James W. Newton, Jr., is an accomplished avant-garde jazz composer and flutist. Newton wrote a composition for the song “Choir,” a piece for flute and voice that incorporated elements of African American gospel music. Newton owns the copyright to the composition “Choir.” The Beastie Boys, a rap and hip-hop group, used six seconds of Newton’s “Choir” composition in their song “Pass the Mic” without obtaining a license from Newton to do so. Newton sued the Beastie Boys for copyright infringement. The Beastie Boys defended, arguing that their use of six seconds of Newton’s song was de minimis and therefore fair use. Does the incorporation of a short segment of a copyrighted musical composition into a new musical recording constitute fair use, or is it copyright infringement? Explain your answer.

James W. Newton, Jr., is an accomplished avant-garde jazz composer and flutist. Newton wrote a composition for the song “Choir,” a piece for flute and voice that incorporated elements of African American gospel music. Newton owns the copyright to the composition “Choir.” The Beastie Boys, a rap and hip-hop group, used six seconds of Newton’s “Choir” composition in their song “Pass the Mic” without obtaining a license from Newton to do so. Newton sued the Beastie Boys for copyright infringement. The Beastie Boys defended, arguing that their use of six seconds of Newton’s song was de minimis and therefore fair use. Does the incorporation of a short segment of a copyrighted musical composition into a new musical recording constitute fair use, or is it copyright infringement? Explain your answer.

