Dr. Dre to pay $1.5 mil for "Illegal Sample"

jwlidtnet writes "According to MTV, Dr. Dre has lost a lawsuit filed over a presumably-uncleared sample on his last album (Dre still hopes to appeal). This is certainly not the first time that something like this has happened: in the mid-nineties, British band The Verve were forced to pay all royalties from their song Bittersweet Symphony (*and* alter song credits) after Allen Klein--who owns the rights to the 1960's Stones catalogue--discovered that the song used a sample from an orchestral recording of "The Last Time." Thing is, though, that many groups believe that such lawsuits shouldn't occur except in the most blatant circumstances; among these groups, Musicians Against the Copyrighting of Samples and the group Negativland are perhaps the most outspoken. Should samples be protected by copyright, or should artists/musicians have the right to manipulate the old into the new?"

Comments

Dr. Dre? MTV? Slashdot?

[Scoria]

Among other news today, sources are reporting that hell has indeed frozen over.

Re:Dr. Dre? MTV? Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where can i download it?!

Re:Dr. Dre? MTV? Slashdot?

[ruthven78]

you forget one this about using chinamen as slaves.....they would have kick are butts. Africans took up the oppurtunity to sell off their kinsmen....or else they were stolen/kidnapped....the Chinese would never have done that, and if we tried they would have kicked out butts.

Right back at ya

[Mooset]

Remember kids, musicians don't steal. They SAMPLE!

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I must be the biggest musician ever! And so is everyone else on Kazza, limewire, etc.. etc...

Hi pot,

Hi kettle.

Re:Right back at ya

[cayenne8]

Well, this is an interesting topic...I've often said I didn't consider much of today's music, especially rap to be very artistic or creative. I mean, if given the equipment where "I" could put together a song with parts sampled from other's works, with only a few new rhymes thrown on top...it could not possibly be ART.

However, given that, the Stones, whose song was sampled in this suit...were some of the biggest thieves in their day...by their own admission. Keith admits to 'lifting' riffs here and there all along the way. But, the big difference was, as I see it, they took the music from the past, mostly the blues, as building blocks for new creations of music. Music that was created and played by them...NOT a sample of someone else's music.

To me, a remake, is a new interpretation of an older song...and there have been many good ones over the years, but, stealing someone elses drumbeat they played...or any other instrument...well, that's not being creative, that's just re-packaging someone elsess work and calling it your own.

I think one of the problems with today's music, is that somewhere along the line...the taking from the music of the previous generation and building upon it for new sounds was lost. It is one thing to 'hear' the influences of past artists like the Stones or Zeppelin in a new groups sounds...it is quite another to hear Robert/Mick's actual vocal performances...or Page/Richard's riffs they played just being repackaged, reformatted and regurgitated and having it called art/music.

I don't see any creativity in this...

Re:Right back at ya

[H310iSe]

"I don't see any creativity in this..."
Then you haven't listened. Hip-hop was the successor to jazz and rock as a new, vital, interesting music form. Once. Listen to the first Tribe Called Quest album (for one). Just because people make sounds from a clarinet or guitar instead of from a tape doesn't matter, what matters is the end product is different from the original in a significant way. You are making arbitrary judgements - why is replaying a lick you heard someone else play on a guitar different from reprocessing sounds recorded elsewhere into new sounds? They're not stealing, they're building, and that's the heart of creativity, building on the works of others.

Re:Right back at ya

[cayenne8]

Well, as I said on another reply on here...there is a difference between playing something your self......and playing a recording of someone else's original playing.

As for hip hop...well, I have a hard time saying the phrase rap music...I think the terms are mutually exclusive.

Splicing together a bunch of samples of old music, with a bit of a drum machine loop and muttering some rhymes on top of it, is hardly art or music in my opinion. Remember when artists used to actually sing much less play their own instruments?

Re:Right back at ya

[KDan]

You're being a bit unfair by saying that rap can't be art. It can be art in the same sense as any poetry is art. We can dispute all day long about whether it is music, but art, it most definitely is (some of it anyway).

Daniel

Re:Right back at ya

[kingkade]

As for hip hop...well, I have a hard time saying the phrase rap music...I think the terms are mutually exclusive.

This is a generalization, and a misleading statement. You say that rap music is something of an oxymoron and then you rationalize this by: "Splicing together a bunch of samples of old music, with a bit of a drum machine loop and muttering some rhymes on top of it, is hardly art or music in my opinion". You're making a false statement saying "sampling is not creative" and drawing "all rap consists of sampling" therefore "rap is not creative and not music" (BTW, I used quotes to paraphrase your specious logic. don't think I was quoting you directly)

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if you tried this, then you'd see it's quite a hard thing to do, and sound good. Until you have done this, you are unqualified to make such comments

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

What does a tasks difficulty have to do with anything? We're talking about one person's idea about what is or isn't music.

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

Splicing together a bunch of samples of old music, with a bit of a drum machine loop and muttering some rhymes on top of it, is hardly art or music in my opinion. Remember when artists used to actually sing much less play their own instruments?

Well, you see, some thug wants to makes some cash to support his habit(s), but lacks any talent whatsoever. His singing voice sounds like an elephant rubbed over a cheese grater, and he is pretty much tone deaf. However, he knows he can make a quick buck glorifying crack dealing, murdering, pimping, and raping because he knows there are a bunch of other no-talent thugs out there with lots of disposable income (mostly gotten from the bloody pockets of thier murder victims). So he finds a tape recorder and pounds out some crap about how he is going to run around murdering peace officers. Since other murderous thugs also harbour discontents against individuals in authority who would want to put limits on how much slaughter they can create in one day, the song becomes popular on "the street" - specifically those streets where brigandage is considered in vogue.

