Chapter I Introduction: Roll Over Beethoven1

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Chapter I Introduction: Roll Over Beethoven1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION: ROLL OVER BEETHOVEN1 ■ ■ ■ What is music law? Unlike tax law, or election law, tort law, or securities law, there is no easily-defined set of legal principles that one can point to as making up the relevant body of law in the subject area. It is perhaps more like “the law of the horse,” criticized by Judge Frank Easterbrook as an ineffective way to organize and analyze what might otherwise be unrelated legal principles,2 in that many of the legal principles affecting participants in the music industry find their sources in multiple disciplines and often are general principles that are not limited in their application to the world of music. However, within general bodies of law such as copyright, contract, antitrust, and the right of publicity, legislatures and courts have carved out an identifiable set of rules that apply particularly to musical compositions, sound recordings, musicians, songwriters, publishers, labels, studio producers and other participants in the music industry. This textbook presumes a basic background in copyright3 and contract, which is essential to understanding the more complex rules that apply in the context of the music industry, but takes on a broad array of legal issues and examines their application in the creation, distribution, and consumption of music. The law and the industry are both evolving rapidly, and it is thus an exciting and dynamic area of law to follow and analyze; we hope that you find it as fascinating as we do. We begin this chapter with some introductory materials: the Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the basic provisions of the 1976 1 Chuck Berry (1956); released by the Beatles on WITH THE BEATLES (1963). 2 Frank H. Easterbrook, Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse, 1996 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 207 (1996). As Judge Easterbrook put it, “Lots of cases deal with sales of horses; others deal with people kicked by horses; still more deal with the licensing and racing of horses, or with the care veterinarians give to horses, or with prizes at horse shows. Any effort to collect these strands into a course on ‘The Law of the Horse’ is doomed to be shallow and to miss unifying principles. Teaching 100 percent of the cases on people kicked by horses will not convey the law of torts very well. Far better for most students—better, even, for those who plan to go into the horse trade—to take courses in property, torts, commercial transactions, and the like, adding to the diet of horse cases a smattering of transactions in cucumbers, cats, coal, and cribs. Only by putting the law of the horse in the context of broader rules about commercial endeavors could one really understand the law about horses.” Id. at 207–08. Unlike the hypothetical “law of the horse” course criticized by Judge Easterbrook, which lacks a unifying principle, a music law course provides an opportunity to focus on how the law has shaped the music industry in the U.S. and how the music industry has shaped U.S. law over the course of the past century. 3 For those students who have not previously taken a course in copyright, we suggest a review of COPYRIGHT IN A NUTSHELL as a complement to this textbook, which provides a basic understanding of general copyright principles. 1 2 INTRODUCTION CH. I Copyright Act with which one must be familiar to gain an understanding of the more complex copyright provisions relevant to the music industry. We then move to an overview of the many different components and participants within today’s music industry, and a historical overview of the development of the conception of music as property. Chapters 2 and 3 introduce the state of legal protection for music and those involved in creating and distributing it at the turn of the 20th century, immediately before and after the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1909. These early cases and statutory provisions are essential to an understanding of why and how the music industry developed into its current state, and they illustrate some common themes in music law that are repeated in current case law and in the debate over the future of the industry. Chapter 2 focuses on legal issues regarding duplication and performance of sound recordings, and Chapter 3 focuses on the performance right in compositions and the legal issues that arose from the formation of performing rights organizations to collectively enforce and administer the performance right. In Chapter 4, the textbook covers the grant of limited federal copyright protection to sound recordings and the continuing debate over performance rights in sound recordings, as well as some of the legal issues arising out of the provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act. Chapter 5 addresses the multitude of legal and business issues that arose as music entered the digital era, and the next two chapters turn to music licensing issues, with Chapter 6 introducing statutory licensing in the context of the digital public performance right in sound recordings and Chapter 7 covering the mechanical right in compositions and the implications of the recently- enacted Music Modernization Act. Chapter 8 provides an overview of what we refer to as “garden variety” music copyright cases, where the owner of a composition or sound recording claims that a new work is substantially similar to the original work. In Chapter 9, the textbook introduces the state law right of publicity and federal Lanham Act and their roles in the music industry, including protections against misappropriation of a