Right. Well. Here we are.

World events over the last few months have left most of us feeling like a pancake that’s unceremoniously been flung across the room.

Since the coronavirus outbreak in November last year, our collective situation has not been well-situated (and by that, I mean that things have deteriorated fast). It’s been a cataclysmic chain reaction that has brought the globe to a grinding halt. Cities have gone into lockdown, thousands of people are dying or seriously ill, first-world health care systems are collapsing, a global recession is imminent, and small businesses – the tourism, hospitality, beauty, music and dental industries, in particular – are being hit hard.

On Thursday, Qantas announced that it is suspending all international flights until late May 2020. (You know things are bad when travel and sports are cancelled). And all this because some selfish little sod in Wuhan, China decided to lick a pangolin.

Overnight, the world has become a society of neurotic germaphobe shut-ins, where the mere thought of touching a door handle or elevator button now causes most of us to slip into a gentle seizure.

(See lead image)

So, if the end is nigh, what can, and should, we be doing to while away the countless hours of isolation stretching ahead of us?

1. Make a will

Ha, ha. Funny.

But seriously. Now is the time to stop procrastinating and to get it done. Making a will is the only way to ensure you decide what happens to your property and assets after you die. Otherwise, your money could end up being bequeathed to someone you never intended should get their hot little hands on it.

(Like that record player your irritating sister, Tracy, has been eyeballing for years … “Shut up, Tracy!”)

2. Make your brain werk for it

Netflix Party will only go so far.

Many Ivy League Universities and Australian educational institutions, such FutureLearn, have hundreds of free courses online. The ANU College of Law’s Juris Doctor degree is entirely online, as are many courses through Open Universities.

So … rather than spending your free time “panic googling” your symptoms, (or whether you can catch a virus through the walls of your house if your neighbour sneezes in their backyard) try to develop some skills that you can apply in your career or business once you’re free to gleek on other humans again.

3. Stay well-hydrated

When everything is uncertain, one this is certain.

Your long-time relationship with good friends gin, vodka, and whiskey. And if we’ve learned anything from China’s post-quarantine spate of divorces it’s that living in close quarters with family, especially young children, can be a traumatic experience.

Enter the humble quarantini and online cocktail making courses! Designated driving is a moot point when your bed is a mere 3 feet from the kitchen.

4. FaceTime your extroverted friends who are “social distancing”

If you are an extrovert, being isolated in the sensory deprivation tank of your house can feel like your psyche is slowly folding like a road map.

Most are looking to find a meaningful connection anywhere.

It’s a slippery slope from having long and involved powwows with pets over the morning news to justifying the need to stick googly eyes on appliances, milk bottles, and wall sockets, just so that the house seems more crowded and friendly.

Spare a moment and give them a call (not a text!). They need you right now.

5. Check your health insurance

While you may not need it, you shouldn’t risk it.

Is your policy up to date? Do you have ambulance and hospital cover? In the case that you do need to be hospitalised for an extended period of time, you don’t want your resulting medical bill to sting more than the harsh light of day once you leave confinement.

6. Continue to support small businesses

Right now, small businesses in Australia are arguably suffering most from the coronavirus crisis.

Many are now facing impossible decisions about laying off staff, innovating to ensure their survival, living without an income for up to 6 months or even making the decision to close entirely.

Support your friends who are running businesses. Contact them regularly. Offer any assistance you can. If you’re a lawyer, volunteer free legal advice on issues they are unexpectedly facing, like how to go about negotiating a reduction or suspension in lease repayments with landlords.

If you are feeling well, continue to see your local hairdresser and dentist. Most small businesses have developed coronavirus policies and procedures that include strengthened hygiene measures in an effort to ensure the safety of staff, clients, and patients.

Most importantly

(at least for the next few months)

More on BucketOrange Magazine

• How to think like a lawyer (even when you don’t have a law degree)
• How to argue like a lawyer
• How to argue like a lawyer vol 2

According to Professor Vyvyan Evans, an expert in language and communication, we are now living in the ‘age of emoji’ where the ‘stratospheric rise of emoji’ largely fulfils the function of non-verbal cues in spoken communication.

The nature of modern communication in hyper-shortened digital snippets has made it more challenging than ever before to convey our true non-verbal meaning. Hardcore writers will tell you that “if you can’t describe what you want to say in words without using images or emojis, you’re not writing it well enough.”

But with character limits placed on text messages, Tweets and other social platforms, emojis have largely stepped in to bridge the gap in digital communication and to help to convey well-rounded messages.

When we send a sarcastic message to a friend, for example, we invariably include a winky face, smiley face, and maybe a tongue face emoji, just to drive the message home that we are not being openly rude, facetious or engaging in undue mockery. When you stop to think about it, emojis have become a critical supplement to modern communication.

While emojis may appear to be harmless icons, they are increasingly being recognised in legal contexts to infer the mental state or intention of the sender, particularly in scenarios involving threats of violence. 

Emoji and the law

Traditionally, courts have relied on hard evidence such as documents, words, audio and video recordings as evidence to establish criminal intent. But the strong influence of pop culture and widespread use of emoji as an enhancement to language means that it has been necessary for the courts to cast the evidential net much wider.

Emoji can constitute a punishable threat of violence

While the meaning of emojis can be ambiguous, and subject to many different interpretations, the courts have increasingly been drawing inferences about the intention of the sender based on the overall textual context.

In one recent example, an astonished face emoji paired with a gun emoji was considered by a court to be evidence of a death threat.

In 2016, a Frenchman was sentenced to six months in jail for sending his ex-girlfriend a text message that included a gun emoji. The judge ruled that the message could be interpreted as a “death threat in the form of an image.”

In June 2015, police in South Carolina arrested two men for sending threatening emojis considered to constitute stalking after the men had been accused of assaulting the victim.

Police inferred the above sequence of emojis to mean that the text recipient would be assaulted and end up in hospital.

In New Zealand, Judge Phillips considered that a man who sent a threatening message to his ex-girlfriend through social media that she was “going to f***ing get it ” along with an aeroplane emoji was sufficient to suggest that he was “coming to get her”. The man was jailed for eight months for breaching a protection order taken out by his ex-girlfriend.

What about Australia?

Cases involving emojis admitted as evidence are comparatively sparse in Australia.

In one case, DPP v Gee, evidence containing emojis, including a winking face, was admitted to establish the intent of the defendant in court.

In the UK, while case law demonstrating the use of emoji in evidence is not widespread, the family law case of RC v AB paved the way for future cases. In this case, the defendant photoshopped a devil emoji over his wife’s face in an old group photo and posted the adjusted image to Instagram. The defendant claimed the photo was meant to be “cheeky” and “humorous”, however, Justice Cobb expressed disdain for the defendant’s actions, describing them as “harassing” and going to the defendant’s behaviour and state of mind.

Emoji in Wills

In Queensland this year, an unsent text message from a deceased man that left his house and superannuation to his brother and nephew and ended with “My will ” was not considered by the courts to be a valid expression of the deceased man’s intentions given its informal nature.

The diversity of outcomes in the above cases is an indication of the difficulty involved with inferring intent from an emoji. The task of interpreting an emoji is subjective. It can be difficult for most of us to distinguish between joking, ironic or deliberate messages, let alone apply an objective standard to them. For this reason, it’s likely that this will be an area of the law that continues to develop in the coming years.

Future of law

As language and digital communication styles evolve, so must the law. Emojis demonstrate mood, emotion, mindset, tone and intention. It seems reasonable to assume that Australian courts will increasingly consider and draw inferences from emojis in evidence, especially given their ability to convey intent behind civil action and criminal charges. How far this goes is yet to be seen.

In the meantime, the above cases signal that the courts, and the legal profession, need to recognise the impact of technology on court procedures and processes including how this additional body of evidence can have the potential to shape the outcome of proceedings.

Importantly, the admission of emojis into evidence should serve as a timely reminder that what you might consider harmless emoji banter between friends, partners or colleagues could end up in court.

You may have overheard your colleagues talking about the Netflix show ‘Mindhunter’ recently.

Based on a true-crime book of the same name, ‘Mindhunter’ has quickly attracted a cult following which is hardly surprising given that the infallible David Fincher is an executive producer.

Not one to miss out on a critically acclaimed TV show, I jumped on the bandwagon last week. The day after I finished watching the first season (which I may, or may not, have managed in two consecutive nights), I bought the book. Then I read the ‘sequel’, the ominously titled Journey into Darkness.

Fast forward a few days and here we are. This is the story of my newfound obsession with criminal profiling, how it has assisted in the identification and arrest of some of history’s most notorious serial killers as well as its ongoing and strong influence in pop culture.

Behind ‘Mindhunter’

The ‘Mindhunter’ story follows the genesis and teething problems of the FBI’s ‘Behavioural Science Unit’ (the Unit) in the 1970s when criminal profiling was still a marginalised form of crime investigation and prevention. Up until the 1960s and 70s, theories underlying criminal behaviour were largely influenced by Darwinism. Criminals were not only thought to be born mentally deficient but also biologically predisposed to committing crimes.

While the characters in ‘Mindhunter’ are fictional the criminals, and their crimes, are very real. A co-author of Mindhunter, John Douglas, worked for the FBI for 25 years, interviewing some of the world’s most notorious serial killers. Douglas and his colleague, Robert Ressler, were the first to conduct actual research on ‘serial killers’, a term they coined.

