After the war, he wrote and produced for television, provided both words and music for Time for Fun, an album of children’s songs, and launched a music publishing firm.In 1946 he and Robert B. During the Second World War he served overseas with the 77th Infantry Division, presenting Army shows and winning the Bronze Star. Wright on the words of “After Hours”, a haunting blues piece originally composed as an instrumental for the Hawkins band by its chief arranger and pianist Avery Parrish.In the late 1930s Feyne was busy in radio, not only as a solo singer, but as a writer-producer of the series Rhythm School of the Air. The song was successfully recorded by the Andrews Sisters and by Jan Savitt and other orchestras.Feyne and Bill Johnson’s “Dolimite” record for Bluebird by the Hawkins band caught the attention of Jimmy Dorsey, who recorded it with his orchestra for Decca (1940).Feyne became a member of the American Society of Composers and Publishers (ASCAP) in 1940 and continued his association with Erskine Hawkins that same year by collaborating with Robert B. After hearing “Tuxedo” only once, he impressed the bandleader by dashing off the complete lyric on the spot. The song was named after a railroad stop in Alabama, its instrumental was co-composed by Hawkins and his saxophonists Bill Johnson and Julian Dash. Helped immeasurably by Wilburn “Dud” Bascomb’s muted but swinging trumpet solo (often mistakenly credited to Hawkins), the band’s recording for the Bluebird label was its biggest- ever success, and the piece soon replaced Hawkins’ “Swing-Out” as his signature tune.White bands of the day often looked to black bands for material and Glenn Miller soon recorded his own version of “Tuxedo Junction” for the same label, scoring an even greater hit.

While singing with various obscure bands in and around New York, he began writing special material for himself and other vocalists He became Feyne when he met Milton Berle in the 1930s. Born Bernard Feinstein in 1912, he grew up in the tough Spanish Harlem section of New York City, and longed, from an early age, to be part of the music business. BUDDY FEYNE was not one of Tin Pan Alley’s legendary songwriters, but, in a long and varied career, he did put words to two popular instrumental pieces, “Tuxedo Junction” and “The Jersey Bounce”. “Look, there’s real butter, under your nose!” “It’s hard, for melting in baked potatoes.” “You don’t put margarine in the potatoes?” “No,” he replied in surprise, “you can’t put margarine in potatoes.” If the Mad Hatter had tendered for outside caterers, this would have been the man for the job.. The defence under section 30(2) would, therefore, also succeed..

“DO YOU want butter on it?” asked the man in a Brighton sandwich- shop. “Yes, please.” With which, he dug his knife into a tub of grease which I could not believe was butter. “Is that margarine?” “Yes.” “But you just asked if I wanted butter.” “I know,” he said, knife aloft, “it’s a figure of speech, isn’t it?”

No arguing with that (but why is it yellow, not blue or green?) – but there in the fridge was some butter, wrapper folded along most of the craggy edge. The defence under section 30(1) of the Act accordingly succeeded.Furthermore, Ms Allwood’s multiple pregnancy, its pro-gress and its eventual outcome were on any view current events of real interest to the public, and the fact that Max Clifford had sold an interview to German television, albeit of limited and ephemeral interest, was also a current event. The programme had been made for the purpose of criticism of works of chequebook journalism in general, and in particular the then very recent treatment by the media of the story.The use of the extract was fair dealing within section 30(1) of the Act, and the transmission of the plaintiff’s logo had, in the circumstances, constituted sufficient acknowledgement. The defendants appealed.Martin Howe QC and Charlotte May (Denton Hall) for the plaintiff; Michael Silverleaf QC and Mark Vanhegan (Henry Hepworth) for the defendants.Lord Justice Robert Walker said that the intentions and motives of the user of another’s copyright material were relevant for the purposes of the defences available under section 30(1) and (2), particularly on the issue of fair dealing, so far as it could be treated as a discrete issue.It was not necessary, however, for the court to put itself in the shoes of the infringer of the copyright in order to decide whether the offending piece was published “for the purposes of criticism or review”, and it should not give any encouragement to the notion that all that was required was for the user to have the sincere belief, however misguided, that he or she was criticising a work or reporting current affairs.The judge had erred in principle in focusing too much on the actual purposes, intentions and motives of those involved in the planning and production of the defendants’ programme, and in focusing too little on the likely impact on the audience. The plaintiff had made an agreement with Max Clifford, Ms Allwood’s public relations consultant, giving it the exclusive right to broadcast an interview with Ms Allwood in Germany.The defendants’ programme was directed at, and critical of, chequebook journalism.

The extract from the plaintiff’s programme was shown with the name TAFF appearing prominently in the bottom right-hand corner of the picture, and, less prominently, the plaintiff’s logo, a stylised figure 7, in the top right-hand corner.The judge decided that the defendants had failed to discharge the onus of proving that the extract had been included in their programme for the purpose of criticism or review within section 30(1) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, and that there had been insufficient acknowledgement.He further concluded that the use of the extract by the defendants was not for the purpose of reporting the “minor but newsworthy event” that Max Clifford had sold an interview with Ms Allwood to German television, within section 30(2), but that if he were wrong about that, he was in no doubt that the use made of the extract was not fair in all the circumstances. 22 January 1999

Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton UK Television Ltd and another
Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Henry and Lord Justice Robert Walker) 17 December 1998IN DECIDING whether the defence of fair dealing under section 30(1) or (2) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 had been made out, it was not enough for the user of the material to have the sincere belief, however misguided, that he or she was criticising a work or reporting current affairs.The Court of Appeal allowed Carlton Television’s appeal against a decision that it had infringed the copyright of Pro Sieben Media AG.The plaintiff, a German television company, claimed that the defendants had infringed its copyrights by including in one of its programmes a 30- second extract from a German television programme, which had been broadcast by the plaintiff in a magazine programme called TAFF.The plaintiff’s programme was about Mandy Allwood, who was pregnant with eight live embryos as a result of fertility treatment. Later, let others be imprisoned in their own homes, or in special cells (still, of course, with Internet links, but now only to philosophical sites). Then watch their frustration fight with grudging acceptance of the might of the law.But for that, we do not need the computer. Nor, come to think of it, the philosophers.Martin Cohen is the editor of `The Philosopher’.

Let the offenders be given money for clubbing, drugs for relief, and free access to the Internet! Then see how many give up offending. The philosophers can come in and airily announce, like Rousseau, that they will begin by “setting aside the facts, as they will not affect the question”, but they cannot set aside the starting assumptions (the axioms and the principles). And often that is where the disagreement lies.At least with the problem of juvenile offenders, graduating on their tiresome diet of graffiti and vandalism to car crime, burglary and violence, we are on the safe ground of being able to test our hypotheses. The issues remain stubbornly political and emotive, not to say irrational. Will the happiness of the relatives of his victims outweigh the distress of his supporters? Will his trial increase or decrease the likelihood of other dictators committing atrocious crimes?What are the principles involved? That no one should be allowed to be above the international principles respecting the sanctity of life, forbidding torture, and that political expedients are wholly amoral?Or with Slobodan Milosevic, who has successfully used international law to allow himself the right to commit the most ghastly crimes for several years – what advantages are there to respecting the sovereignty of the nation state, even when it is a terminally sick government devouring its own citizens, if intervention could yet lead to chaotic spread of the contagious disease?But already it seems that however useful and impartial the calculation, the argument over the rules programmed will be just as intense and insoluble as before. “Come, let us calculate,” would be the recourse of all civilised people, faced with such as Slobodan Milosevic and Augusto Pinochet.In the 17th century, computers were rather rudimentary, consisting of bits but no bytes, and the dream remained a dream.