A Gramscian Analysis of the Public Performance Right

• Author: Louis D'Alton
• Pages: 227-245

227

EE

ten

A Gramscian Analysis of the Public

Performance Right

 

 : This chapter briey traces the historical establishment and

expansion of the public performance right in musical works within those

countries united by the Anglo-American legal tradition, with a focus on the

Canadian experience. Viewing the issue of the public performance right in

musical works within a critical Marxist frame, the essential problem leading

to the creation of the public performance right in musical works is seen as an

outgrowth of the struggle between the author/composers and the dominant

publishing interests which dictated their employment and terms of recom-

pense. Within this frame, the analysis utilizes Antonio Gramsci’s theoretical

conceptions of hegemony to provide the structural basis on which the analy-

sis rests. Ultimately the struggle is seen as an example of the dominant pub-

lishing interest’s eective absorption of the desires and goals of the creator

interests, but reiterated in such a way as to achieve the primary goals of the

publishing interests within an evolving hegemonic order.

 : Ce chapitre trace brièvement l’établissement historique et

l’expansion du droit de représentation publique des œuvres musicales dans

les pays de traditions anglo-américaine, avec une attention particulière por-

tée à l’expérience canadienne. En étudiant, d’un œil marxiste critique, la

question de la représentation publique des pièces musicales, le problème

essentiel menant à la création de ce droit est vu comme la conséquence

de la lutte entre les auteurs-compositeurs et les intérêts dominants des

éditeurs qui ont dicté leur emploi et les termes de leur compensation. Les

228 •  

concepts théoriques de l’hégémonie utilisés dans l’analyse d’Antonio Grams-

ci fournissent une base structurelle à cette analyse. Ultimement, cette lutte

semble un exemple de l’absorption par les intérêts dominants des éditeurs,

des désirs et des buts des intérêts des créateurs, réitérée de façon à ce que

les objectifs premiers des intérêts des éditeurs soient atteints à l’intérieur

de l’ordre hégémonique en évolution.

A. INTRODUCTION

The success of performance rights organizations has been responsible for

the massive growth of copyright collectives, particularly in Canada. Prior to

the 1988 Phase I revisions to the Copyright Act,1 there was only a single type

of copyright collective authorized under Canadian law — those collecting

on the public performance right in music. Since the Phase I revisions came

into law, more than thirty-four copyright collectives2 have been registered

with the Copyright Board of Canada. With thirty-four registered collectives,

Canada has more than double the copyright collectives of any of the key

nations listed in Daniel Gervais’s 2002 study.3

Despite the fact that a public performance right in music was rst ex-

plicitly granted under the 1842 Copyright Act,4 it was actively ignored by the

industry of the day, and as a result, the rst performance right collective in

the United Kingdom, the Performing Right Society, would not be formed

until 1914. This chapter views the subsequent adoption and successful ex-

pansion of the public performance right as an example of a hegemonic pro-

cess as delineated by Antonio Gramsci.

B. GRAMSCI

Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) was a leading member of the Italian Commun-

ist party as well as a highly critical journalist. Gramsci was arrested by the

Italian Fascist state in November of 1926 and would remain in prison until

1 Copyright Amendment Act, SC 1988, c 15.

2 Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42, s 2 [collective society]. A copyright collective is an agency

created under the terms of the Copyright Act, which collects royalties or licensing fees on

behalf of registered copyright owners.

3 Daniel J Gervais, “Collective Management of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights in

Canada: An International Perspective” (2002) 1 Can J L & Tech 21 at 38 (table 3).

4 Imperial Copyright Act of 1842 (UK), 5 & 6 Vict, c 45.