Based on these interviews, the Unit developed the first ever systematic approach to criminal profiling, the ‘Criminal Profile Generating Process,’ which allowed cases to be solved in real time.

Benefits of criminal profiling

Profiling can be used at various stages of the investigative process and is often resorted to when investigators cannot readily ascertain a criminal motive.

It begins at a crime scene where inferences made about an offender’s behaviour which is used to build a profile of the perpetrator or the Unknown Subject (UNSUB). These clues are then used to formulate a detailed picture of the UNSUB’s likely identity.

Based on material facts of crimes and lessons from interviewing serial killers, the Unit generated psychological categories for different types of offenders. Material facts encompass everything from placement of a victim’s body to whether a victim was alive or dead at the time of a sexual assault (in the case of sexually motivated crime).  

Categorisations are used to draw up detailed profiles of UNSUBs in ongoing investigations which ultimately identified many criminals, often to the astonishment of local law enforcement. Raymond Lee Stewart (who went on a killing spree that left four people dead in Rockford, Illinois and two people dead in Beloit, Wisconsin) and the “Clairemont Killer”, Cleophus Prince Jr (who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1993 for the rape and murder of six women in San Diego in 1990) are among those captured using criminal profiling techniques.

Where is criminal psychology now?

Since the 1970s, the phrase ‘serial killer’ and many of the criminal profiling techniques developed by the Unit have become mainstream. Now, criminal psychology is sometimes categorised under the broader umbrella of forensic psychology. 

While the tension between traditional law enforcement and psychology still exists to an extent, criminal profiling is taken much more seriously than in the Quantico basement days of the Behavioural Science Unit. Criminal profiling is now applied not only to violent crime but also to cybercrime.

Since the 1970s, much of the focus of criminal profiling has been on developing the robustness of the science underlying profiling. In recent years, statistical and mathematical techniques have more commonly been employed to analyse crime scene data, and thereby construct profiles, rather than by making behavioural inferences.

It goes without saying that criminal profiling is by no means an exact science and probably never will be given that human behaviour is inherently unpredictable. The reliability and overall validity of criminal profiling continues to be questioned by forensic psychologists and psychiatrists as well as by academics in the field. The criminal profiling process is not standardised, nor is it effective in all cases.

In his book Criminal Profiling: An Introduction To Behavioural Evidence, Brent Turvey dedicates an entire chapter to examples where criminal profilers have actually led police investigators astray. Criminal profiling, for example, infamously failed to lead to the identification and arrest of Dennis Lynn Rader or the ‘Bind, Torture, Kill’ (‘BTK’) serial murderer in Kansas between 1974 and 1991.

Even so, Special Agent Jud Ray was the first member of the FBI’s Investigative Support Unit to testify using criminal psychological profiling. The prosecutor had Ray certified as an expert to testify about the criminal profile he generated which led to the arrest of Kirby Anthoney (who was charged with murdering a mother and her two children). While the judge refused to admit Ray’s criminal profile into evidence, he was able to testify about Anthoney’s post-offence behaviour which spoke to his guilt and led to a jury finding Anthoney guilty.

Special Agent Jud Ray said: 

“In the time that I’d been with the unit, I’d had some reservations about the ability to sit down like that and come up with concepts about what was going on at the scene. But later on I would realise it was not one particular discipline – profiling – that enabled people in the unit to do these kinds of things.

Truly, it is a collection of all the disciplines and an understanding and a good depth of knowledge about forensic psychology, forensic pathology, cultural anthropology, social psychology, motivational psychology – all of the things that when they are properly aligned and understood with a sense of investigative technique behind you, you have all these things kind of synchronised. It is not a panacea in a homicide investigation, but I don’t see how you can effectively work these kinds of cases without those kinds of understandings, all brought to bear upon an analytical process where you walk away saying ‘Hey, I’m reasonably sure that you got the wrong guy, and I’m more than reasonably sure that the guy you’re on now is where you want to expend your energy,’ as I did in this case”.

Should we believe what pop culture tells us?

Opinion about the merit and application of criminal profiling is incredibly divided. Some experts unequivocally denounce profiling as an illusion, while others consider it to be the holy grail of investigative techniques. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between.

Although ‘Mindhunter’ is more realistic in its portrayal of the criminal profiling process than something like ‘Criminal Minds’, pop culture has created a public image of criminal profiling that is vastly different to the reality.

In real life, profiling alone is often not enough to identify and capture a perpetrator – the assistance of the public and the investigative acumen of police are crucial.

Developments in science and technology since the 1970s have also removed much of the need for intensive criminal profiling to assist with the identification and arrest of perpetrators. Criminal psychology and profiling now more commonly used to convict perpetrators, rather than to initially identify them, as reliable forensic evidence now plays an integral role.

While criminal profiling may not directly lead to the arrest of offenders as often as pop culture depictions suggest, academics have ascertained that profiling can be useful in enhancing investigative understandings of particular cases.

A 2001 study which surveyed 68 police personnel across 46 departments in the US found that profiling was most useful when it came to the interrogation of suspects and that it was also helpful in directing an investigation. In another study conducted in Britain in 2012, over 75% of police officers found the advice of a profiler useful during investigations.

At the end of the day

Criminal profiling may not be hard science but it can, and does, make a valuable contribution to criminal justice.

Love them or hate them, learning to argue like a lawyer is still everyone’s obsession.

It’s not just because lawyers can always identify the appropriate moment to combine
mind-bending reasoning and logic with rapid-fire silver-tongued rhetoric in a way that consistently obliterates the opposition in an argument (although that’s a big part of it).

It’s because lawyers also know that with great power comes great responsibility. Sometimes in an argument – like Aesop’s Fable, The Wind & The Sun – choosing a moderate and persuasive approach can often get you further than force.

The key to a lawyer’s coveted communication arsenal, then, is an acute awareness of personal and professional scenarios with the potential to quickly escalate out of control, and the unique ability to make a snap assessment about the best course of action.

While lawyers intuitively know when to cool their jets by offering considered and conciliatory responses in a negotiation, they also recognise that sometimes not giving any ground and adding an accelerant to an already inflamed situation is unavoidable.

It’s a little-known fact that the ability to argue like a lawyer has little to do with formal legal training and a lot to do with a few key courtroom hacks you can apply to your personal and professional life today.

Arguing a point vs effective communication

Arguing is about point scoring.

At its most cutthroat, arguments can be an ugly excuse to take out the day’s frustrations, air past grievances, jealousies, hurts or regrets by verbally attacking your opponent and, in some instances, leaving them reeling for hours, or even days, after the interaction.

If you want your opponent to accept your point of view, you need to start thinking about your interactions as less of an ‘argument’ and more of an ‘art’ form.

1. The art of persuasion

Lawyers are experts at analysing a lot of information, distilling evidence and getting straight to the heart of an issue.

In a professional setting, there is much to be gained by arguing a point effectively such as credibility, respect, and maybe even a promotion. Personal settings are generally more about compromise.

Most of us don’t respond well to insults or being told that we are wrong. So if your ultimate goal is to convince your opponent that your point of view is correct, aim to be persuasive rather than incendiary.

Lawyer it

Avoid the temptation to jump head first into a no-holds-barred shouting match to let off some steam.

Convincing someone to adopt your point of view is an exercise in patience, persuasion and suggestion. To win someone to your point of view, they must almost believe that they came up with the idea themselves.

Lawyers avoid descending into shouting matches because it’s an opportunity for your opponent to glean potentially sensitive information from you which could be used to your detriment at a later stage.

2. Know your subject matter

A common trap many of us fall into, especially when arguing about something we are passionate about, is to defend our position using every shred of evidence, even irrelevant material and subjective opinions.

These sorts of debates invariably descend into irrational and fruitless arguments that draw on an array of unrelated issues and that leave both people feeling frustrated and in no better position than when they originally started.

Lawyer it

If you want to consistently win arguments like a lawyer, make sure that you prepare.

Law is lyfe.

Wherever possible, good lawyers avoid asking a question in court unless they already know the answer to it. This eliminates the possibility of being surprised by a response that could compromise your case. 

The same logic applies to everyday scenarios.

If you understand your opponent through meticulous preparation, it is possible to anticipate their arguments and apply tactical pressure to win.

This is one of the reasons that lawyers are highly skilled at presenting an effective argument. They consider issues from multiple angles and forecast their opponent’s next move. 

3. Choose your words carefully

Word choice in arguments is more important than most of us realise.

If you want to win a point, wherever possible, avoid unnecessary ‘fluff’ words that carry no real weight or meaning.

Hesitation = annihilation.

This is a red flag to your opponent that you are wavering, unsure of yourself, and that your thoughts are unstructured – something that they can easily use to their advantage.

Lawyer it

Words are like currency for lawyers, so spend yours wisely.

Keep your argument clear and simple, and make your point quickly.

4. Steer clear of your feelings

Emotion is subjective and clouds your judgement which is why lawyers leave it at the door when entering the courtroom. 

They say that about lawyers too :'(

A strong emotional response makes it difficult to present a convincing argument and is also the quickest way to lose an argument. Becoming angry or displaying other visible signs of distress such as flushing, tearing up, waving hands in the air or becoming aggressive are red hot cues to your opponent that you have lost your way and that your arguments have become irrational and implausible. 

Becoming emotional advertises your weaknesses to your opponent, effectively handing them the ammunition needed to focus their strategy and distract you from your core objective. 

Lawyer it

If you have an issue that needs resolving, never start the conversation when you’re tired, cold or hungry. It’s a surefire way to start a conflict, to say something that you regret, or to irreparably destroy a relationship.

