Supreme Court Case / Dissent
The Supreme Court voted 9 votes for Cambell, 0 votes for Acuff.
References:
Essentials of Business Law 7th edition, Anthony L. Liuzzo
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=539
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htm
http://www.benedict.com/audio/Crew/Crew.aspx
http://digital-law-online.info/cases/29PQ2D1961.htm
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Supreme Court Case / My Argument
Supreme Court Case / My Argument
I have to agree with the final decision of the Supreme Court. The 2 Live Crew had taken an original and created a new work from it. They only used the base line from the original, changed the tempo of the song and wrote their own lyrics to the new version of the song. It doesn’t sound nothing like the original, but the original comes to mind only because of the base melody. Under these circumstances, I believe that they borrowed enough to create their own version of the song. I think that everybody borrows to a certain extent, but if you don’t make it into a new piece of work then you are either committing plagiarism or an infringement, or both. In this case, 2 Live Crew committed neither because they have followed the four conditions under section 7 of the Copyright law.
I have to agree with the final decision of the Supreme Court. The 2 Live Crew had taken an original and created a new work from it. They only used the base line from the original, changed the tempo of the song and wrote their own lyrics to the new version of the song. It doesn’t sound nothing like the original, but the original comes to mind only because of the base melody. Under these circumstances, I believe that they borrowed enough to create their own version of the song. I think that everybody borrows to a certain extent, but if you don’t make it into a new piece of work then you are either committing plagiarism or an infringement, or both. In this case, 2 Live Crew committed neither because they have followed the four conditions under section 7 of the Copyright law.
Supreme Court Case / Rule of Law
Supreme Court Case / Rule of Law
Copyrights fall under intellectual property, it protects the authors or creators of literary, artistic, or musical works and computer programs. These laws prohibit the reproduction or alteration of an author’s work without permission. Under the copyright law, a created work is protected for the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years. If the work is produced as a result of the creator’s employment, the term is 95 years from the first publication, or 120 years after the creation of the work, whichever is shorter. Copying a work without permission is an infringement unless it falls under the doctrine of fair use. This applies when the copyrighted material is copied without authorization for use in connection with criticism, news reporting, research, education, or parody. In this case, the question was if 2 Live Crew had infringed when it created a parody of Roy Orbison’s song “Pretty Woman”? 2 Live Crew only taken the base line from the original, placed their own lyrics and replaced the original tempo of the song to a much faster pace making it into “rap music” for commercial duplication. The commercial use for this parody will not damage the commercial use of the original, for they don’t even compete in the same market. In turn, the 2 Live Crew’s version does fall under the fair use doctrine, and makes their song a parody.
Copyrights fall under intellectual property, it protects the authors or creators of literary, artistic, or musical works and computer programs. These laws prohibit the reproduction or alteration of an author’s work without permission. Under the copyright law, a created work is protected for the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years. If the work is produced as a result of the creator’s employment, the term is 95 years from the first publication, or 120 years after the creation of the work, whichever is shorter. Copying a work without permission is an infringement unless it falls under the doctrine of fair use. This applies when the copyrighted material is copied without authorization for use in connection with criticism, news reporting, research, education, or parody. In this case, the question was if 2 Live Crew had infringed when it created a parody of Roy Orbison’s song “Pretty Woman”? 2 Live Crew only taken the base line from the original, placed their own lyrics and replaced the original tempo of the song to a much faster pace making it into “rap music” for commercial duplication. The commercial use for this parody will not damage the commercial use of the original, for they don’t even compete in the same market. In turn, the 2 Live Crew’s version does fall under the fair use doctrine, and makes their song a parody.
Supreme Court Case / Reasoning of the Court
Supreme Court Case / Reasoning of the Court
The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew because the 2 Live Crew’s version of “Pretty Woman” was a parody which quickly breaks into a play of words, substituting the original lyrics with more shocking ones to show that the original song was pretty bland in comparison. 2 Live Crew had taken no more than was necessary to bring out the original in order to parody it and it was extremely unlikely that 2 Live Crew’s song could affect the market for the original. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded because it assumed for the purpose of its opinion that 2 Live Crew’s song was a parody, they had put little emphasis on the fact that every commercial use is presumptively unfair. This is where the court case Sony Corp. of America v Universal City Studios comes into play. In this case, Sony Corp made beta max and sold it to the public; then people would then take these devises and record Universal City Studios productions that were broadcasted on television which could possibly harm the commercial use of these productions. The Court of Appeals ruled that by taking the heart of the original and making it the heart of a new work that 2 Live Crew had taken too much. After this ruling, the effect on the potential market for the original and the market for derivative works is the most important element of fair use, “Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v Nation Enterprises. “ The Court of Appeals ruled that its blatant commercial purpose prevents this parody from being a fair use. The Court Appeals eventually came to the conclusion that the 2 Live Crew’s version will never replace the original since the two version serve different markets. Not only a parody, but also has “rap music”, so there can’t be a potential harm of commercial use of the original. The Court of Appeals then stated that this gives 2 Live Crew defense of fair use, reversed and remanded.
