Big Brother Bargain: Can Governments Bypass Your Rights by Paying Up?

Recent article on third-party data, data privacy and Artificial Intelligence (AI) as featured in Digital Law Asia

Attorney Ken Sterling had this article published on topic and here is what he shared:

What if the attacks of September 11, 2001 or Oklahoma City could have been prevented? How about school shootings, the mosque shooting in New Zealand or the terrorist attack in Tehran? Should governments be allowed to use third-party data and AI in the interest of national security, or to prevent, detect and prosecute crime? Can AI be an ethical and legal solution to address privacy concerns and eliminate the need for a search warrant?

Governments claim that when they have access to user data, they can prevent or detect crime. Balancing the needs of public safety against individual privacy rights has become increasingly complex, especially with the ubiquity of smartphones, authorized data collection, and the amount of information people freely share on social media. The irony and bitter truth is that individual private data has been voluntarily given away by them in exchange for access to free applications, such as Google Search, Gmail, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok. It is widely known that technology and marketing companies trade this data so why should a higher standard be placed on governments? Governments are able to purchase data from third-party data providers, such as Fog Data Science, LLC.[1]

This article explores the ability of governments to purchase third-party data from brokers without a search warrant, provided that users have voluntarily consented to sharing the data. Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be implemented to address legal and ethical privacy concerns. AI can be a non-biased and anonymous methodology to process, sort, search, and analyze vast amounts of third-party data, solely for the purposes of identifying (“flagging”) data signals that indicate higher probabilities of criminal activity and threats to public safety.

For the full article, click here.

What’s happening in the FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried trial?

Many clients and the media have been reaching out to us for a summary and likely outcome on the Bankman-Fried trial.

Attorney Ken Sterling was interviewed by James Durston of BTW Media on topic and here is what he shared:

“The trial is not going well for Bankman-Fried. In all probability, he will be convicted and sentenced to between 10 and 120 years in prison. The evidence against him is convincing and so far has not been explained well by the defence counsel. It’s not a good sign when the closest allies and an ex-lover provide testimony against the defendant.

“Bankman-Fried taking the stand is a risky move by the defence, he will not be able to explain the allegations or evidence away. His testimony so far that he acted under the advice of attorneys is weak and when pressed for specifics, he hasn’t been able to provide a sufficient “get out of jail free card.” Even if he consulted attorneys about the issues at FTX and even if they provided certain advice about how to act, the level of fraud and deceit the prosecution has shown is devastating to Bankman-Fried.

“FTX had over one million customers and billions of dollars are lost. In comparison, Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 125 years, had 40,000 victims and $20 billion in cash losses. Elizabeth Holmes received seven years and although it’s arguable her investors were sophisticated and some even complicit in her wrongdoing, that doesn’t excuse the nearly 1.5 million people who inserted pins into their fingers on her behalf.

“In my opinion Bankman-Fried’s sentence will contemplate the blatant fraud and number of victims.”

For the full article, click here.

Should we be afraid of AI? Will AI ever replace true art?

Whether AI will replace artists is a complex question with no easy answer. The current thinking for the next few years is this: you will not be replaced by AI, you will be replaced by someone who knows how to use AI.

On the one hand, AI is already being used to create art in a variety of ways. For example, AI-powered tools can generate realistic images, music, and even writing. This could lead to a decrease in the demand for traditional artists, especially in commercial and industrial settings.

On the other hand, art is more than just creating something that is visually appealing or technically proficient. It is also about expressing oneself and connecting with others on an emotional level. AI is not yet capable of doing these things in the same way that human artists can.

Additionally, AI-generated art is often derivative of existing works. It is not clear whether AI will ever be able to create truly original art, or whether it will always be limited to producing variations on existing themes.

Overall, it is likely that AI will have a significant impact on the art world in the coming years. However, it is unlikely that AI will completely replace human artists. Instead, AI will likely be used as a tool by artists to create new and innovative forms of art.

