Law on the Row

New Wine in Old Wine Skins

Barry Neil Shrum, Esq. — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 03:28:35 +0000

People don’t pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the wine will make the skins burst,
and both the wine and the skins will be ruined. -Mark 2:22

Article 1, Section 8,Clause 8 of the United States Constitution is the starting point for any discussion of intellectual property, and in this specific case copyright. In it, our Forefathers gave Congress the right to establish a monopoly in favor of authors and inventors for the fruits of their labor. The merits and justification for granting this monopoly was apparently the subject of considerable debate amongst the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Charles Pinckney, not to mention the remaining representatives to the Constitutional Convention, who spent a week long session in August 1787 discussing various proposals enumerating the powers of Congress.

Jefferson was, perhaps, one of the staunchest proponents of limiting governmental monopolies in all respects, but in particular with regard to restricting the use of original thought. In his indubitably prosaic way, Jefferson said "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea. . . . [S]he made them . . . incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.” In conclusion, Jefferson opined that “Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

These concerns about granting rights of property to intellectual property, as expressed by Jefferson, were actually addressed by Charles Pinckney in his proposal. His proposed clause, “to secure to authors exclusive rights for a limited time, added the infamous phrase to other proposals drafted by Madison. It was combination of their drafts that were used by the Committee of Detail to draft the final clause, which included the “for a limited time” phraseology that has been the subject of debate in recent years.

Under this authority, Congress has, through the years, established certain limitations on the monopoly of copyright. Beginning with the first U.S. copyright law of 1790, wherein authors were given a 14 year monopoly, plus the option to extend the monopoly for a second 14 year term, to the present construct wherein authors are given a monopoly for the duration of their life, plus an additional seventy years in which their families and/or heirs can exercise the monopoly.

In addition to the time limitation, and in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, Congress also imposes other limitations on the monopoly of copyright. For example, originally the copyright monopoly on applied to “useful knowledge” produced by society, that is primarily writings. This limitation evolved of the years into what we now understand as the definition of a copyright, i.e., an original idea expressed in a tangible format for more than a transitory duration. Other limitations such as the first sale doctrine and fair use are not pertinent to the point here, but also serve as limitations on creators’ rights.

Throughout history, these limitations on the monopoly of copyright have, for the most part, served to create a very delicate balance between the need, perceived by our Forefathers, to incentivize authors and inventors to populate the marketplace of ideas on the one hand, against the utilitarian goal of providing a free exchange of those ideas for the good of society. This creates the public domain concept of copyright law.

So it is, then, that the proprietary nature of an original idea is based on expression of that idea in a manner than can be controlled, i.e., a tangible format, again addressing the concern of Jefferson that an idea may be exclusively possessed as long as a person keeps it in their head, but “the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone. . . every other possesses the whole of it.” The resulting corollary of this is that the ideas themselves, absent expression, as well as the facts about the phenomena of the world, are considered to be the collective knowledge, or property, of humanity. Therefore, so far in history, what I call the continuum of knowledge has been made up of these unexpressed ideas together with the works that have fallen into the public domain.

This continuum of knowledge was envisioned by our Forefathers for the greater good of society and is the reason that, for example, tangible expressions of one of Claude Monet’s favorite subjects, the Saint-George cathedral in Venice, are theoretically entitled to copyright protection at the same time as the later paintings of François Salvat conveying expressions of the same subject. Once the painters’ expression of the idea that is the Saint George cathedral is transformed onto canvas, he is entitled to enforce the monopoly of copyright. Conversely, the mere idea or fact that is the cathedral is never the subject of individual property protection by the painter.

Stated another way, the law by necessity is focused on the embodiment of the idea, as opposed to the idea itself or, to use a biblical reference, it focuses on the wine skins more than the wine as a means of control. This conflation of the expressed idea – described by the Supreme Court as “evanescent” – and the physical embodiment creates more misunderstanding regarding the concept of copyright than perhaps any other. In our advanced age of digitization, it is now more important than ever for us to remember the distinction between the two elements.

The best illustration of this conflation is perhaps the area of musical works. For purposes of this discussion, we will ignore, for the moment, that there is a separate copyright for sound recordings of musical compositions and focus primarily on the latter. In the early 1900′s, vinyl records became the embodiment of choice for musical compositions. In the 60′s, it was the 8-track tape and in the 70′s it was the analog cassette. In the 80′s, as digital technology advanced, we used the compact disc and digital audio tape, which ultimately led to the mp3 format in the 90′s and afterward. Once digitization became possible, all tangible expressions we subjected to the process and it became possible to make flawless copies of the “wine” that was paintings, photographs, text, music, graphics, video, sound recordings, and cartoons.

John Perry Barlow, ex-Grateful Dead lyricist turned founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, describes this phenomenon:

Now, as information enters cyberspace . . . these [wine] bottles are vanishing. With the advent of digitization, it is now possible to replace all previous information storage forms with one metabottle: complex and highly liquid patterns of ones and zeros.

From the moment of digitization forward, the fusion of the expressed idea and the embodiment was “rent asunder,” changing forever more how we perceived copyright. Tangible expressions, once embodied in pigments, paper, strips of celluloid, discs of vinyl or plastic, and tape, now existed as glowing impulses of voltage conveyed in zeros and ones, flitting around the Internet at the speed of light. The expressions, in other words, are now closer to pure thought than our Forefathers, perhaps, ever dreamed possible. Digital technology thus threatens to disturb the delicate balance they intended to establish in their creation of a copyright monopoly. The truly “evanescent” nature of a digital copyright monopoly makes it extremely difficult to fit into the “old skin” that is “an original idea expressed in a tangible format for more than transitory duration.”

The “RAM Fixation” cases that arose in the late 90′s – the seminal case being MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, illustrate the imbalance precisely, as the courts struggled to determine whether a cached copy of a copyrighted work that existed in the random access memory of a computer for no more than a second was sufficient “fixed in a tangible format” for more than a “transitory time,” thus warranting protection under copyright law. The 9th Circuit in MAI Systems ruled that it was sufficient, but other courts, like the 2nd Circuit in Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings, found otherwise, ruling that the copy was “fleeting” and therefore not “embodied . . . for a period of more than a transitory duration. . . .” The Supreme Court has yet to rule on this issue.