Similar questions

5-3 PROXIMATE CAUSE. Galen Stoller was killed at a railroad crossing when a train hit his car. The crossing was marked with a stop sign and a railroad-crossing symbol. The sign was not obstructed by vegetation, but there were no flashing lights. Galen’s parents filed a suit against Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Corp. The plaintiffs accused the defendant of negligence in the design and maintenance of the crossing. The defendant argued that Galen had not stopped at the stop sign. Was the railroad negligent? What was the proximate cause of the accident? Discuss. [Henderson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., __ F.3d __ (10th Cir. 2011)] (See Negligence.)
Moises and Rutledge are discussing their views on the law. Moises believes that people should give up some of their rights to the government, but they should be able to retain other inalienable rights. Rutledge believes that the law is a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state which commands what is right and prohibits what is wrong. Kilroy overhears their conversation and jumps in with his own belief, saying that the law is a social construct that should provide stability. order, and security. He also said that he believes people should relinquish all of their rights to the state. Which philosophers would agree with Moises, Rutledge, and Kilroy, respectively? O Montesquieu, Hobbes, Locke O Blackstone, Hobbes, Montesquieu O Locke, Blackstone, Hobbes O Montesquieu, Blackstone, Hobbes O Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone
Louisa, who is not a real estate license holder, owns three single-family residences, which she rents out. (She does not occupy any of the residences). Does she have to abide by the Fair Housing Act when selecting tenants? Louisa is exempt from the Fair Housing Act, although she may not use discriminatory advertising. Louisa is exempt from the Fair Housing Act under the Mrs. Murphy exemption. Louisa is not exempt from the Fair Housing Act. Louisa is not exempt under the Fair Housing Act, but she is exemptunder the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.
The U.S Supreme Court requires that any condemned property must be put into use for the general public. True False
Pacific Southern Airlines (PSA) had an unhappy customer. Cynthia Mercier-Walters flew from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Phoenix, Arizona. The flight stopped briefly at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, where she got off the plane for half an hour. When she returned to her seat, her $400 prescription reading glasses were gone. She asked the flight attendant where the glasses were, and the attendant said they probably were thrown away since the cleaning crew had come in with big bags and tossed everything in them. Ms. Mercier-Walters tried to locate the glasses through the airline’s lost-and-found service, but she failed. Then she wrote a strong letter to the airline demanding reimbursement for the loss. She felt that it was obvious that she was returning to her seat. The airline, however, knows that an overwhelming number of passengers arriving at hubs switch planes for their connecting flights. The airline does not know who is returning. What’s more, flight attendants…
Michael Hauck claimed that he was discharged by his employer, Sabine Pilot Service, because he refused its direction to perform the illegal act of pumping the bilges of the employer’s vessel into the waterways. Hauck was an employee at will, and Sabine contends that it therefore had the right to discharge him without having to show cause. Hauck brought a wrongful discharge action against Sabine. Decide.Please give your answer using the IRAC format. Issue: Call of the QuestionRule: Rule of Law to be applied to properly answer the questionAnalysis: Applying the rule of law to the facts of the problem presentedConclusion: Answer to the Issue
Lucy cannot stand the fact that her ex-husband, Ethan, is about to get remarried. After all, it was a horrible breakup, and Ethan was really mean to her. Lucy decides to get her revenge by telling Ethan’s employer that Ethan stole large amounts of money from his previous employer, even though Lucy knows it is not true. If Lucy follows through on her plan, she will have: a) not committed the tort of defamation because the statement would not harm Ethan’s reputation. b) committed the tort of defamation because it is an untrue statement intended to harm Ethan’s reputation, and she stated it to another person. c) not committed the tort of defamation, because she only made the statement to one person.
Sungsam, Inc., a Taiwanese company, and nineteen other Asian companies (the Companies) collaborated to manufacture and sell transistors internationally. These transistors were used in a multitude of consumer goods, millions of which were sold in the United States, including Georgia. The state of Georgia sued the Companies in Georgia, alleging violating consumer protection laws. The Companies filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In response, Plaintiff alleged that the Companies sold the transistors into international streams of commerce with the intent that they would be incorporated into millions of consumer products sold in the United States, including Georgia. Should the Companies motion be granted? © a. No because the Companies did not sell any products directly to Georgia consumers and did not conduct any business in Georgia. b. Yes because a foreign manufacturer’s placement of goods into the stream of commerce of the state of Georgia, with…
Erin is a lawyer with twin sons that are 12 years old. Erin is resting in her bedroom when she hears loud noises in the family room. She springs up, runs to the family room, and sees one son, Phil, punch the other son, Kip. Erin immediately orders Phil to stay in his room for the rest of the day and to not use the internet for 48 hours. As Phil mopes along the hallway to his room, Phil shouts. "Kip punched me first!" What legal principle would Erin recognize Phil's remark as being? O ad hoc because Phil is adding an accusation against his opponent Kip. O in pari materia because Kip attacked in the same manner as did Phil O caveat emptor because Phil thinks he is right. O jus ad bellum because Kip's action is what actually started the fight (the "war") O in pari delicto because they (Phil and Kip) are at equal fault.
John works as an engineer for a technological company, and Maria works as a sales executive for a competitor business. Maria reminded John that her profession contains sensitive information, and she cautions him not to reveal anything he learns from her work to anyone. While attending a conference, John overheard two executives from Maria's company discussing a new product launch. He chooses to buy a modest amount of Maria's company's shares, intending to profit from the predicted increase in the company's stock price following the product launch. John double-checked his company's regulations to ensure that there was no conflict of interest or limitation on the purchase. However, as a result of unanticipated factors, the product introduction was delayed, and the stock price of Maria's company fell instead. Instead of the predicted profit, John's investment resulted in a loss. Question : In the view of conflict of interest of ethics in financial analysis, state the key points of the…
KellyMarie Griffin works for the City of Portland, Oregon, as a clerical employee in the Parks and Recreation Department. She complains of conflict with her coworkers. In particular, Therea Lareau, the “lead” clerical employee at the same location, has made comments that are derogatory about or offensive to Griffin’s Christian faith. Ms. Lareau has referred to Griffin as “a wacko” because of her beliefs and, on at least one occasion, told Griffin that God was “a figment of [her] imagin[ation]” and that Griffin was “praying to something that didn’t exist.” Griffin also complains that many of her coworkers frequently page 51-42use “God” and “Jesus Christ” as swear words, which she finds offensive due to her religious beliefs. Griffin, however, admits that when she has informed her coworkers about how the swearing offends her, they have made efforts to avoid doing so in her presence—even Lareau. Despite that, things have deteriorated. Recently, Griffin and Lareau found themselves in a…
Judy, a citizen of New Jersey, was crossing a street in Memphis, Tennessee when a car driven by Ms. Wall, a citizen of Texas, struck her. Ms. Wall's employer, an Oregon corporation that has it principal place of business in Jersey City, New Jersey, owned the car. Judy sues both Ms. Wall and the corporation in the federal district court in Tennessee. Judy's complaint alleges damages in the amount of $150,000. Does this court have jurisdiction? Why or why not?