The Artful Jurist

You can always count on the Super Bowl to provide some type of after-game brouhaha to give us something to talk about. And, as we all know, it isn't always the game, itself, that causes the fuss. (Can you say "wardrobe malfunction" or "racy commercial"?)

The newest source of post Bowl unrest comes from the band known as the White Stripes, which claims that the Airforce Reserve made unauthorized use of its song, "Fell in Love with a Girl," as part of a Super Bowl TV commercial. Apparently, the White Stripes isn't keen on having its music used for the purpose of recruiting enlistees. But, even if it doesn't mind, the band still has exclusive rights to such uses of its music, unless of course it gives permission for it to be used by others...which the band claims it did not.

The Air Force Reserve, on the other hand, is reported as having said it did not use "Fell in Love with a Girl" but, rather, used original music created for it by a company hired by its ad agency, and any similarity is -- as the well-worn saying goes -- purely coincidental.

I haven't yet heard anyone mention the word "lawsuit."

Just in case you were wondering whether the days of bleeping certain words on TV were over, this past Sunday's Grammy Awards telecast answered that. Microphones were cut off during the singing of various lyrics that CBS chose not to broadcast.

Apparently, the network's decision to censor some words has drawn some criticism. Artistic liberty...First Amendment rights...yadda yadda yadda. Yes, it's a legal quagmire just fraught with debatable issues. Unfortunately, for the artists and their fans, the peril of running afoul of the Federal Communications Commission and its ability to levy big fines looms ominously over the heads of TV networks, and an abundance of caution usually wins out.

Now, as we all know, networks have incorporated certain formerly banned words in prime time programming over the last couple of decades -- including some from commedian George Carlin's list of the seven filthy words he thought we'd never hear on TV. But usually those programs contain a preceding disclaimer that parental guidance is suggested.

Hey, maybe the network execs figure, considering the music, parents won't be watching the Grammys to offer that parental guidance.

I was watching a TV program the other day. Its topic was the legal issues surrounding unathorized digital downloading of music. Included in the show were various "people on the street" interviews, and one of the questions that was posed to the people was whether they believed it was okay to make copies of music recordings to share with friends. One interviewee acknowledged the rights of those who own the copyrights on the music, but then he also talked of what he saw as a competing interest -- the right to share.

The right to share? Did someone sneak in a new amendment to the Constitution when I wasn't looking? Where does it say "Congress shall make no law abridging the people's right to share copyright infringing duplicates of intellectual property"?

In all fairness, I can't fault too much the young man who gave that comment about his perception of a right to share. Lots of people who ought to know better labor under the same notion that there's absolutely nothing wrong with making a copy to share with a friend. It's the kind of activity that's been going on so long that people often don't even stop to think about whether or not it's legal.

But just for the record...There's no such thing as a right to share that which you don't own. I can't, for example, share my next door neighbor's car with some other person. I don't own my next door neighbor's car and, as such, don't have the right to give someone else permission to borrow it, even if my neighbor sometimes lets me borrow it. The same holds true for music or other forms of intellectual property. Only the copyright holder has the legal authority to say who does and doesn't get a copy.

So, while "share and share alike" is a noble and courteous custom, it's not the law of copyright.

The Associated Press reports that the European Union has taken a big step in the direction of expanding Internet rights for the consumers of intellectual properties such as music and videos. The tentative agreement would prevent arbitrary takedowns and cut-offs based on allegations of copyright infringement.

Under the agreement, governments could only resort to those measures if they have proof that someone is using the web site for the purpose of illegally downloading copyright protected material. In other words, it's a "due process" requirement.

The EU Parliament and its member governments still need to approve the bill before it will become official.

The entertainment industry has been lobbying hard for years to have governments crack down on illegal Internet file sharing. Unauthorized downloading of music, films, and other intellectual properties has put a serious crimp in the industry's profits. The EU bill wouldn't halt crackdowns, but it would require more than just an accusation to have the plug pulled on an Internet user.

Okay, there are probably more than a few people in the arts and entertainment industry who wouldn't shed a team if their manager or agent got tossed in the pokey. Well, it's happened in the United Kingdom, and it's making news. The Times of London reports of the jailing of the manager of the man who holds the official title of Master of the Queen's Music.

Sir Peter Maxwell Davies holds the distinguished title. His long-time manager, Michael Arnold, was sentenced to 18 months for defrauding Davies of about a half-million pounds.

According to the Times, Davies is pleased...and even contemplating writing a song about it.

Hmmm...How about "Jailhouse Rock"?