Bread Pudding, guerrilla style

Better stated as "how to make bread pudding when you've got a loaf of french bread that's going stale and you don't have a recipe."

So here's what I did.

I poured a can of evaporated milk into a saucepan. I added raw sugar, cinnamon, nutmeg, allspice, and cardamom. Oh, and some butter. I stirred this around for a while until it was warm.

Then in a separate bowl I scrambled two eggs. I tempered the eggs with small amounts of the milk-stuff. then I poured the eggs into the milk-stuff (the heat was on low) and whisked for a while.

Then I cut up some french bread into cubes and soaked them in the milk-stuff.

Then I baked at 350 for about 30 minutes.

Oh, I added some whiskey into the milk-stuff too. Y'know, just for kicks. Rum would have been fine. I don't recommend vodka or gin, for obvious reasons.

It would be really good with some nuts or raisins, but I didn't have those. Also ice cream on top. Serve warm. Read More......

Good News

Samedi is pleased to tell all of you that he arrived home safely a short time ago! He also says that he is sorry for all of the trouble he caused, and notes that he will be going to the vet tomorrow to make sure he is all right. Read More......

Happy Valentine's Day! Here are some dead, moldy flowers

**UPDATE** 1800flowers.com has offered us a full refund (plus a gift certificate-- not like we're using them ever again). They said 4 days for the refund. I'll be patient. If we get it, then I will be at least slightly more satisfied than before.

Also, still no Samedi. I did, however, find a black cat in our live trap this morning. He was big (bigger than Samedi), fluffy (fluffier than Samedi), and ANGRY (angrier than I've ever seen Samedi.) He also did not have any white on him. So I let him go.

To the owner (if there is one) of that cat, and to the cat itself, I'm sorry. You were clearly freaked out. Although at least you got some food out of it.

**ORIGINAL POST**

Okay, I'm definitely not trying to take your attention away from helping us find poor lost Samedi, who is likely wandering University Terrace with a spring in his step, chasing birds and generally having the time of his life.

However, there is something else I want to gripe about.

My husband, in an effort to be thoughtful and brighten my day, ordered Valentine's Day flowers for me from 1800flowers.com. He placed the order at least five days in advance, and paid an extra 50% to have the flowers delivered-- "guaranteed" -- on Monday, February 14th.

Today, Thursday, February 17th, the flowers arrived. I opened the box. And I found a bundle of dead and moldy tulips and Irises.

Here you can see the mold adorning the stem of one Tulip. The mold had eaten through nearly the entire stem, and was beginning to move onto the surrounding flowers.

As you can imagine, I was less than pleased that the flowers were late to begin with. And then there's this fiasco. The moldy, dead, brown, wrinkled flower fiasco.

In this one, you can see that the irises and tulips are wilting-- they were not packed with any kind of wet towel around them, so they have been shipped from California to Louisiana with no water whatsoever.

Here, you can see the brown, dried stems of the flowers from where they were packed with no water or moisture.

Thanks, 1800flowers.com ! You have helped to make this one of the worst weeks ever! Congrats! We will be getting a refund, or I will offer to represent the thousands of other angry clients who have complained Here, Here, Here, Here and Here.

It will be a class action suit you can never win. Sobbing women on the stand who received mold in a gift box? Children who sent flowers that never arrived to their elderly parents in nursing homes? Deployed men in uniform who ordered flowers that their sweethearts never received? Juries eat that stuff up. What they don't like is a flower company that doesn't deliver.

Read More......

A Domestic Lawyer's Plea

As most of you probably know, our cat Samedi ran away on Tuesday afternoon. So we're asking for your help-- yes, you!-- to find him.

This is Samedi. He's six months old. He's a domestic shorthair with black fur, except for a white patch on his chest-- you can see a bit of that white patch here. He's about 9 points, and looks nearly the size of an average cat. Although you can't see it, he has a thin tail-- he's not fluffy. He is not declawed, and he is not yet neutered.

He was last seen at the Sommerset Apartment Complex near Millicent Way and Bert Kouns on February 15, 2011.

What we're asking is three things. First, that you keep an eye out for Samedi. Second, that you share this information. Put it on your facebook page, text it to your friends, mention it on your blog-- anything! More people knowing about Samedi means more people who are likely to find him and help us bring him home safely. Third, if you see Samedi, contact us. Your can email to streetmeg85@gmail.com or call or text to 318-286-2450. Let us know where and when you last saw him.

Here are links to various pages about Samedi for your to share with your friends:

http://www.missingpetads.com/1299291174_Samedi

http://shreveport.craigslist.org/laf/2217651344.html

http://lookformycat.com/?p=4334

Thank you in advance for you help. With your assistance, we have a much better chance of bringing Samedi home safely.

Read More......

New Year, Week 5

So the low-carb thing didn’t work. The only weight I lost was when I got sick and couldn’t eat at all. So that’s out. What’s in is a new moderate carb diet focusing on foods low in the glycemic index in conjunction with weight watchers online.

Have a competition of sorts going on with a friend. It starts tomorrow and will continue until April 1. The goal is to lose (at least) ten pounds in two months. Tomorrow we will each put aside $100 in an envelope. At the end of the two months, if we have met our goal, we can spent the $100 on something for ourselves. If we have not met our goal, we will be spending that money on more mundane things, like bills. To keep ourselves honest we will be taking pictures of the scale. I will NOT be posting those pictures here, but I will be keeping everyone updated on my progress.

Incidentally, this new diet means I can eat pumpkin mousse again. Oh, glory!

Let the games begin!

Read More......

Julia Child dinner, week 2

Dinner Saturday night was delicious!

On the menu:

Potato Cheese sticks
A Crepe Casserole with spinach and mushrooms
Roast Leg of Lamb with a Dijon rub
garlic mashed potatoes
gravy
Grean beans with a creamy cheese sauce, baked in the oven

Butter Sponge cake with Orange icing.

There won't be a Julia Child night for the next two weeks, but rest assured that it will be back! Read More......