Here are some specific ways that AI is already being used by artists:

• AI-powered tools can be used to generate new ideas and inspiration.

• AI can be used to automate repetitive tasks, such as creating backgrounds or editing images.

• AI can be used to create new and innovative forms of art, such as interactive installations or data-driven paintings.

In the future, AI is likely to play an even greater role in the art world. However, it is important to remember that AI is just a tool. It is up to human artists to decide how to use this tool to create art that is meaningful and inspiring.

Stephanie Dinkins - there is only one Tarantino, Gaga and Mozart

Check out Sherwin Rosen and Economics of Superstars - there are no substitutes.

And this is why BadBunny earned almost $400M iin one year -  in concert sales There are tens of thousands of singers - so damn close and wanna be him and never gonna get it. More on this rant here. 

Sure, there are some people who want mediocre, and that's what AI delivers now.

For analytics, trend finding, identifying cancer cells, sorting through data to find terrorists - sure AI will eat our lunch.

AI Art is not protectable by Copyright (for now)

A US federal judge has just ruled that AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted. The ruling, which was handed down on August 18, 2023, is a major setback for computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who had filed a copyright application for an image created by his AI system, DABUS.

In her ruling, Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia said that copyright law requires that a work be the product of "human authorship." She found that DABUS did not meet this requirement, as it was a machine learning algorithm that created the image without any human input.

The ruling is a significant development in the field of IP law, as it raises questions about the copyrightability of works created by AI. It is also likely to have a chilling effect on the development of AI-generated art, as creators may be less likely to invest time and resources in creating works that they cannot protect under copyright law.

The ruling is not the final word on the issue of AI-generated art copyrightability. Thaler has said that he plans to appeal the decision, and it is possible that the ruling could be overturned by a higher court. However, the ruling is a major setback for Thaler and other advocates for AI-generated art copyright protection.

The ruling also raises important questions about the future of IP law in the age of AI. As AI becomes increasingly sophisticated, it is likely that machines will be able to create works that are indistinguishable from those created by humans. This raises the question of whether copyright law should be amended to protect works created by AI.

The ruling in Thaler v. Register of Copyrights is a major development in the field of IP law, and it is likely to have a significant impact on the future of AI-generated art. It is a reminder that copyright law is a complex and evolving area, and that it must be adapted to the changing technological landscape.

What’s Going on with the WGA Strike? When will it end?

Many clients (artists, brands and studios) are asking what’s happening wtih the The Writers Guild of America (WGA) strike. It’s a very complex set of issues and I was on the research team that studied the strike back in 2007 (which lasted for 100 days). Our research study and findings can be viewed here in this Research Journal PDF that is being made available, compliments of Carnegie Mellon University. In our prior study of the WGA strike, “Turning Points and Negotiation: The Case of the 2007–2008 Writers’ Strike,” focused on the turning points and conflict framing in the 2007–2008 conflict between the Writers Guild of America and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). Using media coverage and press releases, we examined turning points across critical events, communicative framing, and the role of a simultaneous corporate campaign in shaping the outcome of this negotiation. Overall, we were able to demonstrate that the Writers Guild of America’s “soft corporate campaign” played an important role in solidifying the labor union and garnering public support for the strike

For the current strike, which began on May 1, 2023, it’s become a grueling test for writers, studios and all other stakeholders. The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) has joined in solidarity and even game show contestants are refusing to continue, citing their support for the writers. Prior to May 1, the AMPTP and WGA had been in negotiations, which of course, were not successful. The strike is the first major labor action by the WGA since the 2007-2008 strike.

The world of entertainment and screenwriting has become exponentially more complex with the advent of streaming platforms and other media channels that weren’t even contemplated just a decade ago. Based on the rapid evolution of entertainment and the high stakes involved, the WGA is seeking a number of changes to its contract with the AMPTP, including:

• Increased residuals: The WGA wants to increase the amount of money that writers receive when their work is streamed or downloaded.