Once the veil was rent asunder, trying to enforce a copyright monopoly was somewhat akin to trying to sweep back the ocean with a broom. Beginning with its efforts against Diamond Multimedia in the late 90′s and its efforts against Napster and Grokster, and continuing through to the present through it efforts against more than 17,000 individual downloaders, the track record of the Record Industry Association of America in its fight against illegal downloading is the perfect example of this fruitless effort. Rather than adapt and transform our concepts of copyright – the wine skin – to conform with the new wine – digitization of art – the music industry continued to cling to the status quo, a hand forced in part by decades of doing business under the old model.

What does this conundrum mean for copyright law and the efficacy of a monopoly in the fruits of our creative labor? Before answering that question, and lest we forget, new technologies have always created challenges to Constitutional law. If we view our founding document as a living, breathing document that was created to adapt to such challenges, it may help address the current challenge.

This is not the first time in history that a new technology has challenged an existing way of thinking. Even in the music industry, the introduction of the “talking machine,” a/k/a the phonorecord player, created such a stir that John Philip Sousa testified before Congress that the invention would “ruin the artistic development of music in this country” because our vocal chords would no longer be used and therefore vanish as a result of evolution! What seems like an extreme position now is only perceived as such through the lenses of hindsight. Congress responded to Sousa’s and the industry’s concerns, as it often does, by revising the copyright law to address new technologies.

In responding to the new technologies of our generation, we must keep in mind the primary objectives of Jefferson and others in the creation of a copyright monopoly in order to adequately address the issues – they wanted to assure the widespread distribution of ideas for the benefit of society by giving the creators of ideas a monopoly. They were dedicated to encouraging the dissemination of mental creations throughout the New World where they could be used, entering the mind of others – the continuum of knowledge – by assuring their creators that they would be compensated for the value of such dissemination. Once certain limits had been reached, the protected ideas would enter the market place of ideas, the continuum of knowledge, and become freely available to the public for use in the creation of new ideas.

The problem with many solutions being proposed by advocates of copyright, as well as those who would have us do away with the concept, is that they ignore the delicate balance by focusing on one aspect of that principal while ignoring the other. Just because we can now “unclothe” the idea, stripping away its tangible, physical embodiment, does not eliminate the system of confinement, i.e. the copyright monopoly, envisioned by the Forefathers. Jefferson clearly grabbled with the concept that an idea was “incapable of confinement,” but nevertheless clearly chose to participate in the creation of a system that would, in fact, confine the very thing that was incapable of confinement. So, even though the creations of authors and inventors now, more than ever, more closely resemble a mere idea, using the tools given to us by our Forefathers, our society can still adapt our system that offers incentives to those authors and inventors for the dissemination of the fruits of their labors.

Through new technologies and interpretations, we can develop “virtual bottles” to store our new wine, bottles which replace the old physical, less evanescent wine skins of embodiment. Since laws on meant to reflect public opinion, perhaps in the end the future of the copyright monopoly may depend more on perceptions than it does on restrictive regulations.

Jay Who releases single “Round N Round” featuring legend Afro Rican

Barry Neil Shrum, Esq. — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:07:23 +0000

My longtime client and good friend, Jay Leopardi, professionally known as “Jay Who,” has been back in the studio after being absent for many years. He is cranking out some trend-shattering music, including the track mentioned in the title, “Round N Round,” released today on iTunes.

Round N Round features Afro Rican, a now legendary hip-hop group that established the “Miami Bass” of Southern Florida in the 80’s with their ‘87 hit Give it all you got. Jay collaborated with Derrick Rahming of the group to write and produce some of the track on his upcoming album.

Jay has been performing, writing, and producing since the age of thirteen. This continued through his teen years as he worked with another famous figure in the hip-hop community, Danny D. Jay secured a national recording deal at the age of 17 and reached a national level of success, again around the sounds of the South Miami movement.

I first met Jay in the 90’s and early 2000’s when he formed his own record label, Scion Music, a mark that was later acquired by Toyota. Jay has many talents, and soon found an opportunity to use his skills at marketing by acquiring the Hollywood branding agency, Who’s BIg? That agency handles a number of large accounts, including Cedric the Entertainment and Blair Underwood, among others, as well as corporate accounts such as Kia, Chevrolet and WB Music.

The single can be purchased through iTunes, as well as directly on Jay’s website. The song is gen3erating some nice responses and already has achieved widespread acclaim. Check it out for yourself.

SOPA and PROTECT IP: Is the Sky Falling on the Internet?

Barry Neil Shrum, Esq. — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 22:01:03 +0000

By Amber Rose and Barry Shrum

If you’ve cruised the net or checked out your local news any time within the last few months, chances are you’ve heard rumors currently sweeping the United States about two pieces of proposed legislation : H.R. 3261 entitled the Stop Online Piracy Act (“SOPA”) and S. 968 entitled the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (“Protect IP”).

Senator Patrick Leahy sponsored the Protect IP Act, proposing it to the full Senate on May 12, 2011. SOPA is the House of Representatives’ equivalent. The government is promoting these acts as a way to decrease online piracy, something that is costs the creative industries millions of dollars each year. The Record Industry Association of America, representing the music sector, has estimated that global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year, 71,000+ lost U.S. jobs, $2.7 billion in wage earnings, $422 million in lost tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes. Even these calculations create volumes of debate among the Internet blogosphere as to their methodology and accuracy. Most every credible source, however, agrees that piracy causes significant economic loss to the creative community.

After years of fighting the piracy in courts, most website that make infringing materials available have moved their operations offshore in jurisdictions where the long arm of the law does not reach. The Protect IP Act addresses this jurisdictional problem by giving the government the ability to established a list of “rogue websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods ” and then proceed to curb access to these websites by literally squeezing their revenue streams: VISA, MASTERCARD and various ISPs. Protect IP has a heavy focus on those websites located outside the United States.

Leahy based the Protect IP Act on a bill he previously proposed called Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). This bill failed to receive a full vote in the Senator mainly due to Democratic Senator Ron Wyden who put a hold on the legislation, claiming using COICA was “…almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb when what you really need is a precision-guided missile.” Wyden felt the damage done by COICA would cost “…American innovation, American jobs, and a secure Internet.”

SOPA goes further than Protect IP by also providing a private right of action on the part of copyright owners, giving individuals and corporation with a stake the ability to appeal to the government for relief. If enacted, SOPA would lead individuals being able to barring online advertising networks, PayPal, and other payment companies from doing business with the infringing or “rogue” website. It would also prohibit search engines such as Google and Yahoo from linking to these sites while also requiring Internet service providers to block access to such websites. This legislation would make “unauthorized streaming of copyrighted media” a felony.