Lawyers stay in control by sticking to the facts.

This ability to remain calm, focused, objective and in control of an escalating situation is a unique type of emotional intelligence that comes from years of legal training. It’s also one of the reasons why lawyers are able to navigate high-conflict personal or professional situations with relative ease. 

Try to remove yourself mentally from a situation and stick with the facts, not how you feel about the facts.

Understanding yourself, your unconscious biases and knowing which issues are likely to trigger an emotional response in you is critical. This way you can develop strategies to harness those emotions in a positive way.

At the end of the day

It is the mark of an intelligent mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle

Some of the best arguments are not actually arguments at all but heated debates in which both people openly share opposing views, and walk away intellectually stimulated having learnt something new.

Lawyers are highly successful communicators because they know when to toe the line by respectfully listening to their opponents and when to bring down the hammer. Wherever possible, avoid emotion, stick to the point and foster a constructive discussion rather than a critical argument. This way, both you and your opponent walk away winners.

What strategies do you use when an inevitable disagreement surfaces in your personal or professional life? Let us know in the comments!

More on BucketOrange Magazine

• Laws Of Conversation: How To Argue Like A Lawyer Vol. 1
• How To Think Like A Lawyer (Even When You Don’t Have A Law Degree)
• WATCH: Our Editor-in-Chief, Sarah Lynch, discuss “Arguing Like A Lawyer” on Today Extra

KISS frontman and lead singer, Gene Simmons, has reportedly filed an application with the US Trademark and Patent Office to trademark the infamous “devil horns” rock hand gesture.

The application, along with a handy diagram, was filed last Friday, 9 June 2017.

Simmons claims to be the first to use the gesture commercially on Nov. 14, 1974, during the KISS Hotter Than Hell tour.

The application lists the reason for filing for the purposes of:

Entertainment, namely, live performances by a musical artist; personal appearances by a musical artist.” 

However, critics argue that Simmons was not the first to use the hand gesture as John Lennon can be seen making the signal on the cover of The Beatles’ 1966 single, ‘Yellow Submarine/Eleanor Rigby’.

Others credit Black Sabbath frontman, Ronnie James Dio for making the gesture popular.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, for Simmons’ application to be successful:

an examiner would consider the likelihood of confusion and, possibly, whether it’s too generic to be associated with Simmons.”

Given that the signal is the American Sign Language equivalent for love; can be seen in slightly different form in Spider-Man; appears in Bram Stoker’s Dracula; is sometimes used in Italian culture as a superstitious sign to ward off the devil; and is also used to cheer on sporting teams at various events, it will be very interesting to see whether Simmons’ application is successful.

Stay tuned.

Update 26/6/17

After a firestorm of criticism from the music community and media outlets, it seems that Gene Simmons has come to his senses and withdrawn his application to trademark the “devil horns” hand gesture.

The decision is a sensible one. It is highly unlikely that Simmons’ application would have been successful since the “rock” hand gesture is a generic symbol commonly used by other artists and music lovers around the world.

The good news is that you and your friends can continue to make your “rock on” hands with reckless abandon this coming Splendour in the Grass and for all future gigs.

Slender Man is a horror monster. He stalks, he kills, he kidnaps children and drives people insane.

In 2014, two 12-year-old girls were arrested in connection with a violent premeditated attack on a classmate. The victim had been stabbed 19 times with the knife, missing a major artery in her heart by a millimetre. When interviewed by detectives, both girls claimed that they had been motivated to carry out the attempted murder by Slender Man. By killing their friend, they would gain Slender Man’s favour and go to live with him in the forest.

The origins of Slender Man are well documented. Since his first appearance online in 2009 in a SomethingAwful.com forum Photoshop contest, he has been evolving in a high-speed process of creative, open-source legend building.

Original Slender Man image which first emerged in 2009 for a SomethingAwful.com forum Photoshop contest. The picture has spawned endless interpretations and reimaginings in online forums by horror fanatics.

There are many theories about why he has become the most notorious exclusively online urban legend and taken such a firm root in the collective online consciousness. One theory is that his ambiguity drives his creepiness and his popularity; people see their own particular fears staring back at them from Slender’s featureless, pale face.

Following the stabbing by the 12-year-old girls, Slender Man has become a source of fear in a different way. He has become a symbol for the dark side of the internet. Authority figures have come out against Slender Man, using the stabbing as a call for parents to be careful of what their children consume online. One commentator has written that there are now two Slender Mans – one haunting the internet, another haunting the adults whose children use it.

So how does society manage the fear spawned by a horror character like Slender Man, especially where fictional online violence begins jumping off computer screens and moving individuals to harm others in the real world?

Criminal law is one of the mechanisms available for society to deal with the inevitable community destabilisation and fear caused by such shocking and violent incidents.

The relationship, here, between the law and fear, is complicated.

On one hand, the law is an instrument that communities have developed to strike back against the behaviour of individuals considered deserving of punishment. In the aftermath of scary and inexplicable incidents, the justice system is relied on to restore the feeling that the collective interests of society are protected.

Another of the first images created of Slender Man. The fictional online horror character has gone on to become one of the most enduring and influential online urban legends of all time.

Communal fear, in the case of the Slender Man-inspired stabbing, demands that the law responds in a number of ways. One is through retribution – these offenders must be punished for what society considers to be immoral behaviour that is harmful to others. Another is through deterrence – these offenders must be made an example of by being given an appropriate sentence so that such awful attacks won’t be replicated by others in the future. Another is through incapacitation – these offenders must not be allowed to re-offend, and so must be locked away in the interests of community welfare.

On the other hand, the law attempts to introduce an element of reason, logic and formulaic police and court procedures when such sickening and violent crimes take place. In this respect, legal process can be a means of preventing us from seeking to act on these fears by pushing for harsh retributive justice too rashly. Browsing the comments sections underneath articles on the Slender Man stabbing is a useful reminder of the need for formal legal processes to guard against a communal knee jerk reaction which can manifest as emotional demands for vengeance.

Either way, fear plays a part in explaining the existence of criminal law – fear, perhaps, of the terrible things people are capable of doing to each other either as individuals or as furious mobs.

The mixing of law and fear isn’t limited to the realm of criminal law. Legislation can become infused with fear, reflecting a reaction to dread rather than a process of careful consideration and the development of sound policy. This can happen in response to national tragedies – one example is arguably the USA PATRIOT Act. It can happen in response to unreflective national prejudice – in Australia, for example, we currently have in place a complex system of prison camps to keep us ‘safe’ from people fleeing war and terror overseas.

Fear is also built into deeper systems of structural law, particularly constitutional law, which can have a distinct flavour of fear. One of the central objectives of a constitution in liberal democratic states is to restrict the powers of government, for fear of allowing too much power to rest with any one decision-maker. The various arms of government, namely the courts, parliament and the executive, are set against one another in a system of checks and balances, each suspicious of the accumulation of power by the others.

This is not to argue that fear is always an irrational response to events, but it can be. If there is no real basis for a fear, people may be hurt by the creation of laws aimed at protecting society against non-existent phantoms. Political actors are easily tempted to use fear-mongering tactics to serve their own agendas, exploiting a community’s deepest, darkest prejudices to push for more extreme, heavy-handed laws. This makes fear a dangerous basis for responsible law-making.

There are arguments to be had about dealing with concerns over children’s access to disturbing content on the internet. About the appropriateness of subjecting children to adult criminal justice systems. About the resources available to cope with the prevalence of serious mental illness.

More scary, perhaps, is the extent to which fear itself, like the tentacles sprouting from Slender Man’s back, is already wrapped around all of us and our systems of law, poised to pull tighter if we refuse to acknowledge it and in so doing, fail to guard against it.

** The Wisconsin appeals court upheld a decision to try the girls as adults:

“The court found that this was a violent, premeditated and personal offence. There was a conscious decision made at the time of the offence to let the victim die. They told [the victim] that they would leave to get her help. They did leave, and they left to walk to the Nicolet National Forest to locate the Slenderman mansion. This is charged as attempted murder but you have to keep in mind for both defendants that this was, in fact, an effort to kill someone, not a mistake by hitting them too hard. Not a mistake by pushing them too hard. The issue of brain development is important for the court to consider. They were young when the offence occurred but they get older every day, frankly. But what happens at age 18 and, in this court’s view, that is a critical factor for the court to evaluate. There would be no oversight, no control, no ways to ensure public safety. They have committed an offence that is serious, it’s frankly vicious and there has to be assurance that that doesn’t happen again – that a serious offence is dealt with on a serious basis that offers protections to everyone. On that basis, I order that the defendants be retained in the adult jurisdiction.” –

Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier will face trial in September-October 2017.

The rebel on the right passes a green post-it note mid-playback

Court can be a sombre affair.

But not today.

Video of some of New Zealand’s top legal minds getting on with business as Eminem’s ‘Lose Yourself’ blares around an increasingly awkward courtroom has clocked over 94,000 views on Youtube this week alone.

The magic moment was captured on film during initial proceedings in New Zealand’s high court in Wellington.

The 2002 track blasted through tinny court speakers as part of a copyright infringement case to demonstrate similarities between Eminem’s ‘Lose Yourself’ and a song used by the New Zealand National Party called ‘Eminem Esque’ as part of a 2014 political campaign.

Listen to the National Party advertising campaign here:

Eminem’s publishing company, Eight Mile Style, are seeking a cash settlement and an acknowledgement by the court that the National Party breached copyright law.

