No, you’re not dreaming! I’ve done a video critiquing a random couple of sentences plucked from EDGAR that deal with jurisdiction stuff.
Well, OK, it might not be quite that compelling. But here’s what it does have going for it: it’s clear from the data that you people would rather pluck your eyeballs from your head than watch anything longer than five minutes. Well, I messed up: I was aiming for “Under six minutes!,” but this video came in at 6 minutes and 18 seconds. Nevertheless, you get the idea—it’s short.
Generally I prefer to get my information from text—reading is way more efficient than listening to people yammering. But I think this video makes sense. It’s an entryway to to the thrilling world of a grab-bag of my analyses relating to jurisdiction. Telling the same story using text and screenshots would be a little fragmented and annoying.
Being able to point to extra resources is essential. The world of contracts is one of relentless detail. If someone gets up on their hind legs in the marketplace of ideas to talk about what to say in contracts or how to say it and they don’t have that sort of backup, you might want to tune them out.
Like my other recent videos, this video is hosted by LegalSifter. That’s because my recent blog posts on jurisdiction issues were prompted by my work for LegalSifter: I’ve gotten all sorts of insight from having to look at contracts from many different angles.
If you want my list of extra resources, with links, you have to give LegalSifter your contact information. Oh the infamy! Well, here’s what will happen: LegalSifter will email you to say, Hey, if you’re partial to Ken’s stuff, you might want to check out LegalSifter. How about it?” And you say “Yes,” or you ignore it. And that’s it. I’m willing to play along with this minimalist intrusion into your lives because I think what we’re doing at LegalSifter is kind of nifty, and no one else is doing anything like it, so I’d like more people to know about it.
Go here for the video. Let me know what you think.
