INF 390N: Information Policy: , , and Technology

Unique ID#: 27585 Spring Semester 2015 Mondays: 6–9 p.m. UTA 1.204

Instructor: Mark A. Davidson, Ph.D., MSIS markadavidson5@.com

Office Hours: By appointment, email

Objectives • To introduce the student to the concepts of music and ownership/authorship, music copyright law both in the United States and abroad. • To provide the student with familiarity with navigating legal documents, both by Congress and various courts. • To introduce students to the idea of the Commons and alternatives to traditional legal claims of ownership. • To discuss the and issues of with regard to music scholarship and publication. • To provide a history of sound recording and music distribution technologies. • To familiarize students with the field of forensic musicology and the role of expert witnesses in music copyright cases. • To introduce students to the legal, moral, and ethical concerns in archiving audiovisual media collections.

Deliverables (dates given in course schedule) • 6 short presentations (see below for details) • Music case brief • Final project in 4 parts: Proposal/Bibliography, First Draft, Peer Review, Final Draft

Assignment Breakdown • Participation/Readings/Presentations – 30% • Music Copyright Infringement Case Brief – 10% • Proposal/Bibliography – 10% • First Draft – 15% • Peer Review – 10% • Final Draft – 25% • Total = 100%

Grades/Points Breakdown A = 94-100 A- = 90-93 B+ = 87-89 B = 84-86 B- = 80-83 C+ = 77-79 C = 74-76 C- = 70-73 D+ = 67-69 D = 64-66 D- = 60-63 F = 0-60

Texts: All texts are available online or through the UT Library system as an e-Book or downloadable article.

Films/Videos: All and videos are available for online streaming.

University of Texas Student Honor Code The University’s expectations for student conduct are grounded in the University Code of Conduct: “The core values of The University of Texas at Austin are learning, discovery, freedom, leadership, individual opportunity, and responsibility. Each member of the University is expected to uphold these values through integrity, honesty, trust, fairness, and respect toward peers and community.” University students are also expected to uphold the Student Honor Code: “As a student of The University of Texas at Austin, I shall abide by the core values of the University and uphold academic integrity.” University students are also expected to abide by all city, state, and federal laws and statutes and all regulations of the University and The University of Texas System. However, as a community of scholars, the University expects from its students a higher standard of conduct than that required simply to avoid discipline. The principles of the Student Honor Code together with the University Code of Conduct should govern and direct student conduct, to promote a safe environment that is conducive to academic success and to ensure that each University student graduates ready to contribute to society as an ethical citizen. [From General Catalog, Appendix C, Chapter 11: Student Discipline and Conduct http://catalog.utexas.edu/general-information/appendices/appendix-c/student-discipline-and-conduct/]

Documented Disability Statement Any student with a documented disability who requires academic accommodations should contact Services for Students with Disabilities (SSD) at (512) 471-6259 (voice) or 1-866-329 3986 (video phone). Faculty are not required to provide accommodations without an official accommodation letter from SSD. Please notify me as quickly as possible if the material being presented in class is not accessible (e.g., instructional videos need captioning, course packets are not readable for proper alternative text conversion, etc.). Please notify me as early in the semester as possible if disability-related accommodations for field trips are required. Advanced notice will permit the arrangement of accommodations on the given day (e.g., transportation, site accessibility, etc.). Contact Services for Students with Disabilities at 471-6259 (voice) or 1-866-329-3986 (video phone) or reference SSD’s website for more disability-related information: http://www.utexas.edu/diversity/ddce/ssd/for_cstudents.php

Course Schedule Date Topic Readings (Due) Assignment (Due) Week 1 Course Introduction Jan 25

Week 2 /Public Policy/ Origins of U.S. Copyright Law Feb 1 Lecture: Dr. Philip Doty Boyle/Jenkins, Boyle

Week 3 History of U.S. Copyright, Part 1 Feb 8 Copyright Acts and Revisions: Litman, Govt. docs 1790, 1909, 1976, 1998 Week 4 History of U.S. Copyright, Part 2 Feb 15 DMCA, Sonny Bono Copyright Litman; DMCA; Sonny Term Extension, Eldred v. Ashcroft Bono; Eldred v. Ashcroft, Lessig Week 5 Public Domain, The Commons, Feb 22 Boyle; Boynton, Hardin; Lessig; : RiP: A Remix Manifesto Week 6 Copyright and Libraries/Archives Repatriation/Ethics Feb 29 Hirtle/Hudson/Kenyon Presentation: Professional Organization Week 7 Sound Recordings and Music Copyright Mar 7 Music copyright, recordings, Cummings, Moser/Slay Presentation: Sound printing, overview of technology Recording Format Week 8 SPRING BREAK Mar 14 NO CLASS

