[1] . Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society, 106 Yale L.J. 283, 350 (1996).
[2] . See Nelson George, Hip Hop America 9–10 (1998).
[4] . See William Fisher, Theories of Intellectual Property, in New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property 2 (Stephen Munzer ed., 2001), available at http://cyber.law.Harvard.edu/people/tfisher/iptheory.pdf.
[5] . See Matthew Africa, Comment, The Misuse of Licensing Evidence in Fair Use Analysis: New Technologies, New Markets, and the Courts, 88 Cal. L. Rev. 1145, 1173–75 (2000).
[7] . See Netanel, supra note , at 347–52.
[8] . Henry Self, Comment, Digital Sampling: A Cultural Perspective, 9 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 347, 348–49 (2002).
[13] . George, supra note , at 92.
[14] . See Christopher D. Abramson, Note, Digital Sampling and the Recording Musician: A Proposal for Legislative Protection, 74 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1660, 1666 (1999) (arguing that lower production costs have detrimentally affected studio musicians to a point where legislative protection is necessary).
[15] . See Robert M. Szymanski, Audio Pastiche: Digital Sampling, Intermediate Copying, Fair Use, 3 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 271, 277 (1996). But see Abramson, supra note , at 1668 (stating that "this practice poses the greatest danger to the musical profession because the musician is being replaced with himself").
[16] . See George, supra note , at 92–94.
[18] . Judith Greenberg Finell, How a Musicologist Views Digital Sampling Issues, N.Y. L.J., May 22, 1992, at 5 n.3.
[19] . Jarvis v. A&M Records, 827 F. Supp. 282, 286 (D.N.J. 1993).
[20] . Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 572 n.1 (1994) (quoting The Norton/Grove Concise Encyclopedia of Music 613 (Stanley Sadie ed., 1988)).
[21] . See Billboard Album Charts, Billboard, available at http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/
album_index.jsp (last visited Jan. 15, 2004). Although there are separate listings for R&B/hip-hop and rap tracks, many songs appear on both listings simultaneously because of the blurring between R&B and rap music.
[22] . See George, supra note , at 95, 98–103.
[24] . See The Billboard Hot 100, Billboard, available at http://www.billboard.com/
bb/charts/hot100.jsp (last visited Jan. 15, 2004).
[25] . See Lynette Holloway, Pop’s Strong Single Sales, N.Y. Times, Dec. 30, 2002, at C8. See also Ed Christman, U.S. Music Industry Marks Strong Rebound in Year, Billboard, Jan. 16, 1999, at 85.
[26] . John Leland, Feuding for Profit: Rap’s War of Words, N.Y. Times, Nov. 3, 2002, at A1.
[27] . See Jeff Leeds, The Great White Rapper Hope: Searching for the Next Eminem, Chi. Trib., Nov. 17, 2002, at 14 (noting that record industry surveys have consistently found that approximately seventy-five percent of rap music is purchased by White, Latino, and Asian consumers).
[28] . See Jennifer Ordonez, Bands Without Borders Give Music Labels More Mileage: Record Companies Try to Stretch Proven Acts Across Genres, Wall St. J., Jan. 2, 2002, at A7.
[29] . See, e.g., Mary Lisa Gavenas, Full Court Press for Jay-Z: Hip-Hop Artist to Be Featured in Reebok Ads, Daily News Rec., Dec. 16, 2002, at 26; Maureen Tkacik, The Worlds of Extreme Sports and Hip-Hop Are Hangin’ Together, Wall St. J., Aug. 9, 2001, at B1.
[30] . See, e.g., Christopher Lawton, Roc-a-fella Records Invests in Vodka Brand, Wall St. J., Dec. 30, 2002, at B4. See also Lynette Holloway, Hip-Hop Sales Pop: Pass the Courvoisier and Count the Cash, N.Y. Times, Dec. 2, 2002, at C1.
[31] . See, e.g., Holloway, supra note .
[32] . See Bob Bahr, R.I.P. Rap: Is Rap Dead?, Courier-J., Nov. 29, 2002, at C1 (noting the "bleeding of rap into rock, pop and R&B—which makes the distinctions increasingly blurry" while suggesting the strength of hip-hop music, despite recent sales decreases, which the author and artists suggest are a result of a poor economy).
[33] . See George, supra note , at 93–96.
[34] . See Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 182, 184–85 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
[35] . Companies such as Music Resources, Inc. represent hundreds of hip-hop artists in pursuing clearances from the catalogs of copyright holders. See Music Resources, Inc., Sampling Services, at http://www.musicresources.com (last visited Jan. 15, 2004).
[36] . See, e.g., Grand Upright Music, 780 F. Supp. at 185.
[37] . See also Ronald Gaither, The Chillin’ Effect of Section 506: The Battle over Digital Sampling in Rap Music, 3 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 195, 201–02 (2001).
[38] . See Africa, supra note , at 1174–75.
