Advertisement

Policy Issues

  • Samuel Cameron
Chapter
  • 7 Downloads
Part of the Cultural Economics & the Creative Economy book series (CECE)

Abstract

This chapter provides an appraisal of policy options in terms of the welfare economics of policy analysis. The role of technological change as necessitating changes in the law per se is critiqued with reference to the views of the originators of the much used concept of ‘disruptive innovation’. A variety of evidence is considered from those who claim current law is inefficient and requires a change to suitably accommodate the challenges of new technology. This evidence draws on academic legal papers, interview studies with practitioners in the field, and the two econometric papers concerned with the impact of the ‘Grand Upright’ and ‘Bridgeport’ decisionson the use of samples and the creativity with which they are used. The limitations of the whosampled.com data base used in these studies are highlighted. We move on to consider the case for radical ‘free for all’ approaches to policy on musical plagiarism. To this end, the work of digital libertarians Boldrin and Levine is expounded. Differences in the legal treatment of musical plagiarism, in different territories, are outlined. The chapter concludes with an in-depth case study of one particular recording—‘Bittersweet Symphony’ by The Verve and the provision of some discussion questions to stimulate further debate.

Keywords

International comparisons Digital libertarians Disruptive innovation 

References

  1. Badia, E. J. (2017). Split Chords: Addressing the Federal Circuit Split in Music Sampling Copyright Infringement Cases. Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum, 7(1), 131–192.Google Scholar
  2. Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2008). Against Intellectual Monopoly. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bromley, D. W. (1990). The Ideology of Efficiency: Searching for a Theory of Policy Analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 19(1), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broussard, W. G. (1991). Current and Suggested Business Practices for the Licensing of Digital Samples. Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 11(2), 479–503.Google Scholar
  5. Cameron, S. (2002). Digital Copying and the Economics of Crime: Potential Gains from Trade and the Problems of Enforcement. Economic Affairs, 22(3), 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron, S. (2015): Music in the marketplace: A social economics approach. Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Ceulemans, C., & Lowe, S. (2018). The Cost of Creation: Technology, Sampling and Lawsuits in Hip-Hop Music. Working Paper. Purchase College. State University of New York.Google Scholar
  8. Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What Is Disruptive Innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44–53.Google Scholar
  9. Coase, R. H. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics., 3(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook, N., & Sapp, C. (2007). Purely Coincidental? Joyce Hatto and Chopin’s Mazurkas. Available on CHARM Website. Retrieved September 13, 2019, from https://www.charm.kcl.ac.uk/projects/p2_3_2.html.
  11. Devadiga. (2018). Without “Vulture” Capitalists, Our Economy Would Rot. Their role isn’t pretty, but it’s vital. Foundation for Economic Education. Retrieved September, 11, 2019, from https://fee.org/articles/without-vulture-capitalists-our-economy-would-rot/.
  12. Duchen, J. (2007). Joyce Hatto: Notes on a Scandal. The Independent: Online Edition. 25 February.Google Scholar
  13. Pappalardo, K., & Bansai, K. (2018). How copyright law is holding back Australian creators. Published February 9th. Retrieved September, 23, 2018, from http://theconversation.com/how-copyright-law-is-holding-back-australiancreators-91390.
  14. Wu, T. (2006). Jay-Z Versus the Sample Troll The shady one-man corporation that’s destroying hip-hop. Slate website. November 16. Retrieved September 9, 2019, from https://slate.com/culture/2006/11/the-shady-one-man-corporation-that-s-destroying-hip-hop.html.

Electronic Freedom Foundation. Documents with No Date as Follows:

  1. Garcia v. Google Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://www.eff.org/cases/garcia-v-google-inc.
  2. Goodman, F. (2016). Allen Klein. The Man Who Bailed Out the Beatles, Made the Stones and Transformed Rock & Roll. Mariner Books. An Eamon Dolan Book. Houghton, Miflin, Harcourt, Boston and New York. (Originally Published 2015).Google Scholar
  3. Herlihy, D., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Music Industry and Copyright Protection in the United States and China. Global Media and China, 1(4), 390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hurwitz, L. (2015). Can’t Touch This: A Comparative Analysis of Sampling Law in the United States and Internationally. Michigan State International Law Review, 23(1), 231–264.Google Scholar
  5. JibJabMedia vs Ludlow Music. (n.d.). (This Land Parody) Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://www.eff.org/cases/jibjab-media-inc-v-ludlow-music-inc.
  6. Kennedy, J. (2011). A Critical Review of ‘Against Intellectual Monopoly’. Review of Austrian Economics, 24(1), 81–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kim, M. (2007). The Creative Commons and Copyright Protection in the Digital Era: Uses of Creative Commons Licenses. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Klang, M., & Nolan, J. (2012). Tolerance Is Law: Remixing Homage, Parodying Plagiarism. SCRIPTed, 9(2).Google Scholar
  9. Leigh, S. (2010, July 8). When It Comes to Songwriting, There’s a Fine Line Between Inspiration and Plagiarism. The Independent. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/musicfeatures/when-it-comes-to-songwriting-theres-a-fine-line-between-inspiration-and-plagiarism2021199.html.
  10. Lindvall, H. (2011, August 26). Why Topline Melody Writing Creates Disputes between Artists And Songwriters. Behind the Music Blog. The Guardian Newspaper. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2011/aug/26/topline-melody-disputes-artistssongwriters.
  11. McDonagh, L. T. (2012). Is Creative Use of Musical Works Without a Licence Acceptable Under Copyright? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 43(4), 401–426.Google Scholar
  12. McLeod, J. K., & DiCola, P. (with Toomoey, J. and Thompson, K.). (2014). Creative License. The Law and Culture of Digital Sampling. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mispagel, C. (2018). Resolving a Copyright Law Circuit Split: The Importance of a de minimis Exception for Sampled Sound Recordings. Saint Louis University Law School, 62(2), 461–484.Google Scholar
  14. Morrison, D. (2008). Bridgeport Redux: Digital Sampling and Audience Recoding. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 19(1). Available atSSRN. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1334809.
  15. Mueller, J. (2006). All Mixed Up: Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films and De Minimis Digital Sampling. Indiana Law Journal, 81(1), Article22, 435–463.Google Scholar
  16. Oliver, P., & Ewald, J. (2017).UK Copyright and the Limits of UK Music Sampling. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved September 11, 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313476275_UK_Copyright_and_the_Limits_of_UK_Music_Sampling.
  17. Reilly, T. (2012). Good Fences Make Good Neighboring Rights: The German Federal Supreme Court Rules on the Digital Sampling of Sound Recordings in Metall auf Metall. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 13(1), Article7, 153–209.Google Scholar
  18. Ricketson, S., & Ginsburg, J. (2005).International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rychlicki, T., & Zieliński, A. (2009). Is Sampling Always Copyright Infringement? WIPO Magazine, 6, Article 7. Retrieved January 7, 2019, from https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2009/06/article_0007.html
  20. Scherer, F. M. (2008). The Emergence of Musical Copyright in Europe from 1709 to 1850. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 5(2), 3–18.Google Scholar
  21. Schipper, B. (2014). THE CHILLING EFFECT OF “KRAFTWERK I/II” ON SOUND SAMPLINGPLEA FOR SELF-REGULATION TO ADVANCE THE USE OF SAMPLING translated from original in Dutch Copyright, Media and Information Law Journal (AMI) July/August, 4, 105–112. Retrieved September 9, 2019, from http://www.schipperlegal.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Kraftwerk-Decisions-Chilling-Effect-on-Sound-Sampling-US-1.pdf (note to editors the capitalisation of the title and use of bold is as in the original)
  22. Schumpeter, J. A. (2014). Originally Published. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 2nd ed. Floyd, VA: Impact Books.Google Scholar
  23. Senior, M. (2001). Sweet Symphony. Interview with David Sinclair Whittaker. Sound on Sound. Issue 1, January.Google Scholar
  24. Takeyama, L. (1994). The Welfare Implications of Unauthorized Reproduction of Intellectual Property in the Presence of Demand Network Externalities. Journal of Industrial Economics, 42(2), 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Takeyama, L. (1997). The Intertemporal Consequences of Unauthorized Reproduction of Intellectual Property. Journal of Law and Economics, 40(2), 511–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Townley, H. (1993). Sampling. Weapon of the Copyright Pirate? University of Tasmania Law Review, 12(1), 102–118.Google Scholar
  27. Waldfogel, J. (2014). Digitization, Copyright, and the Flow of New Music Products, Ch. 12 in V. Ginsburgh, & D. Throsby (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture (vol. 2, pp. 277–298). North-Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  28. Waldfogel, J. (2017). How Digitization Has Created a Golden Age of Music, Movies, Books, and Television. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(3), 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Watson, J. (2017). Copyright and the Production of Hip-Hop Music. Semantic Scholar Website. Retrieved July 7, 2019, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7219/a09fa0a5b9b569ea9255088ab24bc8a2c7c4.pdf?_ga=2.117682305.907132683.1562585029-1907714462.1562585029.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel Cameron
    • 1
  1. 1.BradfordUK

Personalised recommendations