Archives

The High Seas of Television: How Should Streaming Television Be Regulated?

(Source) Last year more Americans subscribed to streaming services (69%) than traditional cable or satellite TV (65%). These internet-based television services, such as Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime, are referred to as over the top (OTT) services. OTT services are film and TV content streamed over an internet connection, in contrast to traditional TV which is provided via a cable or satellite connection. Streaming services are an increasingly large part of Americans’ lives. 43% of consumers subscribe to both traditional pay-TV and at least one video streaming service. Younger consumers are especially drawn to OTT providers with 88% of those aged 22 to 35 subscribing to streaming services while just 51% subscribe to traditional broadcast TV. This increasing proliferation of streaming television is having a wide-ranging impact. It is significant to content producers, consumers, and even the financial industry.  It also brings about many regulatory questions. One of the biggest questions is whether or not to define OTT services as multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs). MVPDs are essentially TV providers who provide multiple channels, such as your classic cable or satellite provider. Some people in the industry have begun referring to OTT providers that provide consumers with not just standard [read more]

A “Growing” Industry?: Banking Regulation’s Impact on the Legal Cannabis Industry’s Growth

(Source) With the increase in the number of states legalizing cannabis for recreational or medical purposes, issues come to light surrounding the implications of the relationship between the legal cannabis industry and banks. Due to marijuana’s current illegal status under federal law, the legal cannabis industry suffers in several ways from its lack of banking access. As of 2019, in the United States, marijuana is legal in 33 states and Washington, D.C., for medical use, but only twelve of those jurisdictions allow both medicinal use and recreational use of marijuana. While most states have legalized marijuana in some form, under 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1), marijuana is a substance with a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted use for medical treatment, and a lack of accepted safety under medical supervision (Schedule I substance), and remains illegal under federal law. Marijuana’s current legality status under federal law makes banks very reluctant to work with the cannabis industry. If banks provide services to the cannabis industry, those banks risk criminal prosecution for not only money laundering, but also aiding and abetting in a federal crime. If desired, banks could file a suspicious activity report for every transaction dealt with by the cannabis [read more]

Facial Recognition Software, Race, Gender Bias, and Policing

(Source)   Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) identifies a person’s face by navigating through computer programs that access thousands of cameras worldwide to identify a suspect, criminal or fugitive. FRT could even accurately identify a person’s from a blurry captured image or instantaneously identify the subject among a crowd. This is the fantasy portrayed in Hollywood movies. In reality, facial recognition software is inaccurate, bias, and under-regulated. FRT creates a facial template of a person’s facial image and compares the template to millions of photographs stored in databases—driver’s license, mugshots, government records, or social media accounts. While this technology aims to accelerate law enforcement investigative work and more accurately identify crime suspects, it has been criticized for its bias against African-American Women.  The arm of the United States government responsible for establishing standards for technology—National Institute For Standards and Technology (NIST)—conducted a test in July of 2019 that showed FRT’s bias against African-American women. NIST tested Idemia’s algorithms—an Australian company that provides facial recognition software to police in United States—for accuracy. The software mismatched white women’s faces once in 10,000, but it mismatched black women’s faces once in 1000 instances. This disparity is a result of the failure of current facial [read more]

A Shift in the Discussion Regarding the Payment of Student Athletes

(Source) A major issue that has been debated is whether student athletes should be allowed to profit off the use of their names, images, and likenesses. There are several reasons given in support for both sides. Some rationales supporting the payment of student athletes include college athletes expenditure of time towards their sport—an average of 43.3 hours per week, college athletes struggle to make ends meet, paying students would only make the sport more competitive, the money earned from athletics is not automatically reinvested in education and research, the college sports apparel market capitalizes specifically on these players, payment would help athletes leave school with a degree and little debt, and the NCAA is an $11 billion industry which should be able to afford paying people on all levels, including the players..   Common arguments against the payment of student athletes encompass a lack of college athletic programs to  afford to pay athletes, elite college athletes receive athletic scholarships which serves as a form of compensation, there is no fair way to pay college athletes, students are not professionals, paying student athletes will cause cuts elsewhere, and paying college athletes will ruin college sports.   One of the major arguments [read more]

The Twenty-Eighth Amendment?: The Equal Rights Amendment’s Popular Resurgence

(Source)   The only way to tell photographs of Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) advocates from the 1970s apart from the advocates of the 2010s is by the quality of the photo. Recently, women have taken to the streets, the legislatures, and the courts, coming together to change the Constitution. Their advocacy has paid off. This year, the Virginia legislature became the thirty-eighth state of the thirty-eight states necessary to ratify the ERA. Unfortunately, the ratification may be almost forty years too late. The 1982 deadline for state ratification has long passed. Why has the amendment recently resurged in popularity, and what will happen next? The History of the ERA The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was first introduced in 1923 in Seneca Falls, New York, the birthplace of the women’s suffrage movement. There, celebrating the seventy-fifth anniversary of the 1848 Women’s Rights Convention, Alice Paul introduced the original ERA. The original amendment stated, “Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place in its jurisdiction.” The amendment was introduced to Congress the year it was first proposed, but due to resistance from the labor movement, which called for protective laws treating women differently from men, the [read more]

Supporting the Arts is TAXing: The Difficulty of Establishing Effective Arts Funding Schemes in Creative Cities