The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew because the 2 Live Crew’s version of “Pretty Woman” was a parody which quickly breaks into a play of words, substituting the original lyrics with more shocking ones to show that the original song was pretty bland in comparison. 2 Live Crew had taken no more than was necessary to bring out the original in order to parody it and it was extremely unlikely that 2 Live Crew’s song could affect the market for the original. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded because it assumed for the purpose of its opinion that 2 Live Crew’s song was a parody, they had put little emphasis on the fact that every commercial use is presumptively unfair. This is where the court case Sony Corp. of America v Universal City Studios comes into play. In this case, Sony Corp made beta max and sold it to the public; then people would then take these devises and record Universal City Studios productions that were broadcasted on television which could possibly harm the commercial use of these productions. The Court of Appeals ruled that by taking the heart of the original and making it the heart of a new work that 2 Live Crew had taken too much. After this ruling, the effect on the potential market for the original and the market for derivative works is the most important element of fair use, “Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v Nation Enterprises. “ The Court of Appeals ruled that its blatant commercial purpose prevents this parody from being a fair use. The Court Appeals eventually came to the conclusion that the 2 Live Crew’s version will never replace the original since the two version serve different markets. Not only a parody, but also has “rap music”, so there can’t be a potential harm of commercial use of the original. The Court of Appeals then stated that this gives 2 Live Crew defense of fair use, reversed and remanded.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
What do I think about the Supreme Court?
What do I think About the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court is made up of 9 judges that have been appointed by the President of the United States of America. All in all, they are regular people like you and me but obviously have some serious responsibilities regarding how this country functions. Each individual spent some time attending the most prestigious laws schools in the country and abroad. I believe that all of the Chief Justices earned their stripes in becoming a judge in the Supreme Court. I don’t necessarily agree with each and every decision that they make, but without any law in this country there would be chaos. The other factor that might tarnish ones view of the Supreme Court is the great power of influence. There are powerful people who would like to see their agenda carried out in this country. That has taken place in the last election when the Court decided to award 25 electoral votes from the state of Florida; you can only wonder who was the puppet on the strings to allow such a decision to be carried out. It’s a sad thing when this country starts to doubt our voting process and what that means that there is some big trouble brewing and may cause a major melt down in the system. In some sense, it seems like there is a good old boy attitude within the Supreme Court. Justices possibly get appointed because of acquaintance, knowing that individual will vote on an issue according to make a certain minority happy. I can tell you that one good thing that was good to see happen is that at least there is a little diversity in the Supreme Court in our present time. We do have an afro-American, and two Hispanics one being a woman. I believe that this shows a sign that this country is progressing.
The Supreme Court is made up of 9 judges that have been appointed by the President of the United States of America. All in all, they are regular people like you and me but obviously have some serious responsibilities regarding how this country functions. Each individual spent some time attending the most prestigious laws schools in the country and abroad. I believe that all of the Chief Justices earned their stripes in becoming a judge in the Supreme Court. I don’t necessarily agree with each and every decision that they make, but without any law in this country there would be chaos. The other factor that might tarnish ones view of the Supreme Court is the great power of influence. There are powerful people who would like to see their agenda carried out in this country. That has taken place in the last election when the Court decided to award 25 electoral votes from the state of Florida; you can only wonder who was the puppet on the strings to allow such a decision to be carried out. It’s a sad thing when this country starts to doubt our voting process and what that means that there is some big trouble brewing and may cause a major melt down in the system. In some sense, it seems like there is a good old boy attitude within the Supreme Court. Justices possibly get appointed because of acquaintance, knowing that individual will vote on an issue according to make a certain minority happy. I can tell you that one good thing that was good to see happen is that at least there is a little diversity in the Supreme Court in our present time. We do have an afro-American, and two Hispanics one being a woman. I believe that this shows a sign that this country is progressing.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Supreme Court Case/ Decision of the Court
Supreme Court Case/ Decision of the Court.