Watch the full courtroom saga unfold below:

One YouTube user commented: “At 00:50 the blonde started to feel it but then she snapped back to reality…”

Want to see more PopLaw stories in your inbox? Subscribe to the BucketOrange Magazine fortnightly newsletter here – it’s free!  

The excitement and adrenalin from your latest gig has finally started to wear off. You wait patiently for your money to be deposited … and wait … and wait … and keep waiting. A few months pass and, in spite of a number of emails chasing your agent who is not responding, you still have not seen any improvements in your bank balance. Now you’re starting to feel a bit stressy because you really need this extra injection of cash to finance your next EP.

Artists and creatives can often find themselves relying on agents, managers or labels to handle the business and legal side of things and to pay musicians their entitlements for gigs, events and royalties within a reasonable period.

But if we’ve learned anything from Sixto Rodriguez, it’s that it is never wise to take anyone at face value where money is involved.

Luckily, the correct process involved in recovering a relatively small unpaid fee (under $10,000) in a way that does not inflame the situation or result in unnecessary litigation is a lot easier than it seems.

A straight-forward debt recovery process unfolds, in many ways, like a well-crafted playlist: equal parts listening, clear communication and structure. Then again, sometimes it requires turning up the intensity with a letter of demand.

Track 1: Shoegazing, Emailing 

Just like the first song on a new playlist sets the mood and establishes expectations, the first track in securing an unpaid fee should be carefully considered before any action is taken. Begin with a slow-building shoegaze strategy that conveys a detached and non-confrontational message.

This can take the form of a quick email or phone call. Keep it brief, casual and indifferent. Importantly, make sure that you give the person who owes you money enough time to respond, for example, 2 weeks. Putting undue pressure on someone to fast track a payment is the quickest way to aggravate a relationship unnecessarily.

Track 2: Indie Pop, Reminder Time

If a few weeks pass and your first communication does not achieve the result or response you are looking for, move to track two with a follow-up email. Your next step should be to seek to build on the energy and momentum you created in track one. In spite of your feelings of frustration and disappointment, the idea is to send an angst-free tune to the inbox of the person who owes you money.

Get attention on your outstanding payment by getting in their head like an earworm – with sound repetition and friendly reminders.

Like a good indie-pop hook, your main refrain should be clear, unambiguous, non-abrasive and melodic.

Peter, Bjorn & John’s ‘Young Folks’

A template you may wish to consider using:

Dear [insert agent’s name],

I hope this email finds you well.

I just wanted to follow up about payment for [insert name of event/gig/royalty] and to check whether there has been any progress. I would be grateful if you could please make the necessary arrangements for [insert relevant $$$ amount] to be deposited into my account as soon as possible as there has already been a considerable delay with your payment.

Thanks very much.

Warm regards,

[insert your name]

Track 3: Punk Rock, Letter Of Demand

If you are still having no luck recovering payment after a number of weeks/months pass, even after sending several follow up letters and email reminders, then it is time to “turn it up to eleven” with track three by sending a letter of demand.

A letter of demand is a loud and unmistakable statement and often the final step before commencing legal action. It usually happens when you have made several unsuccessful attempts to have your invoice paid and sends a message that you are taking more serious action.

As a letter of demand shows a degree of formality and represents a serious step towards initiating legal action, it can inflame a dispute. Generally, however, it is a cost-effective and efficient way to recover unpaid fees without the need to go to court.

Your letter should include:

• the sum of money owed to you
• the service provided by you
• when payment was due

You may wish to include a warning that you will consider pursuing legal action if payment is not made by the specified date.

Attach any related documentation, such as the original payment agreement, dates of phone calls or previous emails requesting payment.

A template letter you may wish to consider using:

[Your name/business name, address and contact details]

[Agent/manager’s name and business address]

[Subject heading: Letter of demand for outstanding fee payment]

Dear [insert agent/manager’s name]

RE: OUTSTANDING PAYMENT

I am writing in relation to the outstanding fees totalling [insert total dollar amount, including GST]. This amount relates to the [insert name of event/gig/royalty for which you are owed money] when I performed on [insert date].

I refer to my invoice dated [day/month/year] that was due by [date payment was due] and remains outstanding.

Please find enclosed a dated copy of the invoice. I have also attached my previous requests for payment to be made:

1. Letter dated [when first request was made]
2. Letter dated [when second request was made]

I ask that you pay me the amount of [insert total dollar amount, plus a late payment interest as agreed in our contract dated (where a late payment interest clause is in your agreement)], by [insert date – generally allow 7 days].

Payment should be made to [insert your name including bank account details and your address].

If payment is not received within 7 days of receipt of this letter, I reserve the right to take legal action to recover the monies without further notice.

Yours sincerely,

[insert signature]

[insert your name]

[date]

It is important that the information and details included in the letter of demand are completely accurate to avoid someone saying that it is false or misleading.

O-riginal tip: Send the letter by registered post and request a ‘signed proof of delivery’ card. Retain a copy of the letter (as well as all other correspondence) for your own records and keep a copy of the proof of delivery card in case you need it as evidence in court. Often the letter of demand will be considered as evidence that you took reasonable steps to recover the funds.

While you can send a letter of demand yourself, it can be much more effective if the letter is sent from and includes a law firm’s letterhead. Most firms charge a set and inexpensive fee for a letter of demand. Make it clear in your instructions to a lawyer that you are only requesting a letter of demand and not legal advice, as this will avoid unnecessary expense.

Track 4: Heavy Metal

If the due date specified in your letter of demand lapses and you have not received payment, you may wish to move to track 4 by taking action in the Small Claims Court or equivalent in your State or Territory.

This is the heavy metal stage in the debt recovery playlist where the situation has escalated and unpleasant conflict is now inevitable. Like some metal bands, the court process can sound intense, discordant and uncomfortable. However, there is a clear and relatively straightforward process.

To bring a matter in the Small Claims Court in your State or Territory, you need to file an action. Where you commence an action will depend on the amount you are owed and in which State or Territory the debt arose.

The Small Claims Division of the NSW Local Court is for debts of $10,000 or less and has been set up with simplified procedures so that you do not need to have a lawyer.

How to start a claim in your local court (NSW):

1. File a Statement of Claim form. This is available from the court by calling (02) 9287 7923 or downloading a form online.
2. Include your name and address as the ‘Plaintiff’ and the details of the person who owes you money (the ‘Defendant’). Also include relevant details of the claim, for example, invoice numbers as well as when the debt became due. The Statement of Claim form has instructions on how to complete it. You can also make an appointment with the chamber magistrate at your nearest Local Court who can help you to fill out and lodge your statement of claim. More instructions on completing forms can be found here.
3. File four copies of the completed Statement of Claim with the NSW Local Court or online registry and pay the filing fee (approximately $97). The Court retains the original.
4. Serve a sealed copy of the Statement of Claim on the person who owes you money. There are rules that must be followed on how to properly serve a document. You or the person who serves the document should complete an Affidavit of Service.

Throughout the process of recovering an unpaid fee, the number one rule is to remain calm and respectful. It can be a tiresome and frustrating task trying to recover money, however, any unprofessionalism on your part could result in bad blood and potentially destroy the possibility of ongoing business relationships.

Further Information

Template and sample letters of demand:

• Business.gov.au
• Arts Law
• Law Access

Filling out a statement of claim instructions.

How to file an action in your State or Territory:

• Victoria

Commence your claim in either in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (depending on the nature of the dispute) or the Magistrates Court. The Victorian Magistrates Court does not have a small claims division but has jurisdiction to hear claims up to $100,000.

• NSW

The Small Claims Division of the Local Court deals with claims up to $10,000. If you are owed more than $10,000 but less than $100,000, your matter will be in the General Division of the Local Court.

• Western Austalia

Commence your claim in the Magistrates Court if you are owed less than $10,000. If you are owed between $10,000 and $75,000, you can commence a general procedure case in the Magistrates Court.

• South Australia

The Small Claims Division of the Magistrates Court deals with claims up to $6,000. If you are owed more than $6,000 but less than $100,000, the Magistrates Court hears the claim in its General Division.

• Queensland

Commence your claim in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal if you are owed up to $25,000. If the amount is more than $25,000 but less than $150,000, it will be heard by the Magistrates Court.

• Tasmania

Commence your claim as a Minor Civil Claim of the Civil Court of the Magistrates Court if you are owed $5,000 or less. To recover amounts from $5,001 to $50,000 you need to file a Civil claim. The Magistrates Court hears claims up to the value of $50,000 or above if both parties agree.

• Northern Territory

If you are making a small claim for up to $25,000 you can apply to have your matter heard through the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. To recover an amount between $25,001 and $250,000 you can apply to have it heard in the Local Court. If your claim is above $250,000 it will be heard by the Supreme Court.

• Australian Capital Territory

Commence your claim with the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) if the amount is up to $25,000. Claims up to $250,000 must be brought in the Magistrates Court unless both parties agree to use ACAT.

I always look forward to a Friday night of live music especially when it involves listening to covers of my favourite songs, like The Kooks’ ‘Naïve’ or Bon Iver’s ‘Skinny Love’ at a local café.

What didn’t cross my mind, until recently, is how performing a cover of another musician’s song may actually be against the law.

Copyright Protection Of Songs

Copyright law exists to protect every song by virtue of its creation.

