverage of the Olympics has been getting a lot of negative reactions. Guy Adams, a journalist for The Independent, took to twitter to criticize the network’s lame coverage. However, when he tweeted the email address of an NBC exec, his twitter account was suspended. Twitter immediately came under attack because they have partnered with NBC for the Olympics and the suspension was seen as strong-arming from their business partner. Subsequently, Twitter released this statement: http://blog.twitter.com/2012/07/our-approach-to-trust-safety-and.html. The statement itself is well worth reading. It is well-crafted and clear. It is written by Alex Macgillivray, General Counsel for Twitter.

The upshot of the statement is that they were simply following their own protocols for suspending an account. This blog (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mattbuchanan/twitters-sorta-kinda-apology-for-suspending-journ) criticizes them for never apologizing to Adams or journalists in general for damaging their trust in freedom of speech on Twitter... It also accuses twitter (badly) for “fudging” their own rules. Unlike Twitter’s blog post, I don’t really recommend the one on BuzzFeed by Mark Buchanan.

I will include the last paragraph of Buchanan’s blog here. Maybe it’s just bad writing or I’m missing his point, but he seems to be missing the point- at least as I read the tone of his article.

Here’s the paragraph:

“Quite simply, Twitter never wants to be responsible for pro-actively monitoring content. That's why it requires reports for every violation. That's why it keeps emphasizing it was following the rules. That's why it's apologizing. It wants the precedent that this has set — monitoring a tweet and then acting upon a violation — to be erased, because it wants never to have that responsibility on its hands, no matter who asks, whether it's a celebrity or corporate partner, or perhaps more crucially, the government. So as far as Twitter is concerned, potentially screwing up that precious arrangement is really the only thing it did wrong. And it's real sorry about that.”

Twitter has been very steadfast in refusing to release tweets which have been subpoenaed. They have repeatedly stated that all tweets belong to the originator, not themselves. Along with refusing to “monitor content”, these are important precedents that Twitter is setting – all of which will result in more freedom for the majority of users on the Internet. Governments would like nothing more than to download responsibility for monitoring and policing the Internet to ISP providers and anyone else they can rope into doing it, so they don’t have to, including the likes of Twitter, YouTube, Google, and so on.

So yes. Twitter did suspend Adams’ account until they could investigate because there had been a complaint. And they re-instated him as soon as they did investigate. All according to their current policy. A policy which walks the tightrope between protecting privacy and allowing free speech. 

And that's why I love Twitter. So far, they are getting it a lot more right than anybody else.

Twitter Survey

This blog is woefully out of date - so here's the story behind the survey...
I'm currently pursuing a PhD in Media Studies at the University of Western Ontario. I will be presenting the paper (see below) at an Ethnographic Conference in Victoria, BC on June 1, 2012. (http://www.publicethnography.net/news/registration-public-ethnography-conference)

I'm looking for celebrities to share their experience with Twitter in the context of the Entertainment Industry.

Your identity will be kept strictly confidential unless you specify explicitly otherwise. The information/statistics gathered from the survey will be used for this paper only.

Here is the proposal for the paper:

Abstract:

Tweet Like You Mean It: Hollywood is Counting

          The Entertainment industry has long used ethnographic research, in the form of Nielsen ratings to gage audience preferences. In today’s economically challenged environment, studios and networks more than ever want concrete, qualitative data to insure that someone will be watching what they are producing. To this end, the industry is turning increasingly to social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, to gauge audience preferences. Studios have embraced the ability to count likes, hits, and followers to confirm audience approval and likely participation. The public knows when a Nielsen box is installed in their home, but they may not realize that they are being subjected to this kind of surveillance on social media. This paper will touch briefly on Hollywood’s embrace of social media as an ethnographic tool and the possible legal, ethical, and practical ramifications of this type of scrutiny.

The survey can be found here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QJCYLGY

Your participation is greatly appreciated!

