Sampling legality

[bongolia]

anyone else see this?
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,64884,00.html
and
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002153.shtml

(and all over a bloody P-funk track&#33

[Jim Cassius]

Am I being dumb or is 'Belmont University's Mike Curb College of Entertainment and Music Business' related to the Mike Curb Congregation that I've got a record by somewhere...

[bongolia]

it will be - he gets everywhere!

[jefski]

That all seems a bit ridiculous to me!

if you sample a snippet or a small riff that's unrecognizable then how can anyone stitch you up for it when they can't tell what it is !!?!?

it wouldn't stop me if i felt i was creating something new from several smaller bits of music ...and obviously the more obscure the sample the harder it is to detect anyway.....

they are so many people sampling/lifting major riffs these days (via making bootleggs or just being blatant rip off merchants) that i can't see many record labels/publishers etc having the resources to chase them all ....surely they'd ony bother with the tracks that are clearly gonna sell big ?
or am i just being naive ?!?

[Nick Cope]

Nope, you're not being naive, that pretty much covers it, Jefski. No one is gonna pay lawyers or run a legal dept to chase down a 2000 count. So you may have to get a licence to sample or whatever; I'm no legal expert, but I would've thought the prosecuters would have to prove the sound was sampled... And if you fuck around with filters and what not, that's gonna be a hard one to do. Heck, if you're gonna twist it all around, then there's no point in sampling the thing inthe first place really.

I'm sure if recorded today, NWA would've gotten someone in to play the three notes they needed... Maybe they didn't need to, too lazy to, too stoned to back then.

[wayne]

It is kind of unenforcable if you are manipulating the sound, and I don't think the legislation can function, really: there are only X instruments and X notes/scales etc, so the meaning of a sample of less than a whole phrase/riff/drum pattern etc is stretching things...lift a string stab, but unless it's very distinctive it'd be hard to tell exactly which recording it came from, surely? If it's a generic Philly one, could be from any one of a hundred 70s records...

And if applied across media, how far would it go in (say) publishing? I use three words ("and then he&quot and somebody's lawyer comes along to show they're copyrighted to Mr Y's 1977 novella or something? A step further, and it's letters...and then it gets REALLY stupid. How many letters have I used in this post that have also featured in Penguin books over the last few years? OK, they're rearranged, but...

[sermad]

I think all it really means is that the law is now totally clarified. Which is a very very good thing for the artist.

[jefski]

well, all sound like fair points to me!

if i had the money/resources i'd probably get musicians to re-play a sample but it'd have to be a serious quality peice of music to even bother in the first place!

one of those never ending issues!

btw, would anyone know why i've suddenly started gettin pop-ups everytime i fire up IE and continue to get em when ever i change site.....it's only a couple of particular websites including some outfit called Exact Advertising and a few others....the same ones every time tho...all other pops are blocked as normal ...its highly annoying!!

[sermad]

you've got spyware. search for lavasoft adaware.

[Lord Thames]

Quote[/b] (wayne @ Sep. 10 2004,18:43)]And if applied across media, how far would it go in (say) publishing? I use three words ("and then he&quot and somebody's lawyer comes along to show they're copyrighted to Mr Y's 1977 novella or something? A step further, and it's letters...and then it gets REALLY stupid. How many letters have I used in this post that have also featured in Penguin books over the last few years? OK, they're rearranged, but...

Well, thankfully words are in the public domain, but if you cut the words out and pasted them on to paper, blackmail-note style, they might have a case!

It'd be nice if this law could be enforced - whether the sample is recognisable or not, it's still ripping off other people's work. If you can't be bothered to play it yourself, at least give the necessary dues to those who can - even George Clinton's got to pay the gas bill.......

[wayne]

Well, as a cash-strapped freelance writer being constantly asked to do things gratis, I'm all for artists getting paid, but I very much doubt this clarification helps that end very much, except in theory. The truth is many sampled artists (and more so those who really need the money) don't necessarily own the rights to their own recordings, and it does seem to me that it's opening the door to big companies able to afford legal teams to shut down smaller operations/competitors as and when they see fit. So Sermad or whoever does a track in a 5000 press that samples The Chambers Brothers, is threatened with legal action for fees by whoever it is currently owns their catalogue (from which the artists claim never to have recieved a penny) and ends up having to withdraw his release simply because he can't afford to defend a case? How does that serve the artist - either the new ones doing the sampling, or those they're sampling? It's not a case of saying let everyone rip off who they like free of charge, but I don't think it's as simple as thinking the fees levied go into the pockets of artists either...unless, of course, samplers start hiring session people to do everything live, which mightn't be a bad thing, but could make it rather expensive to record sample-based tracks in future.

EDIT: And the real irony, I think, is that if the sample is short and substantially manipulated, the only likely way of detecting it would be because the user had credited the source somewhere along the line.

[wayne]

Quote[/b] (Lord Thames @ Sep. 09 2004,22:09)]Well, thankfully words are in the public domain

True, but there are plenty of companies attempting to patent entirely naturally occurring substances, genetic codes and so on... There have also been attempts to take out trademarks on certain words, names and so on: you might be named Mr McDonald at birth, but you mightn't want to use your own name on your shopfront any more...

[jefski]

Quote[/b] (sermad @ Sep. 10 2004,20:49)]you've got spyware. search for lavasoft adaware.

cheers Serm

[Blighty]

Quote[/b] (Nick Cope @ Sep. 10 2004,17:37)]I'm sure if recorded today, NWA would've gotten someone in to play the three notes they needed... Maybe they didn't need to, too lazy to, too stoned to back then.

That what bugs me about this. Pick up guitar and copy elements of a song and you're fine. Do the same thing with a sampler and all of a sudden you're a thief stealing from poor starving artists. Musicians have always borrowed from others work.

George Clinton has done great from sampling. He even released records specifically designed for people to sample. I doubt he had anything to do with this. He must have made a fortune already from Dre and chums.

As Wayne pointed out this isn't about musicians getting paid, it's about greedy people inflating their already swollen bank accounts.

[Lord Thames]

But if a person was brought in to play the three notes (or whatever), chances are they'd be paid to do so (or be doing it free out of goodwill) - just lifting it off a record without obtaining the proper permissions is different, surely?

You're undoubtedly right about greedy people inflating their bank accounts, but on the other hand the law's on their side - they own the recordings, someone's using it without permission, therefore they're perfectly entitled to claim what's theirs, however much it may stick in the throat.