There is no need to register a composition to protect your creative genius – when you write a score or record a home demo, copyright automatically steps in and gives you exclusive rights and protections. It does not matter if your song is the next number one hit or if you struggle to get your mum to listen to it:

If you created the music, Australian copyright law protects it. 

This protection comes in many different forms, giving copyright owners a number of exclusive rights to use and perform creative works, including the right to perform your music in public. Copyright law protects both the score and lyrics of a song meaning that Justin Vernon the writer and composer of ‘Skinny Love’, for example, has the exclusive right to perform his song in public.

Notwithstanding that this is unambiguously the state of the law in Australia, I found myself listening to this song being performed live by another artist. How is this possible? Do you need permission to cover a song live?

What Musicians Need To Know

For all musicians, copyright law is something that you need to be aware of and to understand.

Being aware of your personal rights as a musician is not only important to defend against unauthorised use of your own songs, but also to make sure that you do not unwittingly infringe the creative rights of another artist.

To perform a song in public, you must be granted a licence. Performing a cover without a music licence is a breach of Australian copyright law. 

The same principle applies to businesses who wish to play background music within a restaurant or shop. Without a licence, playing a song to the public is an infringement of the rights of the musician and copyright owner.

Obtaining A Music Licence

In Australia, a number of copyright collecting societies provide music licences and distribute royalties to the copyright owners.

For musicians looking to play gigs, the Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) is the best place to start. Even if you are performing a free show or participating in a charity event hosting free live concerts you must still obtain a licence.

For businesses who wish to play background music, the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA) provides a blanket licence that ensures your business complies with the law, however, it is also necessary to obtain a licence from APRA. Alternatively, you can seek permission from individual artists and copyright owners but this method can be onerous.

When Your Song Is Performed By Another Artist 

What happens when someone performs your song, or a substantial part of it, without your permission?

1. Seek advice on whether you have a solid claim for copyright infringement. The Australian Copyright Council has a free online legal advice service which can help you work this out.
2. If your work is being administered by a collecting society, such as APRA, notify your relevant body as soon as possible after you become aware of the possible infringement.
3. Contact the infringer. Let them know that you are the owner of the music and that they infringing your copyright by using your music without your permission and without paying for a licence.

You can do this with an informal email or an initial letter of demand that asks the performer to stop infringing your copyright without a relevant licence.

Before sending a letter of demand, or making any claims that someone has infringed your copyright, however, it is critical that you seek legal advice. If you send a threatening letter and the other musician has not actually infringed your copyright, this can be considered a groundless threat, meaning that the person you have accused of infringing your copyright can sue you for making an unsubstantiated threat of legal action.

4. If the above avenues are not successful, as a last resort, you may decide to take the matter to court. If you are successful, the court may order an injunction to stop the infringement of your copyright or make an order that a sum of money (damages) be paid to you.

At The End Of The Day

Copyright is a form of intellectual property.

The musicians behind the songs we know and love – the songs that move us, that make us feel and make our lives infinitely better – need to be protected, supported and credited by other artists, individuals and businesses. The only way artists can continue to enrich our lives is through greater respect, awareness and compliance with the moral and economic rights to their music.

How often do you perform covers as part of your set list? Have you considered the copyright implications? Let us know in the comments!

Further Information

Arts Law Centre – for more information on your rights as a musician and access to legal professionals specialising in copyright law.

To learn more about your rights as a musician visit:

• Music Rights Australia

To find safe and licenced content online visit:

• Digital Content Guide

For a list of legal digital music content providers in Australia and internationally visit:

• Pro Music

To get in touch with a legal professional specialising in entertainment law visit:

• Marque Lawyers (NSW)
• Creative Legal (WA and Vic)
• Studio Legal (Vic)
• Media Arts Lawyers (NSW and Vic)
• Shaun Miller Lawyers (Vic)
• Simpsons Lawyers (NSW)
• Sanicki Lawyers (Vic and Qld)
• McCormicks (Qld)

In the latest music industry lawsuit to hit headlines, Bruno Mars and Mark Ronson are being sued for copyright infringement by 80s electro-funk band Collage, according to TMZ.

Collage claims that the hit track “Uptown Funk” released by Bruno Mars and Mark Ronson in 2014 is a thinly veiled replica of Collage’s 1983 hit “Young Girls” and that the duo reproduced the song’s rhythm, harmony, melody and structure.

It’s not the first time Ronson and Mars have faced legal action over “Uptown Funk”. Earlier this year, The Sequence argued that their 1979 song, “Funk You Up” had been copied, but did not pursue legal action. Last year, writers from The Gap Band successfully joined the list of songwriting credits on “Uptown Funk” for its similarities to their 1979 hit “Oops Upside Your Head.”

According to the complaint (via Pitchfork)

Upon information and belief, many of the main instrumental attributes and themes of “Uptown Funk” are deliberately and clearly copied from “Young Girls,” including, but not limited to, the distinct funky specifically noted and timed consistent guitar riffs present throughout the compositions, virtually if not identical bass notes and sequence, rhythm, structure, crescendo of horns and synthesizers rendering the compositions almost indistinguishable if played over each other and strikingly similar if played in consecutively.

Mars and Ronson have previously listed early 1980s Minneapolis electro-funk soul music as among key influences that inspired the song “Uptown Funk.”

Collage are seeking damages and profits.

Listen to side-by-side comparisons of the two songs below:

Too close to call? You be the judge.

h/t Pitchfork.

Further Information for Musicians

To find out more about your options in Australia where another musician infringes your copyright:

• Legal Rights Where Your Song Is Used Without Permission

We are lucky to live in a country where copyright protection is automatically afforded to creative works, a saving grace that makes Australia’s copyright law imperfections almost palatable.

For musicians, the stakes can be high when it comes to copyright infringement. Contrary to what many Australians may think, there is no such thing as the innocent use of a song, nor is it a ‘victimless crime.’ Most artists derive much of their annual income from royalties, so when an individual or corporation uses a song without permission, without a music licence or without paying royalties, it deprives that artist of a reliable source of revenue.

For Australian musicians, if someone uses your song without your permission it is not only an infringement of your moral rights as a creator of that work but also your economic rights.

So, what are your legal options if you discover someone using your song without your knowledge or permission?

Copyright And The Music Industry

In any situation where your music is broadcast, performed or reproduced, you have a right to royalties.

Copyright protection is automatic in Australia as soon as your original song has been written or recorded.

There are three main situations where copyright infringement of your music can occur.

1. Where a song is used by another person, or corporation, without your permission and without paying a music licence.

As recently as last year, NSW Premier Mike Baird unwelcomely discovered that even politicians are not impervious to making copyright infringements.

Baird found himself in hot water over the unauthorised use of R.E.M’s song ‘Everybody Hurts’ in a YouTube take-off of Jimmy Kimmel’s Mean Tweets series. Baird made use of the track without seeking permission or paying a music licence. YouTube removed the clip after Warner Chappell, the band’s publisher, made a copyright claim overnight.

2. Where another musician uses a substantial part of your song without your knowledge or permission and without paying for a music licence.

For example, by using a substantially similar melody, key, beat, harmony or song structure.

In 2010, Men at Work songwriters Colin Hay and Ron Strykert were involved in a high-profile, expensive and drawn out case over the similarities between their famous song ‘Land Down Under’ and the flute line in the children’s song ‘Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree.’ The Federal Court’s decision in favour of Larrikin Music (the copyright owners of ‘Kookaburra’) reinforced that musicians can be liable for plagiarising a substantial part of another musician’s work without approval.

3. Where another musician samples part of your song without your permission and without paying a music licence.

Vanilla Ice became the centre of a copyright infringement claim for sampling Queen & David Bowie’s ‘Under Pressure’ in his hit song ‘Ice Ice Baby’ without consent and without a music licence.

The case was settled out of court as it was clear that Vanilla Ice had merely altered the rhythm of the baseline in an effort to avoid giving credit, paying royalties, seeking permission and a music licence.

A Run-Down Of Your Rights

As a musician, you have three main rights:

1. Reproduction

This allows you to reproduce the music you have created in any format.

2. Performance and communication

This right is exercised whenever your music is broadcast on TV or radio, when you perform a song live or distribute your music on the internet.

3. Adaptation

This protects your status as the sole person who can create derivative works, such as music sampling, unless another person has your permission or a licence to do so.

As a creator of music, you not only possess copyright ownership of the music itself but also in the lyrics and any sound recording of your music.

You also own moral rights to your music, including the right to have your work attributed to you by name, the right to stop anyone else attributing your work to them and the right to protect your music from being used in a way that hurts or damages your reputation.

As An Artist, What Does This Mean For You?

If you discover that someone is using your musical work without your permission, you have the right to seek recompense.

Here’s what you can do to stick it to the infringer:

• Firstly, identify who used your song without your permission.

If it is a small team of indie filmmakers or school students making a project for their media class, it may be wise to let it go and take a ‘give-a-little get-a-little’ approach.

On the other hand, if it is a large corporation or mainstream media outlet who is profiting from your blood, sweat, and tears without a licence and without paying you the royalties to which you are entitled, it may be worthwhile taking things further and seek a legal remedy.

You may wish to seek an injunction, which prevents any further unauthorised use of your music, or damages as compensation for the loss you have suffered as a result of the infringement. In either of these scenarios, you will need to pursue legal advice from a lawyer who specialises in entertainment or copyright law.

They will advise you on your rights, whether your claim is worth pursuing, the best course of action based on your circumstances and possible remedies you may be awarded based on the loss you have suffered.

