Law on the Row is making the jump from digital to “old skool” hardcover. Barry Neil Shrum’s article The Magical Ring of Gyges: Why Illegal Downloading is So Rampant in the Age of Cyberspace was selected by author and editor Thomas J. Hickey, responsible for the Taking Sides book series published by McGraw-Hill.  Mr Shrum’s article is set to appear in the next edition of his Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Crime and Criminology . This will be the third edition of Mr. Hickey’s book. The books are set up in a “point/counterpoint” debate structure, and Mr. Shrum’s article will go toe to toe with an article from famed singer Janice Ian on the issue of illegal downloading of intellectual material from the internet.

As we all know, Piracy is becoming more and more of a problem in recent years due to many advances in technology. Shrum’s article takes the side that it is human nature to steal and take the plunder if they know they can get away with it and cites the famous mythological story “The Ring of Gyges” written by Plato. However there are those that know right from wrong and will remain from engaging in the piracy. It is his hope that if people choose to respect others intellectual property by not stealing it then it will encourage others to be creative without the worries of their own works being stolen. It is a very well written article that brings a lot of truth to the issue and really digs down into people’s motivations and discouragements of music piracy. Ian’s article The Internet Debacle – An Alternative View takes the opposing view that all music should be free to download from the internet.  The books thus establishes both positions, allowing the reader to “take sides,” i.e., see both sides of the argument and can then make their own judgment about the issue at hand for themselves.

The publication date is set for October 12, 2012. You can purchase either the hardcover edition or, for those of you with a Kindle, the Kindle edition. Both will be available on Amazon.

Jeff Scheese, a senior at Belmont University which an emphasis in music business, is currently interning with Shrum & Associates.

Great news for those of you who listen to The Music Row Show on WLAC Nashville! The show features my clients, Scott Southworth and Heino Moeller, who recently announced that starting June 3rd the weekly radio program will make the leap to WSM, the 86-year-old 650 AM station known fondly as the “Air Castle of the South.” Along with this change on the radio “dial”, the team also announced an agreement with BlueHighways TV (responsible for programs such as American JukeBox Theater and Dry Creek) who plans to film the program and begin airing the show on its cable network in July.

“We can’t even express how excited we are to bring The Music Row Show to WSM and BlueHighways TV!  It’s an honor to be even a small part of WSM’s 86 year history and its musical legacy,” says co-host Southworth. Moeller added, “…to become a member of the BlueHighways TV family and its commitment to celebrating American music, art and culture is more than Scott and I ever imagined when we started the show.”

For those of you unfamiliar with The Music Row Show it is a weekly, two-hour radio show that airs every Sunday. Southworth and Moeller host the program while interviewing guests, listening to performances, and informing viewers on the happenings of the Music Row community. The Music Row Show began airing in November of 2007, and has since gained mass popularity and established an international fan base. This popularity has been attracting an array of guests that include some of the music industry’s most notable decisionmakers and recording artists, including legends Dolly Parton and Vince Gill.

WSM, the Air Castle of the South, has a rich history. It is known worldwide as a leader in the country radio genre. Its first program, WSM Barn Dance, began airing in 1925. The Barn Dance was a weekly Saturday night program at the Grand Ole Opry, WSM has been credited with shaping Nashville into the recording industry capital it is today. The stations’ historic, massive antenna, located in the suburb of Brentwood, gives it one of the largest footprints in the country. This extensive reach gave WSM a massive audience, giving many musical acts from around the country incentive to come to Nashville in hopes of getting their performances played on the legendary station. The term “Music City USA” was coined by one of the stations disc jockeys, David Cobb, and since then the name has been adopted as Nashville’s unofficial nickname.

BlueHighways, based in Hendersonville, Tennessee, was started by Stan Hitchcock in 2009. It is an independent network celebrating original American roots music, culture, and events. Hitchcock is no stranger to running successful networks, as he founded Country Music Television (CMT) in 1984. BlueHighways, Hitchcock’s 3^rd such venture, features shows such as Cooking Outdoors, Mule Training, Your Home Studio, and a slew of music programming. It’s goal is to offer a window into the experiences, music, neighborhoods, art, festivals and celebrations that define America’s vast culture as well as character.

Tom English, the General Manager for 650 AM WSM expressed his excitement for the duo to join his station:

Scott and Heino have done an amazing job building such a loyal international fan base for The Music Row Show. We are very proud to now bring the duo to our legendary airwaves and introduce this video version of the show exclusively on BlueHighways TV.”