Leverage - "The Carnival Job"

This is a review that I wrote for another site. They did not want to post it as is, so it is posted in what I consider to be a very different form elsewhere. Having written it, I also wanted the satisfaction of posting it... So... I hope you caught the episode because it was great!

REVIEW: Leverage: “The Carnival Job”

Rating: 4 stars

Airdate: July 31, 2011, 9/8c on TNT

          “The Carnival Job” has lots of twists and turns to keep everyone guessing and on their toes – both on the team and in the audience. Like last week, this episode begins with a legal issue – which may be the perfect hook for me! This week they get the legal issue more correct than they did last week. A company can claim anything you work on while at work belongs to them – in this case a computer chip -  if you are employed under a work-for-hire contract. But the writers on this episode, M. Scott Veach and Paul Guyot, quickly shift our expectations about how the issue is going to play out when Connell (Erik Jensen), this week’s mark, actually steals the computer chip at issue for himself.

          The episode puts us a bit off kilter right at the outset by having Hardison (Aldis Hodge) run the interview with the client with Nate (Timothy Hutton) instead of Sophie (Gina Bellman). It makes sense, of course, because Jeffrey Thorne (John San Nicolas) is trying to retrieve the computer chip he designed. The team prefers to go after bad guys, so as the story unfolds and it appears Connell has a hard luck story himself, Sophie points out “That’s not greed we’re looking at, that’s grief.” Eliot says “I thought we were supposed to hate the guys that we take down?” Nate clarifies it’s “Not a requirement. A Perk. Usually.” As so often happens, Nate, Sophie, and Eliot find something in Connell’s story to relate to.

          Eliot ends up guarding Molly (Lea Zawada), Connell’s daughter, as his cover. She turns out to be wise beyond her years, but also bitter and lonely because of her father’s withdrawal after her mother’s death. Christian Kane turns in a wonderful performance as Eliot is not quite sure what to make of her, but quickly forms a bond with her – no doubt seeing himself in her prickly exterior. For her part, Zawada does a terrific job hitting all the marks as hurt daughter, smart kid, and scared hostage.

          As with every episode, there is a lot of humor in the episode. Sophie and Nate as over the top house designers/architects are hysterical. I love it when they play off each other, seemingly goading each other into increasingly outrageous behaviour. The other running gag in the episode is Hardison’s new invention, the Parker 2000, which he made to help Parker (Beth Riesgraf) and even based it on her. Parker is convinced he made it to replace her.

          The plot gets a little predictable when Molly gets kidnapped – at the Carnival – and the team suddenly switches teams to help Connell get his daughter back from the Russians who were supposed to buy the computer chip. And so it becomes “The Carnival Job.” I pretty much pegged Daria (Anna Lieberman) the Eastern European nanny as being up to no good the second she suddenly appeared from seemingly nowhere.

          What really saves this episode from a predictable ending, however, is the masterful direction of Frank Oz. I’ve long been a fan of his directing, so I was excited from the moment I saw his directing credit. The scene that focuses on Eliot talking to Molly and trying to get an idea of where she is, is fantastic as Oz just keeps the camera circling Eliot at high speed. It reflects Molly’s terror and disorients us and reflects Eliot’s desperate attempts to be looking everywhere at once for her.

          I’m always happiest when we have a spectacular Eliot fight scene and the one in the hall of mirrors may be the best one yet. Again, hats off to Oz for this beautifully shot sequence – with mirror everywhere! And hats off to Kane for doing a good portion of the scene with his eyes closed! Maybe he was cheating, but they sure looked closed to me! It’s a beautifully choreographed and executed fight. I’m also pretty sure Kane doesn’t cheat the shot in which he bursts a balloon with his back to it by tossing a dart over his shoulder. But I would like to know how many takes it took!

We have a week’s hiatus and then Leverage returns with two episodes.

Tune in to Leverage Sundays at 9/8c on TNT.

Sunset Is Upon Me

So, I've neglected this blog something fierce over the last few months. My only excuse is that I've been trying to squeeze in and soak up as much LA as possible before I ride off into the sunset in a little less than two weeks.

