$1.92 million penalty for illegally downloading 24 songs.

From cnet news:

Jammie Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of willful copyright infringement on Thursday in a Minneapolis federal court and must pay the recording industry $1.92 million. In a surprise decision, the jury imposed damages against Thomas-Rasset, who was originally accused to sharing more than 1,700 songs, at a whopping $80,000 for each of the 24 songs she was ultimately found guilty of illegally sharing.

There still is nothing new under the sun. So what is originality?

Is Coldplay original? As Paste reports, “Back in December, . . . guitarist Joe Satriani was accusing Coldplay of plagiarizing his song, “If I Could Fly,” with their undeniably catchy, monster hit, “Viva La Vida.” Coldplay has now responded, claiming Satriani’s song is not original enough to be infringed. Of course, Satriani’s lawyer disputes the legitimacy of this defense:

Coldplay and its lawyers saying Satriani’s song doesn’t even deserve protection because it “lacks originality.” So, they’re basically saying that because the song blows in the first place, it doesn’t deserve shielding of the law. Fair enough.

But that’s a straw man’s argument, says Satriani’s lawyer Howard E. King, replying that this sort of response is “typical” in copyright infringement cases. According to King, Satriani would like this matter settled out of court, but Coldplay isn’t ready to budge.

It is not, of course, the first time Coldplay has been accused of stealing the tune to Viva la Vida, and it is not the first time Coldplay’s apparent plagiarism has been explained as the coincidental replication of a common pool of pop music moves. Because we so worship the creative artist, though, we tend to recoil from the idea that so much genuine artistry is merely the repackaging of formulas with which we are familiar and comfortable. The KLF, though, understood the formulaic foundation of pop music, publishing The Manual (How to have a Number One the Easy Way), a how to? guide to the method they used to construct British pop hits. As they explained:

Every Number One song ever written is only made up from bits from other songs. There is no lost chord. No changes untried. No extra notes to the scale or hidden beats to the bar. There is no point in searching for originality. In the past, most writers of songs spent months in their lonely rooms strumming their guitars or bands in rehearsals have ground their way through endless riffs before arriving at the song that takes them to the very top. Of course, most of them would be mortally upset to be told that all they were doing was leaving it to chance before they stumbled across the tried and tested.

Thus, they instructed the pop star wannabe:

The first of the component parts you are going to need to find is the irresistible dance floor groove.

Before we go any further we had better define “groove”. It is basically the drum and bass patterns and all the other musical sounds on the record that are neither hummable or singalongable to. . . .

Black American records have always been the most reliable source of dance groove. These records down through the years have inevitably laid so much emphasis on the altar of groove and so very little into fulfilling the other Golden Rules that they very rarely break through into the U.K. Top Ten, let alone making the Number One spot. A by-product of this situation is that gangsters of the groove from Bo Diddley on down believe they have been ripped off, not only by the business but by all the artists that have followed on from them. This is because the copyright laws that have grown over the past one hundred years have all been developed by whites of European descent and these laws state that fifty per cent of the copyright of any song should be for the lyrics, the other fifty per cent for the top line (sung) melody; groove doesn’t even get a look in. If the copyright laws had been in the hands of blacks of African descent, at least eighty per cent would have gone to the creators of the groove, the remainder split between the lyrics and the melody. If perchance you are reading this and you are both black and a lawyer, make a name for yourself. Right the wrongs.

As the Authorship Collective in the English Department at Case Western Reserve explains (footnotes omitted):

With its emphasis on originality and self-declaring creative genius, this notion of authorship has functioned to marginalize or deny the work of many creative people: women, non-Europeans, artists working in traditional forms and genres, and individuals engaged in group or collaborative projects, to name but a few. Exposure of these exclusions — the recovery of marginalized creators and underappreciated forms of creative production — has been a central occupation of cultural studies for several decades. But the same cannot be said for the law. Our intellectual property law evolved alongside of and to a surprising degree in conversation with Romantic literary theory. At the center — indeed, the linchpin — of Anglo-American copyright as well as of European “authors’ rights” is a thoroughly Romantic conception of authorship. Romantic ideology has also been absorbed by other branches of intellectual property law such as the law of patent and trademark; and it informs the international intellectual property regime. In patent it survives today both in figurations of the inventor and in the emphasis, which this body of law shares with copyright, on the “transformative” moment in the creative process.

