QuestionQuestion

In no more than 1 page, write why you think entertainment companies might prefer to rely on arbitration to resolve their disputes instead of traditional litigation (what are some of the pros of arbitration?). Also write why you think entertainment companies might not want to go to arbitration.

In no more than 1 page write what the U.S. Supreme Court in the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music case said the concept of "Fair Use" is (how would you define it?), what the elements of fair use are, and what each of those elements mean (how would you describe each of these elements?)

In no more than 1 page, pick a side...either supporting 360 degree record deals or opposing them...and based upon our readings, support your argument in favor of or in opposition to these types of record deals. Try to support your position with something more than gut feeling...give reasons currently offered by members of the music industry. (Please view the video (about 6 and a half minutes), which is an explanation by attorney, Kendall Minter, of the 360 degree record deal. Kendall does a nice job of explaining this type of agreement, which is used by almost every record company today.)

Solution PreviewSolution Preview

This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)

FACTS: The 2-Live Crew (Defendant) recorded a rap parody of the hit by Roy Orbison, “Oh, Pretty Woman.” Acuff-Rose (Plaintiff), the copyright holder of the original song, brought suit against 2 Live Crew (Defendant) for copyright infringement. The district court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew (Defendant), concluding that its song made fair use of Orbison’s original. The appeals court reversed and remanded. It concluded that every commercial use is presumptively unfair and the blatantly commercial purpose of 2-Live Crew’s (Defendant) version prevented it from constituting fair use. Defendant appealed (Lexis-Nexis, 2013).

ISSUE: Is the commercial purpose of a work the decisive element of the inquiry into the purpose and character of the work (Lexis-Nexis, 2013)?

HOLDING (HELD): Reversed and Remanded (Lexis-Nexis, 2013).

DISSENT: (Souter, J.) No. For fair use purposes, the commercial purpose of a work is only one element of the inquiry into the purpose and character of the work. The other elements to be considered are the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work. In this case, it was error for the court of appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of 2- Live Crew’s (Defendant) parody rendered it presumptively unfair. No such evidentiary presumption exists for either the first factor (the character and purpose of the use) or the fourth factor (market harm). The court also erred in holding that 2-Live Crew (Defendant) had copied excessively from the Orbison original, considering the satiric purpose of their version (Lexis-Nexis, 2013)....
$43.00 for this solution

PayPal, G Pay, ApplePay, Amazon Pay, and all major credit cards accepted.

Find A Tutor

View available Entertainment Law Tutors

Get College Homework Help.

Are you sure you don't want to upload any files?

Fast tutor response requires as much info as possible.

Decision:
Upload a file
Continue without uploading

SUBMIT YOUR HOMEWORK
We couldn't find that subject.
Please select the best match from the list below.

We'll send you an email right away. If it's not in your inbox, check your spam folder.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Live Chats