• New rules for new media: The WGA wants new rules that will ensure that writers are fairly compensated for their work in new media, such as streaming services and video games.

• Protections for writers against technology: The WGA wants protections for writers against the use of technology that could automate their jobs or reduce their pay.

The AMPTP has offered some concessions to the WGA, but the two sides are still far apart on many issues. The strike has already had a significant impact on the entertainment industry, with many television shows and movies being delayed or canceled.

The WGA strike is a complex issue with a number of legal implications. For example, the strike raises questions about the scope of the WGA's bargaining authority and the legality of the AMPTP's use of replacement writers. The outcome of the strike could have a significant impact on the future of the entertainment industry and the rights of writers.

Why did PGA and LIV Golf merge?

Over the last year, there was a lot of controversy over LIV Golf and that they were winning over PGA players based on huge sums of money and other benefits. Many people ask “Why did they merge.” PGA most likely did it because they saw the writing on the wall and many experts believe LIV will get a brand boost plus decades of credibility and goodwill that PGA has built over the years. Other reasons that the PGA Tour and LIV Golf merged could include:

• To compete with the Saudi-backed golf league. LIV Golf has been offering large signing bonuses and prize money to lure top golfers away from the PGA Tour. The merger will allow the PGA Tour to offer similar financial incentives to its players and stay competitive.

• To expand the global reach of golf. The merger will create a new global golf tour with events in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. This will help to grow the game of golf and attract new fans.

• To increase revenue. The merger is expected to generate more revenue for the PGA Tour. This revenue can be used to improve the tour's product, such as by increasing prize money and investing in new technology.

The merger is a major development in the world of golf. It will be interesting to see how the new tour performs in the years to come. Here are some additional details about the proposed merger:

• The PGA Tour will own 40% of the new tour, while LIV Golf will own 60%.

• The new tour will have 14 events, including the four major championships.

• The prize money for the new tour will be significantly higher than the prize money on the PGA Tour.

• The new tour will be open to all golfers, regardless of their nationality or affiliation.

• The PGA Tour and the DP World Tour will retain their own brands and identities.

The merger is seen as a major victory for LIV Golf, which has been trying to break into the golf establishment. The Saudi-backed golf league has been offering large signing bonuses and prize money to lure top golfers away from the PGA Tour. The merger will give LIV Golf a major boost and allow it to compete with the PGA Tour on a more level playing field.

The merger is also a sign of the growing power of the DP World Tour. The European tour has been struggling to compete with the PGA Tour in recent years, but the merger will give it a major boost. The DP World Tour will now have a seat at the table when it comes to making decisions about the future of golf.

The merger is a major development in the world of golf. It will be interesting to see how the new tour performs in the years to come.

Why did SCOTUS dismiss the Twitter ISIS case?

Supreme Court Rules Twitter Not Liable for ISIS Content

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that Twitter is not liable for ISIS content that was posted on its platform. The decision was a major victory for Twitter and other social media companies, which have been facing increasing legal pressure over the content that is posted on their sites.

The case, Al-Islah Media Foundation v. Twitter, was brought by a group of plaintiffs who were injured in a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, in 2015. The plaintiffs alleged that Twitter was liable for the attack because it had allowed ISIS to post propaganda videos on its platform.

Twitter argued that it was protected from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides immunity for internet platforms for content that is posted by third parties. The Supreme Court agreed with Twitter, ruling that Section 230 protects internet platforms from liability for content that is posted on their sites, even if that content is harmful.

The decision is a major victory for Twitter and other social media companies. It provides them with a significant amount of legal protection for the content that is posted on their platforms. The decision is also a setback for plaintiffs who are trying to hold social media companies liable for the content that is posted on their sites.

The decision is likely to have a significant impact on the future of social media. It will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to hold social media companies liable for the content that is posted on their sites. This could lead to a decrease in the amount of moderation that social media companies do, which could in turn lead to an increase in the amount of harmful content that is posted on their platforms.

