Progress on My Case

I chose the Supreme Court Case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. This Supreme Court Case involves utilizing the Fair Use Doctrine to allow parodies of copyrighted works. Luther Campbell a recording artist from the band 2 Live Crew had sampled a bass line riff from the song "Oh, Pretty Woman" by Roy Orbison. Acuff-Rose the publishing firm with the rights to the original song filed a lawsuit saying that they didn't recieve a request for permission to use the recording. 2 Live Crew claimed that it was okay due to the Fair use Doctrine. I have researched numerous websites about this court case case. One of the predominant websites that has given me the most information has been Cornell University University Law School. A link to this website can be found here. Another website that has the most useful information pertaining to copyright is the United States Copyright Service. A link to that website can be found here. I plan to use these 2 websites as well as others, hand-in-hand to present the data of the court case as thourougly as possible. I personally think the case is a kind of foul. Roy Orbison put a lot of work into the original "Oh Pretty Woman". I think the someone shoudl have gotten a percentage of the royalties. Whether it be Acuff-Rose Music, or the family members of Roy Orbision, somone should've recieved reparations.

Facts of the Case

CAMPBELL, aka SKYYWALKER, et al. v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, INC.

Here are some of the facts of the case. 2 Live Crew's song "Pretty Woman" was said to have infringed upon the rights of Roy Orbison's recording, "Oh Pretty Woman". Roy Orbison's original song was recorded in 1964 while 2 Live Crew's version was made decades later in 1990. The 2 Live Version samples the same bass line riff used in Roy Orbison's "Oh Pretty Woman". The titles are very similar as well as the lyrical content. 2 Live Crew claims that the song is a parody of the original. Acuff- Rose Music Incorporated is suing becuase they didn't recieve a request for permission of a parody for profits. They also claim that this is allowed due to the Fair Use Doctrine which enables them to use parts of the copyrighted song without permission. In order for a copy of a song to be Fair Use it must meet these specific requirements as according to the United States Copyright Law. The specific requirements in the determing factor can be found here:
"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; "
The first factor asks if the intended work was for a commercial nature such as sales and profits or for nonprofit purposes such as educational or recreational uses.
"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;"
This next factor clarifies to see what the intended purpose of the work was.
"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and"
This factor checks to see how much of the original work was actually taken to create the second piece of work. How much was used compared to the original.
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. " (Source)
This last part checks how the piece of work effects the market. It compares to see if the secondary work is effecting the sales of the original piece.

The other concern is if it really qualifies as a parody. Acuff-Rose believed that 2 Live Crew stole the heart of the music; that they diminished the integrity of the original artwork. They also fear that the parody could potentially ruin their profits and destroy their work. The purpose of this case is to check if Acuff Rose has been infringed upon. To determine this the judges will have to observe the two songs and decipher whether an infringement has taken place or not.

"The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use. The heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's work." In order for there to have been any kind of newer work called a parody, an artist had to have copied an idea from another artist's original work. "But that tells courts little about where to draw the line. Thus, like other uses, parody has to work its way through the relevant factors. Pp. 8-12." This may be true in stating that an artist copied one another but it need to be reviewed by the courts to determine if it is legal.(Source)

My Rights as a Property Owner

My rights as a property owner should be pretty apparent. I own the property. I'm responsible and entitled to everything on the lot. All laws that allow me to own property are effective in my state.I feel horrible for the guy in the movie we watched in class. He was trying to live the "American Dream" and own a nice house to support a family. Unfortunately, he meant well but I know the way he did business led him to his struggle. Owning property is a big responsibility that demands a back bone. He had a random Joe Schmo living in his apartment. He could have done business better by making sure the guy had a down payment or reviewing his credentials. If it was my house I was renting out I would make sure the credit check was looked through thoroughly and knew what I could be getting myself into. I also realized that he was renting out the apartments with his wife. I don't really trust operating a business with another person. Many "he said/ she said" feuds can arise. The tenant was able to take advantage of this knowledge and turn the two owners against each other. The guy claimed it was given permission to move in. No one gave him any approval. I, as a property owner would have called the police from the very beginning. You never know who you can trust, and this guy just swindled his way in. I have the right to boot this guy off of my property if he doesn't belong there. As far as I see it he was trespassing, and even breaking and entering when he changed the locks. I learned a great deal from this movie clip. I'll know for sure if I ever rent out any property I'll take the proper precautions to prevent situations such as these.

