Music Copyright Forum

[scalawag]

I am considering specialization in music copyright. Is southwestern a good school?

[BigZuck]

I wasn't sure what to make of this thread but to answer two of the questions I could find hidden within it:

The work is likely in NY or CA somewhere (guessing LA?)

Southwestern is a terrible law school and it should be shut down (not hyperbole, I mean that)

[folkitup123]

I hate to be negative on this forum (there are plenty others across the internet for things like that). That said, the 'hypothesis' of graduating from law school and practicing music/copyright law is a pipe dream. You will end up practicing as a solo attorney if you stay true to that path ... unless you end up at some prestigious IP-boutique (which you won't via the school you're thinking of attending), and being a solo practitioner in a crowded field where everyone comes from prestigious backgrounds and has tight connections is extremely tough. I speak from personal experience, and I attended a much better (higher-ranked) school than Southwestern. Feel free to PM.

[Well Hung Jury]

It sounds like you're looking for a unicorn job. Even with a 168, you're not in a great place for getting into a school allowing you to secure that. What is your GPA?

Based on what you've written and your interests, you may be better served going into another music related field that will not require you to take on an unsustainable level of debt in the worst case scenario you end up without a job at law school graduation.

Southwestern is not a good school and should be avoided at all costs, especially for those looking to work for more than free.

[scalawag]

.

[Well Hung Jury]

Thanks for the honest responses.

It kills me because I would be happy but unfortunately I won't have a 178 and my dick is slightly smaller than 10 inches.


edit: I'll consider other fields but I have a question is it stupid or good for people to think about what they want to specialize in before law shcool

It is good. If you want biglaw and Cooley is the only school you're admitted to, you know it won't work out.

[A. Nony Mouse]

It's good to think about what kinds of jobs you want to do, but people's ideas tend to change during school. (Mine completely changed; where I ended up actually makes a lot of sense given my temperament, but I didn't know enough to know that before getting through school.) And if you only want to do one very specialized thing that is hard to get, you need to think about what you'd do as an alternative.

I have no real idea what your number 3 means? But it sounds like it would be a fairly bad idea.

[scalawag]

It's good to think about what kinds of jobs you want to do, but people's ideas tend to change during school. (Mine completely changed; where I ended up actually makes a lot of sense given my temperament, but I didn't know enough to know that before getting through school.) And if you only want to do one very specialized thing that is hard to get, you need to think about what you'd do as an alternative.

I have no real idea what your number 3 means? But it sounds like it would be a fairly bad idea.

Number 3 just means that I would analyze every case litigated and be able to say for example if there are any theoretical consistencies of striking or substantial similarity. I don't think enough cases have been litigated for there to be a consistency but I show that I understand how music theory falls within the jurisprudence.

[071816]

My dad has made a killing and he went to a third tier law school.

not saying this isn't possible nowadays, but think about why it's not a good reason to justify going to a school with very weak employment prospects while hoping to get a job in an extremely niche practice area. the odds are definitely against you.

can your dad help you get a job? if he can't, don't go to a school like southwestern (even with a sizeable guaranteed scholarship).

[A. Nony Mouse]

Number 3 just means that I would analyze every case litigated and be able to say for example if there are any theoretical consistencies of striking or substantial similarity. I don't think enough cases have been litigated for there to be a consistency but I show that I understand how music theory falls within the jurisprudence which brings me to my next point.

When and why would you do this? Who would you do it for? Before getting a job, to show firms you know your stuff? How would you actually go about doing that? (Sorry if I'm missing something, I just still don't get it.)

It actually sounds like what you want to be is an expert witness. Attorneys can't testify in their own cases.

[03152016]

a lot of people want to do this kind of work, but there's not a ton of it to go around, and it's in high demand
music background helps, but probably not as much as you think
best route is to go do lit at a large firm with a media practice and hope for the best
location-wise, 2nd and 9th circuits. more 9th nowadays.

also i agree w/ nony, it absolutely sounds like you want to be an expert witness

[scalawag]

.

[BigZuck]

I honestly don't understand most of the words in this thread but what I'm getting from it OP is that you shouldn't go to law school. I don't think it's going to do anything for you or get you to whatever career you envision having.

[A. Nony Mouse]

My idea is academic it would basically just show them that I can analyze music scores. A John Williams score for instance would have a bunch of different instruments in different clefs so I would arrange (write it our in a program like finale) what's going on to analyze it. I would do this more to demonstrate my analytical abilities if it could be run by a creative department).

But this is my question: who is "them" referred to above? Who do you need to show that you can analyze music scores, when would you show them this, and why? (And what is the "creative department" you're referencing?)

The thing is that if you are a lawyer, you wouldn't analyze the scores. You would hire an expert to analyze the scores, because the scores would be evidence, an you can't testify about evidence. Your knowledge might well be helpful in identifying an expert and examining them/understanding their report, but you would not be analyzing the scores, the expert would. That's why it sounds to me like you want to be the expert, not the lawyer.

I'm pretty sure when brut said the job is high demand, he means that lots of people want to do music copyright and there aren't many openings.

[scalawag]

.

[scalawag]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I probably do. Seriously, though, my question is simple: who are the "them" in your post that I bolded above? Who are you showing you can analyze scores - a prospective employer, a witness, your bosses once you're a lawyer, opposing counsel, the court? It may be that what you're talking about doing would be helpful/reasonable, I'm just still not sure what you mean.

[scalawag]

I probably do. Seriously, though, my question is simple: who are the "them" in your post that I bolded above? Who are you showing you can analyze scores - a prospective employer, a witness, your bosses once you're a lawyer, opposing counsel, the court? It may be that what you're talking about doing would be helpful/reasonable, I'm just still not sure what you mean.

A potential employer bro sorry I was hungover as balls. And I know you think why do you want to be a lawyer when you read what I write but I've actually been told I write like a lawyer when I take the time to translate my jibberish into lawyerspeak (just from moot court undergrad - I hope I'm not coming across as disrespectful).

[03152016]

it helps in the sense that it might help you get staffed on one of these matters, and it will definitely help you understand what your expert is talking about
maybe it's somewhat akin to someone with a hard science background working on a patent case (a key difference being that there's far, far less music copyright work)
but there are plenty of lawyers with music degrees chasing this stuff. so it's pretty unlikely that's all you'd be doing. best route, as i said, is prob to do lit at a firm with good media/soft ip work and start knocking on doors

[scalawag]

.

[scalawag]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I probably do. Seriously, though, my question is simple: who are the "them" in your post that I bolded above? Who are you showing you can analyze scores - a prospective employer, a witness, your bosses once you're a lawyer, opposing counsel, the court? It may be that what you're talking about doing would be helpful/reasonable, I'm just still not sure what you mean.

A potential employer bro sorry I was hungover as balls. And I know you think why do you want to be a lawyer when you read what I write but I've actually been told I write like a lawyer when I take the time to translate my jibberish into lawyerspeak (just from moot court undergrad - I hope I'm not coming across as disrespectful).

No, you're not, don't worry. My point was just that I don't think analyzing every case out there - in the sense of writing up some kind of study before you get hired, which you mentioned - will help with job applications; employers won't read it. Write a law review article and list it on your resume, maybe.

[scalawag]

.

[scalawag]

.

[BigZuck]

Good luck with whatever you decide to do, OP