Julia Child Dinner Results

First Julia Child dinner was, overall, a success. Let me remind you again of the menu

Cheese Wafers topped with a cheese filling (that was supposed to be Swiss or Gruyere, but I used cheddar)

Potato and Leek Soup

Chicken Supremes (Chicken Breasts) with a paprika and onion cream sauce

Asiago cheese bread (that I did not make myself but instead purchased)

Potato casserole with a cream and cheese sauce

Chocolate Mousse topped with homemade whipped cream

I ended up not making the asparagus with orange hollandaise sauce because I was frankly too lazy.

A few things I would do differently: Bake a test batch of the cheese wafers to see if they need flour. They sort of spread all over the pan and basically made this gigantic greasy cheese cracker. Which was good, but way too rich. With the judicious application of extra flour, I think they would have been more wafer-like and less…grease pile like.

Everything else was absolutely delicious. I can’t even say “particularly the…” because there is no particularly. Everything was yummy. Thanks, Julia! Your recipes are delicious.

In other news, it is hard to tell what progress I am making on the diet. On the one hand, my weight seems to be about the same. On the other, it appears that I have lost a few inches (altogether, not in one particular area.) We are going to give it another week and see where we are at that point.

I feel like we are doing quite well and sort of getting into the swing of things. A shopping trip involving the purchase of copious amounts of turkey lunchmeat helped. It’s easy to just grab a hunk and gnaw on it whenever I’m feeling hungry.

We also found and stocked up on a multitude of sugar free, low carb candies, which I think goes against the purpose of this diet, as it’s supposed to be more natural, etc…but sometimes a girl just wants some chocolate, you know?

Also out the window is the attempt to limit artificially sweetened beverages. If it’s a choice between me drinking enough liquids but having them artificially sweetened, and my drive to drink water cut short before noon because the flavor of water is…well… boring…then I choose to drink crystal lite, crystal lite, and more crystal lite. With some diet coke thrown in there for flavor.

We are trying to exercise more—because no matter what diet you’re on, exercise is important. At the moment, I am concentrating on doing light exercises every hour for five minutes while at work. This involves walking in place, lunges, squats, and stretches. I hope eventually to get some light weights and maybe a resistance band.

I could call them “Flash” exercises, make a workout dvd of my flabby self, and make millions! That… would probably not work as well as one would hope.

Next Week is Julia Child Dinner Number 2. At the moment I am planning the following (And this is clearly not a complete menu)

Roast Lamb (I am hoping rack of lamb, but it would depend upon what the store has)

Garlic mashed potatoes

Yum! Sounds good so far, Julia!

Read More......

Julia Child Dinner, Number one-- January 15, 2011

Next Weekend will be Julia Child dinner number one. We would have done it this weekend, but frankly we were broke.

On the menu:

Appetizers: Cheese Wafers with a Gruyere "fondue" on top

Soup: Leek and Potato

Main Course: Chicken Supremes (Chicken Breasts) in a cream and paprika sauce

Vegetable: Asparagus with Orange Hollandaise

Dessert: Chocolate Mousse

I'm super excited! Particularly about the Chocolate Mousse.

The diet is off to a slow start, partly because of a fundamental misunderstanding about what we are allowed to eat in endless quantities and what we are not. However, after having bought the book (Called The 4-Hour Body by Timothy Ferriss), and actually reading a bit of it, I think we're back on track. Cutting out most of the cheese, and reducing nuts to 1-2 servings a day. I think that should help.

First cheat day was yesterday, and at nearly noon today I am still in my night clothes nursing a monster headache and drinking large quantities of water. I think the headache may be a result of the total lack of caffeine yesterday (due mostly to not having any cokes in the house and not having enough money to go buy any), but I am going to blame it on the bad diet. Motivates me to not cheat the rest of the week.

I'll need that motivation. Tomorrow is "Birthday celebration" at work, which means everyone brings treats to eat to celebrate the month's worth of birthdays. This is my first really big test. We'll have to see how it goes.

We also finally got the last big of exercise equipment we ordered in-- two kettlebells. I'm excited about starting to use those in addition to the Wii fit.

Read More......

Obligatory 1-1-11 Post

This is the obligatory new years’ post. However, I should qualify this by stating that one of my new year’s resolutions, thanks to my friend Kimmie, is to post more often. Namely, once a week. This should be easy, considering there will be a lot of updating to do over this next year.

First, starting on January 3, hubby and I are starting a new diet. My goal: to lose weight. His goal: to build muscle. How do we both accomplish this with one diet, you ask? I’ll tell you. At least in theory, the answer is a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet. This isn’t Atkins. This is different. And slightly less stupid.

Here’s the basics, beginning with the “No’s:”

No grains of any kind
No sugar
No starchy “vegetables” such as peas, corn, or potatoes (which really have more in common with grains than vegetables in terms of their composition anyway)
No fruit
No milk, yogurt, or ice cream (Yes, J, ice cream does have carbohydrates in it.)

The Yes foods:

Lean chicken, turkey, beef, pork, etc.. (The more natural the better: Grass fed beef, organic, etc…)
Vegetables
Low-fat cheeses
Nuts
Beans and legumes
Tomatoes and (limited) avocados
Calorie free (or very low calorie) drinks (try to limit artificially sweetened drinks to less than 3 a day)
Dry red wine, one glass a day maximum

The potential problems with this diet are threefold: first, the prolonged consumption of very low amounts of carbohydrates can send your body into a state of ketosis, which can put a stress on your kidneys. Just…look it up. I don’t feel like cutting and pasting the science of it from Wikipedia at the moment.

Second, cutting out dairy products could equal a decrease in calcium intake. However, we’re probably getting enough calcium from the vegetables we eat, but we’ll keep it listed as a concern.

Third, cutting something – anything—completely out of your diet could result in an unbalanced level of nutrients in your body.

To combat these three things, we’re doing the following:

One, increasing the amount of water consumed, by a lot. At least twelve eight-ounce glasses of water a day, minimum, more if we exercise strenuously. This should dilute the level of proteins in our bodies and make it easier for our kidneys function properly.

Two, we’re taking calcium supplements to make sure we have the right amount of calcium in our bodies.