Week 9 State Laws, Federalization, and Pre-1972 Recordings Mar 21 Brooks, Subotnik, Presentation: State Law Gordon/Puni, Besek, Comparison Jaszi/Lewis, Pallente Week 10 Music Copyright Infringement Cases, Part 1 Mar 28 McLeod, Vaidhyanathan Presentation: Historical Music Copyright Cases Week 11 Music Copyright Infringement Cases, Part 2 Apr 4 The Music Industry; Music Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, Project Proposal/ Copyright Infringement; Forensic Babiskin, Boyle Bibliography Due Musicology; Blurred Lines Week 12 Sampling and Hip Hop Apr 11 Sampling and Musical Borrowing; Strauss, Sewell, Presentation/Case Brief: Remix Culture; Creativity vs. McLeod/DiCola, Film: Music Copyright Copyright Copyright Criminals Infringement Cases Week 13 Technologies, Part 1: Sony v. Universal, , Napster, Grokster April 18 Sony v. Universal, DeCSS, Draft Due Litman, Boyle/Jenkins, Boyle Week 14 Technologies, Part 2: Napster/ Grokster Apr 25 Piracy; Bootlegging; Torrenting; Napster/Grokster, Peer Review Due Napster; Grokster, Pirate Bay Boyle/Jenkins, Film: Downloaded and Charlie Rose Week 15 Music Streaming, Review May 2 Various, Film: Downloaded Presentation: Music Streaming Platform May 9 Final Project Due

Basic Texts (All available as free, digital versions): • James Boyle, The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008, http://thepublicdomain.org/thepublicdomain1.pdf • James Boyle and Jennifer Jenkins, Intellectual Property: Law & The Information Society; Cases & Materials, Second Edition, 2015, http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/casebook • James Boyle and Jennifer Jenkins, Intellectual Property: Law & The Information Society, Selected Statutes & Treaties 2015 Edition, http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/pdf/IPStatutes2015.pdf • Peter B. Hirtle, Emily Hudson, and Andrew Kenyon. Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library, 2009, https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/14142/Hirtle-Copyright_final_RGB_lowres- cover1.pdf;jsessionid=B91B290CD73CFCA006EEAE8AE93B67F6?sequence=2 • Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001, 11–76, http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/56221/Digital?sequence=2

Week 1 (Jan 25): Course Introduction

Week 2 (Feb 1): Intellectual Property/Copyright Law/Public Policy Lecture: Dr. Philip Doty

Readings: • Boyle/Jenkins, Casebook, Introduction (pp. ix–viv), Chapters 1–2 (pp. 1–40); Chapters 10–11 (pp. 271– 300) • Boyle, The Public Domain, chapters 1–2 (1–41)

Week 3 (Feb 8): History of U.S. Copyright Law, Part 1 • Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright, 11–88 • William Patry, Copyright Law and Practice, chapter 1, http://digital-law-online.info/patry/patry5.html

• Copyright Act of 1790: http://copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf • Copyright Act of 1909: http://law.scu.edu/wp- content/uploads/hightech/1909%20Act%20as%20enacted.pdf • Amendments to the 1909 Act: http://digital-law-online.info/patry/patry7.html • Copyright Act of 1976: Boyle/Jenkins, Selected Statutes and Treaties, 50–227

Week 4 (Feb 15): History of U.S. Copyright Law, Part 2: DMCA, Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Eldred v. Ashcroft Litman, Digital Copyright, 89–151.

DMCA: • U.S. Copyright Office. Digital Millennium Copyright Act Summary. http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf • Digital Millennium Copyright Act, H.R. 2281, 27 January 1998. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW- 105publ304/pdf/PLAW-105publ304.pdf CTEA: • Copyright Term Extension Act (“Sonny Bono Copyright Act”), S.505, 27 January 1998, http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/s505.pdf

• Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), in Boyle/Jenkins Casebook, 59–77

• Lessig, Lawrence. Eldred chapters in Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock • Down Culture and Control Creativity, 213–264, http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf

Week 5 (Feb 22): Public Domain, The Commons, Remix Culture • Chapters 3, 8 in Boyle The Public Domain (pp. 42–54, 179–205)

• Robert S. Boynton, “The Tyranny of Copyright?” Times, January 25, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/the-tyranny-of-copyright.html

• Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (1968): 1243–48. http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/lectures/population/Tragedy%20of%20the%20Commons.pdf

• website http://creativecommons.org/

• , “The Creative Commons.” Montana Law Review 65, No. 1 (2004): 1–14. http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2304&context=mlr

• Film: RiP: A Remix Manifesto, https://vimeo.com/8040182

Week 6 (Feb 29): Copyright and Cultural Institutions • Peter B. Hirtle, Emily Hudson, and Andrew Kenyon. Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library, 2009.

