Music and Dance: Beyond Copyright Text?

著作权法的立法渊源是对文本的保护。自世纪中期以来，书商垄断印刷书籍的局面结束，书商们希望对印刷文字的传播施加控制，这导致了1710年《安妮法令》的颁布。这是一个法案'为鼓励学习授予副本的印刷书籍的作者或购买者的副本'，并给予作者或他的受让人'自由印刷和重印这样的书和书籍'。在保护期结束时，面对失去对最有利可图的书籍的垄断，对书面文字控制权的追求在书商之战中进一步发挥作用，在1774年的唐纳森诉贝克特案中，上议院裁定不存在永久的普通版权法。因此，出现了对书面文字的保护，其范围受该法的限制，反映了当时的财产概念。正是从这些文本基础上，法律努力寻找一种手段来保护实验，体验，表演驱动的音乐和舞蹈流派。1988年《版权、设计和专利法》所载的当代版权法将音乐和舞蹈列为受其保护的作品类型。但该法律的某些特征表明，这些创新、协作和基于表现的创造形式可能要么受到保护不足，要么缺乏任何形式的保护，最明显的是，数字和基于网络的技术不断推动着它们的极限。为了受到版权的保护，法律要求作品属于该法案中的特定类别，它被固定在某种媒介上，并且由一个人或最多几个人创作。这似乎使得保护诸如安东尼·布拉斯顿的萨克斯管即兴创作、当代流行舞曲的混搭文化、数字音乐采样的输出、爱德华·洛克和《La La La Human Steps》芭蕾舞剧《Amjad》等创作变得困难。当作品受到保护时，法律允许在创作新作品时进行一定数量的复制。然而，可以采取的限制往往是不透明和僵化的，这就提出了一个问题，即法律是否为模仿、数字音乐采样和新舞蹈动作等形式留下了足够的空间，包括虚拟空间。版权法、音乐创作、当代舞蹈、文化政策和文化经济学领域的跨学科专家小组将首次聚集在一起审议这些问题。在此过程中，他们将使用经验研究方法（问卷调查）和观察（通过拍摄和记录体验作品的制作）来制作新形式音乐和舞蹈作品创作的实际实践的说明性图片。他们将考虑版权框架是否以及如何映射到表演以及文化政策在更广泛的创意经济中促进，支持和利用音乐和舞蹈的作用。

Statutory copyright law has its origins in protecting text. The desire of booksellers to exert control over dissemination of the printed word in the wake of the demise of the Stationers' monopoly in printing books in place since the mid-16th century led to the enactment of the Statute of Anne in 1710. This was an Act 'for the encouragement of learning by vesting copies of the printed books in the authors or purchasers of the copies' and gave to the author or his assigns the 'Liberty of Printing and Reprinting such Book and Books'. In the face of losing the monopoly over the most lucrative of books at the end of the period of protection, the quest for control over the written word was further played out in the Battle of the Booksellers when, in 1774 Donaldson v Becket, the House of Lords ruled against the existence of a perpetual common law of copyright. Protection thus emerged for the written word, the extent of which was bounded by the Act, reflecting then current notions of property. It is from these textual foundations that the law has striven to find a means to protect the experimental, experiential, performance driven music and dance genres. Contemporary copyright law contained in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 lists music and dance among the types of work that it protects. But certain features of the law suggest that these innovative, collaborative and performance based forms of creativity may either be under-protected or may lack any form of protection, most notably as their limits are constantly pushed by digital and web-based technologies. In order to be protected by copyright the law requires that a work fall into a particular category in the Act, that it be fixed in some medium, and that it be created by one, or at the most, a few individuals. This would seem to make it difficult to protect such creations as the saxaphone improvisations of Anthony Brasxton, the mash-up culture of contemporary popular dance music, the outputs of digital musical sampling, and Edouard Lock, and La La La Human Steps' ballet, Amjad. When a work is protected, the law allows for a certain amount of copying when creating new works. The limits of what can be taken, however, tend to be opaque and rigid, raising the question as to whether the law leaves sufficient space, including virtual space, for such forms as parody, digital musical sampling and new dance moves. For the first time, an inter-disciplinary team of experts in the field of copyright law, musical composition, contemporary dance, cultural policy and cultural economics will come together to consider these questions. In so doing they will use empirical research methodology (questionnaires) and observation (through filming and otherwise recording the production of experiential works) to produce an illustrative picture of actual practices in the creation of new forms of musical and dance works. They will consider whether and how the copyright framework maps on to the performances and the role for cultural policy in the fostering, support and exploitation of music and dance within the wider creative economy.