Carleton (and before him James Nord and YouTube user mobius32) brings to my attention this excellent video about the “Amen Break” – one of the most important 6 seconds in recorded music, originally recorded by The Winstons. Check it out:
This is loosely related to a journal article I am writing on sampling rights. I don’t think I’ll be getting as abstract as the “cultural public domain” argued here, and my conclusions might cut directly against some of mobius32’s arguments here, but his concern about copyright re-appropriation and the incoming clash between copyright law and digital sampling are certainly right up my article’s alley. And I’ll certainly be taking up the Bridgeport Musiccase mentioned in passing towards the end of the clip. This is a must-watch to understand the foundations of many of our modern discussions on sampling rights. Check it out.
Fully recognizing how weird it is to use a worldwide forum for a message targeting about 1500 kids, here’s a special message for the GW Law community: I’m on the e-board of the Cyberlaw Students Association, and we want you.
So if you’re a GW Law student and interested in cyberlaw, come to our meeting on Wednesday. There’s free food in it for you.
This is pretty far from my normal content, but my friend Jeremy wrote a piece in GW Law blog Sua Sponte on the inequalities inherenet in educational benefits distributed to veterans in the current GI bill. It’s quick, to the point, and proposes a solution which makes a lot of sense. Definitely worth a read. Check it out.
One of the cornerstone secondary sources in our legal system is the law journal. Articles in law journals are frequently cited as persuasive authority in interpretations of the law in both papers and court opinions alike, and can be tremendous catalysts for developing legal thought and policy.
Every major law school has a journal, and it may surprise some to find that these journals are actually run by law students. Naturally, the pressure is tremendous and the stakes are high for law journals to state the law accurately and make persuasive arguments in interpretation, so schools do not let every student who expresses interest to join, as they might a school newspaper. Law schools invite first year students onto the boards of their journals though a rigorous competition held sometime during the 1L year. It just so happens that for my school that competition is this weekend.
This is why I haven’t been writing here all week, and why you won’t see me here until at least after Monday. So have a good one, and I’ll be back sometime next week (when we get our well-earned spring break).
My friend Aaron reminded me yesterday of an article by GWU Law Professior Brauneis about the debated copyright status of “Happy Birthday To You.” I wrote about it last May. Long story short: there are at least three good reasons why that song is technically in the public domain – and still, millions of dollars are made annually on the licensing of the song.
Stephen Colbert sang it on the air for Lincoln’s birthday last week. The host at the restaurant I went to last night for my birthday sang it. I wonder if either of them opted to get the license.
If you have time, be sure to read Prof. Brauneis’ article (you can find it here). Hope you enjoy.
1Ls here at GWU Law have spent the better part of the past month writing motions and memos for summary judgment based on a ficticious case of a boy expelled from school because of his long hair with blue streaks. Half the class, as plaintiffs, have been arguing that the nature and manner of his expulsion offends the First and Fourteenth Amendments (allegations of freedom of speech, religion, equal protection, substantive due process, and procedural due process). The other half, as defendants, have argued that hair length and color are not protected rights, and even if they were, the school had a valid interest in restricting them under various scrutiny standards.
A critical case to one of these claims is the 1968 case of Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District (for those of you playing at home: 392 F.2d 697 (5th Cir.), cert denied 393 U.S. 856 (1968)). The facts are almost identical to every other case like it (and there are a lot of them): there is a school dress code banning male students from wearing hair past the collar of their shirts, the students wear their hair longer, the students get expelled, and the students claim a constitutional issue. In this case, however, there is the added twist that the boys are in a band: Sounds Unlimited. They claim that not only do they have a right under the Fourteenth Amendment, they would be forced to breach their contract with their managing agent, who requires:
[The band] shall maintain their dress and personal appearance in conformity with accepted STANDARDS and CUSTOMS OF ROCK & ROLL GROUPS, COMBO’S [sic] & BANDS including so called BEATLE TYPE HAIR STYLES. 329 F.2d at 698 n.2.
