This document discusses the evolution of copyright in the music industry, tracing its history from the invention of the printing press to modern laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It highlights key legal cases and developments that shaped copyright protections, emphasizing their significance for artists and the distribution of music. The paper concludes with reflections on the future of copyright as technology and streaming services continue to impact the industry.

1. Williamson 1
Matthew Williamson
MUS345 Music Ethics & Law
Dr. Anthony Merlino
May 8, 2017
Past, Present, and Future History of Copyright
The Music Industry has had many famous cases regarding copyright infringement
from famous bands like the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Vanilla Ice vs. Queen and
David Bowie. Bowie once said in 2002,
The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music
will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I
see absolutely no point in pretending that it’s not going to happen. I’m fully
confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years.
Although Bowie was wrong about copyright no longer existing, the copyright code
has changed significantly over the years for the betterment of the industry. Through
historical evidence developed from my sources this paper will put into perspective
and explain copyright including some of the revisions that have been made. The
past, present, and future of the music industry will be used for my analysis of
copyright. Case law examples will also be used to help argue my position of how the
copyright code has changed the industry.
The time before copyright was the inventing of the printing press by
Johannes Gutenberg in 1436. This then led to the Statute of Anne in 1710 in which it
was decided that the author or creator shall have the sole liberty of printing and
reprinting such books for the term of 14 years with the option of renewal for an

2. Williamson 2
additional 14 years (Copyright.gov). Inventions changed law including Edward
Scott, a Frenchman, who created a new version of an old design in 1853 with the
phonautograph, which was the first sound recording device. Emile Berliner created
the prior design and these inventions changed the recording industry with mass
production of sound. This changed artists payment and before this device a singer
had to sing a song multiple times to determine the number of copies sold, now a
song sung once and sold multiple times. Laws have changed overtime because law
drives the price for intellectual property. The Berne Convention took place in 1886,
which was the first world wide copyright treaty protecting artistic works. The U.S.
became a member of the Berne Convention on March 1, 1989 that is where content
was created specifically by country in which therefore is subject to law where the
publisher and distributor live not the creator.
Before the Copyright Act a huge legal battle, White-Smith Music Publishing
Company vs. Apollo Company took place regarding the protection of the creation of
piano rolls. Sheet music was protected during the time of this case as it was taken to
the Supreme Court in 1908. According to the case, “the actions brought forth
infringed copyright of two musical compositions, published in the form of sheet
music” (Cornell Law). In other words Apollo, the defendant was sued for copyright
infringement. Apollo is “engaged in the sale of piano players and of perforated rolls
of music used in connection therewith” (Cornell Law). The marks on the wax
cylinders cannot be made by eye and they cannot be utilized in any other way
except that of the mechanical parts of the phonograph (Cornell Law). The decision
was made where the “plaintiffs are entitled to copyright in three sheet of music

3. Williamson 3
which means they have the exclusive right of printing or multiplying copies of those
sheets of music including the bars, notes, and other printed words.” The rights were
not infringed on except for the authorization copy of their “sheets of music” (Cornell
Law). As learned in class music boxes do not need copyright and records are
created all at the same time, which does need copyright. Wax cylinders for piano
rolls are perforated sheets of paper, which do not need copyright either because
they are not copies of work.
The Copyright Act of 1909 was signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt
and went into effect on March 4, 1909 (Timeline: Copyright.gov). This is the third
revision of the law that extends the maximum term of protection to 56 years and
loosens the subject matter for copyright protection (Timeline: Copyright.gov). The
provisions of this Act, shall have the exclusive right of the following:
a) To print, reprint, publish, copy, and vend the copyrighted work;
b) To translate the copyrighted work into other languages or dialects, or make
any other version;
c) To deliver or authorize the delivery of the copyrighted work in public for
profit if it be a lecture, sermon, address, or similar production;
d) To perform or represent the copyrighted work publicly if it be a drama or, if
it be a dramatic work and not reproduced in copies for sale;
e) To perform the copyrighted work publicly for profit if it be a musical
composition and for the purpose of public performance for profit.
Section a) demonstrates and explains the exclusive right to print, publish and vend
which is easily understood. Section b) is the exclusive right to translate, dramatize,
arrange and adapt. Section c) is the delivery of lectures and sermons in an
educational sense. Section d) represents dramatic works, or make records, or to
exhibit or perform. Section e) exemplifies to perform music and make arrangement,
setting, or record. Then subsection refers to royalties including failure to pay them