• Secondly, ascertain how much of your song has been used.

Copyright is infringed only where a substantial part of your copyrighted music is used without your permission, and where this infringement is not covered by any of the fair dealing exceptions.

The Copyright Act balances your rights as the copyright owner with the general public allowing the general public to use a substantial part of copyright material without first seeking your approval. This only applies for certain approved purposes called ‘fair dealing’ defences.

This means that if someone uses your music for any of the below purposes, then they have a defence to your copyright claim:

• research or study
• criticism or review
• reporting news
• giving professional legal advice; and
• parody or satire

If the copyright infringement does not fall within any of the above purposes, it is important to contact the person whom you believe has infringed your copyright as soon as possible after you become aware of the infringement.

• Thirdly, you may wish to send an initial letter of demand.

Your letter should make that person aware that you own exclusive rights to your music, that they have infringed your rights, and how you would like the situation resolved. You should also include a date that you would like to receive a response by, and that you have the right to commence legal proceedings if an adequate response is not received within that timeframe.

Before sending your letter, it is not only important that you consult a legal professional, but also that you consider the outcome you would like to achieve.

For example, would you like the person who has infringed your copyright to:

Simply stop using your music? This is a simple request if your music is being used on a website, for example, as it can be removed quickly.

Continue using your music, but to pay a licence fee?

Pay compensation to you for the loss you have incurred as a result of the unauthorised use of your music?

The Arts Law Centre of Australia has a downloadable template of a letter of demand.

Groundless Threats

Before sending a letter of demand, or making any claims that someone has infringed your copyright, it is critical that you seek legal advice.

If you send a threatening letter and the person has not actually infringed your copyright, this can be considered a groundless threat. This means that the person you have accused of infringing your copyright can turn around and sue you for making an unsubstantiated threat of legal action.

What Can I Do To Protect My Music In The Future?

As a first step, you can set up a Google Alert to receive daily inbox alerts whenever your music is being mentioned or used on the internet. This will help you to keep track of who is using your music, when it is happening and where it is happening without your consent.

To protect economic rights to your music, you can register with a collecting society.

These bodies oversee payment of royalties, look after your copyright and grant permission for others to use your songs (either by performing them or recording them) if they pay a fee.

Australia has a few main collecting societies:

• Australasian Performing Rights Association (APRA) which covers situations where another artist wishes to play your songs live.
• Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society (AMCOS) which covers instances where someone wishes to make their own recording of your song.
• Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA) or the Australian Record Industry Association (ARIA) which covers sound recordings.

You may also wish to consider getting an International Standard Recording Code (ISRC). This is the international identification system for sound recordings and music video recordings which provide a method to automatically identify recordings for royalty payments. In Australia, this is administered by ARIA.

Conclusion

The area of copyright law can be a minefield at the best of times.

For musicians, the first step to protecting your rights is understanding them. Knowing what your options are if you believe they have been infringed by an individual or corporation, and when to seek legal advice, is the best way to secure a favourable outcome.

Bear in mind that there are time limits for commencing legal proceedings in copyright cases, so it is important to see a lawyer as quickly as possible if you suspect your copyright has been infringed.

Further Information

Arts Law Centre – for more information on your rights as a musician and access to legal professionals specialising in copyright law.

To learn more about your rights as a musician visit:

• Music Rights Australia

To find safe and licenced content online visit:

• Digital Content Guide

For a list of legal digital music content providers in Australia and internationally visit:

• Pro Music

To get in touch with a legal professional specialising in entertainment law visit:

• Marque Lawyers (NSW)
• Creative Legal (WA and Vic)
• Studio Legal (Vic)
• Media Arts Lawyers (NSW and Vic)
• Shaun Miller Lawyers (Vic)
• Simpsons Lawyers (NSW)
• Sanicki Lawyers (Vic and Qld)
• McCormicks (Qld)

For centuries, Santa Claus has symbolised the fun and merriment of Christmas.

He wears a jolly suit. He rides a jolly sleigh. He and his reindeer visit every child, around the world, on the eve of Christmas day.

Once a year this benevolent fellow also enters your home, drinks your milk, eats your biscuits and deposits presents under your tree … all while you slumber sweetly.

As much as we adore this deeply-entrenched Christmas tradition, at Bucket-O we also delight in looking at the festive season from a characteristically non-traditional perspective.

With this in mind we ask the question: Is Santa legally authorised to use your roof as his personal landing pad?

Reindeer Games

According to the legend of Father Christmas, one night per year a chubby cheery man and his gleaming sleigh alight on our rooftops. He silently enters our home through a tiny cavity (chimney or open window) to leave Christmas gifts for children. This scene plays out without our knowledge or explicit permission.

For most of us, this improbable tale embodies the magic of Christmas.

But for someone with legal training, the narrative kickstarts a whirring internal dialogue of potential legal issues, soundtracked to jangling alarm bells and urgent twinkle lights.

So why would this seemingly harmless scenario cause a lawyer to recoil?

Because if you have exclusive possession of a property, anyone who enters it without your permission (even Santa) commits a trespass.

This means that if anyone enters your property without your permission, you are within your rights to ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave when you request, you can use reasonable force to remove them.

Like a Christmas tree

If you rent a property, you are entitled to ask someone to leave if they do not have permission to enter. The law of trespass protects you as an occupier of land, not just the owner.

There are, however, certain classes of people who have an implied right of entry to your property and are able to walk to your door. For example, salesmen and neighbours. The moment you withdraw your consent and ask this person to leave they must comply or they are trespassing.

Bad Santa

Even though someone is trespassing on your property it is still possible for them to claim that you have assaulted them, or to sue you, if you use anything more than reasonable force to remove them.

For example, if Santa enters your home against your wishes, you are within your rights to ask him and his reindeer to move on. If he refuses, you are entitled to use reasonable force to ensure he leaves. This may include taking his arm and leading him to your door, or nudging him back up the chimney.

NOT an example of reasonable force

Any further action, such as tugging his beard, stealing his hat or getting into a fist fight is ill-advised. This could quickly lead to assault charges being laid against you, and Santa could even sue you for damages.

If you are unsure about what constitutes reasonable force, you may wish to contact the police who will remove the festive trespasser from your property.

High speed pursuit: Police helicopter vs Santa’s sleigh

Naughty Or Nice

Where your land is fenced or enclosed, there are penalties for unlawful entry and offensive conduct under the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901.

With or without a fence, you may also be able to sue Santa for any damage or injury caused.

For example, if his reindeer damage your roof by dislodging tiles or leaving droppings, or if you incur cleaning costs as a result of ash being walked into your carpets or furniture.

Christmas Comes But Once A Year

Santa Claus is a lot like a boomerang. He comes around every year.

In instances where a trespass occurs repeatedly (as in the case of Santa’s regular visits) and all other measures to stop the trespass have failed, it is possible to apply to the Supreme Court for an injunction. This prevents the trespass from occurring in the future.

If Santa breaches this order by landing on your roof the following year, this will be considered a breach of the court order and result in contempt of court, meaning that he will be dealt with severely.

If your situation is more urgent, for example, if you need to prevent your pool’s new rooftop solar heating system from being shattered by a heavy sleigh and reindeer hooves, an interim injunction is available.

Interim injunctions apply in urgent cases to prevent serious consequences. They operate immediately and continue in force until the court can hear the main matter.

The Gift Of Giving

It may be possible for Santa to apply to the Local Court for an Access Order allowing him entry onto your land under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000 (Part 2 Access Orders).

These orders exist to allow someone to enter your land to carry out work or make improvements.

It may be possible for Santa to argue that he is making improvements to your property, and should be allowed to enter to leave gifts under your tree.

He Sees You When You’re Sleeping

Before letting himself in, Santa peers through your windows to make sure you are asleep.

But peeping or prying on another person in or near a building without reasonable excuse is a crime under Crimes Act 1900.

These days, Santa’s habit of looking into children’s windows could result in a maximum $220 fine or three months imprisonment.

What is considered peeping or prying will depend on the circumstances of each case.

If you feel uncomfortable with anyone looking through your windows, phone the police.

Conclusion

This festive season, along with perfecting your Christmas ham glaze, we hope that you have developed a taste for protecting your property rights. So the next time a portly stranger clad in red & white enters your home unbidden, you can tell him where he can fly to next.

Further Information

• Local police assistance line: 131 444
• For more information about common legal matters in NSW download: The Law Handbook.

Once upon a late night, I read Bram Stoker’s Dracula. In the book, mysterious puncture marks had begun appearing on the necks of townswomen and several characters had become unwitting hosts to winged creatures who tapped at their windows at night.

Entertained, but incredulous, I put the book down and nodded off. A few hours later, I woke to a flurry of tiny wings fanning my face. The mysterious late night visitor revealed itself, to my horror, to be a bat circling the beams above my head.

The rest of this story rapidly devolves into a comedy of errors involving army-crawling to safety, the rousing and disbelief of room mates, and one final and spectacular showdown between four adults, a tiny bat and a broom.

Literary monsters such as Dracula take root in our deepest and most primal fears because they are not restricted by the laws of man or the laws of nature. They are formidable predators, undead, invisible to society and materialise from your worst nightmares (and your bedroom).

The point is that life often imitates art – my improbable bat tale is evidence. As dark and unimaginable as fictionalised horror stories can be, everyday life can be equally unpredictable and frightening.

But what many of us tend to forget is that the law is an equally powerful and dynamic entity that is there to protect us from all manner of evil.

Lawyering Is Thirsty Work 

Lawyers have long-been been regarded by society as blood sucking vampires who prey on the vulnerable and weak for their own gain. But ironically, lawyers are well-represented in Stoker’s famous 1897 work, Dracula, as the heroes of the story. For example, lead characters Jonathan Harker and Van Helsing.

The difference in our modern 2015 reworking of Dracula is that, unlike many women portrayed in Stoker’s narrative, this story will not end with victims going gently into the night succumbing to Dracula’s supernatural spell. In this rendition, Dracula will be put on trial.

Crimes That Count

In many ways Stoker’s story is a reflection of society.

Unthinkable crimes committed by unseen predators lurking in our midst (for example, serial killers, pedophiles, kidnappers, stalkers and rapists) occur with a similar methodology to Dracula. News stories about violent criminal activity affect us with a combination of awe and abhorrence as they shine a light on the worst acts humanity is capable of. Perhaps the most important thing Dracula teaches us is that:

[bctt tweet=”You do not have to be a fictitious monster to commit monstrous acts.”]

The law regulates our behaviour by spelling out conduct that is, and is not, acceptable. It holds a mirror up to the values of the society of the day so that behaviour that causes community harm, that is morally wrong or offensive or impinges on another person’s individual autonomy is punished.

With this framework in mind, what crimes could Dracula be charged with if he were prosecuted in a modern Australian court?

False Imprisonment

Dracula locks Jonathan Harker in a room in his castle.

In no place [in the castle] save from the windows in the castle walls is there an available exit.The castle is a veritable prison, and I am a prisoner!” – Jonathan Harker, Dracula

False imprisonment is a common law offence in NSW, it is a crime to intentionally and unlawfully restrain the liberty of another person against their will.

However, for Dracula to be charged with the criminal offence of false imprisonment, he would need to detain Jonathan Harker in NSW, rather than in his damp Transylvanian castle.

Dracula could also be sued civilly by Jonathan Harker for false imprisonment, with a sum of damages to be determined by the court.

Identity Theft

Jonathan Harker witnesses Dracula crawling down the castle wall in Harker’s clothes. He realises Dracula’s dark motive is to appear publicly and remove the possibility of Harker’s disappearance to be traced to Dracula’s castle.

I had been at the window somewhat less than half an hour, when I saw something coming out of the Count’s window. I drew back and watched carefully, and saw the whole man emerge. It was a new shock to me to find that he had on the suit of clothes which I had worn whilst travelling here, and slung over his shoulder the terrible bag which I had seen the women take away. There could be no doubt as to his quest, and in my garb, too! This, then, is his new scheme of evil, that he will allow others to see me, as they think, so that he may both leave evidence that I have been seen in the towns or villages posting my own letters, and that any wickedness which he may do shall by the local people be attributed to me.” – Jonathan Harker, Dracula

Identity theft is considered a dishonesty offence. In Australia, using another person’s personal information with intention to commit an indictable offence is a crime. It may also be proven that Dracula engaged in fraud by unlawfully obtaining property belonging to Jonathan with the intention to permanently deprive him of it.

Stalking

Lucy Westenra and Mina Harker are stalked by Dracula.

I have a dim half remembrance of long, anxious times of waiting and fearing, darkness in which there was not even the pain of hope to make present distress more poignant. And then long spells of oblivion, and the rising back to life as a diver coming up through a great press of water. Since, however, Dr. Van Helsing has been with me, all this bad dreaming seems to have passed away. The noises that used to frighten me out of my wits, the flapping against the windows, the distant voices which seemed so close to me, the harsh sounds that came from I know not where and commanded me to do I know not what, have all ceased – Lucy Westenra, Dracula

In Australia, stalking is a crime in every State and Territory.

Under the Crimes Act 1900, stalking must occur on more than one occasion. In NSW stalking legislation has been made in tandem with domestic violence legislation in the Crimes (Domestic & Personal Violence) Act 2007, NSW.

To constitute stalking, Dracula must have engaged in watching and being in the vicinity of Lucy or Mina’s homes, business or work or any place they frequent for social or leisure activities.

It is clear that Lucy Westenra is aware that she is being stalked and that her assailant is causing her physical harm. Dracula’s nightly stalking behaviour was intended to cause fear of physical or mental harm.

The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment.

Assault

Lucy Westernra and Mina Harker are victims of assault. Lucy, in particular, is preyed upon at night by Dracula when she is regularly bitten and her blood exsanguinated.

I was waked by the flapping at the window… I heard a sort of howl like a dog’s, but more fierce and deeper. I went to the window and looked out, but could see nothing, except a big bat, which had evidently been buffeting its wings against the window. – Lucy Westrnra, Dracula.

Dracula may be charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The injuries caused do not need to be permanent but must require serious physical injury and wounding.

The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment.

Poisoning

When Dracula bites Lucy Westenra, he infects her blood. Her blood poisoning places her under his spell where she is compelled to do his bidding as the ‘bloofer lady.’

She stalks children at night and eventually transforms into an undead vampire herself.

Another child, missed last night, was only discovered late in the morning …It has the same tiny wound in the throat as has been noticed in other cases. It was terribly weak, and looked quite emaciated. It too, when partially restored, had the common story to tell of being lured away by the “bloofer lady”. 

It is a criminal offence to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm.

To be successfully charged, it would need to be established that Dracula administered a poisonous or intoxicating substance or other destructive or noxious thing, that it endangered life or inflicted grievous bodily harm and that Dracula intended to injure, or was reckless about injuring Lucy.

The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.

Trespass

Dracula frequently lets himself into the houses of his victims without permission through windows and locked doors.

I’ll just let myself in

In NSW, someone can only enter your property if you have given them permission, or if they have a right of way or other right of access to your land.

Entering property without permission is trespassing.

Dracula could be prosecuted for trespass and/or sued under civil law for damages.

Manslaughter

Lucy Westenra’s mother dies from shock when she sees Dracula in the form of a wolf at Lucy’s window.

There was a crash at the window, and a lot of broken glass was hurled on the floor. The window blind blew back with the wind that rushed in, and in the aperture of the broken panes there was the head of a great, gaunt gray wolf.

Mother cried out in a fright …for a second or two she sat up, pointing at the wolf, and there was a strange and horrible gurgling in her throat. Then she fell over, as if struck with lightning, and her head hit my forehead …dear Mother’s poor body, which seemed to grow cold already, for her dear heart had ceased to beat, weighed me down, and I remembered no more for a while. – Lucy Westenra – Dracula.

Manslaughter can be either voluntary or involuntary or through criminal negligence. In Dracula’s case we are only interested in voluntary manslaughter through unlawful and dangerous act. Dracula caused the death of Mrs Westenra by his voluntary act of smashing through the window which was unlawful and dangerous.

It would need to be proven that a reasonable person in Dracula’s position would have appreciated that such an act would expose another person to a risk of serious injury.

A court would also take into account Mrs Westenra’s age and whether she had an underlying medical or heart condition.

The maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment

Murder

The question of whether Dracula could be charged with murder is a tricky one since Lucy Westenra did not die, but rather became undead.

To successfully bring a charge of murder against Dracula under the NSW Crimes Act 1900, it would need to be established beyond a reasonable doubt that Dracula voluntarily engaged in an action (or omission) that caused death and had the requisite mental element of either killing or inflicting grievous bodily harm or was recklessly indifferent to human life.

A more appropriate charge, given current development of the law, could be wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm which is generally considered under common law to involve breaking of the skin. Wounding does not require use of a weapon – as Dracula proves by the use of his fangs.

To be guilty of this offence, Dracula must have wounded Lucy and caused grievous bodily harm with the intent to cause that grievous bodily harm. Given the extent and nature of her injuries, the degree of violence and ferocity of attack as well as her transformation into a vampire will be taken into account in sentencing.

The maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment.

A Final Nail In The Coffin

No one is impervious to prosecution. Not even literary monsters.

As heinous as these crimes in the time of a fictional character may seem, humans are equally capable of committing terrible and violent acts against one another. The law exists to regulate this behaviour so that any action which causes harm to a person is punished.

Enjoy this story? Subscribe to our newsletter to have our latest #NurseryCrime tales delivered straight to your inbox!

It’s tough being a lone sheriff in town.

Rick Grimes from popular TV series, The Walking Dead, can attest.

When it comes to the total dissolution of society in a hypothetical zombie apocalypse, the complete breakdown of law and order is inevitable.

Characters must often resort to extreme measures to survive. Behaviour that once struck at the common morality, by causing harm to others or rousing feelings of indignation and revulsion in ordinary people, can not only become commonplace but also critical for survival. Looting, trespassing, vandalism, theft, assault, murder and cannibalism are just a few examples carried out with daily indifference by survivors of a zombie apocalypse.

But what if that all changed.

What if, by virtue of a cure, humanity returned to normal? Would survivors revert to an ordinary existence? And would society hold them to account, demanding punishment for crimes committed during a catastrophic global event which ‘paused’ the rule of law?

If we place Rick Grimes in the dock, what crimes could he be charged with in an Australian court today?

Rick Grimes & His Murdersome Times

How many times has Rick Grimes killed people outright to save his group? For long-standing fans of the show, it is getting harder and harder to keep track.

To successfully bring a charge of murder against Rick under the NSW Crimes Act 1900, it would need to be established beyond a reasonable doubt that Rick voluntarily engaged in an action (or omission) that caused death and had the requisite mental element of either killing or inflicting grievous bodily harm or was recklessly indifferent to human life.