• CHART: “Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States,” http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

Presentation: Choose a professional society or organization and give a presentation on its copyright language and information (e.g., Society of American Archivists, American Library Association, Association of Recorded Sound Collections, Association of Research Libraries—2 people per organization)

Week 7 (Mar 7): History of Sound Recording; Music Copyright • History of Sound Recording Website: http://www.recording-history.org/recording/?page_id=12

• Audio Engineering Society Recording Technology History: http://www.aes.org/aeshc/docs/recording.technology.history/notes.html

• The AHRC Research Centre for the History and Analysis of Recorded Music: http://www.charm.rhul.ac.uk/history/p20_4_1.html

• Alex S. Cummings, “From Monopoly to Intellectual Property: and the Remaking of American Copyright, 1909-1971,” Journal of American History (December 2010): 659–81.

• David J. Moser and Cheryl Slay, Music Copyright Law (Boston: Course Technology, 2012).

Presentation: Choose a sound recording format to be in charge of in our discussion of formats. Learn about its history, its advantages/disadvantages, its impact on the larger consumer market, its longevity, etc. Examples: Gramophone, Phonographic cylinder, Instantaneous disc, Magnetic Tape, Long-playing record (LP), Cassette tape, Compact disc, mp3.

Week 8 (Mar 14): SPRING BREAK/NO CLASS

Week 9 (Mar 21): State Laws, Federalization, and Pre-1972 Recordings

• Tim Brooks, “How Copyright Law Affects Reissues of Historic Recordings: A New Study.” Association for Recorded Sound Collections (ARSC) Journal 36 (2005): 183–203, http://www.arsc- audio.org/pdf/Brooks47872_ARSC_Fall05.pdf

• Subotnik, Eva E. and June M. Besek. “Constitutional Obstacles? Reconsidering Copyright Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings,” http://lawandarts.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/07/37.3-Subotnik- Besek-Article-Final.pdf

• Steve Gordon and Anjana Puri, “The Current State of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings: Recent Federal Court Decisions in California and New York Against Sirius Xm Have Broader Implications Than Just Whether Satellite And Radio Stations Must Pay For Pre-1972 Sound Recordings,” Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law 4/2 (Spring 2015): http://jipel.law.nyu.edu/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/NYU_JIPEL_Vol-4-No-2_5_Gordon_Pre1972SoundRecordings.pdf

Scan and familiarize: • “Sound Recording Act of 1971,” Pub. L. No. 92140, 85 Stat. 391 (1971). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-85/pdf/STATUTE-85-Pg391.pdf

• “State Law Texts.” http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/20110705_state_law_texts.pdf

• June M. Besek, “Copyright and Related Issues Relevant to Digital Preservation and Dissemination of Unpublished Pre-1972 Sound Recordings by Libraries and Archives.” CLIR Publication No. 144. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources and Library of Congress, 2009, http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub144/pub144.pdf

• U.S. Copyright Office. “A Study on the Desirability of and Means for Bringing Sound Recordings Fixed Before February 15, 1972, Under Federal Jurisdiction,” http://copyright.gov/docs/sound/pre-72-report.pdf

• “Performance Rights in Sound Recordings—Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee of the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-Fifth Congress, Second Session,” June 1978, http://copyright.gov/reports/performance-rights-sound- recordings.pdf

• Maria Pallente, “Federal Copyright Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings: A Report of the Register of , December 2011,” http://copyright.gov/docs/sound/pre-72-report.pdf

Presentation: Choose a state (Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin) and give a history of its laws regarding sounds recordings, piracy, and use by non-profit institutions. Use as the basis for your presentation Peter Jaszi and Nick Lewis, Protection for Pre1972 Sound Recordings under State Law and Its Impact on Use by Nonprofit Institutions: A 10-State Analysis, CLIR pub. 146, http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/reports/pub146/pub146.pdf

Week 10 (Mar 28): Copyright Infringement Cases • Kembrew McLeod, Owning Culture, “Chapter 2: Copyright and the Folk Music Tradition,” (pp. 39–70).