Opponents, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argue that this would create situations where websites such as YouTube and Tumblr might be deemed “illegal,” in direct violation of Federal law. There is no end to the drama that has been created, including use of such words as “censorship” and such “Chicken Little” mantras as “the Internet as we know it may come to an end.”

While these bills certainly have many who oppose them, including Google, there are some powerful supporters of the bill, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, as well as large online retailers such as L’Oreal and the NBA. David Israelite, President and CEO of the National Music Publishers’ Association believes that SOPA is just what America needs. According to Israelite “…[d]igital revenue streams are key components of our industry’s future” and though we are making progress it is threatened by “criminal activity” that takes place on websites based outside of the United States. Infringing sites typically experience enormous traffic and thus are making millions off of ad revenues. Israelite feels U.S. manufacturers are struggling to compete, as does the U.S. Chamber.

While SOPA and the Protect IP Act are a bit different from COICA, they are still built around the same concept of restricting revenue flow. At first glance the bills seems to be a source of relief for the industry, but upon closer examination, it appears that such relief may come at a high cost. These are difficult issues that are not easy to decide. On the one hand, copyright, trademark and patent owners indeed deserve the right to be able to monetize their intellectual properties, a right established by our Forefathers in the U.S. Constitution at Article 1, Section 8 Clause 8. Jefferson and Madison had many debates about balancing that government-granted monopoly against the free exchange of information they desired to establish in a “marketplace of ideas.” This leads to the other hand, which is that censorship of ideas was what our Forefathers were trying to guard against by establishing the “for limited times” language of the Constitution, which thrust a work into the public domain for all to use. Now that the U.S. duration of copyright exceeds four generations (Life +70), the idea of potential government censorship of website should cause us greater concern.

The one thing I haven’t seen from either side is a solution that protects the interests of the copyright owners as well as the interests of the public in accessing information. Perhaps if the definition of “rogue websites” were more specifically defined, and there was some form of judicial oversight involved, where due process could enter the equation, the legislation would be more palatable. Either way, if you are in the creative industries, this is legislation you should examine and about which you should talk to your representatives. It is important to exercise your right to be a part of this process. Neither the Senate nor the house has taken a vote on the legislation.

Your House representatives can be found at the House’s Directory and the Senates Directory. Texts of both bills can be found at the Library of Congress’ website, at http://thomas.loc.gov, or click below:

S. 968: Protect IP

HR 3261: SOPA

Additional References:
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/legal-and-management/protect-ip-sopa-bills-seek-to-protect-digital-1005621352.story

http://www.forbes.com/sites/garyshapiro/2011/12/07/save-the-internet-take-action-against-sopa/

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/legal-and-management/sopa-protect-ip-acts-fuels-the-fire-of-disgruntled-1005633152.story

Amber Rose is enrolled as a student at Belmont University’s Mike Curb School of Music Business in Nashville, Tennessee. She is currently studying copyright under Professor Shrum.

The Truth Shall Set Us Free: Copyrights in Biblical Translations

Barry Neil Shrum, Esq. — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 02:43:07 +0000

By Bennett L. McMordie, ed. by Barry Neil Shrum

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. . . . [F]or the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

Romans 13:1-7 (ESV)

It is perhaps an irony that my use of Paul’s words concerning the respect owed to the authority of government may, in fact, be an infringement of a particular government’s copyright!

More to the point, is the fact I quoted these verses from the English Standard Version of the Bible copyright infringement? One would think not, as the original disparate writers of the assembled Hebrew and Greek texts that make up our modern Scripture have been deceased for centuries now, and their individual works were created long before any type of copyright protection was ever imagined, must less applicable. In fact, the first copyright statute, the Statute of Anne, would not be passed by Parliament until 1709, while the earliest extant fragments of any type of scripture are fragments containing Hebrew texts which date back to the 2^nd century BCE.

The myriad translations of the Bible that are around today — over 400 English translations have been created over time, including popular versions such as the New International Version, the Good News Translation, the New American Standard Version, The Message — are registered by their respective publishers as copyrights in the United States.

So, if a preacher quotes scripture aloud in church, or reprints a couple of inspirational verses in his weekly newsletter, is the minister committing willful copyright infringement? Fortunately, he is not, but only by virtue of licensing. While most all translations of the Bible are copyrighted, their publishers allow people to copy them freely, howbeit with certain limitations. For example, the publishers of the New American Standard version allow a person to copy as much as 500 verses without prior written, so long as the total amount copied is less than 25% of the total new work created. Other publishers take a similar approach, allowing a person to publish 1,000 verses totaling less than 50% of the work. The rationale behind this policy is that it allows the public to use the Bible freely while preventing blatant reproduction of the entire text.

Perhaps one of the more intriguing examples of a protected version of the Scriptures the most popular version of the Bible, the King James Version, which is still protected by copyright law despite the fact that it was published over 400 years ago.

The rights to the KJV, initially published in 1611, are still owned by the English monarchy, under their so-called “Crown Copyright” laws. The Copyright Act 1911 provided specific protection for government works prepared or published by or under the direction or control of the Monarch or of any Government department, specifically including the KJV.

Now, lest there be a revolution, there’s no need to get your “knickers in a wad” if you’re a non-Brit: the King James Version is in the public domain everywhere else in the world. Still, the concept of a government holding copyrights indefinitely can feel a little strange, especially if you’re from the U.S., where Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 limits the grant of a copyright for “a limited time.” Unlike England where copyright concepts are based on natural rights, U.S. laws are based upon the utilitarian principle that incentivizing creative endeavors for a limited time and then passing them into the public domain sustains society’s interest in a fluid marketplace of ideas.

But in England, only two publishers possess the rights to print the King James Bible: the Queen’s Printer (now the Oxford University Press) and the Scottish Bible Board; all others must receive a letter patent from the Crown to legally print the KJV .

Should governments be allowed to hold copyrights?

Ownership of copyright by a government entity begs a larger question: shouldn’t works that were created for the public, using the people’s tax dollars, be available for public copying and use? This is certainly the case in the U.S., where §105 of the 1976 Act prohibits ownership of “any work of the United States Government,” which is defined in §101 as “a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties.” The effect of section 105 is intended to place all works of the United States Government, published or unpublished, in the public domain.

This prohibition only applies to works created by the U.S. on its own soil, and does not apply to works created in foreign countries, as most governments are entitled to copyright protections in their works. Thus, it would be unfair not to allow protection for U.S. works in that situation. Currently in Great Britain, works that are commissioned by the government are protected for 125 years from creation, or 50 years after publishing.