The Fifth Circuit, on appeal, notes fairly tounge-in-cheek that such a a contract would not be enforcable against minors, and proceeds to rule that there is no constitutional right to long hair. This marks the beginning of the Fifth Circuit’s highly conservative stance on the issue. To date, the Circuits are almost perfectly split as to whether the right to keeping one’s hair at any given length is protected under the “liberties” of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As a fascinating historical footnote (aside from the above, quite literally fascinating historical footnote) is the story of the protest song these boys in Texas wrote upon their expulsion from school. As the Fifth Circuit describes it:
At the conclusion of the [expulsion] conference in the principal’s office, the boys left the school building and proceeded to the sidewalk on the west side of the school grounds where the three boys and [manger] Mr. Alexander held a press interview, and pictures, motion pictures and sound tapes were made.
Later the three boys went to a recording studio to write and record a ‘protest’ song about the matter. The recording was completed and the record entitled ‘Keep Your Hands Off It’* was first played on the air Friday morning, September 9. For several days thereafter it was played numerous times on several radio stations. 329 F.2d at 700.
Naturally, in addition to scrutinizing the case for the purposes of my memo, I also endeavored on a quest to find “Keep Your Hands Off It” by Sounds Unlimited. I’m happy to report today that I found the elusive recording.
Enjoy:
Sounds Unlimited – Keep Your Hands Off Of It
* – reports vary as to whether the song is properly titled “Keep Your Hands Off Of It” or “Keep Your Hands Off It.” The chorus would certainly suggest the former, but I can’t say for sure.
(no “Man-Pris” in Philadelphia, from Flickr user jasmined)
It seems every week I have to sequester myself for the sake of a legal memo will be the week the entire music-IP world shakes apart. There’s the Sony v. Tenenbaum heating up as Rule 37 sanctions fly and various parties begin filing amicus briefs on the courtroom webcasting issue, more information coming out about how bad a year it was for CDs (and from the look of it, almost only CDs) in 2008, and of course Allen Klein continuing to screw artists from beyond the grave (or rather from beyond the day-to-day control of ABKCO) – remember the Verve “Bitter Sweet Symphony” outrage? Klein did it again, this time to Lil’ John. So much to write about. So little time.
So I leave you to other blogs this weekend. Thanks for sticking around.
Should you find yourself with a severe case of insomnia and looking for something to watch tonight at midnight, may I suggest turning over to CSPAN2 to watch the rebroadcast of last Thursday’s Van Vleck Moot Court Finals, where the best and brightest oral advocates here at GWU Law argued before Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court, Judge Marsha Berzon of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
While this may sound rather dry for a large slice of my reading audience, anyone with an interest in police search and seizure of computers or the paneling of juries based on religion may find some interesting dialogue. It’s a rare glimpse into what it’s like arguing before some of the largest judicial figures in the US.
My studying wasn’t quite this bad, but here on the morning before my last final exam I feel as though I need to share one University of Queensland student’s Law Revue entry on the pains of digesting criminal law cases:
His cases may read “Regina” or “The Queen” for prosecution, instead of “People,” “State,” “Commonwealth,” or “United States,” but it’s nice to know we speak the same language. And that language is legalese.
Good luck, 1Ls, wherever you are losing sleep.
And for those of you not taking finals, head over The Smoking Gun. They found the legendary Van Halen “no brown M&Ms” contract, and have posted it there. I’ve always fully defended this contract, and maybe tomorrow I’ll do a whole writeup on this. Stay tuned.
(“…they took it away / away from me…” Thanks, mecredis)
The RIAA’s lawsuits are now facing quite sincere and legitimate challenges from four excellent law schools (Harvard, Franklin Pierce, The University of San Francisco School of Law, and UMaine), and public opinion against the actions grows larger daily. For the RIAA, could it get any worse these days?
Why, yes. They could continue the lawsuits, and add “recovering transplant patients” to the list of grandmothers, infants (not under-18 “legal infants,” but still-in-diapers infants), and single parents they’ve sued for filesharing.
(waveform of the “Amen Break”)
(“…they took it away / away from me…” Thanks, 