Stan Hitchcock, Chairman and CEO of BlueHighways TV is also eager for the two to get started:

Our viewers will love this video version of Scott and Heino’s The Music Row Show. Their entertaining delivery and keen knowledge of the music industry will connect with the BlueHighways TV audience. We are also pleased to partner with WSM, as it brings strong credentials to our television version of this popular radio program.”

In reference to the deal, Scott and Heino added:

Barry Shrum has been instrumental in navigating us through the completely new waters as far as television negotiations. Not only did he go through the contract line by line with us (translating to english), he also helped us change some of the sections to take into account upcoming technology for future protection. There is no "Fear Factor" as we take The Music Row Show to a new medium with Barry in our corner!

Catch The Music Row Show on Sunday evenings on 650 AM WSM from 7-9 PM CT starting June 3.

*Hey folks, Jeff Scheese here just wanted to introduce myself. I’m currently enjoying the summer in Nashville before my Senior year at Belmont University. I’m a Music Business major currently and loving the realm of opportunities the city of Nashville offers. Upon graduation I plan on attending Vanderbilt’s Law School to further my education on the legal side of the music business. My ultimate goal is to become a lawyer in the music industry, mainly on the litigation side of things. I’m currently interning with Barry Neil Shrum, Entertainment Attorney, at his location in downtown Nashville. I’m learning a lot about the industry and enjoying my experience so far. Look forward to more pieces from me in the future.

Source:

Harr, Dan. “The Music Row Show Finds New Home on 650 AM WSM & BlueHighways TV”. MusicNewsNashville.com. May 16, 2012. http://www.musicnewsnashville.com/the-music-row-show-finds-new-home-on-650-am-wsm-bluehighways-tv

Article 1, Section 8,Clause 8 of the United States Constitution is the starting point for any discussion of intellectual property, and in this specific case copyright.  In it, our Forefathers gave Congress the right to establish a monopoly in favor of authors and inventors for the fruits of their labor.  The merits and justification for granting this monopoly was apparently the subject of considerable debate amongst the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Charles Pinckney, not to mention the remaining representatives to the Constitutional Convention, who spent a week long session in August 1787 discussing various proposals enumerating the powers of Congress. 

Jefferson was, perhaps, one of the staunchest proponents of limiting governmental monopolies in all respects, but in particular with regard to restricting the use of original thought.  In his indubitably prosaic way, Jefferson said "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea. . . .  [S]he made them . . . incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.”  In conclusion, Jefferson opined that “Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. 

These concerns about granting rights of property to intellectual property, as expressed by Jefferson, were actually addressed by Charles Pinckney in his proposal.  His proposed clause, “to secure to authors exclusive rights for a limited time, added the infamous phrase to other proposals drafted by Madison.  It was combination of their drafts that were used by the Committee of Detail to draft the final clause, which included the “for a limited time” phraseology that has been the subject of debate in recent years. 

Under this authority, Congress has, through the years, established certain limitations on the monopoly of copyright.  Beginning with the first U.S. copyright law of 1790, wherein authors were given a 14 year monopoly, plus the option to extend the monopoly for a second 14 year term, to the present construct wherein authors are given a monopoly for the duration of their life, plus an additional seventy years in which their families and/or heirs can exercise the monopoly.

In addition to the time limitation, and in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, Congress also imposes other limitations on the monopoly of copyright.  For example, originally the copyright monopoly on applied to “useful knowledge” produced by society, that is primarily writings.  This limitation evolved of the years into what we now understand as the definition of a copyright, i.e., an original idea expressed in a tangible format for more than a transitory duration.  Other limitations such as the first sale doctrine and fair use are not pertinent to the point here, but also serve as limitations on creators’ rights.

Throughout history, these limitations on the monopoly of copyright have, for the most part, served to create a very delicate balance between the need, perceived by our Forefathers, to incentivize authors and inventors to populate the marketplace of ideas on the one hand, against the utilitarian goal of providing a free exchange of those ideas for the good of society.  This creates the public domain concept of copyright law.

So it is, then, that the proprietary nature of an original idea is based on expression of that idea in a manner than can be controlled, i.e., a tangible format, again addressing the concern of Jefferson that an idea may be exclusively possessed as long as a person keeps it in their head, but “the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone. . . every other possesses the whole of it.”  The resulting corollary of this is that the ideas themselves, absent expression, as well as the facts about the phenomena of the world, are considered to be the collective knowledge, or property, of humanity.  Therefore, so far in history, what I call the continuum of knowledge has been made up of these unexpressed ideas together with the works that have fallen into the public domain. 