4. Williamson 4
as well as reproduction of music on coin-operated machines usually found in diners,
jukeboxes. These machines shall not be public performances unless a fee is charged
for admission to the establishment.
In the 1909 Copyright Act §5 specifies the application process for registration of
copyrighted works. These classifications include:
a) Books, including composite and cyclopedia works, directories, gazetteers,
and other compilations;
b) Periodicals, including newspapers;
c) Lectures, sermons, addresses, prepared for oral delivery;
d) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions;
e) Musical compositions;
f) Maps;
g) Works of art; models or designs for works of art;
h) Reproductions of a work of art;
i) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;
j) Photographs;
k) Prints and pictorial illustrations:
Provided, nevertheless, That the above specifications shall not be held to limit the
subject-matter of copyright as defined in section four of this Act. §4 is the
securement of protected works, which include all the writings of an author.
These classifications are imperative to the moving forward of the copyright code
to be able to easily and securely collect physically and digitally within the
Library of Congress Archives.
The Copyright Act of 1976 Title I – General Revision of Copyright Law1
discusses §505. Sale of duplicate plates, portions of distribution, exclusive rights,
public domain, and fair use. This amendment takes effect upon enactment of this
1 This appendix contains the Transitional and Supplementary Provisions of the
Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-533, 90 Stat. 2541, that do not amend title 17
of the United States Code.

5. Williamson 5
Act.2 Sec. 103. States that this Act does not provide copyright protection from
any work that enters into public domain before January 1, 1978. §505. Sale of
duplicate plates of Chapter 5 refers to:
505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney’s fees
In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the
recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or
an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may
also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the
costs.
The section above deals with Joint Committee on Printing with duplicate stereotype
or electrotype plates from which a Government publication is printed. An example
of this may be the U.S. Mint and the way to create money for monetary gain in the
country.
Sec. 106. Discusses the Exclusive Rights in copyrighted works otherwise known as
the “Bundle of Rights” which are as follows:
a) To reproduce
b) To prepare derivative works
c) To distribute
d) To perform publicly
e) To display publicly
f) To perform by means of digital audio transmission (Sound Recording
Transmission)
The performance by means of digital audio transmission (f) protects content of the
performers who create the material as well as producers and engineers in the
studios. In this Act to receive a copyright, one needs to first register or publish the
2 The Copyright Act of 1976 was enacted on October 19, 1976.

6. Williamson 6
work. Works created before Jan. 1, 1964 has a total of 28 years as described in the
second paragraph of this paper with 14 years with an optional 14 years additional.
Any works created between Jan. 1, 1964 and Dec. 31, 1977 receives automatic
renewal for a full 95-year term of protection. Furthermore, works created on or
after Jan. 1, 1978 receive life plus an additional 70 years.
U.S. Code Title 17 Chapter 2 § 201 – Ownership of copyright, which states:
1. Initial Ownership. –
Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or
authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright
in the work.
Following the law stated above for ownership of copyright, discussion will now lead
into the derivative right and distribution rights. A derivative work takes an existing
work and adapts it in some way in order to create a new work or a work based upon
one or more preexisting works. There are two requirements to constitute a
derivative work: (1) work must borrow from another work and (2) the work must
recast, transform or adapt the work upon which it was based. These works also
need to be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright in a derivative work
does not affect the copyright in the original work and anyone is free to make
derivative works based on works that are found in public domain.
Fair use is not easily defined within copyright but is broken into two
categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody (Stim 2017). Fair use is a
defense of law not an affirmative right therefor copyright is not considered fair use
unless a judge in court rules as such (Moser). Fair use also ties in with plagiarism as
well as sampling, which will be discussed later in this document. Questions

