DOCSLIB.ORG

Copyrightx: Lecture Transcripts Ii

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Copyrightx: Lecture Transcripts Ii LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS Based on the Lectures of Prof. William W. Fisher III, Harvard Law School Compiled by Marc Pelteret, student of CopyrightX: UCT 2017 Version 1.2 (7 February 2018) PREFACE There are many ways to learn, and which way is best is up to the individual to decide. Personally, I find it quicker and easier to read rather than listen to lectures. Because of this, I decided to extract the transcriptions of Prof. Fisher’s excellent lectures from the YouTube videos. Only later I did I discover that the FLAX project (http://flax.nzdl.org) had already done this. What the project lacks, however, is the visual references, and so I decided to continue with my effort to create a comprehensive set of transcripts, complete with as much referenced material as possible. This text includes most images, diagrams, graphs and textual material referenced in the video lectures. Some material was left out because while it is interesting to see, it is not critical to understanding the subject and would only have extended the length of the text. Many of the diagrams and graphs were re-drawn, initially just to make a few of them clearer, but later to ensure they have a consistent look. In a few cases I added extra detail. Most of the text is a direct transcription of Prof. Fisher’s videos. Some editing was necessary to refer to figures and tables, rather than the screen. Additional editing was done to correct mistakes in the transcriptions, remove repetition (particularly in the introduction of each lecture), and to improve the readability of the text. Following Prof. Fisher’s example, this work is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. I may revise it as the lecture videos are updated, but if I do not, others are welcome to do so. A list of which versions of the videos the text is based on can be found in Appendix B. I hope you find this document useful, and the course as enjoyable and interesting as I did. Many thanks to Prof. Fisher and Dr. Tobias Schonwetter of the Dept. of Commercial Law at the University of Cape Town for all the work they put into presenting a very worthwhile course. Marc Pelteret Student of the CopyrightX: UCT 2017 at the University of Cape Town in South Africa Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ CopyrightX: Lecture Transcripts ii CONTENTS 1. The Foundations of Copyright Law .......................................................................................... 1 1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Originality ................................................................................................................................ 5 1.3. The Idea/Expression Distinction ........................................................................................... 11 1.4. The System of Multilateral Treaties ...................................................................................... 15 2. Fairness and Personality Theories ......................................................................................... 26 2.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 26 2.2. Fairness ................................................................................................................................. 28 2.3. Personality ............................................................................................................................ 36 3. The Subject Matter of Copyright ........................................................................................... 46 3.1. Literature (and Software)...................................................................................................... 46 3.2. Drama and Choreography ..................................................................................................... 52 3.3. Music ..................................................................................................................................... 56 3.4. Audiovisual Works ................................................................................................................ 65 3.5. Fictional Characters .............................................................................................................. 67 3.6. Architectural Works .............................................................................................................. 69 4. Welfare Theory .................................................................................................................... 81 4.1. The Utilitarian Framework .................................................................................................... 81 4.2. The Incentive Theory of Copyright ........................................................................................ 90 4.3. Applications and Assessment.............................................................................................. 103 5. Authorship......................................................................................................................... 108 5.1. Sole Authorship ................................................................................................................... 108 5.2. Joint Authorship .................................................................................................................. 