Finally, we’re taking multivitamins to make up for anything lacking in our diets.
The best part of this diet: one day a week (our day is Saturdays), you can eat whatever you want. Whatever. Anything. As much as. You get the idea. It’s brilliant. In addition, the possibility is clearly there to make yourself so sick off of junk food that you won’t even want to think about it the rest of the week.

In my weekly updates, I’ll let you know how this is going.

Second! This year I’m going to be starting Julia Child Saturdays. Basically, this stems from the fact that my parents bought me Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking for my birthday (waaaay back in July) and I have yet to cook a single thing from the book. Which is a real shame considering (1) I really wanted the cookbook, (2) I was very excited and pleasantly surprised to get it, and (3) many of the dishes look very, very, very good.

So, essentially, each Saturday I will be attempting to make, for dinner, and hopefully for various friends and family, a soup and/or appetizer, an entrée, a starch, a veggie, and a dessert.

Unlike Julie Powell in Julie and Julia, I won’t worry about repeating recipes that work well, and I definitely, definitely won’t make it a goal to cook through everything; for example, I simply don’t like duck, and Aspics make my stomach roll. But other than that I’ll be making an attempt to make everything that looks good. No time limit, just an endeavor to do it on Saturday nights when I don’t otherwise have plans.

Other resolutions (other than diet and blogging) include using my new Wii fit as often as possible, spending more time on spiritual pursuits, billing a certain number of hours at work and in pro-bono projects, saving a certain amount of money, etc--- the pretty normal resolutions that most of America is currently making.

Of course, I intend to keep them. So does everyone. We’ll see what happens.

What are your resolutions? Anything interesting or unusual? If any of my real-life friends comments, they get a Julia Child dinner at our place! (Although…you most likely would have gotten it anyway.) Read More......

Chicken and Dumplings

Ingredients:

1 package bone-in skin-on chicken breasts

1 qt chicken broth

6-8 cups of water, plus more to add later

salt

pepper

crushed red pepper flakes

1 stalk celery

1 carrot

1/2 onion

2 cloves garlic

2 cans cream of mushroom soup

1 can evaporated milk

1 package of frozen dumplings, Mary B's brand

Directions:

Boil the chicken breasts in the chicken broth, water, salt, pepper, and crushed red pepper flakes.

Remove from cooking water when it's cooked and shred. I used only half of my chicken and reserved the rest for chicken salad-- yum!

Add the dumplings to the boiling cooking water and cook according to package directions. Meanwhile, finely chop onions, carrots, celery, and garlic and saute in butter in a separate pan. Add the contents of this pan to the dumplings and broth. Once the dumplings are done, stir in the soup and evaporated milk.

Enjoy!!

Read More......

A Letter to Salon Magazine

Ms. Walsh:

I am not a subscriber to Salon Magazine; thanks to your columnist Laura Miller, I never will be. A Column, “Better yet, DON’T write that Novel” by Ms. Miller appeared on November 2, 2010, on Salon’s website. The column consisted of a cold-hearted and poorly argued criticism of National Novel Writing Month, a program to encourage both teenagers and young adults alike to set pen to paper and write a novel in thirty days. It is a nearly impossible task for the tens of thousands of participants, and many don’t finish. However, all of them write something. All of them have ideas, and all of them want to accomplish something with their time, even if it is merely a personal achievement. Some of them will finish their novel. I myself was a winner last year, when I wrote fifty thousand words while preparing for law school finals and the winter holidays. Many, including myself, have no intention of publishing our novels– of causing the acute pain to editors and publishers that Ms. Miller describes in her column. We simply want to prove to ourselves that we can do it. One wonders if Ms. Miller is so disenchanted by her own personal achievements that she feels the need to discourage others. Perhaps she worries that more writers will bring more competition.

Ms. Miller admonishes that the last thing the world needs is “more bad books.” Clearly, she doesn’t consider creativity, original thought, and ambition to be important values. I can assume that Salon magazine does not value these things either, since the column was approved for publication.

In her article, Ms. Miller describes reading as a selfless act, while she pans writing as an indicator of narcissism. Perhaps she is speaking of her own personality quirks, but who does Ms. Miller think compiled those bound pages that fill up our libraries and bookstores? What will the “selfless” readers have to read when there are no more writers?

Ms. Miller’s column was insulting and ignorant. It is, to use Ms. Miller’s words, “the last thing the world needs.” The last thing the world needs, Ms. Walsh, is people and publications who discourage independent thought, creativity, and critical thinking. The last thing the world needs is a magazine which condones a columnist like Laura Miller.

What this world needs are smart, independent thinkers who are willing to spend time and energy putting pens to paper and writing out their ideas. This world needs ideas, motivation, and inspiration; we do not need bitter cynics who sneer at a hundred and fifty thousand people who believe that they can accomplish something incredible in thirty days.

In a country where public education is abysmal, where students graduate from high school with vocabularies that could fit onto a single sheet of paper, and where independent thought is discouraged, repressed, and even punished, we need more “bad books,” Ms. Walsh. We need a lot more “bad books.” We need millions.

Sincerely,

Me

Read More......

Now that it's over, I don't know what to do with myself...

...The Bar Exam, that is. I finished today around 3:30 and have felt in a little bit of a foggy haze ever since. That could be the margarita I had with dinner, or it could be the two glorious weeks stretching ahead of me during which I have nothing to do-- except arrange a dinner party two nights from now, leave for Colorado two nights after that, and somehow figure out how to pay for Colorado and all of the bills with no paycheck and no student loan check...

Should be no problem for the Domestic Lawyer, though, right??

"Dinner Party" Menu-- although, I guess I really shouldn't call it a dinner party, since it's my mom and step-dad, my nieces, and maybe our new neighbor-friend who I know from law school.

Olive-Cheese bread, courtesy of The Pioneer Woman

Marinara sauce with Beef

Alfredo Sauce with Cajun Chicken

Fettuccine

Salad

Garlic Bread

Parmesan Cheese chips

---and for dessert, Chocolate Cobbler, courtesy of missamy on the Tasty Kitchen website.

We'll see how it goes! Wish me luck-- I haven't made either of these recipes before.

Read More......