Why was Meta fined $1.3 Billion for GDPR Privacy Breaches in the EU?

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, was fined $1.3 billion by the European Union's data protection regulator, the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC), for violating the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The fine is the largest ever imposed under the GDPR. The DPC found that Meta had violated the GDPR by transferring the personal data of European users of WhatsApp to the United States without adequate safeguards in place to protect their privacy. The DPC found that Meta had failed to obtain the necessary legal basis for transferring the data, and that it had not provided users with sufficient information about how their data was being processed.

Meta has said that it will appeal the fine. The company has said that it believes that the fine is "disproportionate" and that it has "invested heavily" in protecting the privacy of its users.

The GDPR is a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy for all individuals within the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). The GDPR aims primarily to give control back to citizens and residents over their personal data and to simplify the regulatory environment for international business by unifying the regulation within the EU. It does this by replacing the data protection directive (Directive 95/46/EC) of 1995. The regulation has been in effect since May 25, 2018.

The GDPR is one of the strictest data privacy laws in the world. It gives individuals the right to access their personal data, to have it erased, and to object to its processing. It also requires companies to be transparent about how they collect and use personal data.

The GDPR has been praised by privacy advocates for its strong protections for individuals. However, it has also been criticized by businesses for its complexity and for the high cost of compliance.

The $1.3 billion fine against Meta is a significant development in the enforcement of the GDPR. It sends a clear message to businesses that they will be held accountable for their data protection practices. It is also likely to lead to increased scrutiny of other businesses by data protection authorities.

The GDPR is a complex regulation, and it is important for businesses to understand their obligations under the law. If you are a business that collects or uses personal data, you should seek advice from a data protection lawyer to ensure that you are in compliance with the GDPR.The European Union's (EU) data protection watchdog, the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC), fined Meta €13 billion (US$13.6 billion) for violating the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The fine is the largest ever imposed under the GDPR.

What is Section 230 and how come Internet Platforms aren’t liable?

Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users.

The law was created to protect internet platforms from being held responsible for the content that users post on their sites. This is important because it allows platforms to moderate content without fear of legal repercussions. Without Section 230, platforms would be forced to either allow all content, even harmful or illegal content, or moderate content at their own risk.

Section 230 has been credited with helping to allow rapid proliferation and innovation with the modern Internet and social media platforms. It has allowed platforms to grow and thrive by giving them the freedom to moderate content without fear of legal repercussions. However, Section 230 has also been criticized for allowing platforms to spread harmful or illegal content.

In recent years, there have been calls to reform or repeal Section 230. However, it is unclear whether these calls will be successful. Section 230 is a complex law with a long history, and it is unlikely to be changed without a significant amount of debate.

There is a significant case currently with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) - Gonzales v. Google. The case centers on whether or not Google can be held liable for the content of videos that are recommended to users on YouTube.

The case was brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. The family alleges that YouTube (owned by Alphabet/Google) aided and abetted the attacks by recommending videos from ISIS to users on YouTube.

Google argues that it is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes websites from liability for content that is posted by third parties. Google also argues that it has a First Amendment right to recommend content to users, even if that content is controversial or harmful.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case in the coming months. The ruling could have a significant impact on the future of the internet, as it will clarify the scope of Section 230 and the liability of websites for the content that is posted on their sites.

Ed Sheeran and Marvin Gaye - What Happened?

In 2017, the heirs of Marvin Gaye sued Ed Sheeran, claiming that his hit song "Thinking Out Loud" copied Gaye's 1973 song "Let's Get It On." The case went to trial in 2023, and after two weeks of testimony, a jury found in favor of Sheeran.

In a heavily contested and watched case, the jury found that Sheeran did not copy Gaye's song, and that the similarities between the two songs were the result of common musical elements and therefore, not deemed as copyright infringement. The verdict was a victory for Sheeran and for the music industry, as it affirmed that artists can be inspired by other artists without fear of being sued for copyright infringement.

The case was closely watched by the music industry, as it had the potential to set a precedent for future copyright infringement cases. The verdict is a relief to artists, who often worry about being sued for copyright infringement even when they are not copying other artists' work. It also sends a message to the music industry that it is important to protect the rights of artists, and that copyright infringement lawsuits should only be brought in cases where there is clear evidence of copying.

Intellectual Property (IP) Law and Media

Intellectual property law for media is a body of law that protects the creative works and ideas that are used in the media industry. This includes copyright, trademark, and patent law.

• Copyright law protects original works of authorship, such as books, movies, music, and software.

• Trademark law protects words, phrases, and symbols that are used to identify the source of goods or services.

• Patent law protects inventions, such as new products or processes.

Intellectual property law is important for the media industry because it helps to protect the investments that are made in creating creative works. Without intellectual property law, it would be much easier for others to copy and profit from these works, which would discourage people from creating new works in the first place.

Intellectual property law is also important for consumers, because it helps to ensure that they have access to high-quality, original content. Without intellectual property law, it would be much easier for others to copy and distribute low-quality, pirated content, which would harm consumers and the media industry alike.

Here are some examples of how intellectual property law is used in the media industry:

• Film studio might register a copyright for its movie script.

• Record label might register a trademark for its band's name.

• Tech company might patent its new software.

By registering their intellectual property, these businesses can take legal action against anyone who infringes on their rights. This helps to protect their investments and ensure that they can continue to create new and innovative works.

Intellectual property law is a complex and ever-evolving field. If you are involved in the media industry, it is important to consult with an attorney to understand your rights and obligations under the law.

Dominion vs. Fox News Lawsuit - What Happened?

Dominion Voting Systems, a voting machine company, sued Fox News in March 2021 for defamation, alleging that the network had spread false and defamatory claims about the company's role in the 2020 election. The lawsuit sought $1.6 billion in damages.

The lawsuit stemmed from a series of on-air appearances by Fox News hosts and guests who allegedly made false claims about Dominion's voting machines, including that the machines were rigged to “steal” the election for Joe Biden. Dominion argued that these claims were knowingly false and had damaged the company's reputation and business.

Fox News denied the allegations and fought the lawsuit. In December 2021, a Delaware judge ruled that Dominion had met its burden of proving that the claims made by Fox News were false. However, the judge also ruled that Fox News could still argue that its statements were protected by the First Amendment.

The case was set to go to trial in April 2023, and just days before the trial was scheduled to begin, Fox News and Dominion reached a settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, Fox News agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million.

The settlement was a major victory for Dominion, which had been fighting to clear its name and protect its business. The settlement also sent a message to other media outlets that they could be held accountable for spreading false and defamatory information.

The elements the plaintiff must prove to prevail in a lawsuit for defamation are:

• A false statement of fact about the plaintiff.

• The statement was published to a third party.

• The statement caused the plaintiff to suffer harm, such as damage to their reputation or financial loss.

In some cases, the plaintiff may not need to prove that they suffered harm if the statement falls into a category of defamation per se, such as a statement that the plaintiff committed a serious crime or has a loathsome disease. If the plaintiff can prove all of these elements, they may be able to recover damages from the defendant. The amount of damages will depend on the severity of the harm caused by the statement. It is important to note that defamation is a complex area of law, and the specific requirements for proving defamation may vary from state to state. If you believe that you have been defamed, it is important to speak with an attorney to discuss your legal options.

Entertainment Law

What Does an Entertainment Lawyer Do?

An attorney who focuses on entertainment law usually specializes in the legal issues that arise in the entertainment industry. This can include a wide range of topics, such as:

• Dealmaking: Entertainment lawyers who are dealmakers can be very helpful to their clients on the creative talent side or the production company side - to advise on how best to structure deals that work for all the parties.

• Contract law: Entertainment lawyers help their clients negotiate and draft contracts, such as talent contracts, distribution agreements, and production agreements. They also advise their clients on the terms of these contracts and help them to avoid potential legal problems.