Instant Extra Credit

Three Names I have been called:
Kevin
Babe
Kev

Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to):
Stock Associate
Chairlift Operator
Vehicle Detailer

Three Places I Have Lived:
Summerlin
Las Vegas
North Las Vegas

Three TV Shows that I watch:
Family Guy
South Park
Dexter's Labratory

Three places I have been:
Hawaii
Bryan Head, Utah
Hoover Dam, Nevada

People that e-mail me regularly
Aunty Jenny
apple.com
fastwebs.com

Three of my favorite foods
pizza
steak
cheeseburgers

Three cars I have driven:
Acura Integra
Toyota Supra
Ferrari 360 Modena

Three things I am looking forward to:
Taking Back Sunday Concert
July 4th
Christmas

Greed is Good!

(image)
(article)

Wall Street along with corporate business owners are horribly cut throat. It’s as if all morals have been lost and it’s explicitly about the money. “For example, America has enjoyed a bonus it didn't deserve in its free-wheeling participation in the housing market, before it became a bubble. Despite great efforts by regulators to manage systemic risk, there have been market failures. The causes of the current market failure, which is the real object of the public anger, go well beyond the Wall Street compensation system -- but compensation has been one of them.” High executive status people are being paid for bonuses of immoral or little work. “But the basic point is that, despite the dreadful year that Wall Street experienced insome questionable bonuses were paid to already well-off employees, and that set off the outrage.” Employees of these billion dollar businesses are making extraordinary amounts of money by passing REETS to companies who cannot even support them. The purpose of the REIT was to balance and even out the risks. The companies that accepted these REIT’s were fooled by thinking they had a batch of people who were mostly good borrowers as opposed to bad borrowers. The truth was that the REIT’s they bought landed up having many bad debtors that would default their loans. Too many people would default their loans causing the lender to go bankrupt. The company that sold the REIT’s would then run away with their money. Due to approving almost any borrower, the REIT’s were very corrupt. The fact that these companies can even get away with this is just wrong. I think the government should get a good grip on the housing and business markets and regulate them harshly. If we would have seen this coming sooner we could have prevented an economic downfall and an American crisis.

BONG HITS 4 JESUS!

(Source Image)

I do not agree with the Supreme Court case's ruling. Due to the circumstances of the child being underage, it was a tough matter to address. I think Frederick should have been allowed to freely demonstrate his Constitutional Amendments. "Accepting that Frederick had acted during a school-authorized activity and that the banner expressed a positive sentiment about marijuana use, the court nonetheless found a First Amendment violation because the school had punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption." The school never addressed that these actions were a problem. He didn’t hurt or offend anyone. Whatever his project may have been, the rules of the assignment should have explained what was acceptable and what was inappropriate. I personally think what happened to the child was wrong because it limited his creative freedom. Even so, "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" doesn't necessarily promote drug use or even specific paraphernalia for that matter. Bongs are sold everywhere for the manufacturer’s purpose of tobacco. Maybe Frederick imagined that Jesus likes to smoke tobacco, grass, or maybe even something silly like pop rocks. It shouldn’t have been assumed that the usages of bongs are solely for the purposes of marijuana use. If the school found that there was a problem with Frederick’s behavior they should have had a Required Parent Teacher Conference and brought it to his parents’ attention. The Court explained that these cases demonstrated that "the constitutional rights of students in public school were not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings." Had the student in the assembly delivered the same speech in a public forum outside the school context, he would have been protected. In school, however, his First Amendment rights were circumscribed "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." I don’t understand why the court ruled this not okay. In other circumstances where children to something wrong they can be tried as an adult. Well in this circumstance, why can’t the child protect themselves by holding rights like an adult? Does the place of the event really matter? Does being in school really make a difference as opposed to being in public? Either way his rights were obstructed.