Split Chords: Addressing the Federal Circuit Split in Music Sampling Copyright Infringement Cases

This Note offers a comprehensive analysis of the current circuit split regarding how the de minimis doctrine applies to music sampling in copyright infringement cases. Since the Sixth Circuit\u27s 2005 landmark decision in Bridgeport Music Inc. v. Dimension Films, critics, scholars and even judges have dissected the opinion and its bright line rule of “get a license or do not sample.” In May 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in VMG Salsoul v. Ciccione. The Ninth Circuit explicitly declined to follow Bridgeport, holding that analyzing a music sampling copyright infringement case requires a substantial similarity analysis, including applying a de minimis analysis. The Ninth Circuit’s decision created a circuit split and an unsettled area of intellectual property law. This Note seeks to promote critical analysis of this contested area of law by exploring the underpinnings of the substantial similarity and de minimis doctrines, as well as the holdings of each case and their arguments. The Note offers three proposals regarding how courts should handle the circuit split, and in doing so creates a distinctive way of looking at the music sampling issue to help the federal judiciary frame the problem in a more expansive way

USING THE ABSORBED POWER METHOD TO EVALUATE EFFECTIVENES OF SELECTED SEAT CUSHIONS DURING MANUAL WHEELCHAIR PROPULSION

Although wheelchair users are constantly subjected to oscillatory and shock vibrations not much research has been conducted to assess the whole-body vibrations experienced by wheelchair users. Studies that have been published have only involved the testing of manual wheelchairs not interventions such as suspension or seating systems.The purpose of this study was to determine if selected wheelchair cushions reduce the amount of harmful whole-body vibrations transferred to wheelchair users and, if the absorbed power method a good measure of evaluating the whole-body vibrations.Thirty-two participants, who use a wheelchair as their primary mode of mobility, partook in this study. Four of the most commonly prescribed wheelchair cushions were selected. Participants were asked to propel their wheelchair over a simulated activities of daily living (ADL) obstacle course while acceleration and force data was collected.A repeated measures ANOVA showed no significant differences between the different cushions for the total averaged absorbed power (p = .190), the 50 mm curb drop (p = .234), or the rumble strip (p = .143). A repeated measures ANOVA for the peak curb drop absorbed power revealed a significant difference in the cushions (p = .043).The cushions that appeared to perform the best in this testing appear to be the Invacare Pindot and the Varilite Solo. Not only did those cushions appear to have the lowest values much of the time but did not display the highest values. Absorbed power appears to be just as effective at determining the effects of vibrations in the time domain as the prescribed methods of the ISO 2631 standard

Difference-Making and Easy Knowledge: Reply to Comesaña and Sartorio

Juan Comesaña and Carolina Sartorio have recently proposed a diagnosis of what goes wrong in apparently illegitimate cases of ‘bootstrapping’ one’s way toexcessively easy knowledge. They argue that in such cases the bootstrapper bases at least one of her beliefs on evidence that does not evidentially support the proposition believed. I explicate the principle that underlies Comesaña and Sartorio’s diagnosis of such cases and show that their account of what goes wrong in such cases is mistaken

An Inconsistency in Craig’s Defence of the Moral Argument

I argue that William Craig’s defence of the moral argument is internally inconsistent. In the course of defending the moral argument, Craig criticizes non-theistic moral realism on the grounds that it posits the existence of certain logically necessary connections but fails to provide an adequate account of why such connections hold. Another component of Craig’s defence of the moral argument is an endorsement of a particular version of the divine command theory. Craig’s version of DCT posits certain logically necessary connections but Craig fails to provide an adequate account of why these connections hold. Thus, Craig’s critique of non-theistic moral realism is at odds with his DCT. Since the critique and DCT are both essential elements of his defence of the moral argument, that defence is internally inconsistent