⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Real court arguments, crisp audio, with context.

Court recordings can be difficult to follow, and many suffer from poor audio quality. This podcast enhances the audio, provides a brief introduction to each case, and explains legal concepts that may be unfamiliar to some listeners.

We hope these enhancements make oral argument recordings easier to understand, more accessible, and more enjoyable to listen to.

Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube /feed.xml Open RSS Status

TufAmerica v. Universal Music Publishing — 2d Cir. (Oct 19, 2026)

No. 25-2380 Argued October 19, 2026 Published October 24, 2026

A drumbeat heard in Mary J. Blige's Real Love brings a music publisher into a copyright lawsuit. TufAmerica, also known as Tuff City Records, owns rights to Impeach the President, recorded by the Honey Drippers in 1973. It alleges that Audio Two sampled that song in Top Billin', and that Real Love, released in 1992, copied those drum sounds and their underlying musical elements through Top Billin'. The distinction between a recording and a composition matters. A sound-recording copyright protects recorded sounds; a composition copyright protects the underlying musical work. This lawsuit concerns the composition. TufAmerica contends that the publisher needed a license of its own. The publisher will answer that copying sounds does not, by itself, establish unlawful copying of protected musical expression. In September 2025, Judge Dale Ho dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning TufAmerica could not simply amend its complaint and continue. He found that the songs were not substantially similar and that amendment would be futile. This was a ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule Twelve, not a jury verdict. The appeal asks whether that early dismissal was proper. Listen for the difference between comparing the songs' overall impression and examining a copied fragment. Fragmented literal similarity concerns exact or nearly exact copying of part of a work. The question includes both how much was taken and how important it was to the earlier work. A short sample is not automatically lawful or unlawful. The lawyers will also debate whether TufAmerica preserved its arguments below. Hillel Parness of Parness Law Firm will argue for TufAmerica. He will seek a closer examination of the repeating drum pattern and an opportunity to develop the case. Joelle Milov will defend the publisher, Songs of Universal. She will argue that the songs themselves establish the lack of substantial similarity, and that the complaint did not adequately support a different analysis. The court's original recording cuts off during the judge's administrative closing, after both lawyers have finished. That gap is preserved, not reconstructed.

TufAmerica v. Universal Music Publishing (No. 25-2380) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 19, 2026.

Sources
Argument audio — official Second Circuit recording; original ends during the judge's administrative closing after advocacy ended:https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2380.mp3
Case and argument date — official Second Circuit archive:https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html
Sampling allegations, composition claim and dismissal — district court Doc. 71, September 23, 2025:https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2024cv02585/618967/71/0.pdf
Appeal and case-linked counsel — public appellate docket, retrieved through March 27, 2026:https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2380
Musical works and sound recordings — 17 U.S.C. § 102:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102
Scope of sound-recording rights — 17 U.S.C. § 114(a)–(c):https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/114
Motion to dismiss — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6):https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_12

0:00
0:00