The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Marco DiLeonardo
Marco DiLeonardo is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying International Relations. In relation to law and society, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) demonstrates how law can be used as a tool for social control, especially in the genre of Remix. Remix consists of sampling, or extracting media from different sources, and mixing them together. [1] By hampering the creation of Remix music, law acts as a tool for social control of up-and-coming DJs and artists. According to popular theorist Donald Black, law’s function is to regulate and constrain the behaviors of individuals in their relationship with one another. [2] In other words, parties and lobbyists can promote specific interests through law. On the other hand, according to sociologists, laws are simply a guide for action, needing interpretation and enforcement. The DMCA prevents the distribution of an artist’s work. While there is no formal law explicitly limiting a work’s dissemination, the legal apprehension and administration of the DMCA prefers music labels and suppresses the creation of Remix work. Copyright law controls the people by hampering the creation of revolutionary music. Through an interpretation of Black’s philosophy, one may postulate that laws governing copyright are designed to limit and suppress unfamiliar musicians for the benefit of popular artists. Artists caught unlawfully remixing music are punished through compensation, a contractual obligation in which the violator owes the victim restitution, typically financial. However, I argue that remixing established music is a “crime without victim.”
0 Comments
 By Marco DiLeonardo
Marco DiLeonardo is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying International Relations. Political issues riddle the United States: the government is ineffective and static. Leading theorist Francis Fukuyama believes in one critical issue of contemporary politics: the theory of “political decay.” To frame this argument, one must view it from the perspective of the framers of the Constitution. In an analysis of various Federalist Papers, I determine that Alexander Hamilton aligns with the argument made by Fukuyama. However, I personally believe in the viewpoint posed by James Madison: while the checks and balances impose restrictions on the legal system, they are necessary for political stability. Another modern interpretation of his argument is that the United States government must effectively regulate lobbying. The first facet in Fukuyama’s argument about political decay is his assertion that American institutions cannot adapt to the contemporary environment. [1] Fukuyama believes that the second source of political decay is due to the formation of interest groups and the radicalization of political parties. Interest groups incessantly lobby Congress on both sides of the aisle attempting to manipulate the system. While legislators are expected to act in accordance with their constituents, they must stray away from compromise to maintain their parties’ support. Third, Fukuyama disputes the theory of “vetocracy,” or the rejection of intergovernmental checks and balances on the three separate institutions of government. In short, the political system does not have effective mechanisms to force collective decisions. Finally and most importantly, Fukuyama believes that political decay is largely due to the concept of the “virtual absence of the state.”  By Marco DiLeonardo
Marco DiLeonardo is a junior a the University of Pennsylvania studying International Relations. The environment encompasses a wealth of natural resources, a seemingly bottomless pit of waste, and a foundation to industries such as tourism. It is cast aside in the modern age of technology and industrialization as a mere inconvenience to a global, interdependent economy. It benefits all, yet the costs are attributed to no individual. Through the large scale manufacturing of the current world order, the environment is in peril due to climate change. This global phenomenon is nearly impossible to address due to the vast, complex, and interdependent markets and polarized differences in opinion on how to approach the issue. Specific countries have no stake or benefit in protecting the environment, only costs. Moreover, there is the concern of violating national sovereignty in international environmental regulation. Finally, there are divergences in the North-South dilemma: the countries in the North tend to be at a more advanced stage of financial and political development, while the Southern hemisphere features fragile, fledgling economies. Since the focal point of environmental pollution is the external effects of producing energy, the only method to combat climate change is through a novel, inexpensive, and clean alternative.  By Marco DiLeonardo
Marco DiLeonardo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying International Relations. Hunger, in my view, is the most important issue plaguing the globe, especially developing countries. On a pragmatic and fundamental level, without food, a person will die. Although global hunger statistics demonstrate an overall decreasing global trend, currently 795 million out of seven billion people starving. [1] While the direction in Asia has improved, the African continent is ever-plagued by increasing levels of malnutrition. Large sums of money and food are contributed daily by developed countries to combat this problem. Aid, however, is insufficient and ultimately not a solution to this crisis. Technological innovations aimed at improving both the quality and nutritional value of food through bioengineering as well as modern agricultural methods to increase production and yield are of paramount importance. Modernizing infrastructure, including basic transportation, is a fundamental prerequisite for this to occur. In the ultimate analysis, nevertheless, none of these objectives can be achieved in the absence of a properly functioning democracy which upholds human rights.  By Marco DiLeonardo
Marco DiLeonardo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying International Relations. The creation of the Internet has revolutionized the music industry. Transitioning from CDs and records to an entirely digital medium, music has become so much more accessible for millions of people around the world in a short time period. However, accessibility comes with many complications in the already intricate and unpredictable realm of copyright. Traditional copyright law is historically not suited to handle this emerging technology and is currently undergoing major changes, and the business models of Apple, Pandora, Spotify, Grooveshark, and SoundCloud are seeing a series of legal consequences. In order for Apple to gather music from different artists to sell on the iTunes, it must acquire the permission of whichever label the artist is apart of. The current arrangement is centered on the agreement that the iTunes Store essentially functions as a retail outlet that sells CDs. Apple purchases the rights to sell songs of a certain label and then transfers a portion of the returns back to the music labels. Apple also possesses a streaming feature. However, iTunes Radio functions differently than the typical iTunes song purchase. Rather than a one-time royalty per purchase, in its first year of operation, 2013, Apple paid the label thirteen cents each time a song is played, and now pays the label fourteen cents.[1] Furthermore, the advertisement revenue is distributed in an agreed upon formula. In the first year of operation, Apple paid fifteen percent of the total, and later increased it to nineteen. Royalties are not taken into account if the user already purchased the file or if the listener skips the song before the twenty second mark. [2]  By Marco DiLeonardo
Marco DiLeonardo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying International Relations. Copyright is necessary to protect producers, consumers, and artists alike in the genre of Remix. Remix, a cultural variable that serves as a discourse between art, music, and media, consists of sampling, or extracting media from different sources, and mixing them together. [1] The genre has resulted in numerous legal debates about copyright. Without a doubt, copyright legislation influences the creative process in artists, especially those involved in Remix. The debate rages on both sides, some arguing for additional copyright protection for artists, and others for limited copyright regulation. In 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to modernize and adapt copyright into the age of technology. [2] The act has instituted different regulations and protections specific to the Internet. Despite the efforts to protect the integrity of artists, this act hinders the potential of undiscovered remix artists. To begin, the DMCA limits the widespread distribution of an artist’s work by defining “fair use.” In the broadest terms, fair use is essentially a legal code to help incorporate previous works into music and other art without having to pay monetary royalties to copyright holders. [3] Previously, fair use allowed consumers to lend a CD or give away a CD after listening to it under the “first sale doctrine.” [4] However, in the age of technology, this has changed. To send a digital copy of an album or CD is copyright infringing. The 1998 DMCA is rampant with these inconsistencies with the rest of copyright law. Besides fair use, the “notice and takedown” method is intrinsically flawed. [5] In theory, the law is supposed to efficiently track and handle the upload of copyrighted materials on different sites. If one notifies the user of his infringement, he should subsequently remove it. In the music industry, this is particularly relevant on YouTube, where users often post the tracks to copyrighted songs. To take these songs down would only limit their circulation. Due to the fact that this provision is largely enforced electronically, the means by which the songs are handled is inconsistent and occasionally faulty. Furthermore, established labels with massive legal teams threaten casual users with lawsuits. These disagreements often result in the back down of the user even if he is protected under fair use in the DMCA. |
|
|
