1. Mark Katz, Capturing Sound: How Technology Has Changed Music (Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 2004), 138.
2. All quotations contained in this volume that are not cited were drawn
from our interviews (see appendix 1). Note that on occasion parts of the quoted
interviews were lightly edited for the purposes of clarity and readability.
3. U.S. Code 17 (2006), § 107.
4. Campbell v. Acuﬀ- Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994).
5. Robert Levine, “Steal This Hook? D.J. Skirts Copyright Law,” New York
Times, August 6, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/.
6. U.S. Constitution, art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
7. Joanna Demers, Steal This Music: How Intellectual Property Law Aﬀects
Musical Creativity (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2006), 9.
8. For an exhaustive song- by- song examination of musical borrowing in popu-
lar music, see Timothy English’s Sounds Like Teen Spirit: Stolen Melodies,
Ripped- Oﬀ Riﬀs, and the Secret History of Rock and Roll.
9. “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept,
principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, ex-
plained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” U.S. Code 17 (2006), § 102(b).
10. Harold Demsetz, “Information and Eﬃciency: Another Viewpoint,” Jour-
nal of Law and Economics 12, no. 1 (1969): 1–22. Demsetz and the property-
rights theorists who have followed him argue that copyrights organize invest-
ment in creativity. Granting someone a copyright arguably gives him or her