This academic journal is published by Cambridge University Press and is a commentary on the first source listed above. Laing highlights the most important points of Frith’s work, offering his professional opinion in a disagreement, agreement, or clarification in the very least. A notable quality of this journal is the fact that is it printed in Great Britain; therefore it offers the insight of a foreigner analyzing American copyright law in contrast to that of the United Kingdom. This perspective draws attention to aspects of the law that may not been previously considered.
The essay is short and concise, wasting no words in a full examination of Frith’s work. He calls into question Frith’s assertion that the copyright system is an “aspect of the competition between different music producers…and…different music users,” and claims that there is much more to it than that. He acknowledges the complexities in the system in that they do not clearly favor or target neither the creator, nor the performer, nor the consumer. Slightly outdated, this essay was written before any sampling lawsuits were completed in the courts (at least in Great Britain) however, this serves as a strength instead of a weakness, however, seeing as his calculated predictions can be measured against the results to gauge how scholars viewed the subject.
This journal is not only an intellectual work in itself, but it is also an intelligent deciphering of some of Frith’s most significant assertions. This serves the reader well as some of his reading can be confusing and seem contradictory at parts. In reading Frith’s work, I will be sure to keep Laing’s journal on hand for color and clarification in order to most accurately comprehend the discussion and facts presented.
This book is an objective look at the various implications of digital sampling and copyright infringement in the music industry. It offers numerous examples of instances in the production of music that range from simply “causing a stir” to reaching a major court decision – and it provides the results of each. It has been written and edited by a collection of scholars, specializing in a number of fields and commenting from a variety of backgrounds and points of view.
The book does not necessarily pose an argument as much as it clarifies the dispute between the recording industry and the digital sampling community. It pits the copyright laws against the “creativity” of new musicians. The book takes neither stance but rather gives adequate attention to both. On one hand, it states that copyright is often blamed for curtailing creativity in music, in that it prevents the production of completely new songs simply because of their use of a small sample of a previous work. Conversely, the authors acknowledge that copyright is also seen as a catalyst for creativity, offering incentive to create fully original work instead of somehow deriving it from a pre-existing source.
This dichotomy is essential to my argument seeing as it offers equal views and examples on the subject of digital sampling. The cases identified in the text are sound evidence of the evolution of the copyright law as a result of the development of the digital sampling technologies and practices. As a result of these case studies, the book also calls to mind a number of musical examples that can not only be analyzed further, but can also be used to find other examples or to gain further insight into the specific case in question. All of these items are discussed in a case-by-case basis with commentary following and this formal structure provides an easy reference into any single instance of copyright infringement that results from the practice of digital sampling. This source will prove invaluable in the completion of the final paper, seeing as it outlines all of the surrounding facts and intricacies of copyright law as it pertains to music. In deciding whether or not a sampling is within the bound of copyright law, this book has been cited numerous times, and will be upon completion of the paper.
This book is a guide – as its title might suggest – to all things digital when it comes to music. It serves as not so much an analysis on copyright in the music industry as a whole, but rather as a set of legal and technical guidelines so that one may participate in the consumption and production of such music without infringing on copyrights. In other words, it describes for the reader all of the ins-and-outs of the digital music industry so that one may know where in the law his practices may reside.
Hill’s book has entire chapters devoted to the assessment of what is legal, what is not, and how to go about participating in said sanctioned musical practices. He identifies a list of acceptable file-sharing websites, and offers his own commentary on why others are forbidden, as well as why these are acceptable. The book begins with a basic introduction into the technologies and methods used in the digital realm and then goes deeper to list available services and to comment on the merits of various practices. His advice is clear and he condones no illegal activity, yet he makes clear why certain people might be motivated to circumvent copyright laws in terms of digital music. He further lists specific file types and programs that are used in these practices and he identifies useful software. He finishes the book with another broad chapter about the “Conscience of Digital Music” as a whole as well as his prediction of the future of the industry.