So why now? I want to put down a few thoughts - over the next couple of weeks - about my time here and where the adventure goes from here.

Someone asked me recently "Why social media?" What's the interest for me there? And it's an interest that's as much about the law as it is about social media in general.

I think the answer for me, is that it's like the wild, wild west. It's still a relatively new frontier which makes it exciting and unpredictable. Anyone who knows me, knows I've always been a cowboy - right down to the love of horses and a good bottle of whiskey.

So, I like the excitement. I like that it lets everyone into the mix. It helps to level the playing field and it's kind of fun to watch the big guns struggle to keep up when they aren't that much bigger than the little guy. It's a way for everyone to have their say and get involved - to really make a difference.

And the law is exciting because of that lack of hard and fast boundaries. And that includes that nebulous boundary that is created by the invasiveness or pervasiveness of the Internet. It's a global phenomenon, so it requires global thinking in a new way.

Coming to terms with all that is one of the adventures that I can see keeping me busy and excited... and on the road, checking out those new frontiers...

Chicken and Egg Question

Another lightening post in the hopes that it can get me into the blogging habit...

So which came first - the chicken or the egg? Or is this just a case of a bad game of chicken? Who is the bad boy in the "war" between Charlie Sheen and Chuck Lorre?

And why is America so willing to forgive Charlie Sheen for his blatant disregard of the law?

I think it's that age-old fascination of watching a train wreck - or a public hanging. Sadly, we just love to watch others suffer - certainly helps to explain why torture-porn really is unlikely to fall out of public favour completely any time soon.

We don't care that Charlie pulled a knife on his ex-wife. That he's obviously a boozehound and possibly a drug addict. That he hangs out with prostitutes. That he spends money like it's merely sand pouring through his fingers...

And I have to admit that up until this week, I felt bad for him - that he was obviously so troubled that he had to self-medicate. And then he attacked Chuck Lorre. Not cool. But then I heard about Chuck Lorre's vanity cards this week. Both of which were pretty much attacks on Sheen. I think both public displays are simply indicative of that part of the iceberg that we, the public, are not privvy too.

The question now is whether Charlie Sheen has managed to at least commit career suicide even if he hasn't managed full-on suicide just yet. The question of whether any production could ever get insurance to cover the liability he represents had already occured to me. Now one has to wonder if the studio is faced to choose between Sheen and Lorre, who would they choose? The employee who is on the verge of imploding anyway but represents a huge financial check - for one show OR the employee who just keeps on delivering successful show after successful show.

Me. I'm hoping for a miracle. I'm hoping that something brings Charlie Sheen to his senses before he actually does kill himself. I can't imagine what that could be at this point. I can easily foresee a Two and a Half Men that found another man...

At the end of the day, I think that Sheen's bad behaviour can be explained by his problems - maybe not excused, but at least explained. Lorre, I'm sure, has been driven to distraction by Sheen's behaviour - always waiting for the day he couldn't show up to work - and having two other shows to worry about on top of that.

And then there's the adoring public who is happy to sit back and watch ALL the shows - both the scripted and unscripted ones.... For me? I'd like to see less egg slinging.....

Here are links to three pertinent vanity cards:
http://www.chucklorre.com/index-mnm.php?p=330
http://www.chucklorre.com/index-2hm.php?p=329
http://www.chucklorre.com/index-mnm.php?p=332

There is, of course, another issue here. One you've heard me talk about a lot.
Free speech - which is never without a price.
I'll be interested to see who ends up with more bacon at the end of this one....

Producing Credit

I know I have been woefully absent here, despite my best intentions. I promise to come back with more "meaty" things to say about LA, but this is a ninja post on an article just tweeted by The Hollywood Reporter.

Apparently, the Producer's Guild of America (I didn't even know about this one) wants to start a system whereby Producers on films would actually have to "produce" in order to be given the designation p.g.a after their name and to be considered for awards as producers of films - for Oscars for example.

As always, I'm seeing both sides to this. I think that it is ridiculous when you see a movie win a prestigious award and the stage is swarmed by 20 people. It's ridiculous when the credits roll and there are 20 people listed as producers. I think those people who are doing all the hard work producing, and suffering the many stresses that go with the job, deserve the credit.

On the other hand, if you are financing a movie and putting up huge amounts of case or if you are agreeing to star in a movie for less than you normally would, you deserve some compensation for that too. Particularly for those financing movies, it's a great little bonus to have your name up there on the big screen and have the possibility of hitting the stage at the Golden Globes, the Academy Awards, or any other awards show. Without that sort of incentive, will there be a negative impact on the already floundering stream of financing trickling into Hollywood?

It will be interesting to see what the impact of this is in the future.
Here's the link to the article for those interested...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/producers-guild-america-moves-certify-74662?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thr%2Fawards+%28The+Hollywood+Reporter+-+Awards%29&utm_content=Twitter

A Canadian in King Tinseltown's Court: A Plethora of Riches

Naturally, I'm supposed to be writing a paper right now, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to procrastinate a bit... and muse about being a Canadian in a foreign land. Which has its upsides, downsides, and things that make you go hmmmmmmm.

For the upside? This has been a wonderful adventure and experience in a LOT of ways. It may be that Southwestern is A-typical of American law schools, but I really like it. It has a more relaxed atmosphere in general, but I don't feel like I'm getting less expertise from my professors. I feel like we are more encouraged to ask questions and discuss issues more openly. And yes, there are still a few cliquey cool kids who try to make you feel like pond scum, but they are in the minority.

Is anyone surprised that there isn't a lot of emphasis put on Canadian law? And what mentions there are are often mis-conceptions? That said, I've noticed a few gaffs about American law that my Canadian professors made... so there. Interesting to see... Although, I do have to say that I'm not a big fan of mocking Canada -- Trademarks, I'm looking at you... And really? You don't immediately recognize the Boston Bruins logo? God, no wonder it took the Great One to get any interest in hockey in this town... *rolls eyes*

Major upside? The number of AMAZING seminars available through the Beverly Hills Bar Association. I'm barely home anymore! A seminar in Production counsel and one on the Latest Trends in Financing Motion Pictures (included with lunch at Lawrey's -- YES that Lawrey's - where the steak spice REALLY comes from) - coming up tomorrow, an all day program at USC. Next Tuesday - Internet and New Media seminar. More all through November. Also in November and offering 2 days of industry related seminars is the AFM - American Film Market - the American equivalent of Cannes -- and it happens to be in Santa Monica - just a few blocks from my apartment!!

I really feel like I am learning so much from every side. I'm still enjoying it, and really feel like I'm "getting it" - that I made the right choice. I know that I can be good at this. I'm passionate about it.

Downsides? I miss a lot of what day to day life in Canada is all about. (and you heard me say it - "about" is the one word that always gives me away - otherwise I "pass" pretty convincingly...)
I miss my easy access to things - like phone and internet... I miss our overt politeness. I'm not saying we are friendlier - I truly believe that's mostly a factor of how friendly you are regardless of where you are...

I miss people who can drive in the rain. OMG - you should have seen the freak out on the television weather about the thunder and lightening. And really? You could barely see 20 feet in front of your car for the rain??? Talk to me when you can't see the hood of your own car for the snow!!!
And PEOPLE!!! A little rain - I mean barely wetting the pavement - does NOT turn the road into a sheet of ice - it does NOT mean you have to slow down 30 miles an hour!!!

I'm definitely hitting the homesick stage about now, but I'm also even more excited about what I'm doing - so I guess it's still balancing itself out.

Last observation, the obsession with business cards. Everyone has them. Everyone gives them out. Have I been missing this in Canada? On the to do list to have some made up...

Only two of the super fun activities I've done this week? Ninja blogging and Pirate scuttling... God, how I love you entertainment law...