113 5.3. Works for Hire ..................................................................................................................... 121 6. The Mechanics of Copyright ............................................................................................... 130 6.1. The Decline of Formalities .................................................................................................. 130 6.2. Duration .............................................................................................................................. 140 6.3. Protective Provisions .......................................................................................................... 145 7. The Rights to Reproduce and Modify .................................................................................. 156 7.1. Reproduction ...................................................................................................................... 156 CopyrightX: Lecture Transcripts iv 7.2. Improper Appropriation ...................................................................................................... 164 7.3. Derivative Works ................................................................................................................. 178 8. Distribution & Performance Rights ..................................................................................... 183 8.1. Distribution ......................................................................................................................... 183 8.2. Performances ...................................................................................................................... 198 8.3. Exceptions & Limitations ..................................................................................................... 208 9. Fair Use ............................................................................................................................. 218 9.1. The History of Fair Use ........................................................................................................ 218 9.2. Fair Use Today ..................................................................................................................... 229 9.3. Other Approaches ............................................................................................................... 242 10. Cultural Theory .................................................................................................................. 257 10.1. Premises .......................................................................................................................... 257 10.2. Implications ..................................................................................................................... 264 10.3. Supplements and Concerns ............................................................................................ 274 11. Supplements to Copyright .................................................................................................. 280 11.1. Secondary Liability .......................................................................................................... 280 11.2. Dual-Use Technologies .................................................................................................... 286 11.3. Tech Protection Measures .............................................................................................. 299 12. Remedies ........................................................................................................................... 308 12.1. Equitable Relief ............................................................................................................... 308 12.2. Damages .......................................................................................................................... 312 12.3. Criminal Penalties ........................................................................................................... 321 13. Appendices .......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Excesss Karaoke Master by Artist
    XS Master by ARTIST Artist Song Title Artist Song Title (hed) Planet Earth Bartender TOOTIMETOOTIMETOOTIM ? & The Mysterians 96 Tears E 10 Years Beautiful UGH! Wasteland 1999 Man United Squad Lift It High (All About 10,000 Maniacs Candy Everybody Wants Belief) More Than This 2 Chainz Bigger Than You (feat. Drake & Quavo) [clean] Trouble Me I'm Different 100 Proof Aged In Soul Somebody's Been Sleeping I'm Different (explicit) 10cc Donna 2 Chainz & Chris Brown Countdown Dreadlock Holiday 2 Chainz & Kendrick Fuckin' Problems I'm Mandy Fly Me Lamar I'm Not In Love 2 Chainz & Pharrell Feds Watching (explicit) Rubber Bullets 2 Chainz feat Drake No Lie (explicit) Things We Do For Love, 2 Chainz feat Kanye West Birthday Song (explicit) The 2 Evisa Oh La La La Wall Street Shuffle 2 Live Crew Do Wah Diddy Diddy 112 Dance With Me Me So Horny It's Over Now We Want Some Pussy Peaches & Cream 2 Pac California Love U Already Know Changes 112 feat Mase Puff Daddy Only You & Notorious B.I.G. Dear Mama 12 Gauge Dunkie Butt I Get Around 12 Stones We Are One Thugz Mansion 1910 Fruitgum Co. Simon Says Until The End Of Time 1975, The Chocolate 2 Pistols & Ray J You Know Me City, The 2 Pistols & T-Pain & Tay She Got It Dizm Girls (clean) 2 Unlimited No Limits If You're Too Shy (Let Me Know) 20 Fingers Short Dick Man If You're Too Shy (Let Me 21 Savage & Offset &Metro Ghostface Killers Know) Boomin & Travis Scott It's Not Living (If It's Not 21st Century Girls 21st Century Girls With You 2am Club Too Fucked Up To Call It's Not Living (If It's Not 2AM Club Not
