Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Tenure first. Then...a Grammy?

EDIT: The video appears to be "removed by user" - too bad, because we really enjoyed it. - Rule 12(f)

Most of us have come to know and love newly tenured copyright law professor/juggernaut Christopher Sprigman for his classroom wit and dreamy, age-defying hair (swoon).

But as sources have told us, when not testifying in front of the US House of Representatives or crushing the road race cycling circuit, Prof. Sprigman is also an aspiring singer/songwriter in his spare time. Youtube, anyone?




Suffice to say, we're looking forward to his full-length debut (and the ensuing Libel Show parody).

34 comments:

SwampPoodle said...

My sentiments exactly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIdcd9RWbbY&feature=related

Anonymous said...

Wow, that was bad.

CJS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I actually kind of like it. Go Sprig!

Anonymous said...

Magnanimous!

Rule 12 (f) said...

Professor Sprigman -

Where can I get this jam in mpeg-three format? Ty ty.

Anonymous said...

The man is completely unparalleled. Completely. I never cease to be amazed...

Anonymous said...

this is awful

Anonymous said...

agreed

Anonymous said...

Already removed. :-(

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
SwampPoodle said...

I wonder what Professor Sprigman would have done if he had been unable to remove the content he posted? Or if the commentary here had been harsher.

Are anonymous comments still defensible when they are hurtful to you?

2L said...

I love Chris Sprigman- from the rolled pants cuff legs, to the bike rack on top of the car, to his erudite manner...

CJS said...

No need to wonder; I'll tell you. My view is that anonymous comments are defensible and should be defended, even when (especially when) they are hurtful. When a comment crosses the line into defamation (of course nothing here is anywhere close to that) then the law gives a remedy against the commenter, but in my view secondary liability against a blog administrator or ISP should be *very* narrowly limited to cases in which the website owner induced the posting of the material. A more stringent rule than that will chill anonymous online speech. Some of that speech is of low or no value -- like some of the comments on auto-admit that amounted to threats of violence. But much of it isn't -- I'm thinking, for example, of the discussion of law school issues that takes place on this blog. Many of the comments are anonymous, and some of the anonymous comments are the most illuminating, even when they are not polite.

W/r/t the youtube posting, the song is mine, so I can post and take down as I like. I'm not offended if some people don't like the song. Taste is a matter of taste, and almost anything I or anyone else records would be liked by some and not others. I'm not stuck on civility, so if people don't like something and say so plainly, ok.

This strikes me as a good opportunity for a law school contest. I wrote and recorded this song in approx. 8 hours using only a guitar, garageband, and the $5 internal mic of a macbook. Can you do better? Then by all means have at it and post the results to this blog. I will offer constructive comments.

Rule 12 (f) said...

CJS,
Couldn't agree more w/r/t to anonymous online speech (which is not to say that I don't censor a lot of content that falls short of being legally actionable - I do).

As a somewhat-related aside I'll voice some further agreement w/ what you said: I feel the comments of this blog serve an important function because they provide students with a forum to voice opinions - often anonymously - that they don't have an opportunity / wouldn't feel comfortable voicing elsewhere. As you mentioned, I think that many of the comments do shed light on some key issues that might otherwise be ignored . . .

I liked the song, too, in case my earlier comment was unclear. AH/12(f)

Anonymous said...

I'm sad that I didn't get to hear/see the song. :-(

SwampPoodle said...

While understanding the potential for important anonymous discussion, I still am concerned that people can use this vale of anonymity to seriously injure others.

While I to worry that blog administrators might but subject to liability, I don't think it is unreasonable to impose some responsibility on them to monitor/delete posts which are defamatory.

Our legal system distinguishes between free speech and hate speech. Traditional newspapers face liability for the material they publish. It does not seem to me to be unreasonable that blog administrators should bear similar responsibility.

I very much liked the song, and can tell you without reservation I could never do better, given all the time in the world.