Hill’s technological knowledge is a key aspect of this book that has allowed me to delve deeply into the details of digital music production and sharing. He explains these issues in simple terms, while still conveying the complexity of their implications. In writing this final paper, the technological terms and details from this book will provide much-needed expertise in a field that I am not necessarily well-versed in. In my analysis of the acceptability of digital sampling, I must first know how the practice works and what techniques are involved; this book offers me this knowledge, which is key to reaching a conclusion in my final paper on what sampling is acceptable within copyright law.
tagged appropriation bootleg bootlegging burning copyright copyright_infringement digital_music digital_sampling downloading file-sharing grokster kazaa mix-cd mp3 music peer-to-peer piracy remixing ripping sampling sharing software song by minglet ...on 25-NOV-08
One look at the pages of this book and it is immediately known that it is unlike any other sources to be used for this essay. The pages are printed with a hole in the center and the outline of a CD on each one – clearly a modern work by a modern author. This is the argument for all of the merits of sampling and Dj-ing music for a crowd as told from the perspective of an established DJ, Paul Miller (DJ Spooky). Despite its casual tone and appearance, however, this book is filled with intellectual commentary on the state of music and the art of remixing today.
Quoting anyone from Woodrow Wilson to George Clinton, Miller offers a wide range of examples to support his stance on the art of Dj-ing. He believes that sampling music is a form of creation, putting a musical piece of work together in a different way in order to achieve what DJs refer to as “flow.” He asserts that sampling is both the result and catalyst for new music. “You can never play a record the same way for the same crowd,” he writes, calling the digital sample a “recycling” of sorts, a “repurposing” of an old melody or riff.
Miller’s unique stance as a DJ himself, combined with the casual tone of this narrative offer the reader a conversation with a man deeply involved in the digital music industry. As mentioned above, he does indeed advocate the benefits of the art, but he also recognizes the dangers of “taking sampling too far.” Seeing the digital music industry from his eyes in this way is a welcome insight into yet another point of view on this topic. This will only add to the complex standpoint that I will be able to take in writing this essay.
Seemingly a sequel to his previous work, Sound Unbound is compiled with the help of numerous contributors and reads much more like a scholarly account than its predecessor. It delves further into the intricate aspects of Dj-ing and remixing: sampling, appropriation, plagiarism, and various forms of musical technology from tape loops to video opera. The list of contributors ranges from science fiction writers to media activists, from rappers to composers, and this wide range of expertise offers an even better insight into the intricacies of the music industry in the digital age that the first book provides.
Most important to the focus of this paper, however, remains to be the testimony and work of Paul Miller. Once again, his experience as a professional DJ offers an exclusive look into the life of someone who makes a living off of sampling and remixing, however the supporting chapters from his colleagues offer a much stronger foundation for his more up-to-date commentary on the industry. In addition, the work of novelist Jonathan Lethem on appropriation and plagiarism is a good complement to Miller’s chapters on sampling and civilization.
Contrary to the last book by Miller, Sound Unbound explores more deeply the legal implications of “stealing” another’s song or work, and the distance that one must go in order to gain such negative attention from the authorities or at least the original creators. Furthermore, the book includes a mix-CD compiled by Miller himself, made up of a variety of artists commonly classified as “avant-garde,” which only serves to enhance the written works that he includes in the book. It gives the reader something real and interactive – a way to experience what all of the scholars are talking about first-hand. It is the well-roundedness of this complete work and the many facets of the modern music industry that it covers from the inside-out that is the reason this is so helpful in the construction of my final paper.
tagged appropriation author's_rights bootlegging copyright copyright_act digital_sampling dj-ing dj_spooky fatboy_slim international_copyright_law jonathan_lethem lyrics mix-cd morality music music_industry plagiarism public_enemy remixing sampling song by minglet ...on 25-NOV-08
Katz also examines the realm of digital sampling, but he does so with a keen detective’s eye, looking at the practice from the outside-in. He uses three case studies to show the main uses and techniques employed with digital sampling. First of which is a “song” created by Paul Lansky with recordings of human voices speaking random words entitled “Notjustmoreidlechatter.” The complicated issue of speech and music is addressed through this first instance of sampling and Katz identifies the specifications and implications of either one. Secondly, he compares two pop songs, Camille Yarbrough’s “Take Yo’ Praise” and Fatboy Slim’s “Praise You,” which uses bits of the former in its creation of the latter. Finally, he breaks down the numerous sampled bits in Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power.” Public Enemy’s strong political message coupled with the nature of his samplings creates one of the most powerful sample-ridden songs of contemporary music.