Once we begin to lament that the age where talent and skill in the arts has passed, we arrive at the doorstep of wondering how we came to have cheering headlines like "$.5 used to deal crack on the streets - but now he has a new album out!" (courtesy of ET) and Why this thug is not behind bars where he belongs.

Re:Right back at ya

[Ryan Amos]

I'll agree with you that the vast majority of rappers aren't very good. But there are a few out there (including Dr. Dre) who are actually making music. The thing about rap is it's more about the lyrics than rock music (though with tools like Ludacris and Nelly it's becoming more about bubblegum catchy beats) so the music doesn't matter quite as much. Besides, go check out the Roots sometime.. They're a rap group who plays their own instruments on stage. :)

Re:Right back at ya

[Beautyon]

Hip-hop was

Past tense; so what is Hip-Hop now?

And on topic, we will never again see a legal release like "Paul's Boutique" because it costs too much to clear the samples. But there only needs to be one.

Re:Right back at ya

[Ian Wolf]

He's not making a false statement, he's stating his opinion. Whether or not you think it is false is irrelevant, to him it is true. There is no scientific litmus test as to what is creative and what is not, he is entitled to his opinion.

Doh! I forgot I was on Slashdot.

Re:Right back at ya

[tomaco-junkie]

To me sampling is akin to photocopying a page from Shakespeare and maybe add some blue triangles around it then calling it your own. It can be argued it is art but I still consider the original person who did it to be the primary artist. The person who does the copying should get little if any credit.

Re:Right back at ya

[geekoid]

" I'll agree with you that the vast majority of rappers aren't very good. "

can you think of any artform where that statement is not true?

Re:Right back at ya

[tomaco-junkie]

"that the vast majority of rappers aren't very good. But there are a few out there (including Dr. Dre) who are actually making music." you're a moron. the lyrics in rock can be just as important as anything. i hate when people try to claim rap has some special connection to poetry. go listen to some velvet underground, patti smith, or bob dylan before you make such a dumb comment.

Re:Right back at ya

[jellomizer]

Well the broadest definition of Music is controlled sounds. So Rap is still considered music. But in my opinion comparing music from the past. Rock, Blues, Jazz, Classical (modern, romantic, classical, romantic, baroque, ...) As well as comparing music forms from non western European cultures African, Asian, Native American. They all seem to be more musical then Rap is in my book.
But is Rap Music: Yes
Is it Art: Yes
Is it Good: No
The reason why I dont think Rap is good is not because of it a mixture of old music in a loop. I have seen this done far more musically. But the music seems to be strictly anger based music. (the words may have a positive message) but the combination of the rhythm and mono-tonic notation of the singer, Just gives a feeling of anger to the listener. And its excessive use of repetition give a primal nature to the music that doesn't encourage mental stimulation or relaxation, it just stresses the brain. Rap doesn't produce any positive benefit and there is little diversity within its own type of music.

Re:Right back at ya

[DeltaSigma]

Does it disgust you to consider obtaining permission before the use of said sample? Let's face it, the original artist did create that sound sample. Thus the copyright does belong to them. And you should probably acquire permission to use it before you, yourself, go try to make money on it.

The GPL, for instance, is a copyright license explicitely granting permission to use and modify the copyrighted work. The absence of such an agreement implies that this work is not up for grabs.

Just because you think its artistic does not make these actions legal. Spraypainting on public property isn't legal either. Now whether the city will prosecute is a different matter. That's the city's decision to make. But the tagger shouldn't assume that since they've made a beautiful mural they will have any sort of protection from the law.

And there's plenty of reason for an artist not to let another artist use their work. Suppose an artist which uses their music to distribute the message of white power wants to use a sound sample from an artist who preaches equality. Shouldn't that artist have the option to tell this white-power advocate that they don't want their work going to a cause they wish to fight?

You, sir, are making arbitrary judgements.

It's art because I say it's art, and it should thus be protected.

So where's the protection for the original work of art on which that new work is based?

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't see any creativity in this..."
Then you haven't listened. Hip-hop was the successor to jazz and rock as a new, vital, interesting music form. Once. Listen to the first Tribe Called Quest album (for one). Just because people make sounds from a clarinet or guitar instead of from a tape doesn't matter, what matters is the end product is different from the original in a significant way. You are making arbitrary judgements - why is replaying a lick you heard someone else play on a guitar different from reprocessing sounds recorded elsewhere into new sounds? They're not stealing, they're building, and that's the heart of creativity, building on the works of others.

I agree with this. It becomes a matter of musical taste at the end. I've had endless discussions with rock-only people who disapprove hip-hop music. There are distinct differences between Hip-hop and most genres of music.

If you ever seen a session or freestyle, in it's rawest form, you'll see it becomes poetry on the fly. Music is the medium that the poetry carries on and to attract a broader audience it uses, 'samples' of popular beats. A true fan or enthusiast will enjoy it by it's lyrical finese not by the beats it borrows.

That's why some of the greatest hip-hop artists make their own beats and create their own lyrics. Dr. Dre's current business is to create beats and sell them to artists; the 10% of the whole music label pie.

I know posting this in slashdot becomes a matter of, "well the musicians 'borrowed' why can't we?". But if you start talking about a genre that you don't respect or understand, it becomes an ignorant bout. (like not reading the article)

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

did anyone see LL Cool J do unplugged? The good stuff out there definitely is art. Take Run DMC, beasty boys and a couple others. Now compare them to the current crop of idiots. No comparison. Artist will always build on the past, whereas wannabe dweebs just rehash.