[39] . See George, supra note , at 95.
[40] . See Gaither, supra note , at 204–05.
[41] . See George, supra note , at 91–93.
[42] . See, e.g., Self, supra note , at 351–52; Garth Alper, Making Sense Out of Postmodern Music?, Popular Music & Soc’y, Winter 2000, at 14.
[43] . See Mary Klages, Postmodernism, University of Colorado at Boulder English Department, at http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html (last modified Apr. 21, 2003).
[46] . As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once explained:
It would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of [a work], outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits. At the one extreme some works of genius would be sure to miss appreciation. Their very novelty would make them repulsive until the public had learned the new language in which their author spoke.
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 251 (1903) (holding that circus posters have copyright protection).
[47] . See, e.g., Gwen Ifill, Clinton Stands by Remark on Rapper, N.Y. Times, June 15, 1992, at A1.
[48] . See Kirk Miller, Beastie Boys on the Attack: First New Song in Years Slams Bush, Rolling Stone, Apr. 3, 2003, at 17.
[49] . See, e.g., Jonathan Gold, Ice-T Raps Himself in First Amendment, L.A. Times, Dec. 3, 1989, at 66.
[51] . Netanel, supra note , at 350.
[52] . Id. See generally Marci A. Hamilton, Art Speech, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 73 (1996) (emphasizing the need for First Amendment jurisprudence to reflect art’s critical role in preserving the balance between the governed and the governing).
[53] . U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
[54] . See 17 U.S.C. § 106 (2003).
[55] . See Donald S. Passman, All You Need to Know About the Music Business 87–88 (4th ed. 2000).
[57] . Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991).
[58] . Jean v. Bug Music, No. 00 Civ. 4022(DC), 2002 WL 287786, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2002).
[59] . See Ringgold v. Black Entm’t Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1997).
[60] . Jean, 2002 WL 2877864, at *4.
[61] . Id. (quoting Durham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 912 (2d Cir. 1980)).
[63] . Id. at *5 (citing Stratchborneo v. ARC Music Corp., 357 F. Supp. 1393, 1405 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)).
[65] . See, e.g., Newton v. Diamond, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 1256–59 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
[66] . See Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 182, 183 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
[70] . See Carl A. Falstrom, Note, Thou Shalt Not Steal: Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and the Future of Digital Sound Sampling in Popular Music, 45 Hastings L.J. 359, 362 (1994).
[71] . Grand Upright Music, 780 F. Supp. at 185.
[74] . See Falstrom, supra note , at 359, 378–79; Randy S. Kravis, Comment, Does a Song by Any Other Name Still Sound as Sweet?: Digital Sampling and Its Copyright Implications, 43 Am. U. L Rev. 231, 266–69 (1993).
[75] . See, e.g., Newton v. Diamond, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 1248–49 (C.D. Cal. 2002); Jarvis v. A&M Records, 827 F. Supp. 282, 291 (D.N.J. 1993).
[76] . See Gaither, supra note , at 204.
[77] . See Jarvis, 827 F. Supp. at 286.
[78] . Defendants in this case are professionally known as the C&C Music Factory.
[79] . Jarvis, 827 F. Supp. at 286.
[83] . Id. at 289 (citing Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03[A][2], at 13–46 (1963)).
[84] . See Jarvis, 827 F. Supp. at 289, 292–93.
[85] . Id. at 291 (citing Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 350 (1991)).
[89] . Williams v. Broadus, No. 99 Civ. 10957 MBM, 2001 WL 984714, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2001).
[93] . See id. See also 17 U.S.C. § 103 (2003) (prohibiting copyright protection for derivative work when preexisting material was used unlawfully).
[94] . Broadus, 2001 WL 984714, at *4–5.
[96] . But see Stephen R. Wilson, Music Sampling Lawsuits: Does Looping Music Samples Defeat the De Minimis Defense?, 1 J. High Tech. L. 179, 193–94 (2002) (arguing that case law has actually expanded copyright protection and that looping is an increasingly risky practice).
[97] . See Broadus, 2001 WL 984714, at *5.
[99] . See Newton v. Diamond, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 1260 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
[101] . Newton has been considered one of the world’s best flutists for the past twenty-one years. See Kendra Hamilton, Cal State Music Professor Sues Rap Group for Copyright Infringement, Black Issues Higher Educ., Oct. 10, 2002.
[102] . Newton, 204 F. Supp. 2d at 1246.
[111] . See id. at 1257 (quoting Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp., 147 F.3d 215, 217 (2d Cir. 1998)).
[116] . Newton v. Diamond, No. 02-55983, 2003 WL 22480006, at *1 (9th Cir. 2003).
[120] . Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432, 434 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that a "taking is considered de minimis only if it is so meager and fragmentary that the average audience would not recognize the appropriation").
[121] . Newton, 2003 WL 22480006, at *3.
[127] . Fisher, supra note , at 2.
