Case Study : Syco Music And Copyright Infringement

Transformative qualities are an essential aspect of deciding the applicability of fair use when borrowing from copyrighted works. Transformative equates to works that step beyond the replication of a copyrighted work. This can be accomplished by changing the purpose and adding artistic value to the new creation. Through the incorporation of a new purpose and character, consideration of the minimal portion used of the copyrighted work, and inspection of the lack of effect on the market of the original work, it is conclusive that Kanye West’s “Champion” falls under the protection of fair use when taking into account its incorporation of Steely Dan’s “Kid Charlemagne.” West uses a

Is important for anyone who has created any intellectual property to protect it. In the music industry, in order for someone to protect their work, they must obtain a copyright. Music has been around before anyone could obtain a copyright and when the invention of the computer came along it made it easier for someone to steal another artist's intellectual property with the help of the internet. This paper will cover what events have taken a big role in copyright protection for artist, the consequences if someone was to break the rules of a copyright which is called copyright infringement, and how will a copyright hold in the future. Were copyrights enacted without the thought of life changing technology, and how can some music companies

The case of A&M Records Inc. v. Napster Inc., record companies brought infringement action against Napster for the unfair use of copyrighted work and harmed the potentiality of music within the market (239 F3d 1004, 2001). With the burgeoning of the internet age, musicians and artists were faced with the threat of in home piracy, via file sharing programs like Napster, or Grokster.

The controversy was that many people felt as if the lyrics of the revised song were very ignorant and fell

In the music industry, the key legal issues are the concept of copyright and fair use. Island Records base their legal argument on the code of copyright. Copyright laws help protect the creative works of the writers and other artists from the commercial

The case I chose to write about is Pharrell Williams hit 2014 "Happy". The song was released in 2013 and has accumulated over 46 million views on YouTube since then and has won various awards and nominations as well as appearing in the popular animated movie Despicable Me 2. Although the case as of now has not been taken to court, the track’s rhythm sounds oddly familiar to a song written by Marvin Gaye in 1965 titled “Ain’t That Peculiar”. The family of Gaye has had previous issues with Pharrell and other popular artist plagiarizing as well. In 2013 the family sued artist Robin Thicke and Williams for their song “Blurred Lines” on the grounds of copyright infringement for sounding almost exactly like Gaye’s song “Got To Give It Up”. Early

Over the past fifty years, the British Music Publishing industry has undergone dramatic changes. It has evolved as an entity with innovations in technology, changes and creations of laws and new mediums to promote and exploit songs to a wider audience. Therefore, the way in which the music publishing industry operates and exploits its assets has completely transformed, and continues to do so at a rapid pace. This paper will attempt to explore the ways in which publishers exploit song copyrights and the way in which this has changed over the past 60 years. It is important to define what is meant by copyright and its role within the industry. The Performing Right Society website states: “Copyright

Copyrighted works fall into two categories in the music world. The first is recorded performance, one first has to get permission from the recorded label to use a song. Next, the composition underlying a specific performance has to come straight from the artist. For “pass the mic,” the B. Boys got permission from the record label but not the artist, Newton therefore sued but lost. “The reason serves as a useful introduction to how to think about intellectual property”

The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) seeks to protect individuals who have created original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. Sections 14(1) and 36 provide that copyright is infringed when a person reproduces a substantial part of another’s work without the license of the owner of the copyright. In 2010 the Federal Court of Australia considered whether the flute riff in ‘Down Under’ a song by popular Australian group Men at Work was a substantial reproduction of the iconic children’s song ‘Kookaburra’ composed by Marion Sinclair. This case attracted significant media coverage and public interest.

Music Copyright is a very important aspect of the music industry. The Copyright law was established to preserve the creativity and rights of authors, composers, performers of expression. Copyright is the law that protects the property rights of the creator of an original work in a fixed tangible medium. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/copyright) A fixed tangible medium is something substantial like copying lyrics on paper or putting a song on tape or CD. Copyright can be seen every where in the music industry. Many music artist of our culture today have been involved in copyright issues. Recently, on MTV news it was stated that, "As the music industry becomes increasingly concerned about protecting the

Starting in the year 1999, a company called Napster opened up a whole new world to the Internet where every song ever made was instantly available to you on your computer for free. It was created by an 18-year-old Northeastern University student named Shawn Fanning. Napster transformed personal computers into servers that shared mp3 files all across the Internet (Mayer, 2008). It became popular very quickly because exchanging mp3 files freely and having any music desired right at your fingertips had never been possible before. However, this program that provided the privilege of having free instant music to download did not last long, it was shut down after just two years by

Along with the development of a file format (MP3) to store digital audio recordings, came one of the new millennium’s most continuous debates – peer-to-peer piracy – file sharing. Internet companies such as Napster and Grokster became involved in notable legal cases in regards to copyright laws in cyberspace. These two cases are similar in nature, yet decidedly different. In order to understand the differences and similarities, one should have an understanding of each case as well as the court’s ruling.

The issues that will be slugged out in federal district court in San Francisco sound a little too pop culture to be all that serious. How many music CDs are people buying these days in record stores throughout the nation because of Napster? Is the technology that Napster uses legal? Napster is, of course, the wildly popular file-sharing service whose 20 million users have downloaded some half a billion songs--most copyrighted for free. The technology that Napster has brought to music listeners across the globe has allowed the freedom of obtaining music for free and should not be shut down by the entertainment industry's argument in federal court.

There are several ways in which art is commercialized; especially within the music industry. Classic bands such as the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan were criticized for allowing companies to use their material to sell products and services. However, this is a common avenue for a musician or an artist to profit from their works. Many companies are willing to pay a hefty premium to have their products associated with music that has broad emotional appeal to many potential consumers. However, many people feel that when an artist licenses their material it is a loss of integrity and that something is lost by the commercialization of their songs.

Companies like Apple, have decided that it is best to get in with the downloading business. However, an end to the illegal downloading conflict remains to be realized. The RIAA and associated artists continue to wage war against illegal downloaders while computer savvy audiences persist in sharing music files online every day. While it is undoubtedly true that downloading music is a crime, it remains to be proven that it is wrong. Without establishing this principle, most downloader's are likely to continue the activity. Even with new, inexpensive and available means of downloading files, they can still be shared for free online. The rift must be repaired between music lovers who feel that they have been taken advantage of in the past and recording companies and artists who worry about their future livelihood.