• Intellectual property: Entertainment lawyers help their clients protect intellectual property rights, such as copyrights, and trademarks in the entertainment industry. This can include negotiating contracts, filing for copyright and trademark registration, and representing clients in intellectual property litigation.

• Litigation and ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution): Entertainment lawyers represent their clients in a variety of legal disputes, such as copyright infringement lawsuits, trademark infringement lawsuits, and breach of contract lawsuits. They also help clients resolve disputes through alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation and arbitration.

Why companies need reputation lawyers and crisis management.

We’re asked a lot, why does our company need a reputation lawyer or crisis management partner? The first part of the answer is you don’t know — until you need to know — and then it’s probably late in the game. In today's digital age, a company's reputation is more important than ever before. A single negative news story or social media post can have a devastating impact on a company's bottom line. That's why it's so important for companies to have a plan in place before negative press occurs.

A reputation lawyer is a lawyer who focuses on protecting and rebuilding a company's reputation. They can help companies respond to crises, manage negative publicity, and develop strategies to improve their reputation.

There are many reasons why companies need a reputation lawyer. Here are just a few:

• Protect their reputation from negative publicity. In today's world, it's easy for a company's reputation to be damaged by negative publicity. A reputation lawyer can help companies respond to negative publicity quickly and effectively, minimizing the damage to their reputation.

• Manage crises. No company is immune to crises. When a crisis does happen, a reputation lawyer can help companies manage the crisis and protect their reputation.

• Develop strategies to improve their reputation. A reputation lawyer can help companies develop strategies to improve their reputation. This could include things like launching a public relations campaign, creating a social media presence, or giving back to the community.

• Research shows that 63% of company value is driven by reputation.

If you're a company that cares about its reputation, then you may want to engage with a reputation lawyer. A reputation lawyer can help you protect your reputation from negative publicity, manage crises, and develop strategies to improve your reputation.

Here are some additional benefits of engaging with a reputation lawyer:

• Reputation lawyers have a deep understanding of the law and how it applies to reputation management. They can help you navigate the legal landscape and protect your company from potential lawsuits.

• Reputation lawyers have a network of contacts in the media, government, and other key industries. They can use these contacts to get your story out there and build positive relationships with key stakeholders.

• Reputation lawyers have experience working with companies in a variety of industries. They can bring this experience to bear to help you develop a customized reputation management plan that meets your specific needs.

A reputation lawyer can help you navigate the complex world of reputation management and protect your company from further harm. On a good day, you’re ahead of the crisis and work with a reputation attorney to enhance your brand, plus protect it from damage in the future.

Defamation Law

Defamation law is a body of law that protects individuals and organizations from false and defamatory statements that are made in the media and other places. Defamation can take many forms, including libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements).

To be considered defamatory, a statement must meet the following criteria (or in the legal profession, these are referred to as elements):

• It must be false.

• It must be about a person or organization.

• It must be published to a third party.

• It must cause harm to the person's or organization's reputation.

If a statement meets all of these criteria, the person or organization that was defamed can sue the person or organization that made the statement for damages.

There are a number of defenses that can be used to avoid liability for defamation. One common defense is that the statement was true. Another defense is that the statement was made with a qualified privilege, such as when the statement was made in the course of a judicial proceeding or when the statement was made to a government official.

Defamation law for media is a complex and ever-evolving field. If you are involved in the media, it is important to consult with an attorney to understand your rights and obligations under the law.

Here are some additional things to keep in mind about defamation law for media:

• The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it does not protect false and defamatory statements.

• The level of proof required to establish defamation varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

• The damages that can be awarded in a defamation lawsuit can be significant.

• Defamation law is constantly evolving, so it is important to stay up-to-date on the latest developments.

What is Cyber Law?

