"All members of a culture that practice music are expected to be abelt to engage with music in culturally appropriate ways" (1: Cross 2008)

"Introduction
In this paper I shall make a number of claims about music. I shall claim that music,
like language, is a fundamental part of the human communicative toolkit. It is
unique and specific to humans, but music is not "natural" while language is
symbolic; music and language are both equally symbolic and natural domains of
human thought and behaviour. I shall propose that music - musicality - underpins
the intellectual and social flexibility displayed by modern humans. As a corollary of
this, I shall claim that many of the most important abstract concepts that frame and
give meaning to human interaction - such as social justice, that aspect of morality
which is concerned with the achievement of equity in human relations - have their
roots in human musicality. I am not proposing that without music there can be no
social justice; I am simply submitting that without musicality the flexibility in
managing social relations that characterises modern humans and that constitutes the
matrix within which abstract conceptions such as social justice can take form is less
likely to have arisen."

Bodroghkozy, Aniko. "Reel Revolutionaries: an Examination of Hollywood's Cycle of 1960s Youth Rebellion Films." Cinema Journal 41 (2002): 38-58. JSTOR. UPenn, Philadelphia. 8 Apr. 2008. Keyword: 1960s counterculture culture america hippie.

    This article explains how studios in the 1960s attempted to attract young moviegoers (18-30 year olds) by making films about campus activism and youth protest. Author Aniko Bodroghkozy discusses how these films represented campus turmoil, the radicalization of young people, and the violence associated with student rebellion. Cinema audiences were dwindling in the 1960s, mostly due to the demise of the family audience. The expansion of suburban America was keeping the family away from the movies and opting for other enterainment such as television and recreation. MGM was one of the first studios to attempt to bring the youth back to the box office. Louis Polk became president of MGM in 1968 and recognized this problem in the industry. Joseph Levine, head of Avco Embassy Productions, called these youth-oriented films "nonconformist cinema." The Graduate had been wonderfully successful for Embassy. Unlike Levine, some film industry executives were uncomfortable with the antiestablishment views, politics, and values associated with these films and thought they would hinder international sales. Directors and producers were able to frame these rebellious movies by focusing on the main characters instead of the radical mobs. Films such as The Strawberry Statement and Getting Straight were about campus uprisings, but their creators framed them as films about individuals having identity crises in the midst of rebellious college campuses.
    Nevertheless, there was certainly a conflict between the revolutionary youth politics and mainstream American culture that had to be addressed. The Graduate was revolutionary in that it addressed this chasm in a subtle way. Rather than focusing on the rebellious protests and political rallies that personify the 1960s, Nichols' masterpiece simply portrayed one young man's questioning of his parent's values. Despite his preppy wardrobe, Benjamin Braddock represents the youth counterculture of the 1960s. His parents, always talking down to him and asking about his plans, represent the American society that the 1960s youth generation absolutely cannot stand. At a time when other studios were trying to appeal to college age audiences, MGM was ahead of its time and succeeded with The Graduate.

Thesis: This project explores the increasingly important relation of digital and remix/convergence culture to copyright law and copyright holders, specifically with regards to how video and sound properties are handled in the highly open market of the internet. As a creative submission, I will create a mash-up video parody featuring copyrighted content from Apple Corps., Vivendi Universal, and Buena Vista Pictures. My supporting paper will detail the copyright violations that were necessary for the creation of the work, as well as discussion of whether and why the work should be seen as "fair use" and the ways in which our current cultural paradigm calls for a system within which creations in the same class of works can be made without the violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Arguments:(1) If laws are in place which protect works which are transformative in nature or fall under other fair use or parody guidelines, a system should be established by which consumers can legally transform their media without having to violate the DMCA by bypassing digital rights management encryption. (2) Our culture is in a transitional state, as technology is making the process of parody and other fair uses increasingly democratic. (3) The creative project itself will be a parody of Hollywood tropes and practices, which are becoming increasingly less dominant in the new age of user-generated content. Fittingly, the final project will be posted on media and netroots darling YouTube to make the commentary complete.

    This press release from YouTube briefly details their partnership with Universal Music Group (UMG), subsidiary of Vivendi Universal.  In this groundbreaking strategic partnership, UMG agrees to make music videos whose rights they own viewable on YouTube.  It also allows for YouTube users to utilize music from UMG’s extensive catalogs in their videos.  In turn, YouTube agrees to remove from their site any content owned by UMG which they choose not to make available, and UMG and its artists will be compensated by YouTube for their properties being viewed on the site.

    The document makes mention of the nature of the partnership: that is, a way for UMG to tap into the vast resource internet traffic, a way to assure that YouTube remains devoted to protecting their property, and lastly an embrace of contemporary convergence culture and the new consumer/prosumer drive towards user-generated content.

    This is an interesting deal, especially considering the rampant speculation of YouTube running into problems with UMG just a month before this announcement and how, in the midst of the YouTube deal, UMG sued two other video sharing networks.

    I reference this announcement because it, as well as YouTube’s agreement with Warner Music Group (which preceded this partnership) are primary evidence of a growing trend towards adoption of user-generated content models, and the willingness of media giants to begin the slow process of loosing content restrictions without direct payment by the consumer.