This continuum of knowledge was envisioned by our Forefathers for the greater good of society and is the reason that, for example, tangible expressions of one of Claude Monet’s favorite subjects, the Saint-George cathedral in Venice, are theoretically entitled to copyright protection at the same time as the later paintings of François Salvat conveying expressions of the same subject.  Once the painters’ expression of the idea that is the Saint George cathedral is transformed onto canvas, he is entitled to enforce the monopoly of copyright.  Conversely, the mere idea or fact that is the cathedral is never the subject of individual property protection by the painter. 

Stated another way, the law by necessity is focused on the embodiment of the idea, as opposed to the idea itself or, to use a biblical reference, it focuses on the wine skins more than the wine as a means of control.  This conflation of the expressed idea – described by the Supreme Court as “evanescent” – and the physical embodiment creates more misunderstanding regarding the concept of copyright than perhaps any other.  In our advanced age of digitization, it is now more important than ever for us to remember the distinction between the two elements.

The best illustration of this conflation is perhaps the area of musical works.  For purposes of this discussion, we will ignore, for the moment, that there is a separate copyright for sound recordings of musical compositions and focus primarily on the latter.  In the early 1900′s, vinyl records became the embodiment of choice for musical compositions.  In the 60′s, it was the 8-track tape and in the 70′s it was the analog cassette.  In the 80′s, as digital technology advanced, we used the compact disc and digital audio tape, which ultimately led to the mp3 format in the 90′s and afterward.  Once digitization became possible, all tangible expressions we subjected to the process and it became possible to make flawless copies of the “wine” that was paintings, photographs, text, music, graphics, video, sound recordings, and cartoons. 

John Perry Barlow, ex-Grateful Dead lyricist turned founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, describes this phenomenon:

    Now, as information enters cyberspace . . . these [wine] bottles are vanishing.  With the advent of digitization, it is now possible to replace all previous information storage forms with one metabottle: complex and highly liquid patterns of ones and zeros.

From the moment of digitization forward, the fusion of the expressed idea and the embodiment was “rent asunder,” changing forever more how we perceived copyright.  Tangible expressions, once embodied in pigments, paper, strips of celluloid, discs of vinyl or plastic, and tape, now existed as glowing impulses of voltage conveyed in zeros and ones, flitting around the Internet at the speed of light.  The expressions, in other words, are now closer to pure thought than our Forefathers, perhaps, ever dreamed possible.  Digital technology thus threatens to disturb the delicate balance they intended to establish in their creation of a copyright monopoly.  The truly “evanescent” nature of a digital copyright monopoly makes it extremely difficult to fit into the “old skin” that is “an original idea expressed in a tangible format for more than transitory duration.”

The “RAM Fixation” cases that arose in the late 90′s – the seminal case being MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, illustrate the imbalance precisely, as the courts struggled to determine whether a cached copy of a copyrighted work that existed in the random access memory of a computer for no more than a second was sufficient “fixed in a tangible format” for more than a “transitory time,” thus warranting protection under copyright law.  The 9th Circuit in MAI Systems ruled that it was sufficient, but other courts, like the 2nd Circuit in Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings, found otherwise, ruling that the copy was “fleeting” and therefore not “embodied . . . for a period of more than a transitory duration. . . .”  The Supreme Court has yet to rule on this issue.

Once the veil was rent asunder, trying to enforce a copyright monopoly was somewhat akin to trying to sweep back the ocean with a broom.  Beginning with its efforts against Diamond Multimedia in the late 90′s and its efforts against Napster and Grokster, and continuing through to the present through it efforts against more than 17,000 individual downloaders, the track record of the Record Industry Association of America in its fight against illegal downloading is the perfect example of this fruitless effort.  Rather than adapt and transform our concepts of copyright – the wine skin – to conform with the new wine – digitization of art – the music industry continued to cling to the status quo, a hand forced in part by decades of doing business under the old model.

What does this conundrum mean for copyright law and the efficacy of a monopoly in the fruits of our creative labor?  Before answering that question, and lest we forget, new technologies have always created challenges to Constitutional law.  If we view our founding document as a living, breathing document that was created to adapt to such challenges, it may help address the current challenge. 