Re:Right back at ya

[Santos L. Halper]

This reminds me of what Dave Barry said about rap. It was something to the effect of "It sounds like a bunch of angry men shouting, possibly because the person who was supposed to bring the melody never showed up."

Re:Right back at ya

[javiercero]

The root are NOT a rap group, thank you very much.

Re:Right back at ya

[Ryan Amos]

You're right, they're not a rap group, they're a funk band making rap music.

Re:Right back at ya

[jedidiah]

However, the "interpreter" should be free to make their work. This issue highlights the entire POINT of copyright. Copyrights are meant to encourage people to create so that eventually others can base new work off of those results. It may be a derivative, a remake, or even a simple collage.

However, the whole idea should be to EMPOWER precisely this sort of use for older art. Based on that, this lawsuit is an obscenity that demonstrates the problem with the current copyright scheme.

Code is meant to eventually be free. Want is irrelevant.

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh no. Usually a sample is used not as the basis of a record but just as an add on (ie use a 4 bar loop of some 70s disco tune, or more recently eminems "Nobody listens to techno" vocal loop in danny howells tech house track. Your probably getting confused with people who either remix or re-edit records and claim that they wrote them

Re:Right back at ya

[Misch]

Whether it's art or not is better left for others to debate, but I note that the string "rap" is a substring of "crap"

Re:Right back at ya

[russellh]

Does it disgust you to consider obtaining permission before the use of said sample? Let's face it, the original artist did create that sound sample. Thus the copyright does belong to them.

A sample is the same as a literary quotation. One should not need permission to quote someone. I just sampled your post. Mmmmmm. Sosumi.

Does it disgust you
Does it disgust you
Does it disgust you to consider obtaining permission before the use of said sample? Let's Let's Let's face it, Does it disgust you? Let's face it, does it disgust you? Let's Let's Let's Let's face it, the original artist did create that sound sound sound sound sample. Thus the copyright Thus the copyright Thus the copyright Thus the copyright Thus the copyright does belong to them.

yo!

Re:Right back at ya

[ianjk]

Splicing together a bunch of samples of old music, with a bit of a drum machine loop and muttering some rhymes on top of it, is hardly art or music in my opinion

playing 3 chords, a simple drum beat and singing about love is hardly music also?

Re:Right back at ya

[DeltaSigma]

Wow, that could sound really cool if it were sampled. Just be sure to ask my permission if you try to go and make money off of it, else you have an expensive liability on your hands.

(note: Supporter of Open Source, asking permission will likely yield favorable results)

Re:Right back at ya

[cayenne8]

Hey....gimme an band that plays their own instruments...writes their own songs/music anyday over someone pushing buttons on computers or tape drives in a studio any day of the week....

And they wonder why record sales are down....

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

It is art, but this law states something like if I paint a picture using red for the sky, no one else can use red. There are only so many ways you can play these instraments. Taking a groups song and adding a little more to it(remixing) is what I don't like, and it is only the original artists that should be allowed to say who can and can't do it. But taking a simple beat and adding your own words isn't that bad.

Re:Right back at ya

[WowTIP]

Not if you don't base your whole song on one sample. Vanilla Ice (ice ice baby), to name one, got busted because he built the entire song upon a very recognizable riff.

Most talented artists use samples as a part of their own creation, often processed beyond recognition.

Re:Right back at ya

[kableh]

You're listening to the wrong "rap". Pick up a Blackstar album, it will open your eyes, believe me. This is an AMAZING CD: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000067CLT/ qid=1052430069/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/002-7159973-04880 34. Anything Talib Kweli or Mos Def touch is pretty much gold =D. And until you've listened to that album you can NOT tell me rap isn't music.

And once you hear good hiphop, you'll realize what the point is. Well maybe, I did at least. The breakbeat is secondary to the lyrics, and a good hiphop artist makes words sound like music, at least to me =). I might also add I'm into jungle too, which is basically a breakbeat times two, and that taught me rhythm alone can be as musical as a classical symphony =).

But it comes right down to opinion, and maybe hiphop just isn't "you". Just give the good stuff a chance, you can't generalize. Blackstar are sort of mainstream, but these days there is a TON of good underground hiphop out there.

Re:Right back at ya

[talesout]

I loathe your argument.

Until you've fucked children yourself you are unqualified to say that it is wrong. Until you've killed kittens yourself, you are unqualified to say it is wrong. Until you've killed jews yourself, you are unqualified to say that it is wrong. Do you get the drift yet moron?

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the poster was talking about hip-hop in an instrumental sense... this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with rap (which obviously doesn't involve "samples" - unless you're talking about quoting someone else song...)

Re:Right back at ya

[platipusrc]

well, rap actually isn't music according to the regular definitions of music (from dictionary.com):

music ( P ) Pronunciation Key (myzk)

n.

1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.

2. Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.

Since rap is only rhythm and percussion, it doesn't contain all of the qualities necessary for music! :)

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and "art" is a substring of "fart." What's your point?

Re:Right back at ya

[M.C. Hampster]

Whether it's art or not is better left for others to debate, but I note that the string "rap" is a substring of "crap"

Wow, and you are the only one in the whole world who has ever noticed that too.

Of course, "Linux" is a substring of "Linux is the suXX0rs". So?

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they are, unless you're trying to discern between hip-hop and rap, then they're a hip-hop group.

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

Rap is to music as the Etch-A-Sketch is to art.

Re:Right back at ya

[sydb]

Well the broadest definition of Music is controlled sounds.

That would include the beeping sound HGVs make when they're reversing, or the siren on a police car, or a fire alarm, or me swearing under my breath.