7. Williamson 7
regarding fair use are decided on a case-by-case basis and needs to have substantial
original material to be considered a new work. In Music Copyright Law, § 107 lists
four factors that need to be considered in evaluating fair use questions:
1) The Purpose and Character of the Use
2) The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
3) The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used
4) The Effect of the Use upon the Potential Market for or Value of the
Copyrighted Work
Infringement can occur when an infringer believes that a copyrighted work is in
public domain. If an infringement is made willfully and for the purpose of
commercial or private gain the infringer may be subject to criminal liability.
Commentary and criticism of a work include for educational benefits, quoting
material or using sources to relay a point. Parody is damaging proprietary
information in a comedic way. An example would be Weird Al Yankovic and his
parody of songs like Michael Jackson’s Beat It, changed to Eat It, which was about
eating exurbanites amount of food. Another major case was 2 Live Crew remix of
Roy Orbison’s song Oh, Pretty Woman from the 1960’s.
President Bill Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of
1998 on Oct. 28. This Act is divided into five titles including Title I, the “WIPO
Copyright (WCT) and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act
(WPPT) of 1998” and Title II, the “Online Copyright Infringement Liability
Limitation Act” to name a few. Title II “creates limitations on the liability of online
service providers.” Title I Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act “requires claims to
copyright to be registered with the Copyright Office before a lawsuit can be initiated
by the copyright owner.” Section 1201 found in Chapter 12 to Title 17 “separates

8. Williamson 8
technological methods into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized
access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying3 of a
copyrighted work” (DMCA). Section 1201 also proscribes devices or services that
fall within any one of the following three categories:
 They are primarily designed or produced to circumvent;
 They have only limited commercially significant purpose or use other
than to circumvent; or
 They are marketed for use in circumventing.
One exception to the entire section is for law enforcement, intelligence and other
governmental activities. This section has also an additional six exceptions, which
are as follows:
1. Nonprofit library
2. Reverse engineering
3. Encryption research
4. Protection of minors
5. Personal privacy
6. Security testing
A case example of copyright infringement that falls under the DMCA and specifically
breaks the “safe harbor” law of 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) is that of Capital Records, LLC v.
Vimeo, LLC. The case opened Nov. 6, 2015 with a decision made this past year on
June 16, 2016. This section limits liability of service providers for infringing
material on websites. Internet service providers are protected from copyright when
users upload infringing material, for example YouTube has a sizeable infringement
problem. According to the decision made in this case file this section of “the DMCA
does apply to pre-1972 sound recordings, which protects service providers” (Justia
3 “Copying” is used in this context as a short-hand for the exercise of any of the
exclusive rights of an author under section 106 of the Copyright Act. Consequently, a
technological measure that prevents unauthorized distribution or public
performance of a work would fall in this second category.

9. Williamson 9
Law). Overall, the district court rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument and ruled in
Vimeo’s favor on the doctrine of willful blindness. Also the court’s verdict in this
case will be used to look back upon in future case law of similar disputes.
A few important terms not previously discussed, to know the definitions of
include music plagiarism or piracy, and sampling. Music piracy is the copying and
downloading of music illegally on any platform (Science Direct). Piracy has been a
constant problem throughout the ages in most young people. Many factors play a
pivotal role in piracy including peer pressure, streaming, and not strict policing. A
case law example of piracy is Napster during the late 1990’s, early 2000’s. Music
sampling is the other major issue within the music industry. Defined as the digital
copying of a minute portion of another copyrighted song. Sampling may include a
few seconds of a song or small “riffs” or a collection of accompanied chords
(Washington State University). The well-known case regarding sampling is Vanilla
Ice vs. Queen and David Bowie songs Ice Ice Baby and Under Pressure. Vanilla Ice
insisted that it was considered parody of fair use because he added a beat between
notes (Rolling Stone). The case was settled out of court with a large sum of money
paid to Queen and Bowie. All members received songwriting credit on the track.
The next rising issue to discuss is present and future copyright cases that
may occur. First is Sam Hunt and Justin Bieber’s new songs Body Like A Back Road
and Love Yourself. They both have similar chord progressions and melodies, which
may cause controversy in an upcoming legal battle. This type of infringement can
coincide with music sampling and piracy as previously discussed. When committing
music piracy it is the stealing of musician’s income on hard work and content they

10. Williamson 10
wish to publish. This makes artist income nearly impossible when albums or songs
are leaked to the public without means of purchase because the artist forfeits their
right to receive any compensation. A present-day issue is how fast content is
received as the supplier releases new media everyday and makes for the consumer
hard to keep up with new trends of the industry.
The distinct reason we need copyright is to have rules governing who owns
and who can exert control over intangible as well as tangible creations. The
justifications for copyright are privacy, control, and economical. The U.S. Copyright
Office has a strategic plan for 2016-2020, which represents six major goals covering
technology, services, staffing, and administrative practice (Copyright.gov). This is
extremely important to help with the moving forward of copyright within the
industry.
The future holds a lot of potential changes within copyright with the every
change in technology and constant trend movements. I believe live streaming
including Spotify and Pandora will be more controlled with stricter regulations
along with which artist’s agree to want to make royalties off of streaming.
Streaming is not where the money is in the industry because the royalties are so
small. Over the last 100 years the way to make money was by selling and
distributing physical CD’s. The change of technology in the future may go fully
digital with the start being prerecorded drum kits and synthesizers which could
technically be sampling because you could find almost any chord or arrangement for
a backing to a track. This can also be a type of sampling in a sense for the recording
industry. The question I pose is how musicians will make money if music goes all

