From colonial emancipation into the fourth republic: Lessons for Ghana's collective management for musicians and their works
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract After Ghana gained independence in 1957, only two Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) have ever been established to collect and distribute royalties for copyright owners in musical works—the Copyright Society of Ghana (COSGA), established in 1986, and the Ghana Music Rights Organization (GHAMRO) established in 2011, which presently operates. Before them, the UK's Performing Rights Society (PRS) served this role during Ghana's colonial rule. Using an Intellectual Legal History methodology, this paper traces the evolution of CMOs in Ghana's music industry, analyzing the transition from COSGA to GHAMRO, assessing their operational effectiveness, and drawing lessons to shape future collective management practices. This paper argues that with the peculiarities of the digital age already posing its toll, the present challenges in copyright and collective management—such as, monitoring and licensing lapses, intermittent administrative absentia coupled with the seeming dearth of organizational expertism and the gaps in legal and operational frameworks, have deep‐seated origins traceable to COSGA's operations. And that, the switch to GHAMRO, appears largely nominal than transformative, with limited impact on the structural and institutional reform of collective management in Ghana. As Ghana navigates the global and digital context, it is imperative to draw upon the lessons of history to inform the trajectory of its collective management practices. This includes, among others, reassessing the legal framework and fostering institutional competence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".