Rosemary Polenta, courtesy of Ina Garten

Please note: This is not my polenta recipe, but it makes very very good polenta, and I had a request to share it, so here it is!

Ingredients

• 1/4 pound (1 stick) unsalted butter
• 1/4 cup olive oil
• 1 tablespoon minced garlic (3 cloves)
• 1 teaspoon crushed red pepper flakes
• 1 teaspoon minced fresh rosemary leaves (*Note here: I've never used the rosemary, but go ahead if you want to.)
• 1/2 teaspoon kosher salt
• 1/2 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
• 3 cups chicken stock, preferably homemade
• 2 cups half-and-half
• 2 cups milk
• 2 cups cornmeal
• 1/2 cup good grated Parmesan
• Flour, olive oil, and butter, for frying

Directions

Heat the butter and olive oil in a large saucepan. Add the garlic, red pepper flakes, rosemary, salt, and pepper and saute for 1 minute. Add the chicken stock, half-and-half, and milk and bring to a boil. Remove from the heat and slowly sprinkle the cornmeal into the hot milk while stirring constantly with a whisk. Cook over low heat, stirring constantly, for a few minutes, until thickened and bubbly. Off the heat, stir in the Parmesan.

***(Note: Here, you can go ahead and serve it immediately. Or you can follow the rest of the recipe and serve it as skillet fried patties. In my experience, it's delicious after being skillet fried, but it also falls apart.)

Pour into a 9 by 13 by 2-inch pan, smooth the top, and refrigerate until firm and cold.

Cut the chilled polenta into 12 squares, as you would with brownies. Lift each one out with a spatula and cut diagonally into triangles. Dust each triangle lightly in flour. Heat 1 tablespoon olive oil and 1 tablespoon butter in a large saute pan and cook the triangles in batches over medium heat for 3 to 5 minutes, turning once, until browned on the outside and heated inside. Add more butter and oil, as needed. Serve immediately.

Read More......

The New Enemy I Must Vanquish...

I know, I know, sounds a bit dramatic, right? So maybe it isn't the end of the world, but I've taken up arms against High Fructose Corn Syrup. Yes, I know those commercials with the people shaming the dissenters into drinking the disgusting syrupy fruit drink are cute, but they're also misleading. So, I'll give you all the facts. At least, I'll give you the links I feel like pasting. You can read through yourself. The bottom line seems to be: HFCS causes more weight gain than sugar, and besides-- you don't NEED HFCS in all the stuff that the processed food companies are putting it in. The best course of action seems to be to avoid processed foods altogether, but if you need to shop that center section of the grocery store, try to avoid products that contain it. I'll periodically post things that I discover have HFCS in it, and attempt to keep a running list.

Now the information:

http://www.sweetsurprise.com/myths-and-facts/faqs-high-fructose-corn-syrup/fructose?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=high%2Bfructose%2Bcorn%2Bsyrup&utm_content=Fructose&utm_campaign=Caloric%2BSweeteners&gclid=CIHqsJKuu6ICFRuenAodbQyI3w

[The HFCS mascot site]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup

[Wiki article on HFCS]

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588

[Mayo Clinic on HFCS]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322121115.htm

[Science Daily on HFCS]

Now for the list:

Yoplait Yogurt (The kind I got was Thick & Creamy Light Strawberry)-- the SECOND ingredient is HFCS.

Ritz Crackerfuls-- How utterly ridiculous is it that they feel the need to put sweetened corn syrup in a cracker and cheese snack?

Subway's 9 grain wheat bread-- now this is just depressing. Even my healthy fast food standby uses the stuff (plus, I understand that that brown "wheat" color to the bread is just a fake additive, not at all real wheat.)

More when I (stupidly) purchase more products before reading the nutritional labels!

Read More......

Black Bean and Corn Salsa, Amplified

Another recipe for Black Bean and Corn Salsa. I've added avocado for protein and healthy fat. (Note: I'm not a big fan of avocado, but I find if it's chopped up small and mixed in with other things, I can stand it.)

Ingredients:

• Onions, raw, .5 medium (2-1/2" dia)
• Garlic, 2 clove
• Peppers, sweet, red, raw, sliced, .5 cup
• Green Peppers (bell peppers), 0.5 cup, chopped
• Jalapeno Peppers, 1 pepper
• Beans, black, 1.5 cup
• Yellow Sweet Corn, Canned, 1 can (12 oz)
• Canned Tomatoe - Alymer diced, 1.5 cup
• Lime Juice, 1 lime yields
• Avocados, California (Haas), 1 fruit without skin and seeds
• Kosher Salt, Black Pepper, Cumin, Chili Powder, to taste

Process:

Mix all ingredients together. Stir. Chill. Enjoy with tortillas or chips. or just eat it by itself.

Nutritional Breakdown:

The ENTIRE recipe yields about 950 calories and 30 grams of fat. This calorie count also includes 45 Grams of fiber and 35 grams of protein.

1/14 of the recipe (I'm estimating about 1/2 cup) would yield 68 calories, 2 grams of fat, 3 grams of fiber, and 3 grams of protein...

Read More......

Long Time, No Blog...

Well, it is official. This domestic lawyer is now, well, a lawyer. Commencement ceremonies took place last week, and now I'm hurling headlong into the horrors of the bar study program. Since we had to move out of our apartment (tenement) on Monday, I'm staying with my Aunt K while I attend the bar study class.

Husband's in our hometown, going back to school to pursue an M.A. in animation and visual effects. School started back again on Tuesday for him.

We move into our new (carpeted! central aired! diswasher-and-disposal equipped!) apartment on July 1. It's a two bedroom (glory) two bath (glory) apartment with a separate dining area. (triple glory!) In preparation for a huge and life-changing event such as moving into an apartment that doesn't completely and totally suck (excuse my teenage vocabulary), I have expanded tenfold (twenty-fold? one hundred-fold?) my amazon wish list(s), as well as created a registry on crate and barrel and adding many many things from organize.com to my wish lists. That isn't to say I've bought everything, but there you go.

What has been purchased is this: two sets of magnetic spice racks. Purchased by Hubby for me for graduation. Briefcases? Pens? Lawyer stuff? PSHH. Give me kitchenware ANY day.

