Laws are meant to be broken.... or are they?

As the old saying goes, 'laws are meant to be broken," but if that's the case then why have a law to begin with? Any part of the entertainment industry is no stranger to conflict and controversies. As our laws get more strict throughout the years, sometimes incidences try to slip through the cracks.
One of the most prevalent issues in the music industry is is brought up in MusicWeek.com's article about the "Latest batch of hits" to "tumble into public domain. This year, several Rock'n'roll hits will be falling out of the legal structures of the copyright laws and into public domain so that anyone can do with them as they please without having to pay a fee to someone (MusicWeek.com, 2011). This would undoubtedly cause for a significant profit cut in the music industry as many of those hits are still borrowed and used today. This subject can coincide with the article from Tonya Evans about music genres, such as hip hop, "sampling, looping and... scratching" older songs to incorporate them in their own as a new piece. As the article suggests artists that have done this, such as Queen Latifah, Missy Elliott and Jay-Z, I thought of a more underground artist such as Dyme Def's creation of Let It Be. I'm assuming he or his producer have obtained the rights to incorporate the Beatles' song, and in no way would I be trying to get him in trouble for it as I thoroughly enjoy this song. As MusicWeek.com's article states though, if Dyme Def and/or his producer hadn't obtained the rights, if they re-release it this year then technically they wouldn't be breaking any law as a lot of the Beatles' music is possibly being moved to public domain if the laws allow.

Another form of artistry duplication (in a sense) is not just in the form of the music itself, but rather the performance of the music. Beyonce had recently tackled a controversy over her performance of 'Run the World (Girls)' at the Billboard Music Awards on May 22, 2011. However, as "epic" as Elsen describes the performance, he also continues on to say that it's not as "groundbreaking" as most people had thought it was. Reason being, "Italian pop singer Lorella Cuccerini" had done a performance very similar to that the previous year (Elsen, 2011). You can watch the performance and the comparison of the two by visiting Elsen's article. However, Beyonce did admit that she was rather inspired by Cuccerini's performance and even met with the creative people behind it when questioned about the performance similarities.

Although, I do feel that credit needs to be given where credit is due, and I also feel that a lot of our music today can be said to stem from the music in which we grew up on, I still feel that there may need to be some balance found in the copyright laws and fines/fees. Evans put it rather well when she said that the "copyright law must be remixed to achieve an optimal balance between a copyright holder's exclusive rights and the legal space a second generation innovator needs to build upon existing works in order to create new ones..." The reason I agree with this statement is purely for the fact that we are in completely evolving times within the music industry. I am rather old fashioned in a lot of ways, and as much as I would like to hold on to a lot of the core values and ways that we as people, and the industry grew up on, I am not naive to think that it can remain that way any longer without seriously putting harm to the industry. Largest proof of that is all of the ways that technology has advanced and changed the industry thus far. All in all, as the industry evolves, so does the need for the laws that enforce it.