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Law Revision
    COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW JULY 1961 Printed for the use of the House-- Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 676682 WASHINGTON : 1961 For sale by the Superlntendent of Documents, U.S. Qo7cmment Prlntlug O5ce Wn~bington25, D.O. - Prlco 45 cent8 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL THE LIBRAR~AWOF CORORESB, Washington, l).C. July 7, 1961. Hon. SAMRAYE~N, Igpealcw of the House of Representatices, Washington. D.C. SIB: As authorized by Congress, the Copyright Office of the =brary of Con- gress has in the past few years made a number of studies preparatory to a general revision of the copyright law, title 17 of the United States Code. That program bas now been completed. Thirty-four studies and a subject index have been published in a series of 12 committee prints issued by the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The studies have been widely circulated and interested persons were inrited to submit their comments and views. On the basis of the studies and the comments and views received. the Copy- right Ofece has prepared a report on the important issues to be considered and tentative recommendations for their solution in a general revision of the law. I am pleased to submit the report of the Register of Copyrights on general re vision of the copyright law to you find to the Vice President for consideration by the Congress. Very truly yours, L. QUINCYMUMFOBD, Librarian of Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Thou Shalt Not Steal: Grand Upright Music Ltd. V. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and the Future of Digital Sound Sampling in Popular Music, 45 Hastings L.J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 45 | Issue 2 Article 4 1-1994 Thou hS alt Not Steal: Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and the Future of Digital Sound Sampling in Popular Music Carl A. Falstrom Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Carl A. Falstrom, Thou Shalt Not Steal: Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and the Future of Digital Sound Sampling in Popular Music, 45 Hastings L.J. 359 (1994). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol45/iss2/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thou Shalt Not Steal: Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and the Future of Digital Sound Sampling in Popular Music by CARL A. FALSTROM* Introduction Digital sound sampling,1 the borrowing2 of parts of sound record- ings and the subsequent incorporations of those parts into a new re- cording,3 continues to be a source of controversy in the law.4 Part of * J.D. Candidate, 1994; B.A. University of Chicago, 1990. The people whom I wish to thank may be divided into four groups: (1) My family, for reasons that go unstated; (2) My friends and cohorts at WHPK-FM, Chicago, from 1986 to 1990, with whom I had more fun and learned more things about music and life than a person has a right to; (3) Those who edited and shaped this Note, without whom it would have looked a whole lot worse in print; and (4) Especially special persons-Robert Adam Smith, who, among other things, introduced me to rap music and inspired and nurtured my appreciation of it; and Leah Goldberg, who not only put up with a whole ton of stuff for my three years of law school, but who also managed to radiate love, understanding, and support during that trying time.
    [Show full text]
  • Influence Evaluation of PM10 Produced by the Burning of Biomass in Peru on AOD, Using the WRF-Chem
    Atmósfera 33(1), 71-86 (2020) doi: 10.20937/ATM.52711 Influence evaluation of PM10 produced by the burning of biomass in Peru on AOD, using the WRF-Chem Héctor NAVARRO-BARBOZA1,2,3*, Aldo MOYA-ÁLVAREZ2, Ana LUNA1 and Octavio FASHÉ-RAYMUNDO3 1 Universidad del Pacífico, Av. Salaverry 2020, Jesús María, Lima 11, Perú. 2 Instituto Geofísico del Perú, Lima, Perú. 3 Facultad de Ciencias Físicas, Unidad de Posgrado, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Calle Germán Amezaga 375, Lima, Perú. * Corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected] Received: April 22, 2019; accepted: October 9, 2019 RESUMEN En este estudio se evalúa la influencia de partículas PM10 en el espesor óptico de aerosoles en los Andes centrales del Perú, además de analizar y establecer los patrones de circulación en la región desde julio hasta octubre de 2017. Se considera este periodo en particular porque los mayores eventos de quema de biomasa se registran generalmente durante esos meses. Se utilizó el modelo regional de transporte meteorológico-químico WRF-Chem (versión 3.7) con el Inventario de Incendios del NCAR (FINN) y los datos de espesor óptico de aerosoles (EOA) de la Red de Monitoreo de Redes Robóticas de Aerosoles (AERONET), que cuenta con un fotómetro solar CIMEL ubicado en el observatorio de Huancayo, la ciudad más importante del altiplano central del Perú. La simulación empleó un único dominio con un tamaño de cuadrícula de 18 km y 32 niveles verticales. Los resultados mostraron un incremento en las concentraciones de PM10 con un aumento en el número de brotes de incendio y en el EOA durante julio, agosto y septiembre.
    [Show full text]
  • A Symposium for John Perry Barlow
    DUKE LAW & TECHNOLOGY REVIEW Volume 18, Special Symposium Issue August 2019 Special Editor: James Boyle THE PAST AND FUTURE OF THE INTERNET: A Symposium for John Perry Barlow Duke University School of Law Duke Law and Technology Review Fall 2019–Spring 2020 Editor-in-Chief YOOJEONG JAYE HAN Managing Editor ROBERT HARTSMITH Chief Executive Editors MICHELLE JACKSON ELENA ‘ELLIE’ SCIALABBA Senior Research Editors JENNA MAZZELLA DALTON POWELL Special Projects Editor JOSEPH CAPUTO Technical Editor JEROME HUGHES Content Editors JOHN BALLETTA ROSHAN PATEL JACOB TAKA WALL ANN DU JASON WASSERMAN Staff Editors ARKADIY ‘DAVID’ ALOYTS ANDREW LINDSAY MOHAMED SATTI JONATHAN B. BASS LINDSAY MARTIN ANTHONY SEVERIN KEVIN CERGOL CHARLES MATULA LUCA TOMASI MICHAEL CHEN DANIEL MUNOZ EMILY TRIBULSKI YUNA CHOI TREVOR NICHOLS CHARLIE TRUSLOW TIM DILL ANDRES PACIUC JOHN W. TURANCHIK PERRY FELDMAN GERARDO PARRAGA MADELEINE WAMSLEY DENISE GO NEHAL PATEL SIQI WANG ZACHARY GRIFFIN MARQUIS J. PULLEN TITUS R. WILLIS CHARLES ‘CHASE’ HAMILTON ANDREA RODRIGUEZ BOUTROS ZIXUAN XIAO DAVID KIM ZAYNAB SALEM CARRIE YANG MAX KING SHAREEF M. SALFITY TOM YU SAMUEL LEWIS TIANYE ZHANG Journals Advisor Faculty Advisor Journals Coordinator JENNIFER BEHRENS JAMES BOYLE KRISTI KUMPOST TABLE OF CONTENTS Authors’ Biographies ................................................................................ i. John Perry Barlow Photograph ............................................................... vi. The Past and Future of the Internet: A Symposium for John Perry Barlow James Boyle
    [Show full text]
  • Bridgeport Music, Inc. V. Dimension Films, 383 F.3D 390 (6Th Cir
    RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 05a0243a.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ No. 02-6521 X BRIDGEPORT MUSIC, INC.; WESTBOUND RECORDS, - INC., - - Nos. 02-6521; 03-5738 Plaintiffs-Appellants, - SOUTHFIELD MUSIC, INC.; NINE RECORDS, INC., > , Plaintiffs, - - v. - - DIMENSION FILMS; MIRAMAX FILM CORP., - Defendants, - - NO LIMIT FILMS LLC, - Defendant-Appellee. - - No. 03-5738 - BRIDGEPORT MUSIC, INC.; SOUTHFIELD MUSIC, INC.; - - NINE RECORDS, INC., - Plaintiffs-Appellants, - WESTBOUND RECORDS, INC., - Plaintiff, - - v. - - - DIMENSION FILMS, et al., - Defendants, - NO LIMIT FILMS LLC, - Defendant-Appellee. - - N Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville. No. 01-00412—Thomas A. Higgins, District Judge. Argued: March 28, 2005 Decided and Filed: June 3, 2005 Before: GUY and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; BARZILAY, Judge.* * The Honorable Judith M. Barzilay, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 1 Nos. 02-6521; 03-5738 Bridgeport Music et al. v. Dimension Films et al. Page 2 _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Richard S. Busch, KING & BALLOW, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants. Robert L. Sullivan, LOEB & LOEB, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Richard S. Busch, D’Lesli M. Davis, KING & BALLOW, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants. Robert L. Sullivan, John C. Beiter, LOEB & LOEB, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee. Marjorie Heins, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW, New York, New York, Paul M. Smith, JENNER & BLOCK, Washington, D.C., Fred von Lohmann, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, San Francisco, California, Todd M. Gascon, LAW OFFICE OF TODD GASCON, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae.
    [Show full text]
  • BOONE-DISSERTATION.Pdf
    Copyright by Christine Emily Boone 2011 The Dissertation Committee for Christine Emily Boone Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Mashups: History, Legality, and Aesthetics Committee: James Buhler, Supervisor Byron Almén Eric Drott Andrew Dell‘Antonio John Weinstock Mashups: History, Legality, and Aesthetics by Christine Emily Boone, B.M., M.M. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin May 2011 Acknowledgements I want to first acknowledge those people who had a direct influence on the creation of this document. My brother, Philip, introduced me mashups a few years ago, and spawned my interest in the subject. Dr. Eric Drott taught a seminar on analyzing popular music where I was first able to research and write about mashups. And of course, my advisor, Dr. Jim Buhler has given me immeasurable help and guidance as I worked to complete both my degree and my dissertation. Thank you all so much for your help with this project. Although I am the only author of this dissertation, it truly could not have been completed without the help of many more people. First I would like to thank all of my professors, colleagues, and students at the University of Texas for making my time here so productive. I feel incredibly prepared to enter the field as an educator and a scholar thanks to all of you. I also want to thank all of my friends here in Austin and in other cities.