Also purchased (by me this time) is this: Erasable Food Labels. I plan to use them both for food labeling, and to label the magnetic spice tins, which don't come with labels.

July 1 will be a very exciting day!

In other news, we have adopted a turtle, Schlomo, and are also watching for the summer, a turtle, Lucky, whom Robert describes as "an asshole." I've yet to meet lucky, but we shall see... Read More......

Fair Use in the Music Industry (A Research Paper)

I wrote this paper for Intellectual Property. It's something like 23 pages long, so I don't expect anyone to actually read the full thing!

Fair Use in the Music Industry

I. Introduction

The defense of fair use, although codified in 1976 into United States copyright law in 1976, has its origins in the case of Folsom v. Marsh[1]in 1841. Justice Story declared that the question of copyright infringement often depends in part upon “a nice balance of the comparative use made in one of the materials of the other.” Ever since its first appearance in the jurisprudence of the United States, the doctrine of fair use has created a myriad of problems for judges, attorneys, and authors. In fact, Judge Learned Hand described it as “the most troublesome in the whole law of copyright.”[2]

The question of fair use in the music industry is no less complex. In addition to older issues such as sampling, the 21^st century has brought with it a new problem for judges to sort out: digital music copies and peer-to-peer sharing.

This paper will briefly review the affirmative defense of fair use in general before analyzing its specific application to the music industry, including both more traditional issues as well as those surrounding digital technology.

II. Fair Use in General

Since the origins of copyright protection, opportunities for the fair use of copyright protection have been thought necessary to fulfill the purpose of copyright: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.”[3] Fair use is an affirmative defense that can be raised by the defendant in a copyright infringement claim. The doctrine is based on the need to balance an individual’s rights in his or her own work with the interests of the public in dissemination of information. Thus, fair use generally applies when the copyrighted work is used for purposes relating to education or news reporting.

The Copyright Act of 1976 defines the scope of the fair use defense: “the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified…for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”[4]

While the statute makes clear the general type of uses that are acceptable, the jurisprudence makes clear that fair use is a defense often pled but difficult to prove.

In an effort to aid jurists and juries in a determination of whether the use of a copyrighted work was “fair” within the meaning of The Copyright Act, congress enumerated four factors which may be considered in the decision:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. [5]

In addition, Congress indicated that the list of factors in this section are illustrative rather than exhaustive; the statute is “intended to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way.”[6]

The first case to recognize the doctrine of fair use[7] also identified a series of factors to guide the court in its determination: “look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.”[8]

While the illustrative nature of the factors helps to create a doctrine that is flexible and which focuses more on equality than on black-letter law, it also spawned a quagmire of jurisprudential rules and caveats that makes it nearly impossible to pin down a precise definition of what constitutes fair use.

While there are certainly some clear cases on both ends of the spectrum, there are an equal number—or, more likely, even more—cases that fall somewhere in the middle. It is these cases that make the defense of fair use the difficult and convoluted doctrine it has been since its inception.

Most people would recognize that quoting and attributing a few lines from a song in a review of the artist’s work is a fair use, while creating and selling an exact copy of that song under his or her own name is not. The cases in between these two extremes, however, cause a great deal more frustration.

American Jurisprudence characterized the analysis as “case by case,” and as an “equitable rule of reason that permits courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, such application would stifle the very creativity which the law is designed to foster.”[9]

III. Fair Use in the Music Industry

The music industry has developed a reputation as of late for zealously protecting their copyrights. The rise of the internet has made illegal sharing and copying of music simple, fast, and very tempting. The Recording Industry Association of America takes a strong stand against music sharing and piracy—both online and on the streets. The RIAA cites $12.5 billion in economic losses per year as a result of piracy, and describes its “efforts to educate fans about the value of music and the right ways to acquire it and, when necessary, to enforce our rights through the legal system.”[10]

Many Americans, particularly those in the younger generation who grew up with digital technology, believe that downloading music should be legal and not as strongly protected by copyright laws—after all, art should be about the expression, not the money. But jurisprudence and statutory laws both disagree.

Courts deciding the question of fair use in a case involving musical recordings follow the guidelines set out in the copyright act; as in other fair use cases, the ultimate test is whether the “progress of science and the useful arts” would be benefitted more by allowing the use of the copyrighted material, or by restricting it. [11] The cases cover a broad range of topics, from a struggle over the rights to the lyrics displayed on a karaoke machine to the question of whether music downloading is a fair use to the rights of an artist to sample small (or, in some cases, not so small) portions of another artist’s music for use in an original recording.

The convoluted nature of fair use doctrine in the United States dictates a case-by-case examination of judicial holdings in order to grasp the situations in which fair use is—and isn’t—a valid defense.

a. Jurisprudential Authority

In 1994, the United States Supreme Court applied the fair use statute in the Copyright Act to arrive at the conclusion that the commercial nature of a song parody did not create a presumption against fair use.[12] In Campbell, the rap group 2 Live Crew created a song parody of Roy Orbison’s song, “Oh, Pretty Woman.” The group’s manager informed the holders of the song’s copyright, Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., that 2 Live Crew had written a parody of the song, and stated that they would “afford all credit for ownership and authorship of the original song to Acuff-Rose, Dees, and Orbison, and that they were willing to pay a fee for the use that they wished to make of it.”[13] Acuff-Rose’s agent refused to give permission for the song parody.