I was going to say "make that 'controlled sounds whose main purpose is non-functional'" but entertainment could be a function, or persuasion; that depends on the creator. Of course, not all music aims to entertain or persuade.

Defining music by it's sound itself is useless; artists like Aube or Oval prove that. The uninitiated might think the stereo was broken (I quite like it...).

Perhaps music is what the listener calls music. Of course, that's a cop out. An unreasonable listener could call everything (or nothing) music.

I think that the essence of music lies in the intent of the creator. This also covers the case of a functional sound being listened to for musical purposes; in this case the intent lies with the listener and therefore they are also the creator.

The intent must be to create a work of sound to be listened to as an aesthetic experience. This distinguishes between non-musical works of sound, like audio books and speeches, and music. This needn't be the sole aim of the sound; music can be created as propoganda where the main intent is to foster allegiance to a political doctrine. But it won't work if there is no aesthetic content.

In summary: Music is works of sound created with an aesthetic intent.

Defining aesthetic is a bit trickier (unless you want to revert to that obnoxious brand of ignorance, behaviouralism).

Re:Right back at ya

[WNight]

No, you shouldn't get any say in who uses fair-use copies of your work.

Creating derivative copies is different, it involves using much more of your work. Sampling implies tiny pieces.

Copying a riff or a sample of you saying a single word or short phrase in a public appearance or performance seems to be a valid and necessary part of other people's rights to comment on your work and opinions. Also, there's the moral right of society to use the art in the public concsiousness to create new art. We build on the work of those who came before us.

The Rolling Stones didn't create their music in a vacumm so why should Dr. Dre be forced to?

Someone who preaches equality can use samples of hateful speech in part of a work speaking out against this. Why should hate mongers be denied the same rights?

Re:Right back at ya

[charon_on_acheron]

Dear Mr DeltaSigma,

I was just reading your comments, and would like to use some of them in a book I'm writing. The artists who preach white power and equality, respectively, is a great analogy to this whole open source and closed source debate.

So, may I use your comments in my book that is going to show how silly open source supporters are, and the viral nature of open source. I will make sure your name is prominently displayed as a contributer to the book, so that all of the open source advocates see how helpful you have been to me with my mission of enlightening America's CEO about the benefits of a fully Windows corporate world.

Sincerely,
Bill Gates.

d :^P

Re:Right back at ya

[blincoln]

we will never again see a legal release like "Paul's Boutique" because it costs too much to clear the samples. But there only needs to be one.

It's not just "Paul's Boutique." It's the entire Skinny Puppy and Front Line Assembly catalogues. It's Plunderphonics, Negativland, Mentallo and the Fixer, and :Wumpscut:.

Half of the albums I love would never have been released in the current climate regarding samples. Ironically, their use in that music is what prompted me to find and buy a bunch of the sources - which I would never have heard of otherwise.

Re:Right back at ya

[CausticWindow]

Have you heard 'Since I Left You' by The Avalanches? It was released in 2001 and contains over 900 cleared samples. Excellent record by the way.

Then there is 'As Heard On Radio Soulwax Pt. 2' by 2 Many DJ's. They got clearance to mash-up big names like Dolly Parton, Destiny's Child, Emerson Lake & Palmer, Skee-lo, Velvet Underground and Kylie Minogue. You can read the story on how they cleared all those (and on all they didn't clear) here.

Re:Right back at ya

[DeltaSigma]

...let's talk licensing. I won't accept any money, but if you'll merely sign a contract promising to achieve a certain level of standards compliance within your products... ...no, no, nevermind, no quote for you.

Re:Right back at ya

[DeltaSigma]

Oh, so suddenly we're going to pretend that, given my example, only the hate mongers could be denied. Never should we fathom that the hate mongers might want to deny the artist preaching equality that same "right."

What's wrong with this generation and asking permission? If these artists are so fantastic, why can't they recreate the sound sample with their own instruments and digital manipulation? What is so hard about going that extra mile for the sake of honesty? I'm not above anyone. I've done my share of copying. But at least I recognize the fact that I am liable for my own actions.

Re:Right back at ya

[freestyle-fiend]

I loathe your argument.

The argument you loathe is in response to the argument that anybody could make hiphop, so it is not art. Why do you loathe this argument?

Until you've fucked children yourself you are unqualified to say that it is wrong.

This argument is not about morality (at least, not obviously or directly). It is about artistic worth and aesthetic value. How is this comparison relevent?

Re:Right back at ya

[Bingo Foo]

"Frontier Psychiatrist" alone is worth the album price.

Re:Right back at ya

[dogfart]

and Rock-and-Roll consists of nothing but three chords stolen from old starving blue musicians. Face it, every type of new music was considered talentless noise in its day.

Much popular music is also derivative from earlier forms - often shamelessly so. Dr. Dre isn't the first to do this. Led Zepplin stole blatantly from Willie Dixon, for example.

Re:Right back at ya

[CausticWindow]

My favourite too.. this has been the themesong to many a summer party. The lyrics are so wickedly twisted.

Did I ever tell you the story about, Cowboys! M... M.. M.. Midgets and indians and... Fron.. Frontier Psychiatrist, I... I felt strangely hypnotised, I was in another world, a world of 20,000 girls, And milk! Rectangles, to an optometrist, the man with the golden eyeball

Can you think of anything else that talks, other than a person? Uh ohh... uh oh, a bird! Yeah! Somtimes a parrot talks, Ha ha ha... Yes, some birds are funny when they talk, Can you think of anything else?... a record!

