Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Gowri NanayakkaraEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This book underlined the limitations of copyright and the PRR to satisfactorily address the concerns expressed by Sinhala vocalists in Sri Lanka. Thus, this concluding chapter suggests three alternatives—government subsidy, regulating artists’ contracts and alternative dispute resolution—that could be assistive in catering the needs of Sinhala vocalists. Considering the state that the industry is in today, it is questionable whether a system that completely stands outside of copyright and the PRR could be conveniently adopted or accepted by the industry. Accordingly, these alternatives suggested, look promising, since they have the potential to be part of a larger mechanism that more adequately addresses vocalists’ concerns while complementing the current copyright and PRR.

Keywords

Government subsidy Regulating contracts ADR Mediation 

References

  1. Adler, R S, and Silverstein, E M, ‘When David Meets Goliath: Dealing with Power Differentials in Negotiations’ (2000) 5 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 1.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, N, ‘From Communities to Corporations: The Growth of Mediation in Sri Lanka’ (2001) 4(1) ADR Bulletin 8.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, R, Performers’ Rights (4th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2008).Google Scholar
  4. Baumol, William J, and Bowen, William G, The Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma (MIT 1968).Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein, D A, ‘A Case for Mediating Trademark Disputes in the Age of Expanding Brands’ (2005) 7 Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 139.Google Scholar
  6. Bevan, A, Alternative Dispute Resolution (Sweet and Maxwell 1992).Google Scholar
  7. Blackmand, S, and McNeil, R M, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution in Commercial Intellectual Property Disputes’ (1998) 47 American University Law Review 1709.Google Scholar
  8. Blake, S, J Browne, and Sime, S, A Practical Approach to Alternative Dispute Resolution (Oxford University Press 2012).Google Scholar
  9. Botstein, Leon, ‘Music of a Century: Museum Culture and the Politics of Subsidy’ in Nicholas Cook and Anthony Pople (eds), The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Music (Cambridge University Press 2004).Google Scholar
  10. Ciolli, A, ‘Lowering the Stakes: Toward a Model of Effective Copyright Dispute Resolution’ (2007) 110 West Virginia Law Review 999.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, A M, and Salem, R A, ‘Dealing with Power Imbalances in the Mediation of Interpersonal Disputes’ (1984) 6 Mediation Quarterly 17.Google Scholar
  12. Draft Report of the 35th Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights held from 13 to 17, 2017 in Geneva.Google Scholar
  13. Gewurz, I G, ‘(Re)designing Mediation to Address the Nuances of Power Imbalance’ (2001) 19(2) Conflict Resolution Quarterly 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenfield, S, and Osborn, G, Contract and Control in the Entertainment Industry (Ashgate 1998).Google Scholar
  15. Greenfield, S, and Osborn, G, ‘Copyright Law and Power in the Music’ in S Frith and L Marshall (eds), Music and Copyright (Edinburgh University Press 2004).Google Scholar
  16. Hadfield, Gillian, ‘The Economics of Copyright: An Historical Perspective’ (1992) 38 Copyright Law Symposium 1–46.Google Scholar
  17. Kettle, Martin, ‘Behind All These Great Actors Is Subsidised Theatre’ (The Guardian, London, 24 February 2007) 31.Google Scholar
  18. Mayer, B, ‘The Dynamics of Power in Mediation and Negotiation’ (1987) Mediation Quarterly 16.Google Scholar
  19. Morgan, Owen, International Protection of Performers’ Rights (Hart 2002).Google Scholar
  20. Nanayakkara, G, ‘Remuneration, Reward and Royalty in Music Copyright: A Developing Country Perspective’ (2018) I.C.C.L.R. 209.Google Scholar
  21. Peacock, A, ‘Welfare Economics and Public Subsidies to the Arts’ (1969) 4 Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies 323.Google Scholar
  22. Perritt, H H, Jr., ‘New Business Models for Music’ (2011) 18 Villanova Sports and Entertainment Law Journal 63.Google Scholar
  23. Shack, J, and Yates, S M, ‘Mediating Lanham Act Cases: The Role of Empirical Evaluation’ (2002) 22 Northern Illinois University Law Review 287.Google Scholar
  24. Shavell, Steven, and Van Ypersele, Tanguy, ‘Rewards Versus Intellectual Property Rights’ (2001) 4 Journal of Law and Economics 525.Google Scholar
  25. The Proposed Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.Google Scholar
  26. Towse, R, ‘Partly for the Money: Rewards and Incentives to Artists’ (2001) 54(2/3) KYKLOS 473.Google Scholar
  27. Towse, R, ‘Alan Peacock and Cultural Economics’ (2005) The Economic Journal F262.Google Scholar
  28. Towse, R, ‘Copyright and Artists: A View From Cultural Economics’ (2006) 20(4) Journal of Economic Surveys 567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Towse, R, ‘The Singer or the Song? Developments in Performers’ Rights from the Perspective of a Cultural Economist’ (2007) 3(3) Review of Law and Economics 745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vogel, H L, Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Financial Analysis (4th edn, Cambridge University Press 1998).Google Scholar
  31. Wijayatillake, D, ‘Alternative Methods of Dispute Resolution in Sri Lanka’ (Alternative Dispute Resolution in the SAARC Region, Bhutan, April 2000).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawCanterbury Christ Church UniversityCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations