label created professional videos. there are what are called user generated content. that can be someone taping someone in their home, singing a recording or could be that there is music playing in the background to a recording. if music is involved, there is a copyright there. we have worked out a deal. i can't get into the specifics of it, but we have to deal with youtube that allows our songwriters to get paid. the way it works in the u.s. is, we actually license the professional video content. we get a percentage of what the record labels collect from youtube, and for the user generated, there is a mechanism that allows us to get our songwriters' pay for the content. .

bright they are having issues in the you can -- and united kingdom with publishing companies trying to negotiate rates that have been unsuccessful in trying to come to terms, and it is a process

that is involved in terms of negotiation. i am hopeful that they will arrive at terms that will allow their business to evolve and grow. >> our guest is chairman and ceo of the universal music group. thank you for being here. >> thank you very much. >> coming soon, remarks from a chief justice john roberts. later, washington nationals president on the process of developing the baseball team. hoc->> tomorrow, a look at

what the unrest in iran means for the future of the government with jack goldstone. and then, a discussion with peter morici a of the university of maryland. and lives -- liz garbus talks about her film, "shouting fire." >> how is c-span funded? >> locally funded. >> donations? >> government. >> c-span didst funding for taxes. >> a funding thing. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, with no government mandate or government money. >> and now, from the annual judicial conference of the

fourth circuit court of appeals, a conversation with chief justice john roberts, followed by discussion by a group of legal analysts on the decisions of the supreme court, who complete their term monday. this is about two hours, 40 minutes. >> could we have you take your seats, please? good morning. we have a very extra special program this morning, and it will focus entirely on the supreme court. chief justice marshall worried that the supreme court's role

in the tripartite government would not be fulfilled if the court continued issuing multiple opinions, one from each justice, as was the custom in england up a time. he thought it important that the court speak unanimously as an institution. his strategy for achieving this basic and fundamental strategy -- he conference cases after dinner. after serving wine, which he personally purchased and brought to the court, and the court was able to work to the problems and in resolve their differences and issued opinions that were, for a large part, unanimous. in retrospect, the chief justice was impressive with successful

results from 1811 to 1823. they decided 457 cases, of which 437 were unanimous. chief justice roberts shares justice marshall possible to that the supreme court's decisions would be more happily received by the public with unanimity. as cheese -- chief justice roberts observed a few years ago, if the court in marshall's era at decision issueds in other heroes, we would not have the supreme court today of the sort that we have. that suggests that what the court has been doing over the past 30 years has been eroding to some extent the capital marshal build up. i think the court needs to

refocus as an institution, because if it does not, it will lose legitimacy. justice roberts was exhorting a recent return to the notion that the supreme court speak as an institution. i must say, for my own observations, i believe that the chief justice is making significant progress, although this is a task that takes time. this morning, we will begin our session with an interview with justice will consent, and following that will move into our panel on the supreme court, moderated by professor dick howard, to discuss the supreme court terms. there are three cases to be handed down and i understand we're looking to monday to hear

about those. so at this time, i would now like to welcome to the stage judge wilkinson and the chief justice of the united states. [applause] >> thank-you, col. 90. thank you.

us in the judiciary one thing that those of us are unanimous about is our respect and admiration for the chief justice, someone of great humor and enormous legal skills, and one of the things i think we respect so much about him is he has an essential sense of the dignity of the job. those of us in the federal judiciary are absolutely feeling great goodness fortune to have some of his caliber leading our system. i have a few questions of you,

chief. you mentioned last night that one of the things you had accomplished was to follow the calendar a little bit so everything would not be jammed up in may and june, but one of the problems you worked on, if there is one aspect of present operations and practice, one you feel could be improved, what is the one single thing about the present supreme court practice that you would change if you had a chance to? >> the chief justice should have two votes. and that would solve a lot of the others. but this, i think, will be familiar to a lot of judges.

we get a lot of briefing. it was not the case when the current limits for briefs were set down that we typically had a half-dozen, at least, and sometimes 40 briefs in each case, and i think it would be good not only for the bench before the lawyers to come and cut back a good bit. it is roughly 50 pages right now. it comes out to roughly 50. and if you go back and look at it when i was a practitioner, there is a sense of hypocrisy, but there is no reason that the party brief could not be more effective at 35 pages, 40 pages. it would force lawyers to do a better job at hitting their main point. other subsidiary jobs could be

fleshed out, and i think that would be good for the judges and good for lawyers, as well. another thing, i think we're getting carried away with oral arguments. i am sure many of you have been there. this is a little too much domination by the bench. it has gone to the time were justices feel they have to best air time to get points across and get answers, and it would be better if we were more restrained. we talked about cutting back a little bit, certain the hon. time. we make a conscience -- conscious effort not to jump on a lawyer's during the time to make their points. i think we should get one of the timers they have for speed chess. it's just a should have one of those in front of them.

if they want just a five-minute question, they can. but if they want to not eat up the rest of their questions, that would be a good idea. >> the same thing could be said about judges as you said about lawyers. dear colleagues, says emory wide near, somebody said the opinions are a little bit long, and you say, oh, my goodness, we do not have time to write short opinions. one thing i've wondered about, the job of chief justice is about to positions or three positions ruled in one. and i think with different duties that you have, your head of the smithsonian, for one thing. you have all sorts of things.

you could take the first cut of the list or conference and whenever fellow justices have a matter of some moments, and you have been gracious and excepting obligations. on top of that, you are a parent of an 8-year-old and a 7-year- old, or maybe they are both 8 now. but i do not really understand how you managed to do all you do. do you have a chance to read a mystery or watch football, because the amounts of things

you are required to oversee is astonishing. do you get any downtime? >> starting tuesday, i will. worked really ramps up to the end of the term and then it just drops off. you, after the term is over and twiddle your thumbs. we carry forward a certain level of work to keep up with the occasional emergencies, and a lot of items he mentioned, they're wonderful people carrying goes forward. i have on paper responsibility for a lot of the administration of the federal court and judicial conference that does all the heavy lifting in that regard.