The KJV states: “and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32). Now that the truth is known, shouldn’t the King James Bible be free to the descendants of King James?

Bennett McMordie is currently a student in Mr. Shrum’s Copyright Law class at Belmont University in Nashville, TN, where he is earning a degree in Music Business. He loves all things music, most things business, and also enjoys playing bass for the CJ Solar Band.

Exile featured on pilot episode of new GAC program

Barry Neil Shrum, Esq. — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 21:07:49 +0000

My good friend and client Sonny LeMaire, lead member of the late seventies-sensation band, EXILE, will be featured on a new on Great American Country called Hit Exchange.

The pilot episode features Trace Adkins discussing his fondness of the song “Kiss You All Over,” which climbed all the way to #1 on the charts in 1978, the year I graduated! The original version featured the late Jimmy Stokley on lead vocals. In his book, A Personal Stand, Trace Adkins commented on the song:

In the late 1970’s, a few pop and rock bands went country – like Exile, that band from Kentucky. I like them a lot. I remember when “Kiss You All Over” went to number one in 1978. They sang in gospel harmonies and eventually drifted over to country.

In the first episode of Hit Exchange, which will premiere on GAC on December 15th at 8 p.m., Adkins will further discuss how the song influenced him, and expand on his respect for Exile. Trace and Exile recently went back into the studio to re-record the famous hit together. The show will feature footage of the recording session, together with individual interviews with the members of their band and their support team (I think my invitation go lost in the mail!). Finally, the show will feature a live performance of “Kiss You All Over” shot in Las Vegas with Trace joining Exile onstage!

Earlier this year, Exile was also feature on the Opry at the Ryman with Trace Adkins. Glad to see the band getting some well-deserved respect!

Regulations related to Cyberspace

Barry Neil Shrum, Esq. — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:17:43 +0000

Since it was commercialized in 1995, the Internet, particularly the World Wide Web, has spawned many Federal laws to regulated activities conducted in Cyberspace. I developed the following presentation for my Cyberlaw class at Belmont University’s Mike Curb School of Music Business:

Steve Jobs: in memoriam obsequium.

Barry Neil Shrum, Esq. — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:36:16 +0000

STEVEN PAUL JOBS

February 24, 1955-October 5, 2011

“Steve was among the greatest of American innovators – brave enough to think differently, bold enough to believe he could change the world, and talented enough to do it.”

– President Barack Obama, October 5, 2011.

You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.

[T]he only way to be truly satisfied is to do great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don’t settle.”

Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent.

[Stanford Commencement Address, 2005]

"My model for business is The Beatles.There were four guys who kept each others, kind of, negative tendencies in check. They balanced each other, and the total was greater than the sum of the parts. And that’s how I see business. You know, great things in business are never done by one person. They’re done by a team of people.

["60 Minutes" interview, 2003]

“That’s been one of my mantras — focus and simplicity. Simple can be harder than complex: You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple. But it’s worth it in the end because once you get there, you can move mountains.”

[BusinessWeek, May 25, 1998]

In my mind, Steve jobs was one of the most original thinkers of our time. When I teach copyright law at Belmont University in Nashville, one of the first lectures I deliver to my students regards the origins of an idea, that sliver of creativity that some lucky few of the human race get to reach up and grab, an original idea. Some philosophers and thinkers would have us believe that there is no such thing as an original idea, that everything had a predecessor. Even Solomon is quoted as saying that “there is nothing new under the sun.” Any truth in that philosophy is obliterated by the life of a man like Steve Jobs. -Barry Neil Shrum, Esquire

Siri-ously Apple? Sad News for Applebots Everywhere.

Barry Neil Shrum, Esq. — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:39:17 +0000

Let me preface this post by stating unequivocally that I own both the original iPhone 4 and the iPad2, and I recently purchased both a Macbook Pro and Air for my son and wife respectively, so I am not by all counts an anti-Appleit, although I still use an Intel-based desktop machine at work, where I do most of my serious work.

But seriously, Apple, do you really think this new product release was a good idea? How long have rabid Apple fans been waiting for yesterday’s announcement from the marketing saavy technology gurus that you have taught us you are? Millions of faithful minions waited in anticipation, with bated breath, scouring the blogs for any leaked news of the brand spanking new “iPhone 5”: rumors of sleek new teardrop designs and a larger edge to edge screen with higher resolution circulated around the blogosphere for months. There we photos of cases from manufacturers showing a larger body design. There we photographs of mockups of the new “iPhone 5.” There were SKU’s from Best Buy and Amazon showing the new pricing structures. None of these stories or photographs were leaked accidentally on purpose, I’m sure.

So what was the reward for the patience of the inquisitive Apple fans?: an incremental hardware update that merely catches up to the technology Android phones have had for many months now, together with an AI-based voice-recognition software technology purchased from the third party upstart Siri! Not even enough to really get the full treatment of Tim Cook – responsibility for discussing the new phone fell to a SVP!

You would think that this seemingly obvious faux pas would put some serious doubt in minds of the Apple zealots who have sworn their blind allegiance to the house that Jobs built (Applebots,as I like to call them)? But even as Apple’s stock declines in response to the announcement – Wall Street was not fooled – I’m sure millions of these Applebots will march happily into the squeaky-clean Apple Stores to purchase this pitiful excuse for an actual upgrade.

So what exactly are the specifications of this new iPhone? It is the iPhone 4 with an upgraded duo-core processor and an 8 megapixel camera (with “improved optics”). That’s it. Nothing earth shattering right? Nothing, as I said, that Android phones haven’t had for many months now. There were at least four Android phones in the U.S. marketplace that had these specifications six month ago. Oh yes – lest I forget – the new iPhone 4s boasts an “improved” operating system – iOS 5 – that “introduces” Siri – an artificial intelligence-based software it purchased just a few months after the upstart company of the same name released the iPhone version of the application!