(Source) In the United States, the arts and culture industries are massive economic engines. In fact, the arts contribute $763.6 billion to the U.S. economy annually, which is more than both the agricultural and transportation industries. Furthermore, the arts drive job growth and promote cultural tourism in cities across the U.S. This data suggests that, across the nation, the arts contribute value to our communities and “play a meaningful role in our daily lives, including through the jobs we have, the products we purchase, and the experiences we share.” Because the arts are so vital to some state economies, it is important to consider the policies and procedures regarding the funding of this sector. Funding for the arts is a complicated matter due to the breadth of subjects, organizations, and fundraising schemes that fall under the umbrella of the “arts.” From the complex Broadway musical industry with many moving parts to an individual artisan jewelry-making business to nonprofit arts education programs, organizations and artists may face very different operating problems and therefore require different funding schemes. As one commentator noted in an article for Americans for the Arts, “Local Arts Agencies are like snowflakes; no two are exactly alike. Each [read more]

Marketing Meat Alternatives: Does Nomenclature Matter?

(Source) In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved the Impossible Burger, one of the first plant-based meat alternatives of its kind. The Impossible Burger gained nation wide attention for its eerie resemblance to real meat – specifically it’s blood-like color and taste. While the Impossible Burger initially faced some backlash, it opened the door for meat alternatives to become a new normal. After the Impossible Burger’s sales proved successful, a rival brand, Beyond Meat, launched nationwide sales of their plant-based products in June of 2019. Beyond Meat offered plant-based ground beef, burger patties, and sausage. Soon thereafter fast-food chains joined the trend. In August of 2019 Burger King released The Impossible Whopper; in September of 2019 McDonald’s launched their own version of a meatless burger; and in October of 2019 Dunkin Donuts created a Beyond Sausage Sandwich. Within the last year, plant-based meat alternatives have become a mainstream, household product. Sales of these products amounted to $1.5 billion last year, a twenty-two percent increase from the year before. Growing concern about the environmental impact of meat production is largely responsible for the growth in popularity of meat alternative products within the last year. Researchers have stressed the [read more]

What Gives?—A Look at Why Charitable Giving Among Individuals Is Declining

(Source)   By many metrics, the quality of American life has much improved over the last decade. U.S. unemployment has reached roughly its lowest point in 50 years and wage growth for American workers reached a 10-year high in 2019. Additionally, notwithstanding the notable exception of recent market recoil due to escalating fears surrounding COVID-19, the start of 2020 brought with it all-time-highs for the DOW and the S&P 500, both strong indicators of robust stock market health. Moreover, disposable personal income reached its highest point in November of 2019—thus being the likely catalyst of an all-time high for U.S. consumer spending. According to some economic metrics, the average American citizen is generally better off now than ever before—at least financially. Yet, individual charitable contributions are down across the board despite unprecedented economic growth. What gives? According to Giving USA, a nonprofit foundation which seeks to advance public understanding of philanthropy, individual giving declined 1.1% in 2018 and 3.4% when adjusted for inflation. Total charitable giving in 2018 declined 1.7% when adjusted for inflation when compared with 2017. Furthermore, giving by individuals made up 70% of total giving in the U.S. in the year 2017 and made up only 68% [read more]

Strictly Speaking: The Argument for Holding States Strictly Liable in Wrongful Conviction Suits

(Source)   The wrongfully convicted are an oft overlooked demographic of the American population because society views wrongful convictions as rarely occurring. But in fact, the numbers are quite staggering. The number of people exonerated in the last 30 years due to actual innocence? 2,500. The combined number of years unnecessarily spent in prison? 22,315. But the percentage of exonerees who ever receive compensation for wrongful imprisonment? Only 39%. Despite the American legal system resting on the fundamental principle of holding people liable for injuries inflicted onto others, fifteen jurisdictions within the United States lack statutory protections that allow the wrongfully convicted to seek civil remedies for the years lost due to their illegitimate imprisonment caused at the hands of the state. However, even in states that do statutorily provide compensation to the wrongfully convicted, it has become common practice for prosecutors to effectively coerce inmates into waiving their right to sue for damages in exchange for a sooner release date. For instance, in 2016, Jimmy Dennis, a man who spent twenty-five years on death row for a crime he did not commit, was offered an immediate release from prison so long as he pled no contest to third-degree murder. [read more]

Ignoring Policy, History, and Humanity: ICE Continues to Deport Veterans

(Source) In November 2019, a group of non-citizen veterans of the United States Military (military) celebrated Veterans Day in Mexico. Many of these individuals enlisted in the military after President George W. Bush signed an executive order fast-tracking citizenship for individuals willing to serve. However, they never officially became citizens and continue to remain vulnerable to deportation. Now, they remain in exile within the Deported Veterans Support House—a safe haven for non-citizen veterans who have been deported. It is common for non-citizens to join the military with the expectation of receiving naturalization. In fact, since the Revolutionary War, legal permanent residents are eligible to enlist, with roughly 35,000 non-citizens serving active duty. Since October 2001, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has naturalized 129,587 members of the military. If an individual meets all of the requirements of either section 328 (One Year of Military Service During Peacetime) or section 329 (Military Service During Hostilities) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), they are eligible for naturalization. By naturalizing through military service, individuals experience shorter residency requirements, no state-of-residence requirement, and waived application fees. Usually, if a non-citizen service member has received an honorable discharge, they are eligible for citizenship. [read more]