The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Background of the Bob Dylan Megapoaster
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:11 AM
James Damiano’s cow wife megapoasts self-serving exclamations that Dylan stole Damiano’s music. A quick perusal of the record in the case shows the contrary is true. The record demonstrates that Damiano was a no-talent bum with a scheme to bring unwarranted claims against music legend Bob Dylan in an attempted extortion.
Some choice lines from the court decisions are as follows:
“[D]efendants show, through the deposition testimony of plaintiff, that the purported “works” set forth in the complaint were actually created for the first time in the complaint and not registered with the copyright office as alleged.” Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. 975 F.Supp. 623, 625 (D.N.J.,1996). “[T]he court suspects that any similarity between these two songs is the result of an appropriation of Dylan's work by Damiano, not the other way around.” Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. 975 F.Supp. 623, 626 (D.N.J.,1996) “Apparently, for the sake of creating a side-by-side comparison of plaintiff's lines with Dylan's lines, plaintiff and/or his attorney pieced together lines from many different untitled verses composed by Damiano to create a total of five single “works.” ( Id. at 192–3, 196). The allegedly infringed lyrics are titled and organized in such a way that misleads the reader into thinking that a single piece by Damiano contains several words and phrases in common with those in a single piece by Dylan. The complaint also contains altered versions of some of Dylan's lyrics. ( Id. at 175, 199). Some of the words in Dylan's songs are rearranged or left out, again giving an impression of similarity that otherwise does not exist.” Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. 975 F.Supp. 623, 626 (D.N.J.,1996) “[Damiano] argues that coupling the word “stumble” with the word “lips” creates a sufficiently original arrangement of otherwise trite words. Likewise, plaintiff argues that an arrangement combining the cliche “truer words have not been spoken” with the word “broken” is creative enough to be worthy of protection. Thus, plaintiff concludes, Bob Dylan cannot subsequently use the same pairs of words or phrases together in a lyric, even if separated by many intervening lines and ideas in some instances, without infringing plaintiff's original work. . . . The law of copyright does not support the logical extension of plaintiff's theory. In effect, he asks us to grant him a monopoly over the use of common combinations of words such as “bell” and “hell,” “run” and “hide,” or “mind” and “behind” merely because they are found together in a single song—regardless of context or placement within the song.” Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. 975 F.Supp. 623, 629 (D.N.J.,1996)
“To the ear of this court, there is no substantial similarity in the structure, instrumentation or melody of the two songs. These songs “speak” for themselves and no reasonable factfinder could find substantial similarity.” Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. 975 F.Supp. 623, 631 (D.N.J.,1996)
“At an October 29, 1999 hearing, after plaintiff published by use of the Internet confidential discovery materials protected under Judge Rosen's August, 1996 Order, this Court found plaintiff to be in contempt of the protective Orders and directed him to immediately cease all such dissemination. ( See Order filed October 29, 1999.) At the hearing on October 29, 1999, Mr. Damiano apologized to defendants and to the Court for his contempt of the confidentiality orders,FN3 and asked for the Court to be lenient, indicating, “It makes no sense. I want to come on-off-I don't want to be on the internet. It's senseless, it's senseless and I don't want to hurt-I just want to forget the whole thing. I give you my word I won't even put up the story. I just want to end it, I really do,” by which he meant discontinuing his Internet war against Sony and Dylan. ( See Tr. Oct. 29, 1999 at 26:19-24.)” Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. 2000 WL 1689081, 2 (D.N.J.) (D.N.J.,2000)
The Third Circuit dismissed Damiano’s appeal. Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 166 F.3d 1204 (3d Cir. 1998).
|
 |
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:13 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:14 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:16 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:17 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:20 AM |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 1:03 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:16 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:23 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 7:26 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 7:41 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 11:06 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 3:29 PM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 4:04 PM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 4:08 PM |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 12:38 AM |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 1:05 AM |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 1:07 AM |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 1:10 AM |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 1:06 AM |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 1:08 AM |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 1:34 AM |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 1:38 AM
http://www.jamesdamiano.yolasite.com |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 1:44 AM |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 1:47 AM |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 2:28 AM |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 3:04 AM |