I don’t know about you, but I tried Siri on an iPhone 3s many moons ago and quickly deleted it from my apps for lack of interests. Still, it’s different Apple says, because we’ve integrated into the OS. Many pundits – not paid I’m sure – are calling Siri a revolutionary product: a “most exciting” artificially intelligent personal assistant app built into the operating system. One blogger even dared to credit Apple with a “mind blowing” prophecy of the advent of this kind of interactive voice/touch technology back in the 80’s with the release of a video called “Knowledge Navigator” (see this Techcrunch post by Rip Empson). Another blogger describes the software release as a “world-changing event.” Is it now? Let’s explore that assumption:

Siri started operations over four years ago, in December 2007. It didn’t receive serious VC capitalization until late 2008 – though that’s not bad for an upstart. The application was released without much fanfare and, as I said, had less than stellar performance as an app. Nonetheless, Apple acquired the company in late 2010, in the midst of the growing rumor grist about the iPhone 5’s impending release in June 2011 (Apple’s old release schedule).

So, my question to the bloggers who acclaim the amazing merits of Siri is this: If Apple had the vision of this kind of application when it built the prototypical “Knowledge Navigator” in the late 80’s, why wasn’t it incorporated into their early devices (read, failures?) such as the Apple Newton? Better yet, why wasn’t something similar incorporated into earlier versions of the iPhone? Ah, you might argue, the technology hadn’t been invented yet. This is new stuff from the minds of Apple. They ad the prophetic foresight to recognize the merits of Siri and purchase the product.

Not so fast. If we are going to bestow the moniker of to prophet on anyone with regard to the oracle of artificial intelligence, let’s start with Gene Roddenberry, whose tremendously successful Star Trek series foreshadowed humans talking to reasonably intelligent on-board computers that could understand, analyze, evaluate and respond to instructions better than any iPhone app – and long before the late 80s! “Computer, what is the weather going to be like on Alpha Centauri?” A sweet voice replies: “Captain Kirk, the temperature on Alpha Centuari is approximately 5790 Kelvin.” Or how about George Lucas, who in terms of a “Knowledge Navigator” conceived of C-3P0 years prior to Apple in the movie Star Wars. C-3P0 was the lovable “protocol droid” who was fluent in over six million forms of communication, and interacted with humans to assist them in understanding etiquette, customs and translations as they gallivanted around the galaxy.

But, in terms of real world application and, dare I say true prophetic vision, let’s get really serious and discuss the work of John McCarthy and his team at Dartmouth College beginning in the mid 50s! That’s when artificial intelligence was more than just prophesized, it was actually conceived, designed and implemented. Indeed, some would maintain that the field of Artificial Intelligence was actually born there in Hanover, New Hampshire. McCarthy and his team designed systems that would ultimately speak English better than most Americans and deftly work out complex mathematical problems and verbally solve intensely sophisticated logical theorems. By comparison, Apple’s latest iteration of Siri is no more than the most recent iPhone version of that “Hello Teddy” bear that was so popular in the 80’s! “Let’s play a game.”

One last gripe of mine that is slightly off topic: why on earth, Apple, would you release a new iPhone model that IS NOT 4G COMPATIBLE? Where is your sense of being a leader in cutting edge technology? I understand, you don’t have to be. You’ve sold your product to your minions of Applebots and you will continue to do so: but don’t you have any pride?

Now, if I take a moment to step down from my soapbox, l can say that I see the tremendous value of Siri, and have as one of the early downloaders from its humble beginnings as an app. But where I have to part ways with the Applebots is when they start describing the application as “earth shattering” and “mind blowing.” What McCarthy and his team was mind blowing. That research was years ahead of its time when computer technology was still in its nascent phase.

In fact, I question whether Siri even has enough pizazz to sway those patient early adopters who have been waiting for months to purchase the “new” iPhone. This is why I ask “Siri-ously Apple?” Now, those poor misled people are left with only two options when it comes to the purchase of a new phone: (1) buy the incremental upgrade to the iPhone 4 or (2) wait 8-12 months for the real iPhone 5 to be released. The problem is, if they do wait, these people will still have no certainty of what features the next release will have or whether it will be yet another incremental upgrade (perhaps with 4g capabilities, hmmmm?).

And that brings me to crux of my point at last: there is a third real and very viable option: they can choose to buy an Android! Why wait for the new technology that might be on the iPhone 5 in 6-8 months when the technology is here right now. No longer are Android phones second fiddle in terms of design. They have really nice, 4+ inch screens with super amoled screens and dual core processors boasting performance beyond that of the iPhone. They have – Apple forbid – external storage. The can run flash programming, which is still a prominent feature of the web, despite Apple’s stubborn refusal to incorporate it into their phones (ask yourself, why can an Apple desktop run flash programming, and yet an iPhone or iPad cannot?). Many model are, in fact, vastly superior to anything Apple has on the market. In fact, as of August 2010, Android sets overtook iPhone sales by a margin of 27% of all U.S. phone sales as compared to 23% for Apple (Source: Nielson Company). Judging from initial reports about the disappointment over Apple’s latest offering, this trend is likely to explode in the next few months as Android manufacturers begin to release their latest offerings for the holiday season.

But, a true Applebot may say, what about the millions of apps that are available for the iPhone? Recently reports indicate that there are approximately 400,000 apps available for the iPhone as compared to just over half of that for Android as of this month. If you remove all the really useless apps from Apple – tilting beer mugs, fart machines, etc. etc. – then the numbers are even much closer than that. There are very few productivity applications that are available on the iPhone which are not available for the Android. The Android even has a slew of artificial intelligence based applications that can perform many of the same functions as Siri, although not as integrated into the system. Finally, if we count in terms of downloads, Android is actually the winner: it overtook iPhone last month with just over 8 million applications downloaded. So, this is not such an issue anymore.

Bottom line: Apple is losing its spark. It is losing its sex appeal. For the first time in a long time, it is losing its market saavy, which will soon show up in market share. Alas, it is losing touch with the consumer. Most in the majority are NOT Applebots. They don’t blindly purchase anything Apple throws out for consumption the way teenagers blindly purchases Dr. Dre headphones that are vastly inferior to almost any other headphone on the market sold at a third of the price. We evaluate. We compare. When he or she can buy, just as an example, a Samsung Galaxy IIs with superior specifications as compared to the latest, newest iPhone at the same or lower prices, the typical consumer begins to see the flaws in the fairy tale that was Apple. And perhaps those millions that waited patiently for the iPhone 5 will look elsewhere, beyond the incremental, “catch-up” upgrade. A recent article in the New York Times points out this strong trend in consumer behavior that is likely to be fueled by Apple’s incremental reasoning. With it’s lackluster announcement, even Apple’s new deal with Sprint may not be able to save them from the consumers’ inevitable recognition of this new design for what it is: a mere incremental upgrade. It’s sad to see the iPhone fall into that same loop of incremental upgrades that both the MacBook and the Air have been stuck in for years. Nothing exciting, just speed boosts and software tweaks. Yes, it’s faster. Yes, Lion is pretty. Yes, like the app screen – but it’s nothing astonishing. It’s sad that Apple is becoming nothing more than one of many. They used to have an edge. And perhaps that is the most sad fact of all: Apple has shown us nothing in this upgrade that is earth-shattering or mind blowing. And, after all, that’s what we have come to expect from Apple isn’t it? Siri-ously!

