Warning: Use of undefined constant ‘WP_MEMORY_LIMIT’ - assumed '‘WP_MEMORY_LIMIT’' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/lumpysc/public_html/wp-config.php on line 16
Warning: Use of undefined constant ‘128M’ - assumed '‘128M’' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/lumpysc/public_html/wp-config.php on line 16 Law Archives - Lumpy's Corner
Warning: Use of undefined constant desc - assumed 'desc' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/lumpysc/public_html/wp-content/plugins/adsense-explosion/adsensexplosionopt.php on line 430
Warning: Use of undefined constant json - assumed 'json' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/lumpysc/public_html/wp-content/plugins/adsense-explosion/adsensexplosionopt.php on line 431
A few days ago, I got on my soapbox about the edible laws in Texas. Actually, I let a few musically talented attorneys do most of the talking. I thought I would share some more of their wisdom today… trust me, just shut up and listen.
Thanks for listeing. If you enjoyed the video, you may wish to subscribe to the singing lawyers on YouTube.
Changing Times Regarding Medical Marijuana While Texas Lags Behind
While surprised by many of the results in our recent election, the number of states legalizing marijuana is not on my list. According to this 2015 article at Pew Research Center support for marijuana legalization has been growing, younger generations are even more in favor of it, and nearly half of all Americans have tried it.
I am not here to argue about whether recreational use should be legal. I have said for decades that the criminal charges for possession are far too harsh and that it is incomprehensible that it is not already legal for medical use. At my age and with my health issues, I currently do NO recreational drugs, legal or otherwise.
Like What the Heck? What Happened to Common Sense?
I am reading an article about another law suite at Techdirt. This time, over Abbott and Costello’s famous skit “Who’s On First ?“. It was put in as a bit in play, Hand of God. The right owners are not happy with that and won’t stand for it. Just in case you haven’t heard of it. Here it is.
Who’s On First
In my humble opinion, it is a funny skit. I even recall a few local talents “covering” it. While some think covering a work is theft, I side with John Lennon. In a letter responding to the Fab Four “ripping off” black musicians:
Money’, ‘Twist ‘n’ Shout’, ‘You really got a hold on me’ etc, were all numbers we (the Beatles) used to sing in the dancehalls around Britain, mainly Liverpool. It was only natural that we tried to do it as near to the record as we could – i always wished we could have done them even closer to the original. We didn’t sing our own songs in the early days – they weren’t good enough – the one thing we always did was to make it known that these were black originals, we loved the music and wanted to spread it in any way we could. in the ’50s there were few people listening to blues – R + B – rock and roll, in America as well as Britain. People like – Eric Burdons Animals – Micks Stones – and us drank ate and slept the music, and also recorded it, many kids were turned on to black music by us.
When I thought to blog this, I was going to use the cover I mentioned, not the original. Since the suit is over the skit being used in a play, performed by a sock puppet, I had second thoughts. I would hate to tempt the legal vultures another target. They seem willing to go after anything remotely similar.Take care even asking “Who’s on First?” at a real ball game. I am also wondering why they didn’t go after
Take care even asking “Who’s on First?” at a real ball game. I am also wondering why they didn’t go after Eight is Enough when they titled an episode “Who’s On First ?”. Yeah, I know you can’t copyright a title but the episode did involve a stage, human, and the it is a comedy series… not a serious play with a sock puppet such as the one in question here.
The suit is dismissed but, I still have issues with it. For now, let us assume that the “right holders” are just not keen on love-ins. That, I would be okay with, not fine but, barely okay. After all, I would be a hypocrite if I did not respect their freedom of expression. Haters have a right to hate. People have a right to be greedy and selfish. Why is the case now tossed? In short, because it was deemed not cause any harm or loss to the copyright holders.
While I am pleased that the court recognizes that a sock puppet in a play is not going to rob cash from the Abbott and Costello heirs. It is what they make no statement about that has me irked. Clearly, common sense was not in the courtroom.