2 Live Crew published the song despite the lack of permission; on all albums and compact discs, the authors of the song “Pretty Woman” were clearly identified as Orbison and Dees and its publisher Acuff-Rose. Nearly a year later, Acuff-Rose filed a copyright infringement action against 2 Live Crew and its record company, Luke Skyywalker Records. [14]

The District Court ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew, holding that the commercial purpose of the record was no bar to fair use, that the song was a parody, and that the group had taken no more than was necessary to “conjure up” the original in order to parody it, and finally that it was extremely unlikely that 2 Live Crew’s song would adversely affect the market for Orbison’s original song.[15]

The 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.[16] The Court felt that 2 Live Crew hadn’t been able to overcome the presumption created in a previous Supreme Court case involving fair use that “every commercial use…is presumptively unfair.”[17] The 6^th Circuit went on to find that the commercial nature of the parody was the most important element in the fair use analysis, and concluded that 2 Live Crew did not have a valid fair use defense.[18]

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court quoted Justice Story in the early stages of its analysis: “[i]n truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before.”[19]

The four statutory factors, the court found, are not to be “treated in isolation, one from another. All are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright.”[20]

The first factor, “the purpose and character of the use,” is discussed at great length in this decision, primarily because it is in this factor that “commercial use”, an important feature in both lower courts’ opinions, comes into play. The court compares this factor to the first part of the fair use statute, stating that the “enquiry may be guided by the examples given in the preamble to §107, looking to whether the use is for criticism, or comment, or news reporting and the like.”[21]

It is in the analysis of this factor that the court discusses the concept of the transformative use:

The central purpose of this investigation is to see, in Justice Story’s words, whether the new work merely “supersede[s] the objects” of the original creation[22]…or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with the new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is “transformative.”[23]

The goal of copyright, the Court states, is generally furthered by transformative works, and as a result, the transformative work is the best example of fair use of a copyrighted work. In fact, the more transformative the work is, the less significance should be given to the other factors, including commercialism, that might weigh against a determination of fair use.[24]

The Court points out that the very nature of parody dictates that it contains “some elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author’s works.”[25] Ultimately, however, the court rules that a parody has no presumption of fair use in and of itself, and that neither the Copyright Act nor the prior jurisprudence recognizes such a presumption.

Concluding its examination of the first factor, the Court states that “If, indeed, commerciality carried presumptive force against a finding of fairness, the presumption would swallow nearly all of the illustrative uses listed in the preamble paragraph” of the fair use statute.”[26]

The second factor in the statute, and the second factor the Court discusses in Campbell, is “the nature of the copyrighted work.” This factor “calls for recognition that some works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection than others, with the consequence that fair use is more difficult to establish when the former works are copied.”[27] For example, short stories, books, and motion pictures are probably closer to what copyright protection was intended to cover than news broadcasts and factual works. As a result, a defense of fair use is more difficult to establish in claims for infringement of the former class of works.

In this case, the song falls within the core of works that copyright was originally meant to protect. However, the court warns that “This fact…is not much help in this case, or ever likely to help much in separating the fair use sheep from the infringing goats in a parody case, since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works.”[28]

The third factor is whether “The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.” This question calls for an examination of both the quality and the quantity of copyrighted materials used. In this case, the issue is the reasons why 2 Live Crew chose to copy those portions of the song that it selected. The Supreme Court “fail[ed] to see how the copying can be excessive in relation to its parodic purpose, even if the portion taken is the original’s ‘heart.’”[29]

The fourth fair use factor that the Court considers is “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” It requires the consideration of both the harm caused by the alleged infringer, as well as the type of harm that would result from widespread conduct of the type engaged in by the defendant. The court found that no “presumption or inference of market harm that might find support in Sony[30] is applicable to a case involving something beyond mere duplication for commercial purposes.”[31] In the matter of the fourth factor, the court found that “The fact that a parody may impair the market for derivative uses by the very effectiveness of its critical commentary is no more relevant under copyright than the like threat to the original market.”[32] However, the court also found that 2 Live Crew provided no actual information on the nature or extent of any market impairment, thus disentitling them to the grant of summary judgment.

In its conclusion, the Supreme Court found two errors on the part of the Court of Appeals; first, the court erred in concluding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair. Second, the court erred in holding that 2 Live Crew had copied excessively from the original.

More recent fair use cases involving parties from the music industry quote from Campbell.

In 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took on the case of A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.[33] As most people in the United States know, Napster uses peer-to-peer file sharing to facilitate the transfer of music files between users. It was originally free, but in part as a result of the A&M Records suit, has since changed hands and is now being operated as a pay service. The plaintiffs sued Napster, claiming that the company’s users are engaged in the reproduction and distribution of copyrighting works.

The district court agreed with the plaintiffs, granting a preliminary injunction preventing Napster from allowing its users to access, download, upload, or otherwise transmit any copyrighted material.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals conducted a relatively in-depth examination of Napster’s claim that its users are engaged in the fair use of the copyrighted music files. Napster identified “three specific alleged fair uses: sampling, where users make temporary copies of a work before purchasing; space-shifting, where users access a sound recording through the Napster system that they already own in audio CD format; and permissive distribution of recordings by both new and established artists.”[34]

The Ninth Circuit recites the four factors enumerated in the Copyright Act, then applied the factors to its current case. First, citing Campbell, the court examined the question of whether the new work is “transformative,” and found that the downloaded MP3 files were not transformations of the copyrighted works.[35] The court also found that the district court was “not clearly erroneous” when they determined that the users’ downloading of the music was commercial in nature; first, the host user who is sending a file is not engaging in a personal use. Second, Napster users get something for free that they would otherwise have to buy.

The Court found that economic benefit is not required for a usage to be “commercial.” This makes sense, because every song downloaded for free on Napster is, in theory, a song that wasn’t purchased from the record company. The court sums this up by stating that “repeated and exploitative copying of copyrighted works, even if the copies are not offered for sale, may constitute a commercial use.”[36]

The court then determines that musical compositions such as the ones in question are creative in nature. This “cuts against a finding of fair use” under the second factor.[37]

The third factor that the court looks at is the portion of the copyrighted works that are being used by the Napster users. Obviously, Napster users were not downloading small portions of the songs in question—they were downloading the whole songs (and, in some cases, entire albums). This obviously does not support a finding of fair use.[38]

The Court quoted a previous fair use case[39]to make the point that fair use is meant to be applied to copying that does not impair the marketability of the work copied.[40] A long discussion of the application of the concept of market impairment follows. A summary of the court’s argument is simply put: Napster harms the market by reducing CD sales amongst its users (which, at the time, included most college students across the nation, among others), and it creates a barrier to A&M’s entrance into the market of digital downloads.