Re:Right back at ya

[BigJimSlade]

we will never again see a legal release like "Paul's Boutique"

You're close... we'll never see a release like that on a mainstream US label. DJ Shadow and Cut Chemist (one of the DJs for Jurassic 5) put out two fantastic album length releases, "Brainfreeze" and "Product Placement" on an underground label over the last couple years. Both were put together from nothing but samples and are some of the best musical compositions I've heard in quite some time. 99% of the samples used on the two releases (around 150+ unique samples each if my memory serves me) are from old funk and soul cuts that you will most likely never hear in your lifetime. That's half of what makes it interesting! The other half is hearing their arrangement, playing 1-4 of the records at a time, composing the samples in real time (did I mention that both of these were recorded live?) Brainfreeze is near impossible to find... very limited release (check your local Kazaa), while Product Placement is still readily available from DJ Shadow's website. Both are fantastic and well worth your time.

Re:Right back at ya

[Golias]

Music, at least prior to Gilbert and Sullivan, has a very different history from literature regarding intellectual property.

The Great Composers learned their craft largely by performing and copying each others' work. The entire history of Western music hinges on the theft of prior ideas. Even the scales (as we know them) were initially formed by trying to make sense of what was written about ancient greek intonations.

Mozart and Beethoven "stole" from Haydn all the time, and Haydn began by stealing ideas from Baroque-era composers. Bach stole many of his church melodies from popular tavern songs. Louis Armstrong "stole" just about every riff and motif King Oliver ever came up with.

Nobody has any fucking clue where that "Nuh-NAH-nuh-na-NUH" stop-time riff in Muddy Waters' "Manish Boy" (and George Thouroghgood's "Bad to the Bone", among dozens of others) originally came from, because it, like most of the best riffs of traditional blues, had been stolen by one artist after another since before audio recording even existed. For that matter, listen to Buddy Guy and Junior Wells sing "Man of Many Words", and then listen to Otis Redding's "Hard to Handle"... It's the same damn song, except Otis used horn kicks and Buddy played a guitar solo for the bridge.

"Stealing" a sound, whether by sampling or reading sheet music or replaying it by ear, for your own composition is really no more unethical than an architect putting a feature in his building inspired by something that he liked from a Frank Lloyd Wright structure.

Actually, a better analogy is this: suing somebody for sampling or quoting a previous composition in a new one makes about as much sense as suing Peter Max for painting pictures of the Statue of Liberty.

IMHO, copyright is not a concept that should ever have been applied to music, except perhaps to entire works, with much broader terms of Fair Use to allow other artists to extrapolate.

As for the argument about whether rap is really music... Of course it is, don't be stupid. Almost all of it is really shitty music, but then so is pretty much everything Kenny G plays. Forget about "broad" definitions of music; the most precise definition of music I can give as of 2003 is "the performance art of emotive expression through sound." Does rap fit that criteria? Yes. The fact that some of you don't connect with the expression doesn't invalidate what they are doing. I doubt that most rap fans get much out of listening to Hindemeth or even Stravinsky, and now that they are "last century's music", we are all supposed to finally appreciate it after its time (or so predicted all my pretentious music profs anyway.)

I don't know why I went on such a long tirade on a /. thread that's already 600 comments deep or so. I doubt many people will read it. Something about all this talk about music and copyright kind of triggered a knee-jerk rant, I guess.

Re:Right back at ya

[freestyle-fiend]

To me sampling is akin to photocopying a page from Shakespeare and maybe add some blue triangles around it then calling it your own.

...or Shakespeare taking elements from other people's works and weaving them into his masterful creations. It depends on the extent of the sampling (obviously taking a sample by itself is not new creativity), the skill with which it is composed with other sounds and the quality of any made-from-scratch material in the recording.

Re:Right back at ya

[Bingo Foo]

"He was white as a sheet!"
"And he also made false teeth."

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

Past tense; so what is Hip-Hop now?

about the same thing as all music is once the majors get a hold of it..dead. but thats a gross generalization of course if you dig hard enuff into any style you will be able to find some songs/bands that hits that good music nerve for you.

Re:Right back at ya

[FunkSoulBrother]

And they wonder why record sales are down....

I really don't want to get in the rap/rock arguement, but as an educated guess I have a feeling Rap music sales aren't feeling sting that the overall music industry is feeling. At least, they are probably not hurting to the same degree.

Most people I know who listen to a lot of rap are not computer types, and they buy a lot of CDs to drive around in their cars with.

Honestly, record sales are probably down the worst on Rock bands who can play their own instruments singing about love. Thats what is primarily traded online.

Re:Right back at ya

[Finuvir]

"I'll agree with you that the vast majority of rappers aren't very good."

can you think of any artform where that statement is not true?

• the vast majority of rappers aren't very good at collage
• the vast majority of rappers aren't very good at sculpture
• the vast majority of rappers aren't very good at animation
• the vast majority of rappers aren't very good at opera
• the vast majority of rappers aren't very good at painting

Oh my god, you're right!

Re:Right back at ya

[srn_test]

Sword dancing? I imagine the not-very-good ones don't last long...

Re:Right back at ya

[freestyle-fiend]

Hey....gimme an band that plays their own instruments...

If that's your cup of tea.

writes their own songs/music anyday

All good rappers write their own lyrics. One of my main objections to sung music is that it is considered acceptable to sing someone elses words. When you find this claim unfair, maybe you'll realise how your own demonisation of "rap music" looks.

over someone pushing buttons on computers or tape drives in a studio any day of the week....

I'd rather hear someone cutting (sampling the old fashioned way) breaks than someone plucking strings or pressing keys in a studio any day of the week. Just as the guitar player is not just strumming, the hiphop artist is not just pressing buttons.