Anonymous said...

is Sprigman the funny looking one?

i liked that song. it was in my head for a while today, actually.

just visited the blog for the link to the video so i could hear it again. oh well.

Anonymous said...

I liked it a lot.

Anonymous said...

9:38, he is the hot one!

Anonymous said...

Blog administrators aren't publishing the comments, just hosting a site where others can publish them. People in favor of holding websites liable for the content of their commenters are asking to shoot the proverbial messenger.

Anonymous said...

CJS - I enjoyed the song. Pretty damn catchy.

Anonymous said...

some thoughts:

- sprigman has it right: adequate remedies exist for truly objectionable anon speech (libelous, threatening)

- people who find non-actionable anon "meanness" objectionable need to be more clear abt what they think should be done about it ... expand tort liability for "mean" speakers? secondary liab for hosts? increased "take-down" power for offended persons? or perhaps some might not object to forced sigs (imposed by law? by ISP policies? by individual bloggers?)

- "SwampPoodle": u might be one of the aforementioned persons who wouldn't object to forced sigs ... i gather as much from the fact that u post under a pseudonymous handle, a choice which seems aimed at deliberately granting yourself a lesser degree of anonymity than you might have ... but if you're going to strike a blow for transparency why not go all the way and post under your real name?

- sprigman's also right abt chilling effect ... many anon posters might not post even innocuous shit if anon speech rts were degraded, and the hand-wringing censorship bots who get offended by words do not IMO think hard enough abt the "valuations" they (mis)assign to "low-value", "offensive" speech ... say what you will about autoadmit, but that place buzzes with intellectual energy. it's not bookmarked on my laptop but i do look @ it weekly and click on threads that look interesting. and insights abound; and sometimes these insights are wrapped around racism and misogyny and homophobia and other prejudices.

- sprigman is also right abt this: "My view is that anonymous comments are defensible and should be defended, even when (especially when) they are hurtful" ... but he does seem *un poco sensitivo* by responding to the haters and defending his song and offering to offer "constructive criticism" of his critics' music (should they be musicians). you may be an expert on these matters but you failed to observe a central, practical golden rule of cyberspace: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

- only a Nazi would enjoy this song (how's that for constructive, sprigman?) ... KIDDING

Anonymous said...

Rats. I kind of liked the song on my first listen, and I came back to try it again ... but to no avail.

RadicallyLiberal said...

Sprigs, put it back up.

Anonymous said...

I'll stay out of the first amendment debate. It is a matter of ethical decency to treat other people with respect, even when your comments are anonymous. The sting to the victim is the same, regardless of whether they know the identity of the speaker. Many comments on blogs are inoffensive; some are downright vicious. I don't know whether it is practical or desirable to sanction these people legally, but - all behavior has consequences, and a mature individual shapes his or her behavior to preserve mutual civility for its own sake.

Kristin said...

Darn, I missed it!

Anonymous said...

CJS gets mad points for responding to this. So glad he'll be staying at UVA!

Anonymous said...

Sprigman is a hottie! Regardless of what you think of his song, you gotta respect his yumminess.

Anonymous said...

@8:28 PM - LOL at the ambiguity of "ethical decency" and "respect[ful]" treatment

Anonymous said...

@8:28 PM - LOL at the ambiguity of "ethical decency" and "respect[ful]" treatment

Anonymous said...

I don't think ethical decency is that ambiguous. There is certainly a gray area, but they are plenty of situations in which an anonymous commenter has clearly crossed the line. My junior high school had a corny little campaign to encourage civility - consider whether what you are saying is true, kind, and/or necessary. It may not be possible to meet all three criteria, but perhaps we should try for at least two!

Anonymous said...

twenty bucks says sprigman is posting the anonymous comments about being a "hottie". and no, i don't need a three paragraph response from CJS explaining the "hottie" posts and the policy implications of secondary liability.

Anonymous said...

@1:48 - unnecessary and 100% ad hom and not particularly funny. but putting up with anonymous dicks like you is a price of free anon speech, i suppose