The Authorship Collective goes on to cite examples of “biopiracy,” the appropriation by pharmaceutical companies of native knowledge in medicinal plants. The companies then patent synthetic versions of the plants’ effective ingredients and profit from the sale of the “new” drug. For example:

The Hoodia cactus, native to South Africa, has recently come to the fore of the debate surrounding bioprospecting and intellectual property rights. The Hoodia cactus, native to the Kalahari Desert, has been used for centuries by the hunter-gatherer San speaking tribes of the region (in the past they were commonly referred to as “Bushmen”, although now this designation is recognized as being pejorative, inaccurate and outdated). The San peoples have long recognized the appetite suppressant qualities of the Hoodia cactus, and have traditionally chewed the stem to stave off hunger and thirst during long hunting expeditions in the desert. Scientists from the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Affairs learned of the Hoodia’s properties and began to study the cactus. In scientific tests, animals given the cactus lost weight rapidly without any apparent negative side effects. According to scientists from the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Affairs (CSIR), the Hoodia works by “mimicking the effect glucose has on the nerve cells in the brain, in effect telling us we’re full…thus curbing the appetite.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondant/2947810.stm) Scientists at the CSIR dubbed the appetite suppressant molecule in the Hoodia “P57″. Recognizing the enormous potential market for the Hoodia outside South Africa, CSIR placed a patent on P57 and sold the licensing rights to an English biopharmaceutical firm, Phytopharm, in 1997. Phytopharm then sold the license to American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer for 25 million dollars. Throughout the whole process, however, the San peoples were completely unaware of what was occurring.

So, is Viva la Vida merely a reworking of old formulae? It sure seems it might be:

So maybe Coldplay is not a group of plagiarists; rather, it is a group of pop hacks working on tropes that the entire pop music industry since the 1950′s has stolen from elsewhere. Originality is a tricky thing. Just ask Shepard Fairey.

Is republication of Mark Cuban’s tweet on Twitter non-infringing? Almost certainly it is.

Mark Cuban asks:

Here is a question for all you legal scholars out there. Is a tweet copyrightable? Is a tweet copyrighted by default when its published ? Can there possibly be a fair use exception for something that is only 140 characters or less ?

Well, sure, a “tweet” might be protected by copyright. The more creative it is, the more powerful is the protection. Cuban wouldn’t be wondering whether a 140 character poem by William Carlos Williams could be protected by copyright.

The question would only come up, though, if the author of the tweet was claiming someone had infringed his copyright. If Cuban, for example, claimed ESPN were infringing the copyright in his tweet, I strongly suspect the use would be a non-infringing fair use. Nevertheless, my ultimate conclusion would require consideration of the specific message Cuban is talking about and application of the specific facts in dispute under the appicable analysis:

(1) What is the nature and character of the allegedly infringing use? The more creative it is in its own right or the more it is an instance of the type of expression protected by the First Amendment (journalism or political speech, for example), the more likely it is to be a non-infringing fair use. The fact ESPN, an outlet for sports journalism, would be transmitting the words of Mark Cuban, the owner of a sports franchise (the Dallas Mavericks of the NBA), makes it seem more likely ESPN is engaged in legitimate journalism . . . , but

(2) What is the nature of the copyrighted work? The more creative or journalistic or political the expression, the less likely use of it without permission will be fair use. And the fact the work is available anyway would cut in favor of ESPN’s use of it being a fair use. This factor is almost impossible to determine based on Cuban’s hypothetical question. There can be 140 words that are as creative and expressive as anything can be (think Shakespeare or William Carlos Williams), or the 140 words might be utterly an utterly generic report about facts Cuban is passing on, or the 140 words might be mostly lifted from someone else. So which way and how hard this factor would cut on this hypothetical is without examining the specific words difficult to tell. It is, nonetheless, difficult to believe much creativity would be produced by Mark Cuban in a tweet. Moreover, the fact Cuban has already transmitted it via Twitter to everyone that follows him indicates that he doesn’t have that strong an interest in controlling the use of the words.

(3) How much of the copyrighted work is taken? Assuming ESPN takes the entire 140 characters, I suppose this factor cuts against ESPN’s claim of fair use, but, of course, the brevity of the entirety (under factor 2) cuts in favor of fair use, so in the abstract the two factors nullify one another. This is one reason hypothetical questions are useful, but only of limited use, in answering legal questions. One can only take abstract hypotheticals so far. 140 characters written by Shakespeare in a play are probably very different than 140 characters written by Mark Cuban in a tweet, but they might not be.

(4) How much does the allegedly infringing work affect the market for the copyrighted work? Is there a market for Mark Cuban’s tweets? It’s hard to believe there might be.

In short, I’d advise Cuban to be very light-hearted and laid back about ESPN republishing his tweets. If he really thinks he’s got something so worthwhile he should have the exclusive right to its commercial value, he shouldn’t have put it out on Twitter in the first place.

Is Michael Murphy another Shepard Fairey?

Do you think that if we ever discover the photo from which Michael Murphy derived the image for this “shadow portrait” of Obama in urethane Murphy will be accused of copyright infringement?  I do, but I don’t think it’s infringement.

When does appropriation serve creativity? Quite often, in fact.

A commenter to yesterday’s post on Shepard Fairey’s Obama poster has suggested that I don’t believe in copyright because I believe that, even though Fairey created his image by initially tracing a copyrighted photo, the changes he made to the image and its re-contextualization within the campaign poster might well be sufficiently transformative to make his work non-infringing fair use.  In fact, I’d go so far as to say I genuinely believe Fairey’s image is a creative work in its own right even though it derives from another work.

In that regard, it’s worth noting that Henry McKervey and Declan Long, in “Makers and Takers: Art and the Appropriation of Ideas, write::

[I]t is the expression of an idea which is subject to legal protection. While perhaps this has meant that an artist such as Gillian Wearing can be faced with difficulties over the unattributed re-application of her work, the law also could be said to give artists a relative amount of freedom to take and re-use material in any number of subtly different ways without the spectre of plagiarism remaining ever-present. In a work such as Douglas Gordon’s 24 Hour Psycho, for instance, there is in one sense very little of the artist’s ‘own’ work (Hitchcock’s classic thriller being merely re-played at a radically slowed-down pace) yet Gordon’s intervention makes for a powerful, transformative artistic statement. The question of “knowing originality when you see it” is almost beside the point in cases such as this: artists’ strategies of appropriation prompt questions of originality to become thematically intriguing on, one level, while also being critically irrelevant and, on occasion, inappropriate, on another.

Believing that genuinely transformative appropriation is legitimate does not imply I do not believe in copyright.  It means, rather, that I believe that copyright should serve the only purpose it constitutionally is meant to serve: increased invention and creativity.

And did anyone notice that the John Williams composition played at the inauguration, “Air and Simple Gifts,” borrowed heavily from Aaron Copland’s Appalachian Spring, which itself appropriated a Shaker hymn?

Scrabble v. Scrabulous redux

There are many examples of what I wrote about yesterday — lawyers prosecuting a lawsuit on behalf of a client who in fact would be better off not suing even though his claim might be a legitimate one — but there are few better than the one I wrote about here in November: Hasbro’s lawsuit against the creators on Facebook of Scrabulous, brought because, in the words of Hasbro’s lawyer, “Hasbro has an obligation to act appropriately against infringement of our intellectual properties.”  As Eric Eldon wrote yesterday in Venture Beat, “Hasbro owns the Scrabble copyright for the U.S. and Canada and forced Scrabulous to go offline in those countries at the end of July; Mattel owns the rights to Scrabble everywhere else and followed in Hasbro’s footsteps a month later.”  The problem is that now Hasbro’s product on Facebook and the product newly produced by the creators of Scrabulous are splitting a smaller audience on Facebook than Scrabulous alone had on Facebook even as Facebook’s participation climbs precipitiously.  Eldon suggests it would’ve been much wiser for Hasbro and Mattel to have entered into a partnership with the creators of Scrabulous to produce a Facebook-based Scrabble game.  Instead, the lawyers took over, and everyone is worse off:

This is exactly how not to build a Facebook app. Facebook is designed to help people share information with those they care about – geography-based licenses from another era have just gotten in the way of making something people want to use.

What, indeed, is fair use?

My students sometimes wonder whether their failures to find clarity in the law are the result of a lack of intelligence.  They aren’t.  Let me give a very timely example.  The New York Press writes that Girl Talk’s music — aural collages of others’ recordings — exists “without fear of lawsuit, thanks to the fair use doctrine in U.S. copyright law.”  The RIAA, on the other hand, states that “generally speaking, the use of any part of a song requires a license.”

The RIAA’s position is not without basis.  Judge Kevin Duffy in Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)(Duffy, J.), in a decision that did not even consider issues pertaining to fair use, enjoined the distribution of Biz Markie’s third album because one of its songs sampled three words and the accompaniment ostinato of Gilbert O’Sullivan’s schlock hit “Alone Again, Naturally.” Duffy wasn’t satisfied with a mere injunction, however: he referred the defendants to the U.S. Attorney’s office for criminal prosecution and wrote in his opinion, like a preacher from the pulpit,”‘Thou shalt not steal.’ [Exodus, Chapter 20, Verse 15] has been an admonition followed since the dawn of civilization. Unfortunately, in the modern world of business this admonition is not always followed.”

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2004), compounded this folly, holding that the defendant had committed copyright infringement by using in his own musical recording a two-second sample from an earlier copyrighted recording, lowering the pitch, and looping the sample to extend it to 16 beats. Again, the court failed entirely to consider the First Amendment rights that must be balanced against maintaining the composer’s incentive to create, the very core of the fair use doctrine.

The Biz Markie case, Grand Upright Music, is generally considered the reason industry practice (as reflected in the RIAA’s statement quoted above) is to pay for any and all recorded samples. Record companies certainly have no interest in challenging the existing regime. The recordings they own are held inviolate too, so why challenge the right of another recording company to require payment for any sample, no matter how small, no matter transformative its use is, and no matter how little impact it will have on the market for the sampled piece?

Plainly, then, the New York Press is engaging in wishful thinking in assuming Girl Talk can operate “without fear” of lawsuits because of the fair use doctrine.  But MTV.com is being just as innacurate when it writes that Girl Talk’s failure to get permission to use the copyrighted recordings it uses “means that they appear in [Girl Talk's] song[s] illegally.”  And Techdirt is right on the money when it writes:

[W]ith over 300 samples used on the album, there’s almost certainly going to be a few who get upset [by the Girl Talk album]. . . . [T]he woman in charge of the copyright for the band the Guess Who is planning to go after Girl Talk, noting that: “We’ll chase it down. What more can you do?” Well, actually, there’s plenty more that you can do — such as recognizing that no one who hears the music on Girl Talk is going to see that as a replacement to the Guess Who’s album — and, if anything, it might entice new fans to the original.

So does Girl Talk exist without the fear of lawsuits?  Of course not.  But, as I wrote recently, if were advising a client whose recordings Girl Talk had sampled, I would advise that client not to sue Girl Talk: it’s position to argue that it has transformed the copyrighted materials and thus that their use is non-inringing fair use is just too good.  I’d go after someone I am more likely to beat.  Othewise, I’d lose all the leverage I have with the existence, as yet undisputed in case law, of the decisions in Grand Upright Music and Bridgeport Music.

The law may not be clear, but what I advise a client can nonetheless be clear.  Grasping that paradox is central to what it takes to being to really learn to think like a lawyer.

If criminals are criminals because they seek profit, what do you do if you want to prosecute people for acts they commit with no intent to make money? You change the law.