This is not the first time in history that a new technology has challenged an existing way of thinking.  Even in the music industry, the introduction of the “talking machine,” a/k/a the phonorecord player, created such a stir that John Philip Sousa testified before Congress that the invention would “ruin the artistic development of music in this country” because our vocal chords would no longer be used and therefore vanish as a result of evolution!  What seems like an extreme position now is only perceived as such through the lenses of hindsight.  Congress responded to Sousa’s and the industry’s concerns, as it often does, by revising the copyright law to address new technologies.

In responding to the new technologies of our generation, we must keep in mind the primary objectives of Jefferson and others in the creation of a copyright monopoly in order to adequately address the issues – they wanted to assure the widespread distribution of ideas for the benefit of society by giving the creators of ideas a monopoly.   They were dedicated to encouraging the dissemination of mental creations throughout the New World where they could be used, entering the mind of others – the continuum of knowledge – by assuring their creators that they would be compensated for the value of such dissemination.  Once certain limits had been reached, the protected ideas would enter the market place of ideas, the continuum of knowledge, and become freely available to the public for use in the creation of new ideas.

The problem with many solutions being proposed by advocates of copyright, as well as those who would have us do away with the concept, is that they ignore the delicate balance by focusing on one aspect of that principal while ignoring the other.   Just because we can now “unclothe” the idea, stripping away its tangible, physical embodiment, does not eliminate the system of confinement, i.e. the copyright monopoly, envisioned by the Forefathers.  Jefferson clearly grabbled with the concept that an idea was “incapable of confinement,” but nevertheless clearly chose to participate in the creation of a system that would, in fact, confine the very thing that was incapable of confinement.  So, even though the creations of authors and inventors now, more than ever, more closely resemble a mere idea, using the tools given to us by our Forefathers, our society can still adapt our system that offers incentives to those authors and inventors for the dissemination of the fruits of their labors. 

Through new technologies and interpretations, we can develop “virtual bottles” to store our new wine, bottles which replace the old physical, less evanescent wine skins of embodiment.  Since laws on meant to reflect public opinion, perhaps in the end the future of the copyright monopoly may depend more on perceptions than it does on restrictive regulations.

Round N Round features Afro Rican, a now legendary hip-hop group that established the “Miami Bass” of Southern Florida in the 80’s with their ‘87 hit Give it all you got.  Jay collaborated with Derrick Rahming of the group to write and produce some of the track on his upcoming album. 

Jay has been performing, writing, and producing since the age of thirteen.  This continued through his teen years as he worked with another famous figure in the hip-hop community, Danny D.  Jay secured a national recording deal at the age of 17 and reached a national level of success, again around the sounds of the South Miami movement.

I first met Jay in the 90’s and early 2000’s when he formed his own record label, Scion Music, a mark that was later acquired by Toyota.  Jay has many talents, and soon found an opportunity to use his skills at marketing by acquiring the Hollywood branding agency, Who’s BIg? That agency handles a number of large accounts, including Cedric the Entertainment and Blair Underwood, among others, as well as corporate accounts such as Kia, Chevrolet and WB Music.

The single can be purchased through iTunes, as well as directly on Jay’s website.  The song is gen3erating some nice responses and already has achieved widespread acclaim.  Check it out for yourself.

If you’ve cruised the net or checked out your local news any time within the last few months, chances are you’ve heard rumors currently sweeping the United States about two pieces of proposed legislation : H.R. 3261 entitled the Stop Online Piracy Act (“SOPA”) and S. 968 entitled the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (“Protect IP”).

Senator Patrick Leahy sponsored the Protect IP Act, proposing it to the full Senate on May 12, 2011.  SOPA is the House of Representatives’ equivalent. The government is promoting these acts as a way to decrease online piracy, something that is costs the creative industries millions of dollars each year.  The Record Industry Association of America, representing the music sector, has estimated that global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year, 71,000+ lost U.S. jobs, $2.7 billion in wage earnings, $422 million in lost tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes.  Even these calculations create volumes of debate among the Internet blogosphere as to their methodology and accuracy.  Most every credible source, however, agrees that piracy causes significant economic loss to the creative community.

After years of fighting the piracy in courts, most website that make infringing materials available have moved their operations offshore in jurisdictions where the long arm of the law does not reach.  The Protect IP Act addresses this jurisdictional problem by giving the government the ability to established a list of “rogue websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods ” and then proceed to curb access to these websites by literally squeezing their revenue streams: VISA, MASTERCARD and various ISPs.  Protect IP has a heavy focus on those websites located outside the United States. 

