The Musician, Technology And Copyright Laws

Copyright law, which manages much of the music business industry, tries to maintain a balance concerning the rights of the creator, and the common good in an attempt to drive society forward. In essence, the

Before the 1900s, the intellectual property laws adapted with technological advancements (Demers, 2006, 21). Indeed recorded music has been distributed in a great variety of mediums (Bargfrede, Mak & Feist, 2009, 4). In the 1870s, the cylinder emerged as the first recording technology. Thomas Edison then captured the first recorded human voice in 1877 and was issued a patent for his recording technique that same year. With the proliferation of device manufacturers and music promoters, the record industry began shortly thereafter. Moreover, with the invention of wax cylinders and disks, piracy grew (Cummings, 2010). The sound recording industry felt increasingly threatened by piracy’s spread in the end of the nineteenth century (Cummings,

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

Over the course of the past few centuries, it has been observed that musical performances gradually shifted from royal courts to public halls. In the nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution further accelerated the popularity of musical performances for the general public (Forney, Dell’Antonio & Machlis, 2015). This was because the Industrial Revolution led to an increase in the production of cheaper and superior quality instruments (Forney, Dell’Antonio & Machlis, 2015). This made it possible for the public to enjoy and create music that was previously associated with, and available to, the royals and aristocrats only (Forney, Dell’Antonio & Machlis, 2015). It further led to the music-loving common people to fund musical organizations

In the current time period, musicians have adapted to using modern instruments and reading off their own sheet music. It is straightforward to make a copy of a part for someone, or simple to order a piece offline. Back in the early 15th century, the Squarcialupi Codex was one of the many books that notated early music, a beautiful and vibrant book filled with music and gorgeous ornamental pictures. The margin pictures are not only a work of art, but also a way for people today to get an idea of what brass instruments used to look like.

Copyright law in today’s music industry has become a tangle of litigation, complications, and bitterness. Overly-complex, multi-layered regulations and laws, double to quadruple fees, and arbitrary enforcement have led to a situation where songwriters and artists are hamstrung, the industry is in crisis, and listeners will be the ultimate losers. In the past, there has been a tendency to settle music copyright lawsuits before they go to court, thus keeping the problems from surfacing to the media, until recently. As exemplified by the lawsuit awarding nearly $7.4 million1 to the heirs of Marvin Gaye for copyright infringement of his song, “Got to Give It Up,”2 by Robin Thicke and Williams in their composition “Blurred Lines,”3 this area is fraught with disagreement about its very basis: can government really restrict musicians from using similar chord progressions and beats when there are only so many possibilities available? It is becoming increasingly difficult to sort out rip-offs from mere similarities, and the method of music distribution is changing faster than the law can keep pace. Overall, the area of copyright laws as they pertain to music is a volatile one that deserves consideration and possible revamping if reason, and musical expression, are to prevail.

To provide a clear definition of piracy while supporting his claims with historical evidence to defend music sharing services accused of piracy. He supports this said claim by comparing “piracy” to the act done hundreds of years ago in the situations that derived from Thomas Edison and the phonograph.

It is obvious that if each individual had to protect their own music rights and find all those who infringe upon them, it would be a difficult task to undertake. To facilitate the management of these rights, collecting societies were introduced' Waelde et al. (2013, p. 912). the main collecting society in the country is the Performing Right Society (PRS), which protects composers, music publishers, and songwriters. They manage rights in music and lyrics as well, and they have currently 115,000 members (PRS for Music, no

Guido created a learning tool for the singers to use as a visual reference during their practice times known as the Guidonian Hand. The letter name of the note and syllable were placed on a joint of the singers hand to help with the memory process of a chant, and the visualization of the interval at which the notes were sequenced. Another invention Guido took part of was the beginning to musical notation. He knew he needed a uniform visual reference, that once you have gained the proper knowledge of interpretation, could be used in every church under the rule. Notation prior to Guido's invention was not beneficial to a singer who has not yet heard the chant or melody before. His musical notation included colors, lines, and clefs that specified the size of the intervals and distinct pitch.

This essay will serve as an advocation for the instatement of compulsory licensing practices in regards to sampling in music. I have been intensely interested in the workings of copyright for a couple years, but have only recently sought out avenues to express my thoughts, findings, and ideas for change. I must begin with an admission: I do not believe that anyone can own or monopolize upon an idea. Intellectual property is a fundamental assumption held by copyright law, one which I will hopefully make the reader question and rethink for themselves. Before beginning, I feel it is only fair to those reading that I answer the question: “Why should you care about changing the copyright system?”

In 1950, the international Federal Phonographic Industry, European Broadcasting Union and the International Federation of Musicians represented the three interests. These finally gave birth to the Rome Convention. Copyright is protected in different Articles of the Convention. Just to highlight one of them, Article 7 provides that performers are to be given rights that prevent broadcasters from communicating the information to the public. This is congruent with the ethical requirements of sharing music. It also prevents performance, fixation and reproduction without their consent. These provisions, among others, apply to music recordings and performances in Canada by being a member of the convention. In most cases, we find that ethical expectation in the way music is shared in Canada is also provided in statutes, boards, and treaties. With this, the ethical channels needed in sharing music may not have been expressed by are implied in the underlying legalities (Freeman, 2015). The next section addresses Immanuel Kant’s moral value of intellectual property.

Over centuries past, music has seen leaps and bounds in the enhancement of theory, instruments, and recording arts. The first major leap was the invention of the piano in 1709 by Bartolomeo Cristofori. From that first major step came the introduction of electronic instruments short after the harnessing of electricity which came in the early 19th century. Soon after that came recording and then on to synthesizers and eventually digital recording. As computers were introduced to society, computer music was also brought into our vision. What we are seeing today in the music industry is the use of computers and the Internet to distribute music, whereas in the past, distribution was only available via record, eight track, tape and compact disc.

The provision expresses the rights of the sound maker, i.e. what is not required is implied. The implication is that anybody apart from the marker is prevented by the Act to make reproductions without authority (Craig, 2011, p. 105). On 23rd of June 2015, the rules of regulating sound recordings were modified. The modifications were to the effect that unpublished sound recordings would last for fifty years after fixation. If the sound recordings are published before the copyright expires, the term application is seventy years before its publication or a hundred years from the date of fixation. Consequently, it also extends the copyright for musical performers works contained in the recordings (Craig, 2011, p.226).

Since the consensus on ‘well-made music’ is established according to past ideals and with the intention to maintain them, it is not oriented towards innovation and remains a stagnant model. The cycle continues with the publishing of music: As publishers can influence the works which will be distributed and performed, they can choose to perpetuate the allegedly untouchable ideal as represented, for example, by Giacomo Puccini or Umberto Giordano. Works similar to this ideal could then be selected to be performed, but according to Pratella, they would not surpass ‘mediocrity’ and not cause any innovation. Furthermore, the process of education and recognition requires money, therefore the factors of status, power and privilege cannot be ignored. Through this cycle, only someone who has acquired a musical education, conforms to the institutionalised ideals, and is able to afford their cost can gain recognition as an artist, and eventually become an ‘expert’ in their field.

Music has evolved a lot since when it was only orchestral and vocal, but in the past 100 odd years music has really moved on. It has particularly been shaped by technology as it grew more and more advanced. The most recent years of music have made a turn for, what some people would say, the worse, but most people don’t care about the reasons which I will mention below and can still appreciate the music. This essay is going to cover what technology has done to music and how it has created more freedom for most people when making music.