Mista Freezy & Lance collaborate on “Long Hair”– Song climbs to #44 on charts in one day

Barry Neil Shrum, Esq. — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:43:26 +0000

A successful R&B/hip hop collaboration comes along very rarely, one such as I’ll Be There For You/You’re All I Need To Get By by Method Man & Mary J. Blige. But come along it has. My friend and client, Lance, has teamed up with Mista Freezy to produce what is sure to be a classic. Lance and Mista Freezy are calling their collaborative efforts “Joker’s Wild,” an the resulting song, Long Hair has already created significant buzz on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

UPDATE: The song is quickly becoming viral! It hit the charts on “Tweet my Song” at 355 on July 27, then shot up to #44! The song is available on iTunes and will soon be available directly from Lance’s website, Lancesongs.com.

Lance is a singer/songwriter and one of kind in today’s music industry. Lance is not afraid to be true to himself and his craft. Many first recognize him by the hat on his head or the distinctive way he dresses. Most, however, remember the lyrics he sings and the way his adoring fans sing along. Each song he writes and performs seems ripped directly from his “heart and soul” and delivered with passion and emotion. Soon you’ll be singing along too! With the release of his album What you Make It on April 20, 2011, the world caught yet another glimpse of Lance’s soulful talent as he took it to the streets with a 64-date tour and television and radio campaign.

Brandon N. Foxx is commonly known as "Mista Freezy" throughout the musical industry. He is definitely another talent to be reckoned with. Brandon’s production skills are exemplary, and his saavy as an artist reflects his extensive experience, despite his young age.

"Mista Freezy" first made an impact on the industry in 1999 at age 14 with a hit single "When we Ride out", and has been going full steam since then. Shows with Master P, Gucci Mane, Young Jeezy, Lil Boosie, and Beanie Siegel (just to name a few) add to his credibility as an artist, and as a producer, he has national placement. During this time frame of production and shows, Brandon also released two mixtapes, "Alone in the Game", and "Cohesive Player," which both received rave reviews.

In 2009, Freezy digitally dropped "GOD OF RAP", his 1st album, which sold several thousand copies and introduced him to the world. Germany and Sweden still have him ranked high in their playlists. He also attended SXSW,and did features in Spin Magazine and FADER FORT. In 2010, Brandon founded Money Hungry Mogul Musik Group, and made the transition from artist/producer to Owner/CEO, to further his interests on a global scale in the music industry and engage in the executive facet of the music business. Currently in 2011, Freezy is anticipating his 2nd album release, "Summertime Music" in June . Freezy has been certified with ASCAP since 2000 and has two Independent Hollywood music awards for best hip-hop production and best R&B production to his credit; Also, he has won best male artist at the Alabama Black Arts Festival in Huntsville, AL. Freezy also has had three major movie roles to his credit, most notably in CONSTELLATION. In essence, Brandon Foxx is multi-talented and the true definition of Southern Hospitality.

Both Lance and Brandon are home spun Alabama boys ya’ll!

Listen to Long Hair for yourself:

Long Hair, by Joker’s Wild (aka Lance & Mista Freezy)

Producing Music: Its History and the Process

Barry Neil Shrum, Esq. — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:37:39 +0000

By guest student writer, John Freund

Music production is simply not what it used to be. Behind every great record is great production, but just what that production entails continues to grow more complex with new technology and a changing music industry.

During its humble beginnings in the mid-20th century, production was extremely simple, quick, and required only a small handful of people. Artist and Repertoire (A & R) men personnel would discover and contract talent, record the musicians with several microphones in several sessions, mix the project together and complete the mastered tracks in a few days[1].

As the digital age arrived and production became more complicated and technologically demanding, it also required engineers, technicians, and a head record producer to guide the creative process of making an album through the tedious responsibilities involved.

Today, with digital audio workstation software like ProTools, GarageBand, and Logic replacing much of the work of a recording studio for a minimal fraction of the cost, production is being transformed yet again.

Since the dawn of the 20th century, sound recording and studio production in the music industry have been completely revolutionized due to major advances in audio recording technology. The first and most significant development in audio recording technology was Thomas Edison’s invention of the phonograph in 1877[2]. For the first time in history, people could enjoy sound without a live performance, and musical compositions could be preserved not only on paper, but in recordings as well. As the technological marvel began to catch on in American homes in the early 20th century, citizens could now choose what music they wanted to hear, when they wanted to hear it, and how many times to repeat any given song[3]. This new ability to preserve music would lead to a number of radical new facets of the music industry, such as collecting, broadcasting, producing, engineering, sampling, synthesizing, and manipulating sound – as well as manufacturing, distributing, and retailing physical reproductions of the recording. It also placed new demands and limits on composers, who had previously composed their music for sheet music. As 20th century composer Igor Stravinsky noted, “In America I had arranged… to make records of some of my music. This suggested the idea that I should compose something whose length should be determined by the capacity of the record”3. As Stravinsky composed to fit the length of a record, so too have countless musicians composed with a record or production in mind, rather than a live performance or sheet music. All of these new fields stemmed from the ability to record sound, and the world of music would never be the same.

Another notable development in recording technology was the stereophonic recording that replaced monophonic sound. First released to the public in the 1950s, the trend began to spread in the next several decades as recording became more advanced. Monophonic sound was ultimately forgotten (with some exceptions) and stereophonic sound, or “stereo,” became the standard. Using two audio channels instead of one and blending them together allowed producers to create the first versions of surround sound – closer to natural hearing, music in stereo is heard from both directions. Panning the audio tracks between left and right channels became a standard part of mixing, and is still in widespread use today.

As the century progressed and the stereo record player saturated the market, record labels such as Columbia Records, Decca Records, and Edison Bell replaced sheet music publishers as the solid base of the music industry.[4] The prominence of recordings gave rise to a new process, and eventually a new line of work: studio recording and production.