Katz only does so after first clarifying with the reader what exactly sampling is. This definition has been found in the majority of the sources, but none went on to detail the legal issues as well as Katz. He also goes on to explore the question of originality and immorality in terms of remixing and sampling. Nevertheless, his case studies have proven most useful in determining the full extensions of digital sampling in music and his insight into its effect on music today. He also lightly touches on the various effects parodies have upon the original work, if any, and acknowledges the complexities within the industry when it comes to approval for such works. This book could possibly be the best source found thus far, seeing as it is not overly specific in its subject matter, yet it explores enough topics in a reasonable level of detail to be reliable.
tagged camille_yarbrough copyright copyright_act creative_commons digital_sampling fatboy_slim international_copyright_law morality music music_industry notjustmoreidlechatter paul_linsky phonorecords piracy public_enemy remixing sampling speech by minglet ...on 25-NOV-08
Lee Marshall, co-editor of the very first source, "Music and Copyright – Second Edition," authors this work of similar form but on a slightly different subject. The strictness of copyright law in terms of music is once again revisited but is no longer commented on as either fostering or inhibiting creativity in the industry. Lee more explicitly lays out the fundamentals of copyright law, especially when it applies to bootlegging and piracy, and he broadens the discussion outside of the United States to international copyright law.
Prior to his outline of the bootlegging/piracy portion of the industry, Marshall itemizes the four main copyright issues in music. The first two he identifies as the copyright of the original work itself: song and lyrics. Beyond that, he clarifies the issue of copyright of the recording and who often owns the rights to a song produced in a studio. Lastly, he outlines the details of copyright it terms of the performance and the differing stipulations both in the United States and abroad. Marshall then asserts that the main concerns over performers’ rights stem from issues regarding bootlegging, and he goes on to explain the complicated laws concerning it.
Bootlegging and piracy are two of the main portions of copyright law that are most closely related to, if not directly cited in, cases involving digital sampling. By referencing Marshall’s comprehensive look at copyright law as it pertains to bootlegging, I can not only ascertain for myself whether or not a particular usage is acceptable or not, but I can also refer to the various case studies employed by Marshall if unsure. In writing this final essay, Marshall’s detailed work on bootlegging and piracy in terms of copyright law has certainly been a valuable source to cite.
An academic journal from Columbia University, this source is the first on the list to fully support the other side of the argument between song samplers and those being sampled. McGiverin begins the journal by arguing for the musician’s rights to be compensated for any and all portions of his work that are reproduced in another work. He then goes on to divide his work into three main portions: the first of which describes sampling and its implications in the music industry, the second applies the 1976 Copyright Act to sampling from phonorecords, and finally the third investigates state common law and rights of publicity in terms of musicians’ control over their original work.
A source of this nature is essential for any paper analyzing the issue of sampling in the music industry, seeing as it provides the exact counter-argument of a few of the sources found. McGiverin continues to refer to an artist’s sampled work as his or her “auditory identity,” giving great importance to the underlying bass lines and riffs that make up the background of a performance. In doing so, he asserts the value of these otherwise-overlooked aspects of a work. Seeing that they are often the portion involved in the sampling, they should be given greater significance and, as McGiverin believes, the original artist should be compensated for their use.
As mentioned above, this source is arguably the most important, simply because of the point of view that it represents. Although this paper has been unbiased in theory, the majority of the sources were all either neutral or in support of one side of the argument. By providing an intelligent and fresh insight into this half of the issue, this source is one of a few to complete the perspective in order to find a well-informed answer to the question concerning the limits and merits of digital sampling in the music industry.
This source happens to be a blog entry written by a visiting professor at Washington College of Law who is also on the board of Creative Commons at the college. The blog is a response to a Sixth Circuit court interpretation of the Copyright Act in the case of Bridgeport Music vs. Dimension Films which stated that artists must either have a license or abandon their sampling. Carroll then continues to explain a few stipulations in the Copyright Act and their involvement in this court decision, namely Section 114 and Section 106.
Carroll analyzes the courts assessment of de minimus in the Copyright Act and how it was originally interpreted in the local Bridgeport court. In the appellate court, however, Carroll finds fault with the way the court approached its decision, moving straight to Section 114 instead of focusing on Section 106. He disagrees with their reading of the Act and consequently, their decision to remove de minimus from the realm of sound recordings, stating that he does not believe there is a “statutory basis for the rule announced by the court in this case.”
Carroll’s stance in the Creative Commons forum at a prominent law school in the United States, as well as his origins in, and knowledge of, international copyright law once again present the material in a newly-cast light. The case he references is one of much importance to the focus of this final paper and his commentary on the subject is clear and well-formed. This source provides a very narrow view into one single court decision that acts as a useful spotlight among other more general sources.
This landmark case deals with the concepts of digital sampling and fair use. Video Pipeline, a video promotion company, created trailers of home videos to be shown in stores. These videos, intended to benefit the store's sales, were shown in the store and consisted of film clips acquired from the film distributors. Video Pipeline continued this practice until 1997 when it considered the internet as a bigger, better, and more efficient way of distributing these previews. It viewed its idea as a sort of sampling; much like a person can often sample a few pages of a book in a bookstore before buying it, they wanted to make short clips of movies available for preview before purchase.
After a few years of this distribution, Disney told Video Pipeline to stop. However, Video Pipeline thought it was within their rights of fair use to distribute these clips and thus filed a lawsuit asking the court to declare that these rights were in fact theirs. Disney countersued for $100 million in damages. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, Disney, and claimed that because the trailers were compiled of exact clips, they were derivative works illegal under the law. In addition, the Plaintiff was ruled as violating performance and public display laws. Last but definitely not least, the court ruled that the trailers did not fall under the argument of fair use for lack of adherence to the factors of fair use, which are as follows: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value for the copyrighted work.
This once again justifies the fear of filmmakers to borrow from copyrighted material, despite possible claims of fair use, because as is exemplified here, even a small borrowing of a film clip can cost millions.
Once a work has entered the public domain, the original owner no longer has rights over it. This clause of copyright law has proven challenging as past copyright holders have attempted to reclaim their rights when it becomes suddenly convenient. This is the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court case Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
In 1948, Fox obtained rights to create a television series called Crusade in Europe based on a book written by Eisenhower and published by Doubleday. Doubleday renewed the copyright to the book in 1975; however, Fox chose not to renew their copyright on the series, which thus entered public domain in 1977. Dastar then took the series in 1995, edited and manipulated them, and repackaged them. They sold the new videos and credited Dastar employees as producers and not the original book or TV series.
Fox sued in 1998, attesting that Dastar had infringed on copyright and had "passed off" the work as their own. The district court found for Fox and awarded it double Dalstar's profits. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court and another appeals court. In an 8-0 ruling, the court reasoned that once a work passes into the public domain, anyone in the public may do anything he or she wishes with it and does not have to attribute the author.
This court ruling helps promote creativity somewhat by assuring artists that anything in the public domain is fair game for their use in future works. However, there is still the fear that someone might try to claim rights, and often the potential battle isn't worth it. In addition, copyrights today, thanks to extensions, are so long that producers and publishers don't need to renew copyrights because they last well over the death of the author. Once again, the copyright monster scares small companies from creating for fear of infringement.
Book pages 95 through 107.
In consecutive chapters of Lessig's book, the making of two documentaries is described. In both of these instances, the filmmakers had problems clearing copyrights and struggled with the concept of fair use. These examples clearly demonstrate the difficulties encountered by independent filmmakers with regards to production and distribution of copyrighted material, as well as amplify the restrain that excessive copyright puts on the creativity of the filmmaker. The chapters tie in the role of independent films in the "copyright kills creativity" argument.
Chapter seven illustrates the plights of Jon Else who, when working on a documentary about the stagehands at the San Francisco Opera, encountered a copyright issue. In the background of a shot of the stagehands was a television on which was playing an episode of The Simpsons. Despite the fact that the clip was merely four-and-a-half seconds and clearly fair use, Else still thought it smart to clear the copyrights. He contacted Matt Groening, who referred him to Gracie Films, who referred him to Fox, who demanded ten thousand dollars for the licensing fee. This sum of money was not something Else could afford, and he therefore ended up digitally replacing the clip which he felt was valuable to the effect of the scene.
In the proceeding chapter, the story of Alex Alben, a lawyer for Starwave, Inc. is told. Alben wanted to create a project using the new technology of CD-ROM to showcase the career of Clint Eastwood through interviews, posters, script, and film clips. The problem arose when it came to clearing the rights of each and every person involved in the making of each individual film clip, including actors, directors, and composers. Alben needed to compensate each person, which took an entire year given his vast fiscal resources. The amount of time it would have taken the average person is unimaginable, that is if they could even do it.
As these two examples show, the monetary means as well as the time necessary to create such products are inaccessible to the average person, thus killing the output of creative material.