• Intent to kill.

Sorry, not sorry.

At the time Rick committed the deliberate action of killing, it would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to kill that person.

• Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.

This will hurt less if you stop struggling.

Just because someone may intend to inflict grievous bodily harm, as opposed to intending to kill, for example, does not excuse him or her from liability for a murder conviction if the person dies.

• Reckless indifference to human life.

Reckless indifference to human life means performing an act with foresight of the probability of death arising from that act and going ahead with it anyway. If death does result from this action then the person is guilty of murder.

The behaviour of someone who continues with a course of action, knowing that it is likely to cause death, but carries on with it anyway is considered by criminal law to be equally as blameworthy as someone who engages in an activity with the specific intention of causing death.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

Likely finding by a court?

GUILTY

Ricky Grimes & Manslaughter 

Let’s give Rick the benefit of the doubt for this one.

Maybe he really didn’t mean to choke this guy to death in the bathroom. Maybe he just wanted to keep him quiet so that his friends could escape.

Shh, be quiet like a mouse.

Manslaughter can be either voluntary or involuntary or through criminal negligence.

In Rick’s case, we are only really interested in voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter requires the elements of murder to be present. However, responsibility is reduced where provocation exists or where there is substantial impairment or abnormality of mind.

Another form of voluntary manslaughter is manslaughter by excessive self-defence. This happens where the elements of murder are satisfied, but a reasonable person in the same position would have thought that it was necessary in the circumstances to use lethal force.

It would be up to a court to determine whether Rick acted reasonably in these circumstances and whether a reasonable person would also have considered it necessary to cause death.

But the likely finding by a court?

GUILTY

You’ve Got Faults? Get Ready For Grimes’ Assault

Rick is no stranger to beating people to a pulp.

Who, me!?

Among other offences, Rick could be charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The injuries caused do not need to be permanent but must require serious physical injury and wounding.

Intent to cause actual bodily harm is not required for this offence. Rick must have intentionally or recklessly assaulted the victim and actual bodily harm must have resulted. When determining the appropriate sentence for an offence, the court looks at aggravating factors, mitigating factors and any other factors that influence the seriousness of the offence.

An aggravating factor here may be is that Rick committed this offence in the company of others, if convicted he is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

However, a significant mitigating factor is where the victim provoked the attack.

It is of the essence of provocation that the acts of others cause offenders to lose their self control and embark upon criminal conduct often of the utmost gravity”. R v Ferguson [1999] NSWCCA 214 at [29].

It would be up to the court to determine an appropriate punishment taking into account the seriousness of the offence, aggravating and mitigating factors and Rick’s history of violence.

Likely finding by a court? You guessed it!

GUILTY

Talk $h*t, Get Bit 

Was Rick in a sound frame of mind when he unceremoniously ended an attacker with his bare teeth to save his son from an unexpected group attack?

They’re messing with the wrong people!

The mental state required in the offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm is a relevant factor, especially if there is a degree of cognitive disturbance and an absence of premeditation.

Although wounding has not been defined under the Crimes Act 1900 it is generally considered under common law to involve the breaking of the skin. Wounding does not require the use of a weapon – as Rick clearly demonstrates by using his teeth.

To be guilty of this offence, Rick must have wounded someone and caused grievous bodily harm with the intent to cause that grievous bodily harm. The extent and nature of injuries, as well as the degree of violence and ferocity of the attack, will be taken into account in sentencing.

The maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment.

Likely finding by a court? Say it with us!

GUILTY

Ricky, Rick & His Baby Chick

Rick spends a lot of time letting his baby roll around on the backseat of a car, feeding her ground acorns and leaving her alone with strangers.

Hey, sweetheart! You doing okay back here?

Under the Crimes Act 1900, this is referred to as a failure to provide the necessities of life.

A person who is under a legal duty to provide another person with the necessities of life and without reasonable excuse, intentionally or recklessly, fails to do so is guilty of an offence where the failure causes death or serious injury, or the likelihood of serious injury, to that person.

The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment.

Sheriff Grimes & His Zombie Thumping Crimes

In a zombie apocalypse, either you mess with the dead or they mess with you.

Please understand that I hold you in the highest respect.

Unfortunately for Rick, it is an offence in NSW to participate in any misconduct in relation to corpses.

This means that any person who improperly interferes with, or offers any indignity to, any dead human body or human remains (whether buried or not) commits an offence.

Punishment is 2 years imprisonment.

Likely finding by a court? Let’s hear it!

GUILTY

What Factors May Mitigate Rick’s Criminal Convictions? 

His face.

Conflict arises. Meaningfully stares way into souls of jury.

Several studies have indicated that, attractive defendants are treated more compassionately and experience more lenient sentences (or are acquitted altogether) in contrast to less attractive persons accused of the same offence.

Sorry, Daryl.

Terminus

In a post-apocalyptic world, Rick really runs the gauntlet of deviant behaviour. These are just some examples of offences that Rick could be charged with in NSW. In the next instalment of the Crimes Of Grimes we will look into what legal defences and arguments may be available to him, as well as which civil laws our tricky Ricky may have infringed.

To have the latest news from Rick’s Big Day In Court delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe to our newsletter!

*this article is based on the NSW Crimes Act 1900.

Lawyers tend to get a bad wrap.

From perceived profiteering from the misfortune of others to exorbitant fees and long delays in litigation, many young Australians would prefer a meaningful exchange with a sledgehammer and their face over a conversation with a legal professional.

But while lawyers have long-endured all manner of jokes and deeply-entrenched cultural stereotypes, there are many practical benefits to legal training. When it comes to going toe-to-toe in an argument with the lawyer in your social group, for example, you can bet that few are willing to take on the challenge. Why?

Because lawyers not only understand how to argue a point; they also know how to win the point.

The good news is that presenting an effective argument is a learned skill that has little to do with formal legal training, and a lot to do with a few practical strategies. So what is the secret to winning an argument?

Act like a lady; argue like a lawyer.

1. Identify The Issue And Don’t Deviate From It

Recognise the main point of discussion and stick with it.

When someone challenges our views, our natural reaction is to defend ourselves with all available evidence. Particularly if the issue is a deeply contentious one (such as immigration detention centres, people smuggling, human rights, climate change, environmental issues, the Federal Budget or marriage equality) your brain will perceive many different, but unrelated, ways to further your point.

This grassroots response is natural. But it will not help you win your argument.

The main risk here is that your debate will quickly and irretrievably deviate from the subject at hand to one that does not progress the current issue at all. This is where it is easy to become lost in a sea of unrelated issues.

How To Get Your Lawyer On:

Lawyers stick with the topic.

Subjective opinions are not objective facts. No matter what strategies the opposing side uses to distract you from the main issue, or how tempting it is to draw in other connections, a good lawyer always brings the argument back to the original point.

2. Leave Emotion At The Door!

Emotion will never win an argument.

When we feel strongly about a subject, it is likely that our views are informed by past personal experiences. A strong emotional response to someone challenging these views leaves us not only vulnerable to feelings of personal attack, but also not thinking clearly. This can lead to anger, resentfulness, jealousy, defensiveness or distress.

We may naturally cast the conversational net wider in search of ‘evidence’ to support our position. However, introducing new subjective issues can easily lead to a no-holds-barred shouting match.

Becoming emotional is like giving your opponent a bill board-sized signal advertising your weak spot.

Emotion makes it difficult for us to present a convincing argument. Negative displays of body language such as yelling, crying, sighing, eye rolling or name-calling is a waste of the mental energy required to win your argument. It fortifies your opponent’s psychological and emotional defences meaning that from this point, no matter how persuasive you are, you have already lost the battle.

Emotion deafens us to conflicting points of view meaning your opponent can no longer hear what you are saying. 

How To Get Your Lawyer On:

Lawyers stay calm and stick with the facts.

When it comes to arguments or negotiations, emotion is weakness.

Even if lawyers are provoked, or are emotionally connected with a particular subject, they do not allow their opponent to use it to their advantage.

It gives them the ammunition they need to focus their own strategy, distract you from your core objective and, ultimately, win the argument.

3. Be Wary Of Shifting Dialogues

A strategy often used by those with limited argumentative skills is to shift the overall dialogue.

This is achieved by drawing in related, but irrelevant topics. The debate slowly moves away from the central issue to similar sub-issues meaning that the original topic is never dealt with.

You will have noticed politicians using this strategy to avoid direct responses to journalists.

The result is a circular debate that fails to progress the original topic or come to any solid conclusions. Introducing a secondary conversational theme is often an attempt to shift the conversational landscape to something your opponent is more comfortable discussing. When this happens, rest assured that you have the upper hand.

How To Get Your Lawyer On: 

Lawyers are not drawn in by a conversational bait and switch.

They hold their ground and remind their opponent of the real issue.

At The End Of The Day

A lawyer’s ability to win an argument can be summed up by a few key skills: organising ideas and delivering them effectively.

Keep your discussions on the right path by understanding exactly what you are debating and, no matter what strategies your opponent uses to distract, intimidate, confuse or shift the conversational ground beneath you, always bring the argument back to the original point.

Use these tactics and you will never lose another argument.

At least not the one you originally started.

More on BucketOrange Magazine

• Laws Of Conversation: How To Argue Like A Lawyer (Vol. 2)
• How To Think Like A Lawyer (Even When You Don’t Have A Law Degree)