Of course, sampling is utterly dependent on their being sounds to sample, so I and many other hiphop devotees are grateful for the existence of music made by people who play instruments, but the argument that hiphop is not artistic is not sound and the conclusion (but not the enquiry) is offensive.

And they wonder why record sales are down....

Are hiphop sales down more than other genre's sales?

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are live MIXES not new compositions. Theres a difference.

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

A POX ON THEE!!!

Modern poetry is not art,
It is pompous pseudo-intellectual prattle
Cloaked in layers of analytical claptrap
And spouted by tedious, talentless twerps
Or whining housewives-in-waiting.
Oh, fuck, not more Sylvia Plath!

"I didn't mean anything, hence the need for obscurity".

Re:Right back at ya

[ProfKyne]

I remember back circa 1996 reading an interview with the Chemical Brothers in an issue of Details magazine. They were talking about where they get samples from for their music, and the interviewer asked them about the upcoming "Dig Your Own Hole" (or maybe it was already out). And the brothers basically said they couldn't say where they got the samples from, even though they had distorted the samples, for fear of legal repercussions.

Re:Right back at ya

[Ioldanach]

Does it disgust you to consider obtaining permission before the use of said sample? Let's face it, the original artist did create that sound sample. Thus the copyright does belong to them.

A sample is the same as a literary quotation. One should not need permission to quote someone. I just sampled your post. Mmmmmm. Sosumi.

Does it disgust you Does it disgust you Does it disgust you to consider obtaining permission before the use of said sample? Let's Let's Let's face it, Does it disgust you? Let's face it, does it disgust you? Let's Let's Let's Let's face it, the original artist did create that sound sound sound sound sample. Thus the copyright Thus the copyright Thus the copyright Thus the copyright Thus the copyright does belong to them.

yo!

You've done two separate things here. First you quote, and then ask if quoting is wrong. Then, you break apart the quote and create a derivative work from it. That creation of a derivative work is a basic case of copyright infringement.

Yes, you're allowed to quote. No, you're not allowed to create a derivative work without permission. And in my opinion, your example is precisely why.

What's worse, allowing someone to create a derivative work without permission opens the door to allow them to twist words around. What if, for example, instead of saying the original quote, you cut it to read:

Let's face it,... the copyright does belong to ... you ... you ... you ...

The words have a new and twisted meaning, and while they're all phrases in the original statement, they're not a quotation.

Re:Right back at ya

[WNight]

If you read the article, you'd see that the artist in question *DID* recreate the sound sample. He's accused of violating the copyright on the specific string of notes.

Beyond that though, what is with some people thinking that we need to ask permission for every little action? Everything which is not expressly forbidden is allowed. If you say something in public, why shouldn't I be able to record a snippet of that and use it as part of my speech? And then, why is music different than speech?

This isn't an issue of someone taking a whole speech or song, copying it exactly, and then passing it off as their own. This is about using a small piece of one song to reference it in another. It's a perfectly valid thing that musicians have been doing since our ancestors first discovered song. Without this borrowing we'd never have accomplished anything, we'd all be grubbing in the dirt because nobody could ever build on anything developed by anyone else. Without this borrowing we'd also be unable to ever talk about ideas created by someone else. "Bob's idea is bad, and will ruin the company, but I'm not legally allowed to tell you what his idea was because his speech is copyrighted."

And of course we're supposed to understand that your example means Jesse Jackson could use material from the KKK but not vice versa. Ideas like that are always selectively applied against unpopular groups.

This issue isn't at all releated to copying of music as done on Kazza, or in misrepresenting the work of someone else as your own. It's like giving a speech on economics and quoting "A few billion here. A few billion there, and soon we're talking about real money", or giving a talk about astronomy and using carl sagan's "billions and billions" as a tribute or reference, or even if you wished, as a derogatory reference.

Re:Right back at ya

[fenix down]

It's great that you bring up Dylan, who's really pretty close to rap. He sacrifices the singability of the words before he sacrifices the poetry. Look at, say, Like a Rolling Stone. He'll go off and just ramble a bunch of words into a beat instead of rewriting to something that fits easier but might not say exactly what he wants it to. On the other end there's Nirvana, with something like School where he's being purely lyrical. As long as you do it right, either way can turn out to be as profound as you want it to be.

Rap can be lyrical (I'm making up my own vocabulary here, I never went to music school or whatever, so I have no idea what words to use for this stuff) too, though, with somebody like Outkast, where the main thing is for the words to sound good. If you write down the lyrics to Bombs Over Baghdad or something, there's bits in there that are practically nonsense, but they keep the flow going.

I lost my point somewhere back there. Whatever. I guess rap doesn't have a special connection to poetry, but you're saying poetry makes a song good, and that's stupid. Poetry makes poems good. Songs are a different art form.

Re:Right back at ya

[tomaco-junkie]

Hmmm... I made a mistake here. Quoted Wrong person... and put it in wrong place... anyways... I agree with you that poetry and music are different. To me poetry is a medium. If I do a drawing with a pencil I couldn't call it a painting so I personally don't think music is poetry though they are often closely related. If you put lyrics down on a piece of paper it can be poetry though. Check out this article on the topic.

Re:Right back at ya

[tomaco-junkie]

I mean songs where most of the melody comes from someone else but the rhythm is added in using a drum machine. Which is done quite often. Busta Rhymes for example using the Psycho theme song.

Re:Right back at ya

[gessel]

I disagree: the sole purpose of copyright is to maximize the availability of invention and the useful arts to the people of the United States.