    [Show full text]
  • Uncommon Work: Utopia, Labor, and Environment in Late Twentieth- Century American Fiction
    UNCOMMON WORK: UTOPIA, LABOR, AND ENVIRONMENT IN LATE TWENTIETH- CENTURY AMERICAN FICTION BY BRANDON JONES DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2018 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Melissa Littlefield, Chair Professor Stacy Alaimo Professor Stephanie Foote Professor Robert Markley ii ABSTRACT Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, critical theorists have lamented in elegiac fashion the disappearance of any political economic system, real or imaginary, that could feasibly offer an alternative to liberal capitalism. Utopia, understood as the aesthetic expression of the desire for alternative social realities, has been declared impossible for political imagining since the late twentieth century. This obsolescence of utopia has been felt particularly acutely among the environmental movement. After its optimistic emergence in the 1960s and 1970s as a corollary of the New Left, the environmental movement became increasingly characterized by a heightened sensibility of ecological precarity and everyday crisis, which emerged in response to the frequency of natural disasters and environmental injustices appearing both in headlines and citizens’ backyards. As a result, utopian narratives of sustainable and pastoral alternatives to capitalist growth registered as irresponsibly out of touch. Instead, apocalyptic stories of nature’s anthropogenic decline became the predominant form of environmental rhetoric circulating in fictional and political discourse. Unfortunately, apocalyptic environmental narratives largely registered as redundant among American publics, their mimetic approach to environmental crisis provoking nihilism and despair more than preventative action. A way out of this imaginative impasse lies, my project claims, in a select archive of late twentieth-century American fiction writers that sustained the relevance of utopia for environmental activism and political economy.
    [Show full text]
  • The De Minimis Requirement As a Safety Valve: Copyright, Creativity, and the Sampling of Sound Recordings
    39546-nyu_92-4 Sheet No. 252 Side A 10/12/2017 08:00:42 \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYU\92-4\NYU415.txt unknown Seq: 1 11-OCT-17 13:27 THE DE MINIMIS REQUIREMENT AS A SAFETY VALVE: COPYRIGHT, CREATIVITY, AND THE SAMPLING OF SOUND RECORDINGS CHRISTOPHER WELDON* INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1262 R I. SAMPLING AND THE LAW ............................... 1265 R A. Sampling and Its Importance ........................ 1265 R B. Why Sampling Raises Copyright Issues.............. 1268 R C. The De Minimis Requirement ....................... 1271 R D. How the De Minimis Requirement Furthers Creativity ........................................... 1273 R 1. Why Copyright Can Threaten Musical Creativity ....................................... 1273 R 2. The De Minimis Requirement as a Safety Valve . 1278 R II. CIRCUIT SPLIT .......................................... 1280 R A. Bridgeport .......................................... 1280 R B. VMG Salsoul ....................................... 1284 R III. THE DE MINIMIS REQUIREMENT SHOULD APPLY TO THE SAMPLING OF SOUND RECORDINGS ................ 1286 R A. Why Do We Have Copyright? ...................... 1286 R B. Statutory Text and Structure......................... 1288 R 39546-nyu_92-4 Sheet No. 252 Side A 10/12/2017 08:00:42 C. Legislative History .................................. 1291 R D. Policy ............................................... 1294 R 1. Alternatives to Unlicensed Sampling Fall Short . 1294 R a. Recreating the Sound ....................... 1295 R b. Licensing
    [Show full text]
  • True-Mirror-Microfic
    Literature programs at The Kitchen are made possible with generous support from the Axe-Houghton Foundation and with public funds from The National Endowment for the Arts, the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs and the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency. THE KITCHEN, New York City. Tuesday November 25 They now close and discard them, then walk via the 2008, 7pm. TRUE MIRROR to the TWIN LECTERNS. From somewhere, a note from a MUTED TRUMPET. INT. A black box, oriented to the south. Raking seats face a level stage on the floor. Various props (aP AIR OF When she has finished reading, s C puts the letter back LECTERNS, a CHROME DRUM KIT, a TRUE MIRROR, in its envelope and picks up the NEW YORK TIMES. etc.) are scattered about the space. A constantly rising As 2 sPOTlIGhTs project towards the back wall, D & canon (the SHEPHARD’S TONE) is barely audible s begin to simultaneouslyBOTH recite the first actual press BOTH above the general murmur of small talk as an audience release, voices panned HARD RIGHT & LEFT. assembles itself. While reading the program provided on each seat a similar thought crosses the mind of each member of the audience: THE FIRST RULE IS ALWAYS PRODUCTION NEVER DOCUMENTATION. ThE sECOND RUlE Is THERE IS NO FIRST RULE. A music video, ABC AUTO INDUSTRY from the OMD LP DAZZLE SHIPS (1983) plays on a projection screen in D : FOR IMMEDIate S : FOR IMMEDIate the center of the stage area. RELEASE, 4TH MARCH RELEASE, 4TH MARCH 2008 … 2008 … MICHAEL PORTNOY, wearing mirror shades, walks to the RIGhT lECTERN.