Leahy based the Protect IP Act on a bill he previously proposed called Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). This bill failed to receive a full vote in the Senator mainly due to Democratic Senator Ron Wyden who put a hold on the legislation, claiming using COICA was “…almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb when what you really need is a precision-guided missile.”  Wyden felt the damage done by COICA would cost “…American innovation, American jobs, and a secure Internet.”

SOPA goes further than Protect IP by also providing a private right of action on the part of copyright owners, giving individuals and corporation with a stake the ability to appeal to the government for relief.  If enacted, SOPA would lead individuals being able to barring online advertising networks, PayPal, and other payment companies from doing business with the infringing or “rogue” website.  It would also prohibit search engines such as Google and Yahoo from linking to these sites while also requiring Internet service providers to block access to such websites.    This legislation would make “unauthorized streaming of copyrighted media” a felony. 

Opponents, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argue that this would create situations where websites such as YouTube and Tumblr might be deemed “illegal,” in direct violation of Federal law.  There is no end to the drama that has been created, including use of such words as “censorship” and such “Chicken Little” mantras as “the Internet as we know it may come to an end.”

While these bills certainly have many who oppose them, including Google, there are some powerful supporters of the bill, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, as well as large online retailers such as L’Oreal and the NBA.  David Israelite, President and CEO of the National Music Publishers’ Association believes that SOPA is just what America needs.  According to Israelite “…[d]igital revenue streams are key components of our industry’s future” and though we are making progress it is threatened by “criminal activity” that takes place on websites based outside of the United States.  Infringing sites typically experience enormous traffic and thus are making millions off of ad revenues.  Israelite feels U.S. manufacturers are struggling to compete, as does the U.S. Chamber. 

While SOPA and the Protect IP Act are a bit different from COICA, they are still built around the same concept of restricting revenue flow.  At first glance the bills seems to be a source of relief for the industry, but upon closer examination, it appears that such relief may come at a high cost.  These are difficult issues that are not easy to decide.  On the one hand, copyright, trademark and patent owners indeed deserve the right to be able to monetize their intellectual properties, a right established by our Forefathers in the U.S. Constitution at Article 1, Section 8 Clause 8.  Jefferson and Madison had many debates about balancing that government-granted monopoly against the free exchange of information they desired to establish in a “marketplace of ideas.”  This leads to the other hand, which is that censorship of ideas was what our Forefathers were trying to guard against by establishing the “for limited times” language of the Constitution, which thrust a work into the public domain for all to use.  Now that the U.S. duration of copyright exceeds four generations (Life +70), the idea of potential government censorship of website should cause us greater concern.

The one thing I haven’t seen from either side is a solution that protects the interests of the copyright owners as well as the interests of the public in accessing information.  Perhaps if the definition of “rogue websites” were more specifically defined, and there was some form of judicial oversight involved, where due process could enter the equation, the legislation would be more palatable.  Either way, if you are in the creative industries, this is legislation you should examine and about which you should talk to your representatives.  It is important to exercise your right to be a part of this process.  Neither the Senate nor the house has taken a vote on the legislation. 

Your House representatives can be found at the House’s Directory and the Senates Directory.  Texts of both bills can be found at the Library of Congress’ website, at http://thomas.loc.gov, or click below:

S. 968: Protect IP

HR 3261:  SOPA

Additional References:
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/legal-and-management/protect-ip-sopa-bills-seek-to-protect-digital-1005621352.story

http://www.forbes.com/sites/garyshapiro/2011/12/07/save-the-internet-take-action-against-sopa/

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/legal-and-management/sopa-protect-ip-acts-fuels-the-fire-of-disgruntled-1005633152.story

Amber Rose is enrolled as a student at Belmont University’s Mike Curb School of Music Business in Nashville, Tennessee.  She is currently studying copyright under Professor Shrum.

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. . . . [F]or the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

Romans 13:1-7 (ESV)

It is perhaps an irony that my use of Paul’s words concerning the respect owed to the authority of government may, in fact, be an infringement of a particular government’s copyright!

More to the point, is the fact I quoted these verses from the English Standard Version of the Bible copyright infringement? One would think not, as the original disparate writers of the assembled Hebrew and Greek texts that make up our modern Scripture have been deceased for centuries now, and their individual works were created long before any type of copyright protection was ever imagined, must less applicable. In fact, the first copyright statute, the Statute of Anne, would not be passed by Parliament until 1709, while the earliest extant fragments of any type of scripture are fragments containing Hebrew texts which date back to the 2^nd century BCE.