recording artist’s voice, band name disputes, and use of songs in political campaigns. Chapter 10 introduces recording and songwriting agreements and addresses provisions relating to ownership of copyright, duration of the contractual relationship, and compensation that are often at issue in recording and songwriting agreements. Chapter 11 continues the discussion of contract issues within the recording and publishing branches of the music industry, focusing on provisions ranging from the obligation to exploit (or lack thereof) to choice of law. Finally, Chapter 12 provides a brief introduction to additional legal issues in the music industry that have arisen over the years and that are likely to be relevant in the coming years as the industry continues to change, including copyright termination rights, state statutes CH. I INTRODUCTION 3 governing artist representatives, consolidation in the industry, and payola statutes. The materials within this textbook were designed to illustrate some of the most important legal issues faced by today’s musicians and other participants in the music industry and how those issues parallel and/or differ from those that have arisen throughout the history of the industry. It is our hope that they will also spark discussion of how the law and the industry might or should evolve in the future in the face of new technologies and conceptions of music, new demands and uses by consumers, and new models for providing access to musical works. CONSIDER AS YOU READ . • As applied to music, how does the U.S. Constitution’s Copyright Clause support the creation of new works and the ability of the public to access those works? • Why and how are recordings of musical performances (sound recordings) and compositions treated in distinct manners under U.S. law? • Is a more simplified model for the music industry either desirable or possible? Does it matter from whose perspective the question is considered? • What lessons or models can we take from history (even ancient history) to better understand how the industry developed into its current state in the U.S. and inform our vision of what the music industry might look like in the future? A. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: COPYRIGHT CLAUSE The Congress shall have Power . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. U.S. CONSTITUTION, Article I, Section 8, clause 8. ——————— 4 INTRODUCTION CH. I B. UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT ACT: DEFINITIONS OF RELEVANT TERMS (§ 101) AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION (§ 106) Even though we will not get to the current interpretation of U.S. copyright law until a few chapters down the road, we note two components of modern copyright law that are relevant in considering the historical materials that follow. First, Section 101 provides definitions of terms. Some of these definitions will seem obvious to you, but the nature of what is protected by copyright is heavily influenced by statutes that have changed over time, and thus the meanings of terms and phrases used in copyright law are important—as is the manner in which those meanings have changed and adapted to technological innovations (or failed to change and adapt, as we will see in some of the most difficult legal cases). Keep the current definitions of terms in mind as you read the sections and chapters below that illustrate how music copyright developed over the past century and how technological innovation continuously tested the boundaries of existing definitions and understandings of what copyright law did, and did not, protect. Second, Section 106 defines the scope of the rights granted to owners of various types of copyrightable works. Pay particular attention to the current scope of rights granted to sound recordings as compared to other types of copyrightable works, including musical compositions. The historical summary in Section D and the materials in Chapters 2 and 3 will provide some perspective as to why and how the scope of copyright protection for compositions and sound recordings ended up differing in important respects. Many of the disputes involving music copyright, under the 1909 Copyright Act and under current law, are fundamentally grounded both in the key definitions and the limitations of scope contained in Sections 101 and 106 and their predecessors within U.S.
Recommended publications
  • Lyrics and the Law : the Constitution of Law in Music
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-2006 Lyrics and the law : the constitution of law in music. Aaron R. S., Lorenz University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Lorenz, Aaron R. S.,, "Lyrics and the law : the constitution of law in music." (2006). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2399. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2399 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LYRICS AND THE LAW: THE CONSTITUTION OF LAW IN MUSIC A Dissertation Presented by AARON R.S. LORENZ Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY February 2006 Department of Political Science © Copyright by Aaron R.S. Lorenz 2006 All Rights Reserved LYRICS AND THE LAW: THE CONSTITUTION OF LAW IN MUSIC A Dissertation Presented by AARON R.S. LORENZ Approved as to style and content by: Sheldon Goldman, Member DEDICATION To Martin and Malcolm, Bob and Peter. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project has been a culmination of many years of guidance and assistance by friends, family, and colleagues. I owe great thanks to many academics in both the Political Science and Legal Studies fields. Graduate students in Political Science have helped me develop a deeper understanding of public law and made valuable comments on various parts of this work.