Back in May of 2001, two federal prosecutors wrote “Novel Criminal Copyright Infringement Issues Related to the Internet” (David Goldstone and Michael O’Leary, USA Bulletin, May 2001) to provide Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers with guidance in prosecuting criminal copyright infringement  cases.  The memorandum is already so dated that much of its discussion seem almost naive (about, for example, the online posting of copyrighted materials).  Nevertheless, it points out one more way that the change of the material reality governed by the law requires changes in the law.  Typically, non-violent crimes are illicit efforts to make money.  Thus, criminal statutes against non-violent crimes almost always require prosecutors to prove the defendants intended to profit from their allegedly illegal activities.  But, as the DOJ memorandum points out, the law relating to online copyright infringement needed to be changed because of a remarkable new wrinkle: many defendants committing their alleged acts of criminal copyright infringement via the internet do so without any intention or hope of gain:

Infringement without profit motive is far more common in cases of Internet-based copyright infringement than it is in the physical world. Until recently, the prosecution was required to prove that copyright infringement was done willfully and for commercial advantage or private financial gain. Now the law provides for prosecution in the absence of these monetary considerations.

Do we really want to treat artists like shoplifters?

Effective lawyering, like any effective practice, requires choosing the right objective.  There are less charitable ways to think of this strategy.  I could just as easily write that effective lawyering requires choosing the right victim.  You don’t sue someone who will beat you, no matter how righteous your cause.  Sun Tzu made this strategy plain: “If your enemy if superior in strength, evade him.” The Art of War (ch.1, v.21),  That’s why, for example, I don’t think Metallica will sue Girl Talk even though Girl Talk makes music by sampling the recordings of a myriad of artiststs that include litigants as aggressive as Metallica.  Girl Talk’s work may consist entirely of sampled copyrighted works, but it is work constructed so creatively that it constitutes something genuinely new and creative, something, in the words of the law, that is “transformative” of its copyrighted materials.

Girl Talk is like Jeff Koons.  In Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 252-53 (2d Cir. 2007), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that Jeff Koons’ appropriation of a copyrighted photograph in a painting did not infringe the photographer’s copyright because Koons’s use of the photograph was “transformative”:

Koons is, by his own undisputed description, using [the copyrighted photograph] as fodder for his commentary on the social and aesthetic consequences of mass media. . . . When, as here, the copyrighted work is used as “raw material,” . . . in the furtherance of distinct creative or communicative objectives, the use is transformative. . . . His stated objective is thus not to repackage Blanch’s “Silk Sandals,” but to employ it “in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings.”

Instead of going after the artists like Girl Talk and Jeff Koons, copyright holdlers (typically large media conglomerates) go after victims they think they can beat into submission.  Thus, for example, Prince’s music company, Universal Music Group, sought to remove the 29 second video of a mom’s son dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” from YouTube via a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”).  Other people think suing college students for illegally downloading music is the right strategy for resolving the inevitable conflicts posed by the clash between our new technologies and our old copyright laws.  College students don’t have the money to defend lawsuits brought by media companies.  And, the thinking goes, if a bunch of defenseless law students are deterred, everyone else will fall into line:

In a lot of ways, downloading is more like shoplifting than it is like “piracy,” the term often used for it. Pirates embrace a life of crime; shoplifters often see their activity (wrongly) as an exciting and slightly risky diversion – a relatively petty vice in an otherwise law-abiding life.

The recording industry will have to use similar tactics, and like retail stores, they will have to live with a small loss from undetected stealing. But that loss can be minimized, through warnings, monitoring, and enforcement. And word of enforcement spreads. . . . Few students will keep downloading once their classmates have famously gotten in deep trouble for doing just that. That is good for them, but even better for us. . . .

The more seriously society takes shoplifting, the more shoplifters will be deterred. The same is true, I believe, for illegal downloaders. Every law-breaking student has a diploma at stake, and only a scintilla of students are hardened criminals. Like the thrill of shoplifting, the thrill of illegal downloading may fade quickly in the face of serious penalties, and a real risk of getting caught.

There is a big problem with this reasoning.  The use of copyrighted materials without permission is not like shoplifting.  Intellectual property is not tangible property, and the law does not equate the two.  As I wrote just yesterday,

We are not a society oriented only toward property ownership. Free expression, based primarily in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, is also foundational to our society. It is exposure to ideas, and not to their particular expression, that is vital if self-governing people are to make informed decisions. There is, however, an inherent tension here. While the First Amendment disallows laws that abridge the freedom of speech, the Copyright Clause calls specifically for such a law. The First Amendment gets government off speakers’ backs, while the Copyright Act enables speakers to make money from speaking and thus encourages them to enter the public marketplace of ideas. Balancing this conflict is precisely the purpose of the fair use doctrine,

The problem is a real one.  I have a new friend, Cathy Vogan, who has created Futurisms, a film that uses the song Que Sera Sera as a jumping off point to comment on the song’s naivete in the face of Reality.  I think Futurisms is a genuinely creative work.