[128] . See Passman, supra note , at 306–09.
[129] . See R.H. Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, 3 J.L. & Econ. 1, 1–15 (1960).
[130] . See Charles Moul, Economic Welfare and the Concept of Deadweight Loss, Washington University in St. Louis, at http://wuecon.wustl.edu/~moul/103f02/dwlhandout.pdf (last visited Jan. 15, 2004).
[131] . See Netanel, supra note , at 297–306.
[132] . See Geoff Boucher, A Musician Writes It, a Rapper Borrows It: A Swap or a Theft?, L.A. Times, Sept. 21, 2002, at F1.
[133] . See Newton v. Diamond, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 1258–59 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
[134] . Id. at 1256 (quoting Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp., 147 F.3d 215, 217 (2d Cir. 1998)).
[135] . Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432, 434 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986).
[136] . This recent scholarship is primarily based on a highly influential article in the Yale Law Journal by Neil Weinstock Netanel. See generally Netanel, supra note .
[139] . See id. at 288, 347–48.
[140] . See id. at 288, 348–49.
[141] . See id. at 288, 352–63.
[142] . These public associations include such organizations as newspapers, museums, colleges, and political groups that require the exchange of a rigorous public discourse to exist.
[143] . See Netanel, supra note , at 341–46.
[151] . Newton v. Diamond, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
[152] . The Beastie Boys consistently weigh in on political issues and host the Tibetan Freedom Concert. See Miller, supra note .
[153] . See Fisher, supra note , at 6–8
[154] . See Netanel, supra note , at 354–55.
[155] . Michael Warner, The Letters of the Republic: Publication and the Public Sphere in Eighteenth-Century America 124–25 (1990).
[156] . Netanel, supra note , at 357 (citing U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright in Congress 1789–1904, at 115–16 (T. Solverg ed., 1905) (quoting 1 Sen. J. 125 (1790)). In committee, the Senate also saw the importance of independent political expression, stating that "[l]iterature and [s]cience are essential to the preservation of a free Constitution." Bruce W. Bugbee, Genesis of American Patent and Copyright Law 137 (1967) (quoting 1 Sen. J. 125 (1790); 1 Annals of Cong. 935–36 (Joseph Gales ed., 1790)).
[157] . Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 558 (1985).
[158] . See Pierre N. Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1135 (1990) (stating that "[a]lthough copyright often results in suppression of speech, its underlying objectives parallel those of the first amendment").
[159] . See Lawrence Lessig, The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World 196–99 (2001); Netanel, supra note , at 298.
[160] . See generally Netanel, supra note (discussing the efforts of the courts to restrict transformative uses of protected works).
[162] . See Fisher, supra note , at 34.
[163] . See Netanel, supra note , at 351.
[164] . Mitchell Bros. Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater, 604 F.2d 852, 860 (5th Cir. 1979).
[166] . See 17 U.S.C. § 302(a) (2003) (allowing copyright protection to extend for the life of the author and seventy years after the author’s death).
[169] . See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 571 (1994).
[170] . See id. An analysis of this case was not included in Part III because the focus on the case dealt less with the doctrinal intricacies of copying and more with the fair use defense in the parody context.
[W]hile in the "vast majority of cases, [an injunctive] remedy is justified because most infringements are simple piracy," such cases are "worlds apart from many of those raising reasonable contentions of fair use" where "there may be a strong public interest in the publication of the secondary work [and] the copyright owner’s interest may be adequately protected by an award of damages for whatever infringement is found."
Id. at 578 n.10 (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Abend v. MCA, Inc., 863 F.2d 1465, 1479 (9th Cir. 1988)).
[178] . See generally Note, A New Spin on Music Sampling: A Case for Fair Pay, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 726, 742–43 (1992); Falstrom, supra note , at 380; Kravis, supra note , at 271–75 (discussing possible changes to the Copyright Act to deal with digital sampling).
[179] . See sources cited supra note .
[180] . See 17 U.S.C. § 115(c)(2) (2003).
[183] . See Note, supra note , at 740.
[184] . The language would evaluate this distinction on "the extent to which the behavior of the alleged infringer is transforming, manipulating, and completely recontextualizing an old work in the process of making an expression with new meaning." See supra Part V.C.1.
[185] . See Coase, supra note , at 1–15.
[186] . Fisher, supra note , at 5.
[189] . See, e.g., Teresa Wiltz, The Flute Case That Fell Apart: Ruling on Sampling Has Composers Rattled, Wash. Post, Aug. 22, 2002, at C1.
[190] . Emerson v. Davies, 8 F. Cas. 615, 619 (C.C.D. Mass. 1845) (No. 4,436).
[191]. See, e.g., Jason S. Rooks, Note, Constitutionality of Judicially-Imposed Compulsory Licenses in Copyright Infringement Cases, 3 J. Intell. Prop. L. 255, 270–71 (1995).