    I reference specifically the Universal Music Group rather than the earlier Warner announcement because segments from my project will include property (video) that is owned by Vivendi Universal.  While this announcement does not in any way justify the posting of my project on YouTube as a legal action, the existence of a link between the two companies is of note, and hopefully a sign that should property agreements expand, the video included in my project will one day be YouTube-licensed (keeping in mind that this is not likely, as the project will contain copyrighted material from additional companies.

In this case, Universal City Studios lays out its arguments against the commercialization of Sony’s Betamax. The essence of their reasoning is that owners of video tape recorders had been recording copy-righted material, which had been aired on television. This action, they claimed, infringed their copyrights, and thus Sony was liable for facilitating infringement by marketing the Betamax to consumers. Universal Studios sought relief for these damages through money damages and an injunction against the manufacture and marketing of Betamax recorders.

In its ruling, the court explained its reasoning for supporting the legality of the Betamax. It found that the average Betamax owner uses the device to record programs he cannot view as it is aired. This practice, termed "time-shifting," widens the audience for television media consumption. Thus, the majority of copyright owners didn’t even object to this use of the Betamax. However, there were two respondents in this case who did object to “time shifting” but were unable to prove that there was any material economic harm to their copyrights. The court decided that because there were “substantial non-infringing” uses of the Betamax, Sony was not liable and would be allowed to further manufacture and market the Betamax.

The dissenting opinion gives more detail in regards to the arguments made by Universal. The Studios claimed that video recorders would result in a decrease in revenue by reducing the marketability of their works in movie theaters and through diminished demand for prerecorded videotapes. They also feared that video recorders would decrease their viewing audience, and thus the licensing fees they could charge. While these damages could not be proved, the dissenters extolled the Studios view that as long as there exists a “reasonable possibility” of harm, then the use should be considered an infringement.

Importance for thesis:

This case demonstrates the thought process that media companies went through when considering how to react to the VCR.  The emphasis that the Studios placed on protecting their current sources of revenue, despite the fact that they couldn’t prove the VCR even threatened these income streams, exemplifies their short sighted viewpoint.  Additionally, the case demonstrates how media companies fixate on maintaining their current business models without considering the larger changing competitive landscape.  The results of adopting this stance will allow me to demonstrate the negative consequences of trying to fight technological evolutions.   

This is a copy of the lawsuit Universal filed against MySpace on November 17, 2006, in the United States District Court of Central California.  In the suit, Universal claims that MySpace is guilty of copyright infringement.  Universal claims that the songs and music videos shown on MySpace are done so illegally and without permission from copyright holders.  Universal uses Jay-Z as an example in their case against MySpace, saying that songs from his new CD, "Kingdom Come", are available on MySpace even though, at the time the suit was filed, the record had not been released.  Universal says that MySpace is well aware of the copyright laws that it is breaking and continues to support the "user-stolen"content distributed on the site.  They also say that MySpace knows that they don't have a liscense from the copyright holders of the songs and videos it distributes.  The proof, says Universal, lies in the agreement each MySpace user makes with the site that gives MySpace control over what can be done with the content.   Universal says that MySpace knows that these are not the real copyright holders, and yet continues to show infringing content without permission.

This case is extremely relevant to the YouTube copyright discussion.  First off, it could convince MySpace and other similar sites to follow YouTube's lead and strike revenue sharing deals with major studios.  The YouTube business model would then be seen as a blue print for similar companies, and this in turn would help shield YouTube and other sites from future lawsuits.  However, this case could end up hurting YouTube.  Universal claims that since MySpace edits and posts much of the content on the site, they are knowingly infringing upon the copyrights of the videos and songs available on their site.  Although YouTube's users do much of the posting and editing, YouTube itself still edits user content.  If the courts buy Universal's arguments, YouTube could be in grave danger of future lawsuits.

Amanda Bronstad in this article writes about the differences between the copyright infringement cases that ultimately doomed music file sharing sites like Napster and Grokster and the current batch of cases involving video sharing sites like YouTube.  On one side of the argument, video sharing sites say that a major percentage of their content is perfectly legitimate and legal.  Also, these sites, especially YouTube, point out that they remove content considered to be copyright infringing immediately after they are notified by the copyright holder.  This did not happen with music file sharing sites. However, lawyers for Hollywood's major studios say that their case is bolstered by the fact that they now have a precedent in MGM v. Grokster.  They argue that web sites know they make money off of this infringing material, and therefore are liable for induced infringement.  They also say that video sharing sites may be considered direct infringers because of the role these sites take in editing user content.

Bronstad also notes that while the recent agreements between YouTube and major studios such as Universal, Warner, and CBS does help legitimize the site, the agreements aren't necessarily "suit proof".  She says that many experts in the field see a major gray area that could be exploited by an ambitious company or law firm.  She says that the debate will ultimately come down to the DMCA's "safe harbor provision", and whether or not these video sites have put in place and enforced rules to protect themselves from future legal issues.  She says that the strongest safe harbor these companies have is the ability to remove copyright infringing material from their sites.  If sites continue to consistently remove copyright infringing content, as YouTube has done over the last few months, then these companies will have a strong legal foundation for their business models.