It is a granted temporary monopoly on the commercial reproduction of inventions and useful arts. A gift from We The People to those that create, that they may find incentive to create more and thereby gift us with the further fruits of their labors.

Creators have no intrinsic right to profit from their invention. Ideas cannot be owned, they are, like fire, expansible over all space, that he that lights a taper from mine receives light without darkening me. etc.

Therefore, so long as Dr. Dre did not by his actions cause a net loss in the creative work available to the world, for example by expropriating the income of the sample's source to the point that the original artist was reduced to a regular job, his efforts were entirely in keeping with the constitutional mandate for copyright and he should be applauded, not sued.

Re:Right back at ya

[Blue Stone]

I don't get all this rap isn't a legitimate form of music, stuff.
Collage is a legitimate form of art (see : Picasso.) Rap is (in part) a musical form of collage.

Of course, with the massive corporatisation of our culture, restrictions on artistic expression (collage is a legitimate form of art) is ubiquitous.

Pffft.

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

haha, you're a self-contradicting, dumbass. the best part is you don't know it. congratulations moron.

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the UK Acid house tune, that sampled Margaret Thatcher selectively ( V.I.M. - Maggie's Last Party- November 6, 2002 ) to create the phrase :

"Acid Party...Let's have a party, rave, rave rave, murder...never mind the politics."

I had a great time to that tune. Was I wrong ?

Re:Right back at ya

[freestyle-fiend]

rap is only rhythm and percussion,

Actually, rap is only vocal.

Re:Right back at ya

[freestyle-fiend]

Rap is to music as the Etch-A-Sketch is to art.

You're right. Rapping and Etch-A-Sketch are both tools for delivering art (I consider music to be art). So is singing. All three could be used inartistically, but that is not the fault of rapping, singing or Etch-A-Sketch.

Re:Right back at ya

[mpe]

However, the "interpreter" should be free to make their work. This issue highlights the entire POINT of copyright. Copyrights are meant to encourage people to create so that eventually others can base new work off of those results. It may be a derivative, a remake, or even a simple collage.

A copyright law which covered only copying, but didn't restrict using a work as source material could do this. Even were the copyright of infinite term. As could a very short term copyright law which also restricted "derived works".
What we have now is very long term copyright with very stringent restrictions of the creation of derived works.

However, the whole idea should be to EMPOWER precisely this sort of use for older art.

Using older works as source material for new works is the way creative people have operated for thousands of years anyway.

Re:Right back at ya

[d34thm0nk3y]

Good lord, finally someone is making some damn sense! Too bad about the 600 comments deep...

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

Rock music is derivative Negro music as well. Derivative of blues. And blues is derivative of White bluegrass music. Is there anything the Negro hasn't stolen from the White man?

Re:Right back at ya

[talesout]

My argument was against the faulty reasoning of the argument made in the post I responded to. It wasn't a moral argument. It was an argument that telling people they have no right to judge that which they don't do is, well, quite frankly, fucking retarded. You can judge anything. Especially when it comes to opinion, which is all we're talking about here.

It doesn't matter whether or not I like rap music. What matters is, someone has completely faulty logic when they say, "Unless you have done it yourself, you have no right to judge." It's a canned knee-jerk response that has no merit. That's the only point I was attempting to make. If you took more away from it, check your reading comprehension.

Re:Right back at ya

[Holocaust Administra]

His pride... oh wait, that DOESN'T explain Eminem.

Re:Right back at ya

[Heisenbug]

You're right -- rap inspires emotion, and it has a primal appeal. Nice indictment.

That emotion -- and the appeal -- obviously escape you, which is fine. Rap is also a very experience-specific form, coming out of a particular place and time (NYC in the 70s, blah blah blah, I took the class). If you don't identify with that experience, you're probably among the massive group of people who, while providing most of the sales for rap, are simply not its target audience. Don't worry about figuring it out -- it's not really aimed at you -- but don't talk about it if you don't understand it.

As a side note, if you want to compare rap to rock, jazz and blues, one of the strongest similarities is that all of them were accused of being not particularly musical in their day.

See you in 2050.

Re:Right back at ya

[Holocaust Administra]

Rap is an art form; anything can be an art form if it aspires to artistic forms of communication. However, this doesn't mean all art is equal, or that most art isn't saying something essentially stupid.

Re:Right back at ya

[Holocaust Administra]

While most artists in most artforms suck, no two artforms are equal. I haven't seen anyone here comparing The Sex Pistols to Beethoven, or even to Morbid Angel or Neue, f'r instance.

Re:Right back at ya

[ianjk]

Hey....gimme an band that plays their own instruments...writes their own songs/music anyday over someone pushing buttons on computers or tape drives in a studio any day of the week.... so what about pushing buttons (er, keys) on a keyboard? or digital guitar effects? A good portion of new music has electronic (triggered) drums, does that count too?

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people argue whether Picasso was a legitimate artist, but I'm really not qualified to say. I'm not an artist or an art historian; I just drink beer with them.

Re:Right back at ya

[mink]

I think a decent example of both might be Smashmouths "Walking on the Sun".
It dosent always "fit" (most of this happen early in the song) kinda like the Dylan example, but other times it like the Nirvana example you give they are lyrical.

Re:Right back at ya

[mink]

Heck, people have been making music using nothing but instrument samples for over a decade, I believe it stated on the C-64 (or one of it's competitors) and has been going storng since. It's called Tracking (it is intertwined with the demoscene), for information about it hit Scene.

Re:Right back at ya

[mink]

A number of people got in trouble for this. MC Hammer, Vanilla Ice, etc.

Re:Right back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

are simply not its target audience.