As Mike Masnick points out in his article:
Who actually wrote the skit, is questionable Back to Vaudeville days, jokes like this were often passed around and used by other acts as well. Most likely the work is public domain.
It was performed by on of the famous duo before they even teamed up. After they teamed up it became one of their signature skits. After that, its performance in certain movies was copyrighted, by Universal and not by the duo.
The rights transferred to the heirs were not for the skit in general, only for its performance in two movies and only for the skit specifically.
The case was dismissed, more or less, siding with the play.
Mike Masnick has more details on why the case lacks legal standing, but I am focusing on only the points above. Those regarding holding the rights and ownership. So, if the above are true:
If copyright is given to content creators how could the rights be given to Universal?
Bud Abbott reportedly stated that was taken from an old routine “Who’s The Boss ?&qout;. His wife recalls him performing it with another comedian before Costello. Who wrote the skit? (Wikipedia)
If this is a play, what about performance rights?
Why is this not a frivolous lawsuit… nevermind, I guess it is.
Like Mr. Masnick, I am at a loss as to why the court doesn’t rule on public domain status of the skit.
I think, if we knew the original creator of the skit, we should put the blame on that individual. Clearly, they forgot to add more lines;
“What about Sense, you know, Common Sense?”
“Oh, he left the team years ago”
“Yeah, when did he leave?”
“Right after Universal got a copyright on this ancient skit”
I can’t help it, I got that One of These Things Doesn’t Belong song from Sesame Street stuck in my head. Geez, I hope I don’t have to pay a royalty on the use of the title. Sounds paranoid and ridiculous, or is it?
I am digging through some old posts and came across one referencing an article about someone being sued for refilling an ink cartridge. It seems that since the Lexmark cartridge was labeled “single use” the consumer is liable for not using it as agreed. That story goes back to 2005. Some folks back then were saying that the courts would not tolerate such for long and that things would change. Have they?
I am no attorney but it seems that copyright and patent law is far removed from any intelligent approach to fostering new technology and innovation. Historically speaking, such law is a rather new concept. Perhaps it is just a bad idea and we should consider something more intelligent?
While checking the hourly weather this morning, I noticed an article at The Weather Channel. It was about weed and 16 pages long. I thought I might post a summary to encourage others to read it. To be honest, most of the pages are more image than text and only a few paragraphs long. I am not going to cover all 15 items here but just a few.
I am not entirely in favor of legalization of mood altering substances in general. However, the reason there is so much debate regarding a weed that used to grow wild and keep ditches from washing out is because there are some good reasons for such. Compared to the “drugs” that are legal, it is not too harmful. Furthermore, cigarettes are the leading cause of preventable death and anyone of legal age can use them exactly as intended and kill themselves.
Personally, I do not believe the erosion of our privacy has made us any safer from terrorist. I do not believe that the privacy of our email should be any different than regular mail. In other words, law enforcement should need a warrant to access it. Unfortunately The Electronic Communications Privacy Act states that they do not need probable cause to search email.
It is time to change that. Take back your privacy, contact your representatives and tell them to cosponsor HR 1852, The Email Privacy Act. You can find out how to contact your representative at usa.gov. You can also track HR 1852. It is important that we make some noise about this issue for it currently only has about an 18 % chance of passing.
Tell Congress to Support the Email Privacy Act (cdt.org)
The following is a rant I went on about the RIAA on 24 August, 2003. While many of the specifics have changed, the philosophy of this once “sue-em’-all” organization has only shifted to “take-em’-all-down”… semantics in my opinion. Granted other things have changed as well but, by far and large, the RIAA is still more concerned with maintianing a stranglehold on the market than having any concern for the consumer or the artist. For the record, I still despise the organization. I often refer to them as the Racketeering Idiots Association of Absurdity.Continue reading “Why I have a problem with the RIAA”→