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.