Cyber law is a broad term that encompasses several laws that apply to the use of computers and the internet. It covers a wide range of topics, including:

• Copyright and trademark law

• Cybercrime

• Data protection

• Electronic commerce

• Defamation Law

• Freedom of speech Law and First Amendment Law

• Privacy Law

• Security

Cyber law is a relatively new field, and it is constantly evolving as technology changes. As a result, it can be difficult to keep up with the latest developments. It is important to be aware of the basics of cyber law so that you can protect yourself and your business from legal problems. If you are involved in any aspect of the internet and believe you are at risk or being taken advantage of, it is important to consult with a cyber-law attorney to understand your rights and obligations under cyber law.

Depp v. Heard and What’s DARVO?

Many clients ask about what happened with the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial. It was arguably one of the more published and followed court cases in years, perhaps since the OJ Simpson trials. The stakes of the Dominion v. Fox trial were of course much higher in terms of the amounts of money. The question then becomes, how much money is one’s reputation worth? In the case of Depp, he claimed to have lost substantial movie deals and endorsements based on the defamatory article that ran in the Washington Post.

In the Depp v. Heard case, both parties made allegations of defamation and then cited abuse against by the other as a defense strategy. The trial was all over social media, with many more negative comments about one of the parties (no names mentioned here, you can judge for yourself).

One of the key strategies that legal experts believe was used Depp and Heard’s legal teams in the trial, was DARVO. DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. It is documented as a common manipulation tactic that can be used by abusers to deflect blame and avoid accountability for their actions - and instead deflect the blame to the other party or parties. It is also a strategy that defense attorneys can use when their clients are accused of abuse.

The Deny phase of DARVO involves the abuser denying that any abuse took place. They may also minimize the severity of the abuse or make excuses for their behavior.

The Attack phase of DARVO involves the abuser attacking the victim. They may do this by blaming the victim for the abuse, calling them names, or making threats.

The Reverse Victim and Offender phase of DARVO involves the abuser trying to make themselves out to be the victim. They may do this by claiming that they are the ones who were abused, or by claiming that the victim is the one who is abusive.

DARVO can be an effective manipulation tactic because it can be very confusing for the victim. The victim may start to doubt their own memories and perceptions, and they may start to feel like they are the one who is at fault. Of course, it can also be confusing for a jury and in some cases, that appears to be part of why the verdicts came back in Depp v. Heard, the way they did.

Refer to our other posts on defamation law to learn more about the principle elements of those types of cases.

And - if you are in an abusive relationship, it is important to be aware of the DARVO tactic. If your abuser is using DARVO, it is important to remember that you are not to blame for the abuse. You are the victim, and you deserve to be safe. If you are experiencing abuse, it is important to get help. You can call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) or visit their website at https://www.thehotline.org/.

What’s the Difference Between First Party Data and Second Party Data?

Zero-party data and first-party data are two types of data that businesses can collect about their customers. They are both valuable, and each have different strengths and weaknesses.

Zero-party data is data that customers intentionally and proactively share with the web platform. This can include things like purchase intentions, personal context, and how they want the product, service or brand to recognize them. Zero-party data is the most valuable type of data because it is the most accurate and reliable. It is also the most privacy-friendly because customers are giving it to you willingly.

First-party data is data that businesses collect about their customers through their own channels, such as their website, app, or email list. This can include things like purchase history, website behavior, and email engagement. First-party data is less valuable than zero-party data, but it is still valuable because it can be used to create personalized experiences for customers.

The best way to collect zero-party data is to ask for information in exchange for something of value to the customer. This could be through a survey, customized product recommendations, or a free resource such as an eBook.

The best way to collect first-party data is to use tools like website analytics, email marketing, and CRM software.

Both zero-party data and first-party data are important for businesses. Zero-party data is the most valuable, but first-party data is more abundant. By collecting both types of data, businesses can create a more complete picture of their customers and deliver more personalized experiences.