The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song under section 107 of the Copyright Act. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors relevant under section 107; that, by taking the “heart” of the original and making it the “heart” of a new work, 2 Live Crew had taken too much under the third section 107 factor; and that market harm for purposes of the fourth section 107 factor had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses. The Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew’s commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of section 107. Once again these are the four factors under section 107 of the Copyright Act: 1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. 2) The nature of the copyrighted work. 3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. 4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. The Court of Appeals made a mistake when it came to the commercial nature of that parody by way of a presumption, apparently gathered from Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. 464 U.S 417, 451, that, “ Every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively unfair.” There was no evidence available to address either the character and purpose of the use or the market harm. The appellate court had made a mistake in holding that 2 Live Crew had necessarily copied excessively from the Orbison original, considering the way the parody was put to use. The Supreme Court also came to a conclusion that each case should be put to light on a case by case basis. Each case may have some similarities, but each case are also worlds apart when it comes to copyright cases. The Supreme Court voted 9 votes for Cambell, 0 votes for Acuff.
The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song under section 107 of the Copyright Act. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors relevant under section 107; that, by taking the “heart” of the original and making it the “heart” of a new work, 2 Live Crew had taken too much under the third section 107 factor; and that market harm for purposes of the fourth section 107 factor had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses. The Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew’s commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of section 107. Once again these are the four factors under section 107 of the Copyright Act: 1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. 2) The nature of the copyrighted work. 3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. 4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. The Court of Appeals made a mistake when it came to the commercial nature of that parody by way of a presumption, apparently gathered from Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. 464 U.S 417, 451, that, “ Every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively unfair.” There was no evidence available to address either the character and purpose of the use or the market harm. The appellate court had made a mistake in holding that 2 Live Crew had necessarily copied excessively from the Orbison original, considering the way the parody was put to use. The Supreme Court also came to a conclusion that each case should be put to light on a case by case basis. Each case may have some similarities, but each case are also worlds apart when it comes to copyright cases. The Supreme Court voted 9 votes for Cambell, 0 votes for Acuff.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Supreme Court Case/ Issues Of The Case
The issues of the case are what determined fair use is when it comes to making a parody. 2 Live Crew created a parody called “Pretty Woman”, which used a guitar lick written by Roy Orbinson in his original version of the song. 2 Live crew released the song commercially against Acuff Music’s wishes because they believed that 2 Live Crew was in violation of the fair use laws. The question is what is “Fair Use” and how do we define it? Well, according to the U.S. Copyright Office this information can be found in section 107 which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research, also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. They are: 1) The nature of the copyrighted work. 2) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. 3) The amount of substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. 4)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
In Section 107, it states that it provides that “the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism or comment is not an infringement. The common law tradition of fair use adjudication and requires case by case analysis rather than rules and guidelines. The statutory examples of permissible uses provide only general guidance. The four statutory factors are to be explored and weighed out together in light of copyright’s purpose of promoting science and the arts.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html
2 Live Crew released this song in July 1989 on their album “As Clean As They Wanna Be”. Shortly after this album was released, the movie “Pretty Woman” was released. The soundtrack contained the original Roy Orbison version, but the movie took the 2 Live Crew version of the title. The movie producers were required to license the Orbison version of the song, but since titles cannot be copyrighted, the producers would not be liable to either Orbison or 2 Live Crew for the use of “Pretty Woman” for the movie title. http://www.benedict.com/audio/Crew/Crew.aspx
To be associated with 2 Live Crew at the time was considered to be demining because most of their music was lewd and explicit. Acuff Music didn’t want to be associated with 2 Live Crew for their infamous reputation. http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Campbell:v:Acuff:Rose:Music.htm
In Section 107, it states that it provides that “the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism or comment is not an infringement. The common law tradition of fair use adjudication and requires case by case analysis rather than rules and guidelines. The statutory examples of permissible uses provide only general guidance. The four statutory factors are to be explored and weighed out together in light of copyright’s purpose of promoting science and the arts.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html
