This most recent New Yorker has a very interesting piece in the "Talk of the Town" section about the influence of African pop music on the King of Pop. In 1972, Manu Dibango released an album with the song "Soul Makossa". A decade later, Michael Jackson released "Thriller" on which the second track, "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" borrows a few syllables from "Soul Makossa" (Dibango sings "Ma-mako, ma-ma-ssa, mako-makossa" while Jackson sings "Ma ma se, ma ma sa, ma ma coo sa"). In 2007, Rihanna released "Don't Stop the Music", which credits Jackson and closes with the same syllables as "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'". Dibango took Jackson and, more recently, Rihanna, to court for copyright infringement. A settlement was reached with Jackson, but the Rihanna case is ongoing.
All this reminded me of one of my favorite Econ Talk episodes- where Roberts interviews Michele Boldrin. A key point that Boldrin makes is that while our argument for copyrights is that if musicians are not given the monopoly rents from their copyrighted work, they will not produce- in practice we often give too much protection since the opportunity costs for these musicians is usually quite low. Would Dibango have put "Soul Makossa" with the single he wrote for the Comeroon soccer team if he didn't know of the royalties he'd get from a artist who, ten years later, used a similar 10 syllables?
All this reminded me of one of my favorite Econ Talk episodes- where Roberts interviews Michele Boldrin. A key point that Boldrin makes is that while our argument for copyrights is that if musicians are not given the monopoly rents from their copyrighted work, they will not produce- in practice we often give too much protection since the opportunity costs for these musicians is usually quite low. Would Dibango have put "Soul Makossa" with the single he wrote for the Comeroon soccer team if he didn't know of the royalties he'd get from a artist who, ten years later, used a similar 10 syllables?
I was also reminded of Boldrin's thoughts on patents. The standard
argument is that patents help to incent people to come up with more
productive ideas and we need patents on ideas because once these
are created they can be copied without cost. However, Boldrin notes
that actual productive ideas (abstract ideas applied and sold) cannot
be copied without cost. The example in the podcast is wheeled
suitcases. There is the abstract idea of putting wheels on suitcases,
which anyone can have, and the productive idea- the abstract idea in
the hands of someone who knows how to fashion and market a suitcase.
It is this that matters and that can't be copied.
So we have the word "makossa" (a Cameroon dance), which all three artists used in their songs. Anyone can say this word, but in all three of these cases it became a productive idea because of the artistic talent of those who said it. In all three instances, the word became part of the musical catalog of a different generation. And in each case we can see that it wasn't just the abstract idea of using this word that made the art great, but the particular application- applications that used musical talent that can't be copied.
So we have the word "makossa" (a Cameroon dance), which all three artists used in their songs. Anyone can say this word, but in all three of these cases it became a productive idea because of the artistic talent of those who said it. In all three instances, the word became part of the musical catalog of a different generation. And in each case we can see that it wasn't just the abstract idea of using this word that made the art great, but the particular application- applications that used musical talent that can't be copied.
Thanks for the Michael Jackson post. It is nice to have a little economic commentary about the King of Pop.