After examining the four factors, the Ninth Circuit addressed several uses which Napster claimed were wrongly excluded as “fair uses” by the district court. The first use was sampling. The Courts dealt with this issue simply by stating that sampling, or the process of downloading one song to see if a user liked the album before buying it, was still a commercial use.[41] In addition, research at the time showed (and still shows) that peer-to-peer file sharing networks have an adverse affect on CD sales, which indicates that users are not simply sampling one or two songs before buying the album.

The second use which Napster claimed as a “fair use” activity was “Space-Shifting.” This means that the users are downloading MP3 files in order to listen to music that they have already bought on CD. The Court agrees with the district court that this is not a fair use for one main reason. First, the activity of Napster users is not limited to “personal use;” Napster users simultaneously make these songs available to the general public. Therefore, from one (perhaps legitimately purchased) copy of an MP3 comes potentially millions of copies available for permanent download and use by users who have not bought the album, and likely never will.

The final claim made by Napster is that of “permissive reproduction by either independent or established artists.”[42] The Court points out that plaintiffs do not seek to end this practice, and finally concludes by stating that it is clear that Napster does not have a fair use argument, since none of the four factors were favorable for fair use.[43]

The United States Supreme Court took up the issue of digital music downloading In the Grokster case in 2005.[44] The issue of fair use was not brought up in the majority opinion (perhaps because the Grokster attorneys were at this point smart enough to realize that fair use didn’t work for Napster, and it probably wouldn’t work for them either), but Justice Ginsburg briefly—very briefly—mentioned fair use in her concurring opinion. She simply says “Here, there has been no finding of any fair use and little beyond anecdotal evidence of noninfringing uses.”[45]

The Grokster and Napster cases seem to be the first nails in the coffin for digital music downloading as a fair use of the copyrighted songs. Other court cases affirmed this ruling.[46] However, fair use still exists as a viable defense in other aspects of the music industry. That is, if the defendants can show that their use is a fair use when the factors from the Copyright Act are applied.

In the case of Zomba Enterprises, Inc. v. Panorama Records,[47] the 6^th Circuit found that a creator and distributor of Karaoke discs had not been engaging in a fair use of copyrighted song recordings and lyrics. Panorama Records had been selling these Karaoke CD’s for two years, without the licenses to any of the materials, before a music publishing company discovered the unauthorized use and sent a cease and desist letter. Panorama then negotiated for and obtained the licenses for all songs under the Without Anna label. However, even after Zomba Enterprises sent another cease and desist letter to Panorama, the company failed to obtain licenses for Zomba songs and continued producing CD’s that contained Zomba songs.[48]

Zomba Enterprises then filed suit against Panorama. Again, the court considered the four main factors in the fair use statute of the Copyright Act, concluding that Panorama had clearly not been engaged in fair use. First, the works produced by Panorama were not transformative in any way, despite the fact that Panorama hired musicians to re-record these songs ; they were merely recordings of the compositions (without vocals) with the lyrics scrolling at the bottom of the screen. Second, the court dealt with Panorama’s claims that the CDs are for the purpose of a use listed in the preamble to the statute; Panorama claimed that the purpose of the CDs was to teach people how to sing. The court rejected this and found that the purpose of Karaoke was commercial in nature; karaoke is for entertainment, not teaching.[49] The court found that Panorama’s use also failed the “nature of the copyrighted work” and “Amount and substantiality of the portions used” tests before moving on to consider the effect on the potential market for the copyrighted work.[50]

The Sixth Circuit held that Panorama had “failed to sustain its burden of proving that its copying does not adversely affect the market value of Zomba’s copyrights.”[51]

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered another case of Karaoke machines in 2008, and also concluded that the display of images and song lyrics in real time with the music recording was not fair use.[52]

Leadsinger purchased from BMG “Compulsory mechanical licenses” to BMG’s copyrighted music, but refused to pay an additional “lyric reprint fee” for the permission to display the lyrics in real time with the music recording on a television screen. Leadsinger then sought a declaratory judgment regarding its obligation to pay these fees.

Applying the traditional fair use analysis, the Ninth Circuit found no fair use in Leadsinger’s use of the lyrics. Leadsinger’s use failed all four factors. With regard to the fourth factor, the Court stated that “we have…concluded that Leadsinger’s use is intended for commercial gain, and it is well accepted that when ‘the intended use is for commercial gain’ the likelihood of market harm ‘may be presumed.’[53]

A very recent Sixth Circuit case involved the use of repeated words and patterns of sounds taken from a previously copyrighted work.[54] In Bridgeport, plaintiffs claimed infringement by Public Announcement, an “R & B and hip hop group.”[55]The claim was based on the song “D.O.G. in Me;” the plaintiffs claimed infringement of a famous George Clinton song, “Atomic Dog.” The claim was based on the use of the phrase “‘Bow wow wow, yippie yo, yippie yea’”, as well as the repetition of the word “dog” in a low tone of voice at regular intervals and the sound of rhythmic panting in ‘D.O.G. in Me.’”[56]

On the fair use issue, the Sixth Circuit again lists the four fair use factors from the Copyright Act’s relevant statute.[57] The defendant’s assignment of error on this issue is that the judge did not properly instruct the jury on the issue; his instructions stated that “an homage or tribute is “‘not necessarily fair use.’”[58]

On a brief analysis of the four factors, the Court of Appeals concluded that the jury’s finding that there was no fair use was not unreasonable, and that the balance of the factors weighed in favor of the plaintiff.

The jurisprudence clearly indicates that fair use is a difficult defense to successfully raise; it is virtually impossible to successfully claim fair use in a situation where the defendant has been copying and distributing entire songs to others. Moreover, a commercial use of copyrighted materials also makes it much harder, though not impossible, to prevail in a fair use claim.[59]

b. Scholarly Authority

American scholars have written extensively on the doctrine of fair use, and many have written specifically about the music industry. Often, these articles raise new issues in the copyright world.

