Katz also examines the realm of digital sampling, but he does so with a keen detective’s eye, looking at the practice from the outside-in.  He uses three case studies to show the main uses and techniques employed with digital sampling.  First of which is a “song” created by Paul Lansky with recordings of human voices speaking random words entitled “Notjustmoreidlechatter.”  The complicated issue of speech and music is addressed through this first instance of sampling and Katz identifies the specifications and implications of either one.  Secondly, he compares two pop songs, Camille Yarbrough’s “Take Yo’ Praise” and Fatboy Slim’s “Praise You,” which uses bits of the former in its creation of the latter.  Finally, he breaks down the numerous sampled bits in Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power.”  Public Enemy’s strong political message coupled with the nature of his samplings creates one of the most powerful sample-ridden songs of contemporary music. 

Katz only does so after first clarifying with the reader what exactly sampling is.  This definition has been found in the majority of the sources, but none went on to detail the legal issues as well as Katz.  He also goes on to explore the question of originality and immorality in terms of remixing and sampling.  Nevertheless, his case studies have proven most useful in determining the full extensions of digital sampling in music and his insight into its effect on music today.  He also lightly touches on the various effects parodies have upon the original work, if any, and acknowledges the complexities within the industry when it comes to approval for such works.  This book could possibly be the best source found thus far, seeing as it is not overly specific in its subject matter, yet it explores enough topics in a reasonable level of detail to be reliable. 

 

Lee Marshall, co-editor of the very first source, "Music and Copyright – Second Edition," authors this work of similar form but on a slightly different subject.  The strictness of copyright law in terms of music is once again revisited but is no longer commented on as either fostering or inhibiting creativity in the industry.  Lee more explicitly lays out the fundamentals of copyright law, especially when it applies to bootlegging and piracy, and he broadens the discussion outside of the United States to international copyright law. 

            Prior to his outline of the bootlegging/piracy portion of the industry, Marshall itemizes the four main copyright issues in music.  The first two he identifies as the copyright of the original work itself: song and lyrics.  Beyond that, he clarifies the issue of copyright of the recording and who often owns the rights to a song produced in a studio.  Lastly, he outlines the details of copyright it terms of the performance and the differing stipulations both in the United States and abroad.  Marshall then asserts that the main concerns over performers’ rights stem from issues regarding bootlegging, and he goes on to explain the complicated laws concerning it. 

            Bootlegging and piracy are two of the main portions of copyright law that are most closely related to, if not directly cited in, cases involving digital sampling.  By referencing Marshall’s comprehensive look at copyright law as it pertains to bootlegging, I can not only ascertain for myself whether or not a particular usage is acceptable or not, but I can also refer to the various case studies employed by Marshall if unsure.  In writing this final essay, Marshall’s detailed work on bootlegging and piracy in terms of copyright law has certainly been a valuable source to cite.

For my topic I plan to explore how pirating has changed with the advancement of music technology and how the music industry has adapted to deal with this on-going problem. I want to demonstrate the arms race that has been occurring between new technologies and the illegal copying or stealing of music sources.

            This is a long essay about corporate power in the music industry. The argument is that cross-ownership in the media tends to reduce competition and increases profits, in turn, forcing music production to become increasingly uniform and profit driven, and harming artistic expression. It has descriptions of corporate sponsorship, and the loss of diversity. The next section is about Clear Channel Communications, and how the consolidation takes away jobs, excludes a large variety of music, and provides listeners with a biased source of information. Next, is the analysis of a recent hit, which examines the predetermined song structure which results in homogenized music and play lists, this is called the sound of corporate music. The conclusion suggests that a number of musicians would prefer to circumvent the bureaucratic systems of the industry, and that in order to preserve the artists ability to express sometimes controversial and diverse views, that musicians and the population at large would prefer legislation that moves away from monopolies.

 

            This article is relevant to my research in finding out why copyright holders are willing to waive some of their copyright in such cases as MP3 blogs, which often involve unauthorized downloading of copyrighted work. In the conclusion of the article, it suggests that a majority of musicians are not so upset about free downloads and many who are independently minded, support distribution systems that are not connected with the industry devotion to profit. Some artists who want to make more controversial material release it for free on the internet. It also suggests that this is a reaction to media consolidation, and provides some argument that more copyright control leads to the growth of monopolies, and the limiting of new technology and expression.