• Siva Vaidhyanathan, Chapter 4: “Hep Cats and Copy Cats: American Music Challenges the Copyright Tradition.” In Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 117–148. (Available as eBook through UT Library)

“Blurred Lines” Case: • Lauretta Charlton,”Why Copyright Infringement Became Pop’s Big Problem, According to the ‘Blurred Lines’ Musicologist,” Vulture, December 11, 2015, http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/why-copyright- infringement-became-pops-big-problem.html • Joe Bennett: http://joebennett.net/2014/02/01/didrobinthickestealasongfrommarvingaye/ • Joanna Demers: http://musicologynow.amsnet.org/2015/03/blurry.html?spref=fb • Robert Fink: http://musicologynow.amsnet.org/2015/03/blurredlinesurlinesandcolorline.html • Blurred Lines and Music Education, http://evantobias.net/2015/03/11/blurred-lines-forensic-musicology- and-music-education/

Presentation: Historical Copyright Case Briefs and Presentation

Cases to choose from: • Victor Talking Machine Co. v Armstrong 132 Fed 711 (1904) • White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. (1908) • Fonotipia v. Bradley, 171 F. 951 (1909) • Herbert v. Shanley Co., 242 U.S. 591 (1917) • RCA v. Whiteman (v. WBO Broadcasting) (1940) • Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc., et al., and Columbia Records, Inc., v. Wagner-Nichols Recorder Corporation et al. (1950) • Capitol Records v. Mercury Records Corporation, 221 F .2d 657 (2d Cir. 1955) • Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973) • Capitol Records, Inc. v Naxos of Am., Inc. 2005 NY Slip Op 02570 (NY April 5, 2005)

Week 11 (Apr 4): Copyright Infringement Cases, (Project Proposal/Bibliography Due) • Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) in Boyle/Jenkins, 448–458

• Lisa M. Babiskin, “Oh Pretty Parody: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Harvard JL and Tech 8(1) (Fall 1994): 193–228, http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v08/08HarvJLTech193.pdf

• Chapter 6 in Boyle, The Public Domain

Week 12 (Apr 11): Sampling • Neil Strauss, “POP VIEW; Sampling Is (a) Creative Or (b) Theft?” New York Times, September 14, 1997, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/14/arts/pop-view-sampling-is-a-creative-or-b-theft.html

• Amanda Sewell, “How Copyright Affected the Musical Style and Critical Reception of Sample-Based Hip-Hop.” Journal of Popular Music Studies, Vol. 26, Nos. 2–3 (2014): 295–320.

• Kembrew McLeod and Peter DiCola. Creative License, Chapter 5 “The Sample Clearance System” 148–73 (stop at licensing mashups).

• FILM: McLeod, Kembrew, dir. Copyright Criminals, (about film): http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/copyrightcriminals/ (the film): https://vimeo.com/9958864 (and here): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIoR3PYpduo

Presentation: Choose a music copyright infringement case from the USC MCIR website, write a case brief, and give a short presentation with musical examples.

Week 13 (Apr 18): Technologies, Part 1: Sony v. Universal, DeCSS (Draft Due) • Litman, Digital Copyright, 151–202 • Boyle/Jenkins Casebook, 425–438, 558–576 • Boyle, The Public Domain, 63–82 • Litman, The Story of Sony v. Universal Studios: Mary Poppins Meets the Boston Strangler, Intellectual Property Stories, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/storyofsony.pdf

Week 14 (Apr 25): Technologies, Part 2: Napster/Grokster (Peer Review Due) • Boyle/Jenkins – Napster/Grokster, pp. 515–539

• Film: Alex Winter, dir. Downloaded. VH1 Rock Docs, Trouper Productions, 2012. http://on.aol.com/video/downloadedfulldocumentaryfilm517844258

• Lars Ulrich, Chuck D And Charlie Rose On Napster In 2000 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OIqtHBbDWA

NAPSTER: • A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001), http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm

• SKIM: Siva Vaidhyanathan, “Why Thomas Jefferson Would Love Napster.” MSNBC.com. 3 July 2001. http://elastico.net/copyfight/upload/siva_jefferson.pdf

GROKSTER: • Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al. 545 U.S. 913 (2005). http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mgm/

Week 15 (May 2): Music Streaming, Review (Peer Review Due) • Film: Good Copy/Bad Copy, http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/good-copy-bad-copy/

Presentation: Choose a music-streaming platform and give a brief history of the platform, an overview of how it works, and its approach artist compensation. Choose from , , , Pandora, Last.fm, Play Music All Access, Microsoft , Mp3.com, Rhapsody, Slacker, Songza, YouTube, etc.

Week 16 (May 9): Final Project Due