One of these issues is that of song collages pieced together from multiple music samples. David Mongillo’s article The Girl Talk Dilemma[60] examines this question. His article begins with Gregg Gillis, a recording artist for the Illegal Art label who publishes under the name Girl Talk. Gillis uses software on his computer to piece together song snippets into full-length song collages. He has made several year-end best music lists, and has never sought licenses or authorization for any of the samples he uses. And yet he has never been sued. Mongillo states that “some hypothesize that the major labels have not brought action for fear of losing in court and creating a new precedent more amenable to artists like Girl Talk.”[61]

Gillis believes that his work falls under the fair use defense of the Copyright Act, and Mongillo argues in favor of an expansion of the doctrine to include artists like Gillis.

Mongillo explains that while Girl Talk’s work does not fit neatly into the fair use dichotomy, the courts should still interpret the doctrine so that his music is considered fair use in order to further “the progress of science and the useful arts.”[62] If Gillis’ work is not considered fair use, Mongillo argues, than music of his type will be stifled, and the progress of musical arts will not be able to move forwards unhindered.

An interesting blip in the digital music and fair use controversy is John Faust’s 2001 law review article about college students’ use of digital music download services such as Napster.[63] In the article, Faust applies the four statutory factors as well as other considerations to arrive at the conclusion that “The four-factor test and these other considerations show that students are likely protected from copyright infringement accusations.”[64]

Clearly, jurisprudence from the years after Faust’s articles reveals that the courts do not agree with this determination. Other interesting comments to Faust’s articles that have since been proven incorrect are “those downloading digital music are not purchasing less music,”[65] and “the last factor, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, supports the availability of the fair use exception.”[66]

Faust’s arguments for why fair use should apply to individual downloaders of digital music is a well-reasoned argument in 2001; however, looking back nine years later, it is clear that the doctrine has taken a different path with respect to digital music.

Finally, David Bloch wrote an interesting article on the need for increased protection in drum beats.[67] In the section entitled “Fair Use and the ‘Amateur Exception’”, he sums up fair use in the context of music and rhythm sampling as a “particularly thorny issue.”[68] He further cites the problem with applying the fair use doctrine to rhythms: “even a small portion of a drum beat can represent a major misappropriation of the creator’s intellectual expression, because drum rhythms are usually repeated. A 4-bar sample may contain the entire rhythmic structure of a song, despite the fact that 4 bars is likely to be only a fraction of the total song’s length.”[69]

IV. Conclusion

As the many cases on the issue demonstrate, fair use is a complicated and problematic doctrine. Once infringement has been established, it is the infringing party’s burden to prove fair use. The nature of the statute on the subject dictates that fair use be determined on a case-by-case basis; furthermore, it is clear that fair use is a difficult defense to successfully argue, particularly if the infringing use is a commercial one.

Ultimately, courts will probably find fair use mostly in cases where the infringing use is non-commercial or transformative; commercial, non-transformative uses will almost never be given the protection of the fair use doctrine.

---

[1] 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841).

[2] Dellar v. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc., 104 F. 2d 661, 662 (2^nd Cir. 1939).

[3] Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), citing U.S. Constitution Art. 1, § 8, cl. 8.

[4] 17 U.S.C. § 107.

[5] Id.

[6] House Report No. 94-1476 at 66.

[7] Folsom, 9 F.Cas. 342 (No. 4,901) (CCD Mass. 1841)

[8] Id. at 348.

[9] 18 AmJur. 2d Copyright and Literary Property §78.

[10] http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php. Last Access: 3/24/2010.

[11] Campbell, 510 U.S. 569.

[12] Campbell, 510 U.S. 569.

[13] Id., 510 U.S. at 572.

[14] Id. at 573.

[15] Id.

[16] Campbell, 510 U.S. at 573-74.

[17] Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 451 (1984).

[18] Id.

[19] Emerson v. Davies, 8 F. Cas. 615, 619 (No. 4,436) (CCD Mass. 1845).

[20] Campbell, 510 U.S. at 578.

[21] Id. at 578-79.

[22] Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas at 348.

[23] Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579.

[25] Id. at 581.

[26] Id. at 583.

[27] Id. at 586.

[28] Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586.

[29] Id. at 590.

[30] Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).

[31] Campbell, 510 U.S. at 591.

[32] Id. at 593.

[33] 239 F. 3d 1004 (9^th Cir. 2001)

[34] A&M Records, Inc., 239 F. 3d at 1014.

[35] Id. at 1015.

[36] Id. at 1015, citing Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, 227 F. 3d 1110, 1118 (9^th Cir. 2000).

[37] A&M Records, 239 F. 3d at 1016.

[38] Id.

[39] Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985).

[40] A&M Records, 239 F. 3d at 1016.

[41] Id. at 1019.

[42] Id.

[43] Id.

[44] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, LTD., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).

[45] Id. at 945; Ginsburg, Concurring.

[46] See BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F. 3d 888 (7^th Cir. 2005), holding that an individual users’ downloading of some 1,370 copyrighted songs was not fair use, despite her claims that she was “sampling” The music to determine which albums she would later purchase. See Also “RIAA Wins Suit Against MP3.com,” located on Wired Magazine’s online website at http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2000/04/35933. Last Accessed 3/25/2010.

[47] 491 F. 3d 574 (6^th Cir. 2007)

[48] Id. at 578-79.

[49] Id. at 582.

[50] Id. at 583.

[51] Id.

[52] Leadsinger v. BMG Music Publishing, 512 F. 3d 522 (9^th Cir. 2008)

[53] Id. at 531, citing Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, inc., 464 US 417, 451 (1984).

[54] Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 585 F. 3d 267 (6^th Cir. 2009).

[55] Id. at 272.

[56] Id.

[57] 17 U.S.C. § 107.

[58] Id. at 278.

[59] See Campbell, 510 U.S. 569.

[60] Mongillo, David. The Girl Talk Dilemma: Can Copyright Law Accommodate New Forms of Sample-Based Music? 10 U. Pitt. J. Tech. L. Pol’y 3 (Spring 2009).

[61] Id. at 3.

[62] U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8.

[63] Digital Music: Educational Issues. 2001 B.Y.U. Educ. & L.J. 367 (2001).

[64] Id. at 386.

[65] Id. at 385

[66] Id. at 384.

[67] “Give the Drummer Some!” On the Need for Enhanced Protection of Drum Beats. 14 UMIAESLR 187.

[68] Id. at 206.

[69] Id. at 207.

Read More......