Written by correspondent Siddhartha Mitter, this article defines what an audio blogger actually is.  Mitter makes a claim that these MP3 bloggers are tastemakers--influencing their audience about what is good and what is not.  An important point is that audio bloggers don't just post an MP3 file, they also provide commentary, "a whimsical capsule review, with sound attached," he calls it.  He defines audio bloggers as unpaid obsessive music geeks who have capitalized on this generation's "sense of immediacy" about everything culture related.  He  acknowledges that bloggers have become the tastemaking elite, able to take acts such as Diplo from "obscurity to sensation" because of the 'buzz' these bloggere build.  Also mentioned briefly is a vague allusion to an unwritten Bloggers' Code of Conduct', in reference to how long a song is allowed to remain an downloadable.

This article raises several different issues pertinent to my topic.  First, it underscores the importance of the 'non-commercial' status of blogs in regards to their legality.  Second, it reaffirms the ideas that bloggers are the dictators of what is deemed "cool" as opposed to the industry public relation firms, music magazines, MTV (old media).  Perhaps most importantly, it parallels the mp3 blog and the book review.  An MP3 blog is contingent upon the fact that along with the MP3 posted, there is some sort of commentary to go along with it.  To me, this raises the question of Fair Use.  Obviously, book reviews are allowed to print excerpts of the book in their critiques, and the courts have ruled this as a transformative version of the original work.  My insinuation, is that MP3 blogs could fall under the same statute.  Does the fact the song is being being critiqued force the MP3 blog under the Fair Use Defense by creating a transformative work?

CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC (1994)

Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. filed lawsuit against the members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew and their record company, claiming that 2 Live Crew's song, "Pretty Woman," infringed Acuff-Rose's copyright in Roy Orbison's rock ballad, "Oh Pretty Woman."  The District Court had ruled that 2 Live Crew’s song was a parody of the original; however, appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair for the purpose of the parody (first factor of the fair use doctrine), that by taking the "heart" of the original and making it the "heart" of a new work, 2 Live Crew had taken too much (third factor), and that market harm for (fourth factor) had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses.  The courts decided that the song fell into the proper categories of fair use, detailing the four different aspects of fair use and how the song accomplishes each of them.  2 Live Crew’s version was transformative and would not harm the reputation or financial gain of the original work.  The final decision of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, ruling the work as parody and therefore satisfying fair use judgment, leads me to believe that my transformation of the South Park’s narrative through film clips will be considered fair use and a parody of the original work.