    [Show full text]
  • Music Sampling and Copyright Law
    CACPS UNDERGRADUATE THESIS #1, SPRING 1999 MUSIC SAMPLING AND COPYRIGHT LAW by John Lindenbaum April 8, 1999 A Senior Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My parents and grandparents for their support. My advisor Stan Katz for all the help. My research team: Tyler Doggett, Andy Goldman, Tom Pilla, Arthur Purvis, Abe Crystal, Max Abrams, Saran Chari, Will Jeffrion, Mike Wendschuh, Will DeVries, Mike Akins, Carole Lee, Chuck Monroe, Tommy Carr. Clockwork Orange and my carrelmates for not missing me too much. Don Joyce and Bob Boster for their suggestions. The Woodrow Wilson School Undergraduate Office for everything. All the people I’ve made music with: Yamato Spear, Kesu, CNU, Scott, Russian Smack, Marcus, the Setbacks, Scavacados, Web, Duchamp’s Fountain, and of course, Muffcake. David Lefkowitz and Figurehead Management in San Francisco. Edmund White, Tom Keenan, Bill Little, and Glenn Gass for getting me started. My friends, for being my friends. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.....................................................................................……………………...1 History of Musical Appropriation........................................................…………………6 History of Music Copyright in the United States..................................………………17 Case Studies....................................................................................……………………..32 New Media......................................................................................……………………..50
    [Show full text]
  • Section 110(5) and the Fairness in Music Licensing Act: Will the WTO Decide the UNITED STATES Must Pay to Play?
    Copyright (c) 2000 PTC Research Foundation of Franklin Pierce Law Center IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology 2000 40 IDEA 1 Section 110(5) and The Fairness in Music Licensing Act: Will the WTO Decide the UNITED STATES Must Pay to Play? LAURA A. McCLUGGAGE * * Laura A. McCluggage received her B.A. from the University of Colorado, Boulder; M.B.A. from Pepperdine University; J.D. from Pepperdine University School of Law; and LL.M. in International and Comparative Law from Georgetown University Law Center. She is an active member of the State Bar of California. I. Introduction While dining in your favorite restaurant, have you ever thought about the music playing in the background? You likely chose the restaurant for the food and the service, but perhaps atmosphere was a factor in your selection. That ambiance includes the tablecloth, the china, the flowers, and yes, the music. But is the restaurant paying for the radio playing softly while you dine? Should it? On April 21, 1997, the European Commission ("EC") received a complaint from the Irish Music Rights Organization ("IMRO"). In its complaint, the IMRO asked for an inquiry regarding § 110(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act, n1 claiming that several provisions were inconsistent with U.S. obligations n2 under the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization ("WTO"). n3 The IMRO is a collecting society that administers, licenses and enforces the rights of its members, whose ranks include composers, arrangers, lyricists and publishers. n4 The IMRO complaint is supported by GESAC, n5 which has a membership of nearly 480,000 rightholders.
    [Show full text]