It was at this time that recording studios began popping up in Nashville, New York, and other American cities, and with them appeared new recording technology. Long-playing (LP) albums became the norm as record players were very popular, and the booming radio industry provided even more stimulus to the industry.[5] At this time, record labels hired A & R employees who discovered new talent and often record the talent and musicians at a studio until the track was mastered. The simplicity of the recording process at this time allowed a typically unofficial producer to record musicians on one track1.

So, tThe roll of the producer has come a long way since the 1950s and 1960s. What was once a simple task practiced by any sound-tech is now its own specialized profession.

Phil Ramone, a successful producer who began his career in the 1960s, offers his opinion on the production process: “There’s a craft to making records, and behind every recording lie dozens of details that are invisible to someone listening on the radio, CD player, or iPod.”1.

The first of these groups of details is the multi-track recording process. Recording music onto a 1 or 2-inch tape, producers could synchronize multiple music tracks next to each other on the same tape, thereby making music recordings more complex. Multi-track recording using tapes replaced single-track recording as the most popular way and then thrived with the introduction of cassettes in the 1960s.[6] Producers and engineers also began to splice sounds together from different tapes into one new tape that would be used in the music project.[7] Multi-track tape recorders also launched one of the most detailed aspects of a recording process – mixing. Mixing took advantage of the new recording technology by allowing producers to set separate levels for each track and add effects and processors. Mixing is the tedious and intricate stage of studio production that falls between the recording and the mastering. The complexities of the entire production process changed the quality music and held record producers to a higher standard.

Club music listeners and Disco lovers desired a crisp, pristine sound that required detailed mixing work and talented audio engineers[8]. During this time, some artists began involving themselves in production and becoming more knowledgeable in the studio, producers became even more valuable because of their expertise and objectivity.1 This expertise furthered the producer’s roll as a creative guide to the artist and general overseer of studio projects. They took on responsibilities and asks, such as selecting and arranging songs, controlling and guiding the musicians and workers in the studio, and seeing the project through each stage to its completion and perfection.9 Again, in the words of Phil Ramone,

“Someone’s got to think fast and move things ahead, and those tasks fall to the producer. Because he or she is involved in nearly every aspect of a production, the producer serves as friend, cheerleader, psychologist, taskmaster, court jester, troubleshooter, secretary, traffic cop, judge, and jury rolled into one.”1

After the cassette tape and multi-track recording, the next major technological breakthrough in the music industry came in the form of compact discs (CDs) and personal computers (PCs), which made their mainstream arrival in the 1980s. In 1982, Sony released “52nd Street” by Billy Joel as the first of a set of fifty CD titles.10 While the CD did not catch fire with the average consumer until late in the decade, the revolutionary technology and widespread usage of computers across America soon transformed the way music was recorded, produced, and distributed. Approximately one hundred years after Edison’s phonograph, producers could finally store music digitally. CDs gave for more storage capacity than cassettes, and the ability for listeners to skip to any track instead of rewinding or fast forwarding. Also, this digital audio technology helped producers and engineers make accurate adjustments to any specific point on the track. This improved the quality of mixing and mastering, while also streamlining the production process.

Similarly transformative to the CD and another component of the computer was Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) technology. As the synthesizers of the 1970s were being used in cooperation with the compact computers of the early 1980s, domestic and foreign companies alike competed for the latest digital music and synthesizer technology. These synthesizers were utilized by many popular acts of the day, such as Paul McCartney, Duran Duran, The Who, and Herbie Hancock.11 Rather than transmitting an audio signal, MIDI spoke a digital language that enabled synthesizers and computers to connect with a MIDI controller or sampler. This language, or protocol, became universally accepted as a form of audio communications11. In other words, MIDI allowed people to manipulate a sample of one sound or bank of sounds, produce audio signals of the samples played at specific pitches and tempos with specific effects and sounds. This process of recording music using MIDI is called sequencing, and today, is the foundational idea of computer music notation software (also known as digital audio workstations). 12 People have made millions of sounds using MIDI technology, and it has been a key component of modern music for almost thirty years, making way for new genres, new software, and new engineering. MIDI is also used to create recordings that recreate a live sound. Paul Théberge offers this opinion of MIDI in saying, “…apparently for some listeners MIDI sequencing virtually returns the ‘aura’ of live musical performance to the medium of digital reproduction.”12 With the possible exception of the phonograph, MIDI has made the greatest impact on audio recording technology.

While computer and MIDI synthesizing were digitalizing the way music was produced, another digitally-based change was taking place. Many studios transitioned from the traditional analog mixing console to new digital mixing consoles. Early mixing consoles of the 1950s controlled few channels, while the new, massive digital consoles could meticulously control hundreds of channels if desired.13 In addition, mixing levels and settings could now be saved digitally, which was especially handy for live production and touring. The analog vs. digital mixing console debate is a heated one today, as many producers and technicians prefer analog consoles, the digital consoles are gaining popularity in today’s market.

Following the CD was the groundbreaking digital audio file which provoked yet another change in how music is consumed and produced. Streaming and downloading music from the Internet is today’s most popular music technology. The arrival of the MP3 made it easier for consumers to transfer music from CDs to computers14. CD-ROM drives in computers allowed for countless music listeners to share music with each other through ripping, burning, and transferring music files. Production came into play as more music was produced on computers, and digital audio medium knowledge was necessary to avoid losing part of the recording sound while creating such a file (8). With every new bit of technology, top-quality production requires more and more expertise than ever before. However, in today’s digital age, countless production projects are completed on personal computers without an ounce of expertise.

An astute view on the present and future trends of production, is provided by DJ, artist, and producer Moby in an interview with Lucy Walker:

The way that music is made has changed completely and it will continue to change. It’s become so much more egalitarian, democratic, and inexpensive. The way that music is sold, distributed, listened to. The role that music serves in most people’s lives. One the one hand music is so much more ubiquitous, but on the other it’s so much cheaper. So, making predictions – I have no idea. The only prediction I can make is that music has become so much more egalitarian and ubiquitous and the means of production have become available to almost anybody. Anyone with access to a computer can make music now. You download the software from the Internet and ten minutes later you’re making music that sounds just as good as anything you might hear in a nightclub[9].