i try not to make too many mistakes in terms of second- guessing what they will do. the smithsonian is an interesting distraction but obviously they do not turn any heavy responsibilities over to me in that regard. it is -- you do not have a lot of spare time during the year end the trade off is you have a lot in the summer and you try to catch up on things. >> last night you were talking about your predecessors, who they were, and which ones you admired, and those that you thought went awry, and looking back on the history of the supreme court, people said the

two most important decisions were probably around the board of education and versus madison, for really different reasons, but looking back over the history of the supreme court, there are some decisions that stick in your mind other than those two as being of the most monumental consequence, because it seems to me when people start getting beyond the cases that are typical, the importance diverges. so i was wondering what cases you might add to that list of really landmark cases in the past?

>> one stands out. people talk about monumental cases and you assume that they're talking about the good ones, marbury and brown. the third most significant case was dread scott, in the sense that marbury and brown are good examples of what to do in challenging situations, but dread scott is an example where things went terribly wrong, and we need to try and figure out why, looking at that. i think some of the reasons are clear. you had the most divisive issue in our history, leaving the country toward civil war, the overlay on top of that. the political branches failing to address it and causing more harm than good in the legislature, and you had larger columns whose reputation would be different if it were not for

one case. looking at it and seeing it, the issue is threatening to destroy the country, and i am going to solve it. i am the only one who can, and we will lead the court into a revolution of those issues that are dividing country, and in a broadway that really had no focus in the reading of the constitution and in a decision that could have been resolved either way on much narrower grounds which would have preserved for the court and avoided a civil war -- i am not suggesting that. but i am suggesting that the court as an institution would have been able to play a more effective role is that had not suffered the salt-inflected wounds. so i think we look at margaret

for the lessons he can draw about the necessity of developing a broad group consensus so the court is speaking as a court, approaching the case in narrow ground, avoiding politicization -- you have to remember, democratic republicans were just waiting to take action on the central action that would have resulted in a packing gland, and i think the court would have been attacked dramatically, and i do not know if it could have survived. he looked at dread scott and say, well, this is a good example. and that can teach you just as much as other examples. >> would you want to draw from that a rule that this court should steer clear of controversy? >> no, not controversy.

but you have a case that could have been resolved on narrow grounds. i am not suggesting it would have resulted in a decision freeing the country from slavery treated may have resulted in the same decision. but it would not have the political impact. either to result in relief for dread scott or not. but instead, she went straight to the results on the broadest possible grounds, and as a result, through the course into the political realm, so consciously. marshall's decision in marguerite reflected a decision to pull back. jeffersonian had legislature and said that their efforts would be blocked. that is the central political

issue of the day and marshall does not even get to it. he pulls back results on a much narrower ground. so there are situation where the court actually has legal issues of great political significance. but i think it is important to look and see if you can do that on a narrow basis, and if you do not, it is important to recognize there will be huge consequences. >> i want to return to a more personal vein before taking questions from the audience. during confirmation hearings, i remember that senator schumer asked you what your favorite movie was, and i think he responded dr. zhivago. that is my favorite movie to. -- that is my favorite, too.

i am sure you have profound reasons for liking it. i wonder if he might tell us why you responded to the senator by saying that it was your favorite movie, and what you like so much about it? >> it is my favorite movie. i was under oath. and if i were under of here, i would respond the same way you did. they had no standing -- an outstanding cast, great

cinematography, the images of the washington winter. but on a more fundamental level, it does tell a story about the triumph of the human spirit and basic human emotions over aggressiveness of a communist regime, the aggressiveness of war and revolution. you still have people at a very personal level, including the triumph of art. remember that scene where the young girl place the ball like a -- plays balalaika, and the notion that art will persist. those things appeal on any number of different levels, but i think that is the central message. >> is a triumph. the symbolism of these people

triumphing over the russian winter and the story line of fundamental to human emotions persisting, i think it all comes together, it is a great story. a beautiful theme song. you can whistle along. >> we would like to cheer for members of the audience, and i know you have questions you would enjoy, so please step up to the microphone and pose your question. i will ask that it be a question, not a speech or monologue. but somebody come forward. >> this is usually not shied bunch. >> come on, you are all lawyers. >> [laughter]

>> mr. chief justice, a judge. last term, there was a school case commonly known as bong hits for jesus. yet a case involving a strip search of this term. if you're an administrator, how you go forward? in the last in case, unfettered power to punish a student for speech off-campus, this term, an administrator strip searches a student believing that the administrators have the power to do that. but the court rules no. there is a limit to the power. what guidance to school administrators get from those cases? >> i would not characterize the

bomb hits case as unfettered power. there are limitations there. but i think it is a central point, true across the board. if you're going to get all of your guidance of that type from the supreme court, he will have a lot of difficulty. just take the steps search examples -- strip search example. it is only when bodies with the on-the-ground responsibility for laying out rules, folks have to get involved, and it is no different than anything else. read a couple antitrust cases, we do not have precise guidance. that is why we have an ftc.

i hear the same thing for the patent bar. you hear it from the labour side and the management side. with every stage, there are other people with expertise to have the opportunity to lay out guidance. you cannot expect to get a whole list of regulations from the supreme court. that would be bad, because we would not do a good job that and we would not have the necessary presentation that i think is very important. the flip side of the decision that recently came out was that administrators have immunity because we recognized that they did not have guidance and that was largely are false -- our fault in trying to put together decisions. so we knew what they can and cannot do but we said they had to for cover damages fromir