The myriad translations of the Bible that are around today — over 400 English translations have been created over time, including popular versions such as the New International Version, the Good News Translation, the New American Standard Version, The Message — are registered by their respective publishers as copyrights in the United States.

So, if a preacher quotes scripture aloud in church, or reprints a couple of inspirational verses in his weekly newsletter, is the minister committing willful copyright infringement? Fortunately, he is not, but only by virtue of licensing. While most all translations of the Bible are copyrighted, their publishers allow people to copy them freely, howbeit with certain limitations. For example, the publishers of the New American Standard version allow a person to copy as much as 500 verses without prior written, so long as the total amount copied is less than 25% of the total new work created. Other publishers take a similar approach, allowing a person to publish 1,000 verses totaling less than 50% of the work. The rationale behind this policy is that it allows the public to use the Bible freely while preventing blatant reproduction of the entire text.

Perhaps one of the more intriguing examples of a protected version of the Scriptures the most popular version of the Bible, the King James Version, which is still protected by copyright law despite the fact that it was published over 400 years ago.

The rights to the KJV, initially published in 1611, are still owned by the English monarchy, under their so-called “Crown Copyright” laws. The Copyright Act 1911 provided specific protection for government works prepared or published by or under the direction or control of the Monarch or of any Government department, specifically including the KJV.

Now, lest there be a revolution, there’s no need to get your “knickers in a wad” if you’re a non-Brit: the King James Version is in the public domain everywhere else in the world. Still, the concept of a government holding copyrights indefinitely can feel a little strange, especially if you’re from the U.S., where Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 limits the grant of a copyright for “a limited time.” Unlike England where copyright concepts are based on natural rights, U.S. laws are based upon the utilitarian principle that incentivizing creative endeavors for a limited time and then passing them into the public domain sustains society’s interest in a fluid marketplace of ideas.

But in England, only two publishers possess the rights to print the King James Bible: the Queen’s Printer (now the Oxford University Press) and the Scottish Bible Board; all others must receive a letter patent from the Crown to legally print the KJV .

Should governments be allowed to hold copyrights?

Ownership of copyright by a government entity begs a larger question: shouldn’t works that were created for the public, using the people’s tax dollars, be available for public copying and use? This is certainly the case in the U.S., where §105 of the 1976 Act prohibits ownership of “any work of the United States Government,” which is defined in §101 as “a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties.” The effect of section 105 is intended to place all works of the United States Government, published or unpublished, in the public domain.

This prohibition only applies to works created by the U.S. on its own soil, and does not apply to works created in foreign countries, as most governments are entitled to copyright protections in their works. Thus, it would be unfair not to allow protection for U.S. works in that situation. Currently in Great Britain, works that are commissioned by the government are protected for 125 years from creation, or 50 years after publishing.

The KJV states: “and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32). Now that the truth is known, shouldn’t the King James Bible be free to the descendants of King James?

Bennett McMordie is currently a student in Mr. Shrum’s Copyright Law class at Belmont University in Nashville, TN, where he is earning a degree in Music Business. He loves all things music, most things business, and also enjoys playing bass for the CJ Solar Band.

The pilot episode features Trace Adkins discussing his fondness of the song “Kiss You All Over,” which climbed all the way to #1 on the charts in 1978, the year I graduated!  The original version featured the late Jimmy Stokley on lead vocals.   In his book, A Personal Stand, Trace Adkins commented on the song:

In the late 1970’s, a few pop and rock bands went country – like Exile, that band from Kentucky.  I like them a lot.  I remember when “Kiss You All Over” went to number one in 1978.  They sang in gospel harmonies and eventually drifted over to country.

In the first episode of Hit Exchange, which will premiere on GAC on December 15th at 8 p.m., Adkins will further discuss how the song influenced him, and expand on his respect for Exile.  Trace and Exile recently went back into the studio to re-record the famous hit together.  The show will feature footage of the recording session, together with individual interviews with the members of their band and their support team (I think my invitation go lost in the mail!).  Finally, the show will feature a live performance of “Kiss You All Over” shot in Las Vegas with Trace joining Exile onstage! 

Earlier this year, Exile was also feature on the Opry at the Ryman with Trace Adkins.  Glad to see the band getting some well-deserved respect!