Here is a table that summarizes the key differences between zero-party data and first-party data:

CharacteristicZero-party dataFirst-party dataOriginCustomerBusinessCollection methodVoluntaryImplicitAccuracyHighMediumPrivacyFriendlyLess friendlyValueHighMediumUse casesPersonalization, targeting, segmentationPersonalization, targeting, segmentation, customer insights

Here are some examples of zero-party data:

• Customer surveys

• Product reviews

• Contact information

• Purchase intentions

• Personal preferences

• Feedback

Here are some examples of first-party data:

• Website traffic data

• Email open rates

• Click-through rates

• Purchase history

• Social media engagement

• Customer support interactions

Privacy Law

Privacy law attorneys focus in the areas of data protection, information security, and cybersecurity. Privacy law attorneys represent clients in a variety of legal matters, including:

• Data breaches: Privacy law attorneys help clients respond to data breaches, including notifying affected individuals, investigating the cause of the breach, and mitigating the damage.

• Privacy policies: Privacy law attorneys help clients draft and update privacy policies, as well as comply with applicable privacy laws.

• Data security: Privacy law attorneys help clients implement and maintain effective data security measures, such as firewalls, encryption, and access controls.

• Cybersecurity: Privacy law attorneys help clients protect their networks and systems from cyberattacks, such as phishing, malware, and ransomware.

Privacy law attorneys work in a variety of settings, including law firms, corporations, and government agencies. They may also work as solo practitioners.Here are some of the specific tasks that a privacy law attorney may perform:

• Advise clients on privacy laws and regulations.

• Draft and review privacy policies and other privacy-related documents.

• Conduct privacy audits and assessments.

• Respond to data breaches and other privacy incidents.

• Negotiate privacy-related contracts.

Privacy law is a complex and rapidly evolving field, especially in California. There is a major debate with individual data privacy rights, balanced against the need of the government to have access to your data for the purposes of national security and keeping communities safe.

How do people get famous (aka the economics of stardom)?

People ask me all the time, “how do I get famous?” or “how did they get so famous?” or “what have they got, that I don’t got?”

Professor Andrew Leonard from USC Annenberg explains it best when he summarizes the research of Sherwin Rosen and his theory on, “The Economics of Superstars.” Andrew unpacks the theory and research and how in the world of stardom, wealth tends to centralize with a few superstars for two main reasons:

• Imperfect substitutes: Excellent quality is not replaced by lots of good quality options. Consumers tend to make the “safe bet” and to “go with the crowd.” The top stars don’t need to be a 10 out of 10, they can be an 8 or 9 out of 10 and with all the other front runners at being a 6 or 7 - who’s going to watch or listen to them? Look at the field of music or acting and when we look at the top stars and the people struggling to make it, there’s a fairly small margin of difference in terms of skill.

• Zero marginal cost: With today’s creator economy, influencers growing their reach is done at zero marginal cost. The cost of your art being seen by one viewer is the same as one million viewers. This goes for all forms of art that are available in digital form.

Rosen’s theory on The Economics of Superstars, explains why a small number of people in certain fields, such as sports, entertainment, and business, earn a disproportionately large share of the total income in those fields. The theory was first proposed by Sherwin Rosen in his 1981 paper "The Economics of Superstars."

Rosen argued that there are two main reasons why superstars earn so much more than other people in their field. First, the demand for superstars is highly inelastic. This means that even if the price of a superstar's product or service goes up, people are still willing to pay for it. This is because superstars are unique and cannot be easily replaced. For example, there is only one Michael Jordan or one Beyoncé.

Second, the cost of producing a superstar's product or service is relatively low. This is because superstars can reach a large audience through mass media, such as television, radio, and the internet. For example, a superstar athlete can play in front of millions of people in a single game.

The combination of inelastic demand and low production costs means that superstars can earn a lot of money. In fact, Rosen argued that the income of superstars can be "supernormal" in the sense that it exceeds the amount that would be necessary to attract them into the field.

The economics of superstars has been used to explain the high salaries of athletes, entertainers, and business executives. It has also been used to explain the growing gap between the rich and the poor. See our pending article on why A.I. will not replace true art (coming in October 2023).