Many artists choose to compose and record at home, opting to pay a few hundred dollars for solid recording software rather than employ the costly services of a professional studio. Some recording software, like the popular program Audacity, is available for free online, and as software technology progresses, it grows closer in quality to the sound of professionally recorded, mixed, and mastered music, making recording even easier for the home artist. Moreover, The American Home Recording Act, passed in 1996, specifies that computers are not recording devices, thereby releasing home studios from having to pay expensive royalties like a professional studio with professional recording equipment.14 All genres of music can be made on a computer, although some production-oriented genres (like techno and hip hop) thrive more than others in digital production.14 This new trend has shifted many projects from the studio to the computer and has also paved the way for new, smaller projects unaffiliated with a studio or label. The ease at which an artist can now record, mix, and master his or her own work grows each day, and music made in an unprofessional studio can often be hard to distinguish from its professional counterpart. Digital distribution through iTunes and other services has simplified the distribution process and allowed anyone to share their music with others for a small charge or none at all, further driving away the need to go through a studio and label distribution. For production studios and producers, as well as the entire record industry, this digital audio workstation availability has been harmful to businesses by reducing sales. As author Buskirk Eliot Van points out, “Computers mean fewer trips to the music store, since they can assume most of those functions. Granted, they will never replace guitars and other physical instruments, but thanks to sampling and music creation software, they come closer each year.”14 Music stores themselves are beginning to sell more digital music production hardware and software, as more and more customers are leaning towards computerized equipment.

Overall, audio recording technology has had a tremendous impact on the way music is recorded and produced. The roles of producers, studios, record labels, computers, and other such recording components have been rapidly changing throughout the last century, and will continue to morph along with the entire music industry. Many inventions, from the phonograph to MIDI, have re-defined the recording process. The industry has seen its mediums develop from discs and cylinders on phonographs, to LPs, cassette tapes, CDs, and digital audio files. Studio recordings have expanded from single-track monophonic sound to digital stereophonic sound with hundreds of channels and tracks. Virtually every process of composing, recording, and producing music can now be performed digitally on computers, and the ability to perform these processes is inexpensively available to the masses more than ever before. In the words of Phil Ramone,

“The greatest interaction in the world is the creativity involved in making music.”1

With vast accessibility and increasingly complex production tools in today’s incredible technology, there has never been more potential for creativity in music making. For as long as music is created and recorded, how it is made will be just as interesting a topic as the music itself. As continuously innovative as progressive rock, and as unpredictable as a jazz saxophone solo, the process of how music is captured will never stop changing.

John Freund is a working towards a degree in music business at Belmont University’s Mike Curb School of Music Business in Nashville, Tennessee. This article is adapted from the a final paper John wrote for Professor Shrum’s Survey of Music Business class as freshman in the fall semester of 2010. John is from New Jersey where he is currently working as busboy at Daddy-o’ on the Jersey shore, having a great summer break!

[1] Ramone, Phil, and Charles L. Granata. Making Records: the Scenes behind the Music. New York: Hyperion, 2007. Print: 15, xi, 9.

[2] "The Phonograph, 1877 Thru 1896." Scientific American (1896). Machine-History.Com. Web. 05 Dec. 2010: ¶ 1.

[3] Katz, Mark. Capturing Sound: How Technology Has Changed Music. Berkeley: University of California, 2004. Print: 9, 3.

[4] Shrum, Barry. “Record Industry Introduction.” Survey of Music Business. Belmont University. Nashville, TN. 15 Sept. 2010. Class Lecture.

[5] Shrum, Barry. “Brief History of Broadcasting.” Survey of Music Business. Belmont University. Nashville, TN. 04 Oct. 2010. Class Lecture.

[6] Morton, David. Sound Recording: the Life Story of a Technology. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2004. Print: 141.

[7] McIntyre, Allyson L. Music Technology and the Twenty-First Century Compose: Are Computer-Assisted Notation Programs Becoming More of a Crutch Than a Tool? Compositional Concerns in the Technological Age. Diss. Belmont University, 2004. Nashville, TN, 2004. Print: 2.

[8] Moorefield, Virgil. The Producer as Composer: Shaping the Sounds of Popular Music. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2005. Print.

[9] Miller, Paul D., ed. Sound Unbound: Sampling Digital Music and Culture. Cambridge,

MA: MIT, 2008. Print: 155.

Further Reading

"Do You Know The History Of The Mixing Console?" Music Magazine 69. 02 Nov. 2010. Web. 06 Dec. 2010F

Katz, Mark. Capturing Sound: How Technology Has Changed Music. Berkeley: University of California, 2004.

Manning, Peter. Electronic and Computer Music. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. Web. 05 Dec. 2010.

McIntyre, Allyson L. Music Technology and the Twenty-First Century Compose: Are Computer-Assisted Notation Programs Becoming More of a Crutch Than a Tool? Compositional Concerns in the Technological Age. Diss. Belmont University, 2004. Nashville, TN, 2004.

Miller, Paul D., ed. Sound Unbound: Sampling Digital Music and Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2008. Print.

Moorefield, Virgil. The Producer as Composer: Shaping the Sounds of Popular Music. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2005.

Morton, David. Sound Recording: the Life Story of a Technology. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2004.

"The Phonograph, 1877 Thru 1896." Scientific American (1896). Machine- History.Com. Web. 05 Dec. 2010.

Ramone, Phil, and Charles L. Granata. Making Records: the Scenes behind the Music. New York: Hyperion, 2007.

Shrum, Barry. “Brief History of Broadcasting.” Survey of Music Business. Belmont University. Nashville, TN. 04 Oct. 2010. Class Lecture.

Shrum, Barry. “Record Industry Introduction.” Survey of Music Business. Belmont University. Nashville, TN. 15 Sept. 2010. Class Lecture.

Shrum, Barry. “Studios, Musicians, Engineers, and Producers.” Survey of Music Business. Belmont University. Nashville, TN. 27 Sept. 2010. Class Lecture.

"Sony History." Sony Global. Web. 05 Dec. 2010. Théberge, Paul. Any Sound You Can Imagine: Making Music/consuming Technology. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan UP, 1997.

Van, Buskirk Eliot. Burning down the House: Ripping, Recording, Remixing, and More! New York: McGraw-Hill/Osborne, 2003.

Links for 2011-03-01 [del.icio.us]

Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:00:00 PST

Origins of an Idea–Nothing New Under the Sun?

Links for 2009-03-03 [del.icio.us]

Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:00:00 PST

Music Row Gears up for CRS

Links for 2008-01-04 [del.icio.us]

Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:00:00 PST

Information about music publishing and entertainment law

Links for 2007-11-06 [del.icio.us]

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:00:00 PST

Last Man Standing - Colloborating with Other Songwriters

Links for 2007-09-27 [del.icio.us]

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:00:00 PDT