2 Live Crew released this song in July 1989 on their album “As Clean As They Wanna Be”. Shortly after this album was released, the movie “Pretty Woman” was released. The soundtrack contained the original Roy Orbison version, but the movie took the 2 Live Crew version of the title. The movie producers were required to license the Orbison version of the song, but since titles cannot be copyrighted, the producers would not be liable to either Orbison or 2 Live Crew for the use of “Pretty Woman” for the movie title. http://www.benedict.com/audio/Crew/Crew.aspx
To be associated with 2 Live Crew at the time was considered to be demining because most of their music was lewd and explicit. Acuff Music didn’t want to be associated with 2 Live Crew for their infamous reputation. http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Campbell:v:Acuff:Rose:Music.htm
Illicit
Illicit was an eye opener of what has been going on in this world for a long time. The average person may not have known the consequences of making a simple purchase of a copy of a purse or a DVD, or a copy of anything in general. It is really amazing on how much capital can be made from this underground trade and how it is affecting our global economy. It also fuels the pocket books of illegal organizations all around the world, putting money in the pockets of real schemers. Making a copy of intellectual property violates the basic law of taking away something that someone else created and making a profit from it, it’s called stealing. It seems like an impossible task to end this kind of criminal activity. Maybe if people around the world become more aware of where and who this money supports they might change their mind. So much of the money corrupts to the highest levels of governments. The thing is that no matter how much money is out there to be made people will always want more. These people don’t even care what happens to other people. Well, there is still a long way to go to win this battle because we have become a global society, these organizations have ties all around the world. The underworld also have been making money for a long period of time, investments accrue interest then making their buying power more powerful. Once you have so much money, it makes you untouchable; unless there are drastic changes on how the world ethically views how you make a profit. I know that I will not be able to live with myself knowing that I made a few bucks on the lives of others, neither will my mother.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
What's the problem with SPAM?
What’s the problem with Spam?
Do you like it when you are disturbed when you are surfing the web, or all those emails that you received by people trying to sell you something that you don’t particularly care about? How do these people get your information? Some spam comes from legitimate companies that are trying to sell their product, but it is a fact that most of the spam out there are scams. False advertisement in a form of an email can be created from any part of the world and can be sent to millions of people in seconds. An example is Lance Atkinson of Australia whose operation was shut down for being responsible for sending out over 2 billion internet spam messages all around the world. Pushing herbal branded pharmaceutical drugs that had false claims. In some cases the people who made the orders never received the product. False advertising comes with an empty package after giving these people your credit card information. Another problem with spam is that most of them carry viruses that can damage systems by stealing information, or just completely destroy operating systems. This is very dangerous when information is key in this day and age. Information controls our world today because what you don’t know can eventually destroy you.
Do you like it when you are disturbed when you are surfing the web, or all those emails that you received by people trying to sell you something that you don’t particularly care about? How do these people get your information? Some spam comes from legitimate companies that are trying to sell their product, but it is a fact that most of the spam out there are scams. False advertisement in a form of an email can be created from any part of the world and can be sent to millions of people in seconds. An example is Lance Atkinson of Australia whose operation was shut down for being responsible for sending out over 2 billion internet spam messages all around the world. Pushing herbal branded pharmaceutical drugs that had false claims. In some cases the people who made the orders never received the product. False advertising comes with an empty package after giving these people your credit card information. Another problem with spam is that most of them carry viruses that can damage systems by stealing information, or just completely destroy operating systems. This is very dangerous when information is key in this day and age. Information controls our world today because what you don’t know can eventually destroy you.
Supreme Court Case
This will be my Supreme Court Case for my final project: Cambell v. Acuff - Rose Music (92 - 1292, 510 U.S 569 (1994).This is what my Supreme Court Case is about: Respondent Acuff Rose Music, Inc., filed suit against petitioners, the members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew and their record company, claiming that 2 Live Crew's song, "Pretty Woman," infringed Acuff Rose's copyright in Roy Orbison's rock ballad, "Oh Pretty Woman." The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song. See Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. section 107. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors relevant under section 107; that, by taking the "heart" of the original and making it the "heart" of a new work, 2 Live Crew had, qualitatively, taken too much under the third section 107 factor; and that market harm for purposes of the fourth section 107 factor had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses. You can find additional information at these links: http://supreme.justia.com/us/510/569/, http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/campbell.html
This is a unique case when it comes to making a parody, taking a song that someone else wrote and putting your own spin on it. This case sets the standards when it comes to producing a parody.
This is a unique case when it comes to making a parody, taking a song that someone else wrote and putting your own spin on it. This case sets the standards when it comes to producing a parody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)