But Facebook has removed Futurisms from its site, and while the company gives my new friend an opportunity to file a “counter-notification” contending that she has a right to have her film posted, when she looks at what she must declare to file the counter-notification, she sees, in her words, “a scary legal word: ‘perjury,’ and wonder[s] what will happen to me if I proceed.”

Who can blame her?  Should she take on Facebook?  She is a struggling, but fairly well-known video artist with 8 international awards who has never sought to make money from her creative work.”Futurisms” was completed a few months ago, and has never been shown anywhere, besides her website and Facebook.

Stephanie Lenz took on Universal Music Group and won. Thankfully, she had the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.  What should Cathy do?  I think she should file her counter-notification.  “Perjury” requires lying, and as long as she doesn’t lie, there’s no harm in filing the notification.  The worst that can happen is that Facebook will refuse to alter its position.

But do we really want to treat artists like shoplifters?

ADDENDUM: Cathy filed her counter-notification, and Facebook has restored FUTURISMS.  Here it is too:

The rhetoric of naming.

Don’t you just love the names that legislatures give their laws? Like 2003′s “Clear Skies Act,” which in fact weakened the Clean Air Act’s provisions against air pollution. Well, yesterday the President signed into law the “Pro-IP Act,” which, if it did what its name says it does, would advance the purposes of intellectual property laws. But all the “Pro-IP Act” does is increase substantially the already substantial penalties for piracy of copyrighted and patented products. The purpose of copyright, according to the U.S. Constitution, is to promote “[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts.” Yesterday’s post should make clear I don’t think increased penalties for downloading music or posting videos with copyrighted music is the kind of change that advances copyright’s purposes. But if Congress says so, it must be so, right?

Sarah Barracuda? Not if Heart can help it.

Ann Wilson and Nancy Wilson posted a message Friday on their Web site condemning the use of their 1977 hit at the Republican convention. The song was played when McCain, the party’s presidential nominee, was joined onstage after the speech by his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. . . .  Republican officials didn’t ask for permission to use the song and would not have been given the OK if they had done so, the Wilsons said.

In a statement posted Friday on the EW.com site, the Wilsons wrote:

“Sarah Palin’s views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song ‘Barracuda’ no longer be used to promote her image. The song ‘Barracuda’ was written in the late ’70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The ‘barracuda’ represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there’s irony in Republican strategists’ choice to make use of it there.”

In the heart of his 1984 re-election campaign, Ronald Reagan made a speech in Hammonton, New Jersey, and took the opportunity to invoke the name of one of the Garden State’s favorite sons.”America’s future rests in a thousand dreams inside our hearts,” the president said. “It rests in the message of hope in the songs of a man so many young Americans admire: New Jersey’s own Bruce Springsteen.”

Reagan — or his speechwriter — was likely thinking of one song in particular: “Born in the U.S.A.,” the title cut from Springsteen’s No. 1 album of the time. . . .But look deeper, and there was another dimension to “Born in the U.S.A.” The song was the ferocious cry of an unemployed Vietnam veteran.”Down in the shadow of the penitentiary/Out by the gas fires of the refinery/I’m 10 years burning down the road/Nowhere to run ain’t got nowhere to go,” Springsteen sang in a working-class howl.The singer wasn’t amused by Reagan’s appropriation of his work. “I think people have a need to feel good about the country they live in,” he later told Rolling Stone. “But what’s happening, I think, is that that need — which is a good thing — is getting manipulated and exploited.  You see in the Reagan election ads on TV, you know, ‘It’s morning in America,’ and you say, ‘Well, it’s not morning in Pittsburgh.’” The singer, who spent much on 1984 on a huge concert tour, dedicated ‘Born in the U.S.A.’ to a union local at one stop.

Segways.

Hey, maybe I should sue for copyright infringement!