August 24, 2005


I was perusing today’s issue of The Recorder, a legal newspaper in San Francisco, when I saw the following headline on the front page:

9th Cir: Arranging Hits Is Not Protected Speech

“How,” I thought, “could I have missed this? I’ve been reading the slip opinions pretty regularly. A case about the interaction between the sequencing of songs on an album and the First Amendment — that must be some set of facts. And a finding that it’s not protected! I’ve got to read this.”

Oh. Wait.

The case, I quickly realized, was about arranging hits, not about arranging hits.

(The opinion is here, in case you’re interested.)

Disclaimer Haiku:
West wind seems to say,
"This is not legal advice;
I'm not your lawyer."

(And if you're a client with whom I have a preexisting attorney-client relationship, this still isn't legal advice.)

In case you're wondering, this blog is also not intended as advertising, as a representation of anything but my personal opinion, or as an offer of representation.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
[powered by WordPress.]
[generated in 0.241 seconds.]