11. Williamson 11
digital, online, and via streaming services? The Library of Congress does holy
physical and digital copies of all songs so they would not be lost over time but by
going fully digital it may take away or raise prices for live entertainment shows. It is
becoming more common to sit at home and watch a live concert in your living room
with surround sound. A true concertgoer wants the full experience of being there in
person but for someone who does not like a crowd being at home is the next best
thing. The first step in the right direction is to reform copyright and to continue
with edits and new stipulations. In the next decade to a century I do see copyright
changing in a way to better then industry or totally tear apart certain aspects of the
entertainment industry to make a better profit margin for big name buyers. Music is
constantly flowing through new artists and bands that will make huge impacts in
technology. There may be a point in the future where music is streamed straight to
one’s brain and a live concert is telepathically planted in sight of your eyes and
understood into one’s brain. But before that one must go through the changing
trends to develop knowledge within the industry. As long as music continues to be
created, played, and performed there will always be copyright and around the
corner a brand new case with someone attempting to get away with breaking the
law.

12. Williamson 12
Work Cited
Boria, Karla, et al. “The Effect of Music Streaming Services on Music Piracy among
College Students.” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 45, Apr. 2015, pp. 69-
7;6. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.088.
Bowie, David. "Copyright Quotes." BrainyQuote. N.p. 2002. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.
<https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/copyright.html>.
"The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about
music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop
it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it’s not going to happen. I’m
fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years."
"Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC." Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center.
Stanford University Libraries, 16 June 2016. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.
<http://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/capitol-records-llc-v-vimeo-llc/>.
"Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, No. 14-1048 (2d Cir. 2016)." Justia Law.
N.p., 16 June 2016. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.
<http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/14-1048/14-
1048-2016-06-16.html>.
Copyright Law of the United States. Washington: Library of Congress, 1973. Web. 20
Mar. 2017. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf

13. Williamson 13
"Music & Copyright | University Communications | Washington State University."
University Communications. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.
<https://ucomm.wsu.edu/music-copyright/>.
Moser, David J. and Cheryl Slay. Music Copyright Law. [Electronic Resource]. Boston,
Massachusetts: Course Technology, Cengage Learning, 2012. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat04927a&AN=alc.27493
6&site=eds-live.
Raustiala, Kal, and Christopher Jon Sprigman. "Love Cover Songs? Thank This
Terrible Supreme Court Decision About Player Pianos." Slate Magazine. N.p.,
12 May 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2017.
<http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/history_of_innovation/2014/0
5/white_smith_music_case_a_terrible_1908_supreme_court_decision_on_play
er.html>.
Runtagh, Jordan. "Songs on Trial: 10 Landmark Music Copyright Cases." Rolling
Stone. 08 June 2016. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.
<http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/songs-on-trial-10-landmark-
music-copyright-cases-20160608/robin-thicke-vs-marvin-gaye-2014-
20160608>.
Stim, Richard. "What Is Fair Use?" Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center.
N.p., 11 Apr. 2017. Web. 1 May 2017.
<http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/>.

14. Williamson 14
“Timeline U.S. Copyright Office.” Copyright. Library of Congress. Web. 26 Apr. 2017.
<https://www.copyright.gov/timeline/>.
"WHITE-SMITH MUSIC PUBLISHING COMPANY, Appt., v. APOLLO COMPANY." LII /
Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2017.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/209/1>.
"White-Smith Music Publishing Company V. Apollo Company." Digital Law
Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. <http://digital-law-
online.info/cases/209US1.htm>.
DMCA 1998 https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
1909 Copyright Act https://www.copyright.gov/history/1909act.pdf
Copyright Act of 1976 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appa.pdf
Digital Performing Right in Sound Recording Act of 1995
https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl104-39.html