    [Show full text]
  • Music Law and Business: a Comprehensive Bibliography, 1982-1991 Gail I
    Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 13 | Number 4 Article 5 1-1-1991 Music Law and Business: A Comprehensive Bibliography, 1982-1991 Gail I. Winson Janine S. Natter Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_comm_ent_law_journal Part of the Communications Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Gail I. Winson and Janine S. Natter, Music Law and Business: A Comprehensive Bibliography, 1982-1991, 13 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 811 (1991). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_comm_ent_law_journal/vol13/iss4/5 This Special Feature 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 Communications and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Music Law and Business: A Comprehensive Bibliography, 1982-1991* By GAIL I. WINSON** AND JANINE S. NArrER*** Table of Contents I. Law Review and Journal Articles ......................... 818 A . A ntitrust ............................................ 818 B. Bankruptcy .......................................... 819 C. Bibliographies ....................................... 819 D . Contracts ........................................... 819 1. M anagem ent ..................................... 821 2. Personal Service ................................
    [Show full text]
  • Entertainment and Sports Law University of Memphis Law School Career Services Office
    Entertainment and Sports Law University of Memphis Law School Career Services Office What is entertainment and sports law? Entertainment and sports law is civil law of a specific character that relates to the fields of entertainment and athletics. The practice involves contracts, labor law, corporate finance, intellectual property, and antitrust. Lawyers practicing in the field of entertainment and sports law specialize in knowing and understanding their clients’ industry and are able to advocate for their clients’ interests. In the major professional sports leagues of the National Football League (“NFL”), Major League Baseball (“MLB”), Na- tional Basketball Association (“NBA”), and National Hockey League (“NHL”), players’ associations act much like unions, regulating fees and salaries for sports professionals, coaches, and agents. For the lawyer specializing in entertainment law, intellectual property law takes center stage. Copyright law concerns the rights of creators of artistic works in the music, entertainment, publishing, and fine arts industries. Where do entertainment and Where do sports and entertainment lawyers do? sports lawyers work? Negotiating: Sports and entertainment lawyers negotiate contracts with spon- Private law firms: Some large firms sorships, television syndicators, and other representatives that interact with have departments specializing in the sports and entertainment industry. A lawyer working for a band might help to negotiate contracts with particular venues at a particular rate. entertainment and sports law, es- pecially in large cities where record Transactional work: Entertainment lawyers frequently contract for one-time labels house their headquarters or events that may never reoccur. Thus, entertainment and sports lawyers must in cities with professional sports be able to draft contracts that advance and protect their clients’ interests under a variety of circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Music Law 102
    Music Law 102 2019 Edition LawPracticeCLE Unlimited All Courses. All Formats. All Year. ABOUT US LawPracticeCLE is a national continuing legal education company designed to provide education on current, trending issues in the legal world to judges, attorneys, paralegals, and other interested business professionals. New to the playing eld, LawPracticeCLE is a major contender with its oerings of Live Webinars, On-Demand Videos, and In-per- son Seminars. LawPracticeCLE believes in quality education, exceptional customer service, long-lasting relationships, and networking beyond the classroom. We cater to the needs of three divisions within the legal realm: pre-law and law students, paralegals and other support sta, and attorneys. WHY WORK WITH US? At LawPracticeCLE, we partner with experienced attorneys and legal professionals from all over the country to bring hot topics and current content that are relevant in legal practice. We are always looking to welcome dynamic and accomplished lawyers to share their knowledge! As a LawPracticeCLE speaker, you receive a variety of benets. In addition to CLE teaching credit attorneys earn for presenting, our presenters also receive complimentary tuition on LawPracticeCLE’s entire library of webinars and self-study courses. LawPracticeCLE also aords expert professors unparalleled exposure on a national stage in addition to being featured in our Speakers catalog with your name, headshot, biography, and link back to your personal website. Many of our courses accrue thousands of views, giving our speakers the chance to network with attorneys across the country. We also oer a host of ways for our team of speakers to promote their programs, including highlight clips, emails, and much more! If you are interested in teaching for LawPracticeCLE, we want to hear from you! Please email our Directior of Operations at [email protected] with your information.
    [Show full text]
  • Neutral Is the New Blind
    Neutral is the New Blind: Calling for Gender Segregated Evidence in UK Legislative Inquiries regarding the Music Industries Dr Metka Potočnik* Abstract In late 2020, the Government responded to the enormous crisis in the UK music industries, caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, by initiating several legislative inquiries, aimed at reviewing the rules regulating the industry, including rules on commercialisation of intellectual property (IP). The aim of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) inquiries is purportedly to improve the fairness and viability of the sector, which was devastated by the pandemic. At the same time, the Covid-19 crisis served as a catalyst to expose the pre-existing inequalities and unfairness in the UK music industries. This article explores the path of the UK DCMS 2020-21 legislative inquiry into the Economics of Music Streaming as a case study to the current approach in UK regulation of the music industries. Informed by the feminist theory of relational legal feminism and embedded in the broader framework of IP Social Justice theory, the author argues that the current approach to legislative inquiries is incomplete, because it fails to take into account the systemic barriers faced by women (i.e., all who identify as women), including gender minority musicians in the sector. The evidence collected fails to investigate the lived experience of women, to the detriment of fairness of the overall proposal of future reform. Keywords Feminist scholarship, IP Social Justice, Intellectual Property Law, the music industries, streaming, communication to the public, Brexit, EU-derived domestic legislation, retained EU case law, evidence-led policy, legislative inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Sampling and the Legal Implications of Its Use After Bridgeport
    Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 22 Issue 1 Volume 22, Summer 2007, Issue 1 Article 9 Digital Sampling and the Legal Implications of Its Use After Bridgeport Amanda Webber Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DIGITAL SAMPLING AND THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF ITS USE AFTER BRIDGEPORT AMANDA WEBBER* INTRODUCTION The increase in digital sampling has been greatly attributed to the hip hop industry,1 one of the most influential and popular genres of music in the world today.2 "Old recordings are to the hip-hop producer what paint is to the painter-raw material to be manipulated into art."3 Today's "studio musicians" are able to manipulate and add effects to previously recorded music, creating an infinite amount of new and innovative sounds without fear of ruining the sound quality.4 However, to the world outside of the hip hop industry, music that utilizes digital * J.D. Candidate, June 2007, St. John's University School of Law; B.A. Public Relations, Minor in Business, Pennsylvania State University at University Park, December 2003. 1 See Susan Butler, Court Ruling Could Chill Sample Use, BILLBOARD, September 18, 2004. According to the Roots' co-manager Shawn Gee, "[s]ampling is so important.
    [Show full text]
  • From Owning to Using Music: Transactional Music Attorneys Struggle with a Changing Landscape and Its Financial Realities
    From Owning to Using Music: Transactional Music Attorneys Struggle With A Changing Landscape and Its Financial Realities By John Simson1 and Ken Abdo2 It is nearly impossible to describe the momentous seismic shift that we have all witnessed over the past fifteen years with each new technological development and method of delivering music to consumers; it is probably enough to say that it’s been a hell of a ride! Transactional music attorneys have seen the transformation of five major labels into three major entertainment companies: no longer able to achieve the return on investment from CD sales that fueled their enormous growth in the 1980’s and 1990’s, they have tried to re‐invent themselves as leaner, more agile, marketers and branders of recording artists. Record company executives have long claimed that it was record company money that built brands through the recordings they funded and released together with the promotion and marketing they advanced and administered. Tour support was frequently the only way that new bands could afford to tour and grow a fan base. Is it more surprising that for decades record labels didn’t try to share in touring and that their attempts to share in other revenue streams, most notably merchandize and publishing, were on a “right to match” another company’s offer and not compelled under the terms of the record deal? Now it is expected that 1 John L. Simson was signed to Perception Records in 1971 as a singer/songwriter. He was recently named a Special Consultant for Artist Relations and Business Development by Kobalt Music to assist them in building a "neighboring rights" business (collecting artists' royalties around the world).
    [Show full text]
  • How Spotify Killed the Radio Star: an Analysis on How the Songwriter
    Cybaris® Volume 6 | Issue 1 Article 7 2015 How Spotify Killed the Radio Star: An Analysis on How the Songwriter Equity Act Could Aid the Current Online Music Distribution Market in Failing Artists Caitlin Kowalke Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cybaris Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Kowalke, Caitlin (2015) "How Spotify Killed the Radio Star: An Analysis on How the Songwriter Equity Act Could Aid the Current Online Music Distribution Market in Failing Artists," Cybaris®: Vol. 6: Iss. 1, Article 7. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cybaris/vol6/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cybaris® by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Kowalke: How Spotify Killed the Radio Star: An Analysis on How the Songwri Published by Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2015 1 Cybaris®, Vol. 6, Iss. 1 [2015], Art. 7 HOW SPOTIFY KILLED THE RADIO STAR: AN ANALYSIS ON HOW THE SONGWRITER EQUITY ACT COULD AID THE CURRENT ONLINE MUSIC DISTRIBUTION MARKET IN FAILING ARTISTS CAITLIN KOWALKE† TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ............................................................................. 195 II. What Ownership Rights Are Songwriters Guaranteed Under Current Copyright Law? ........................................... 198 A. Mechanical Licenses ..................................................... 198 B. Compulsory Licenses ..................................................... 200 C. Section 114 Limitations ................................................. 204 III. Industry Limitations on Musical Copyright Today ............... 205 A. Emerging Technology as a Constant Threat to Copyright Protections ..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • How Copyright Law May Affect Pop Music Without Our Knowing It
    Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 12-2014 How Copyright Law May Affect Pop Music without Our Knowing It Peter K. Yu [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter K. Yu, How Copyright Law May Affect Pop Music without Our Knowing It, 83 UMKC L. Rev. 363 (2014). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/405 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HOW COPYRIGHT LAW MAY AFFECT POP MUSIC WITHOUT OUR KNOWING IT Peter K. Yu* I. INTRODUCTION When copyright law is linked to the creation of music-the focus of this Symposium-interesting questions arise. In the context of classical music, for example, why could Johann Sebastian Bach "recycle" in his Concerto for Four Harpsichords the opening phrase in Antonio Vivaldi's Concerto for Four Violins, Strings and Harpsichord Continuo?' Why could Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky include in his 1812 Overture repetitive fragments of La Marseillaise and the anthem God Save the Tsar! to portray the clash between the French and Russian armies?2 Would copyright protection in musical works help Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart avoid poverty and the fate of dying penniless? Or would such protection instead lead him to behave more like Johannes Brahms and Giuseppe Verdi, whose creativity slowed down significantly following the introduction of copyright protection?3 * Copyright © 2014 Peter K.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosen-Music and Copyright.Pdf
    Music and Copyright This page intentionally left blank Music and Copyright Ronald S. Rosen 1 1 Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offi ces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Th ailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Copyright © 2008 by Ronald S. Rosen Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press Oxford University Press is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Ronald S. Rosen. _____________________________________________ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rosen, Ronald S. Music and copyright / Ronald S. Rosen. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-19-533836-2 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Copyright—Music—United States. 2. Fair use (Copyright)—United States. 3. Copyright infringement—United States. I. Title. KF3035.R67 2008 346.7304’82—dc22 2008013929 _____________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper Note to Readers Th is publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered.
    [Show full text]
  • The Music Online Competition Act of 2001
    DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 12 Issue 1 Spring 2002: The Recording Academy Entertainment Law Initiative Legal Writing Article 5 Competition 2001-02 The Music Online Competition Act of 2001 Merritt A. Gardiner Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip Recommended Citation Merritt A. Gardiner, The Music Online Competition Act of 2001, 12 DePaul J. Art, Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 25 (2002) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip/vol12/iss1/5 This Lead Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Gardiner: The Music Online Competition Act of 2001 THE MUSIC ONLINE COMPETITION ACT OF 2001 I. INTRODUCTION The Music Online Competition Act of 2001 ("MOCA")l was recently introduced to Congress by representatives Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Chris Cannon (R-UT) in order to smooth out the jagged edges created in our current, yet outdated, existing copyright law. The bipartisan legislation was encouraged to promote the rapidly expanding online broadcasting and distribution of music and to prevent antitrust behavior as a result of the recent joint ventures between recording companies and online music distributors: MusicNet, supported by RealNetworks, Warner Music Group, Bertelsmann AG and EMI and Pressplay, supported by Sony and Vivendi Universal.2 MOCA was drafted to update and clarify provisions of the Copyright Act, which have spurred costly legal and regulatory disputes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Rethinking Music Copyright Protection, 10 Mich
    Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review Volume 10 | Issue 2 2004 Musical Musings: The aC se for Rethinking Music Copyright Protection J. Michael Keyes Gonzaga University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation J. M. Keyes, Musical Musings: The Case for Rethinking Music Copyright Protection, 10 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 407 (2004). Available at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr/vol10/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MUSICAL MUSINGS: THE CASE FOR RETHINKING MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROTECTION J. Michael Keyes* Cite as: J. Michael Keyes, Musical Musings: The Case for Rethinking Music Copyright Protection, 10 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. 407 (2004), availableat http://www.mttlr.org/volten/Keyes.pdf IN TRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 408 I. A HISTORICAL SKETCH OF MUSIC COPYRIGHT ........................ 410 A. The Nascent Years of Music Copyright, 1800-1850 .......... 410 B. The Music Industry Gains Steam, 1850-1900 ..................
    [Show full text]