Target audience is a bunch of knuckle dragging clothed ape niggers who like it because it reminds them of beating on the drum in the old tribe back home?

Samples

[black mariah]

If the sample is recognisable as a major part of another song, it should have to be cleared for use by the artist. Simple as that.

Re:Samples

[Anonymous Coward]

And who determines when a sample is recognizable or not?

Re:Samples

[javatips]

Lawyers :(

Re:Samples

[phat_joe23]

It's definitely not that simple. dudev("That's just, like, your opinion, man.");

According to the Fair Use doctrine, I can sample your music withour permission. For instance, I could make a parody or social criticism using your music.

And even if your sample is recognizable, it is still possible, artistically, to use it in a completely new way.

/joe

Re:Samples

[Joe the Lesser]

Unless you reject the greedy assumption that art must be controlled and deciminated legally by whoever owns it and realize it should belong to the public for the good of society.

Re:Samples

[dr.badass]

Parody is protected free speech under law.
Fair Use is not law.

So, while you're entirely right about there being new artistic uses, sampling in the Dr. Dre sense is a whole other animal.

Re:Samples

[Telastyn]

It doesn't *need* cleared, espeically in the case of parody and the such. If used seriously it pretty much still falls under copyright. Hell, at the very least the original artist should be given credit.

In written word, it's considered a serious offense if, say a poem, or even a snippet of a poem, is republished as part of a larger work without credit given to the original author. Why should a (recorded) bassline be different than a poem in regards to copyright?

Re:Samples

[phat_joe23]

Fair Use IS law.

Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 /joe

Re:Samples

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article before making a statement like that. He asked a musicologist about the sample and he was told it was commonplace. So he covered his ass. He should win an appeal easily.

Re:Samples

[e2d2]

I agree, this is an obvious derivative work. When you create a derivative work the very least you should do is contact the copyright holder and ask their permission or optionally you should give them credit for the work and display their copyright. If not then people will asume that you created the work and the originator of the material gets nothing.

Let me give you two instances of my run in with derivative works:

1. I added a regex to my open source email library that would check the validity of an email address. I found one written by Jeffrey E. F. Friedl (Mastering Regular Expressions; O'reilly) and wanted to port this to the language I used. Even though the differences where drastic because of the programming language semantics it was still a derivative works in the eyes of the law (the regex itself was the derivative, not the code to implement it). So I sent Mr. Friedl and email and he granted me permission. Problem avoided.

2. A company that shall remain nameless takes the same LGPL email library I wrote mentioned above and released it as a commercial component without distributing the source in it's "demo version" and never once showing it's customers my copyright to that library. I would have had no problem if the company simply obeyed the GPL license and properly displayed my copyright and included the source. There were other violations but these where the main ones. This is a case of a derivative work and the company violated my copyright. Taking someone elses work and putting your name on it is stealing, plain and simple.

Now I'm gonna step down off the soap box but my point is this - if you create a derivative work make sure you are very careful to follow the rules or you'll end up with your ass in a sling like Dr. Dre and those mentioned above.

Re:Samples

[gripdamage]

If the sample is recognisable as a major part of another song, it should have to be cleared for use by the artist. Simple as that.

Well thank God someone's solved that problem. Now why don't you take on world hunger or the environment.

Trouble with your reductionalist BS is that you can take sounds from other tracks and arrange them in a sufficently creative way to create a new original work. Take Negativland's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" : it contains a recognizable sample from U2's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" but is obviously an original work which is critical of the record industry establishment. While I recognize the sample, I can't find the ideas represented in the original work of U2, nor do I recognize the overall song structure. Something has obviously been created.

IMHO this is not what Puffy does for instance; Puffy essentially steals all the music from a song and sets different lyrics to it... like Wierd Al.

Copyright has been totally perverted and sampling is a casualty as much as anything else.

Re:Samples

[RobotRunAmok]

Unless you reject the greedy assumption that art must be controlled and deciminated legally by whoever owns it and realize it should belong to the public for the good of society

I'll be happy to, once my mortgage bank and grocery store reject all their greedy assumptions and agree to house and feed me and my family for the good of society.

Until then, pay up, parasite...

Re:Samples

[bmd3k]

...he consulted a musicologist who said the riff was commonplace.

...

The Fatback Band have been sampled or covered more than 80 times by acts ranging from Monica to Fatboy Slim to Everlast.

IANAMusician, but it seems like it could be possible that this bass riff is considered "commonplace" only because it has been sampled in many songs.

Re:Samples

[dr.badass]

Indeed, you're right. And that's exactly what the current state of affairs is. Sample-heavy artists, typically pay specialized sample-clearing companies to track down and negotiate with the copyright holders. With few exceptions (anal-retentive artists), clearing dozens of samples is much, much, cheaper than getting sued for a single one.

The old saying that "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission" does not apply here.

Re:Samples

[limekiller4]

black mariah writes:
"If the sample is recognisable [sic] as a major part of another song, it should have to be cleared for use by the artist. Simple as that."

This is about as useful as saying "A means B, period." Well ..why? Why is the threshold the recognition?

And by who? A career musician or a man on the street? How recognizable does it have to be? Does 50% qualify? More? Less? Is it deemed "recognizable" when someone says "yeah, I've heard that before, that's been done" or do they have to name the artist, too? Or the song from whence it came?

Where on the planet should this recognition take place? If you answer "where the sample was produced," does that mean the copyright for the sample degrades as you get further away from the point of origin?

When does the recognition count, for that matter? When the sample was produced? Does this mean that as recognition goes down over time the copyright degrades?

Do you understand the contradiction in that by sampling the music you increase the recognition of the original and therefore put yourself in jepoardy that you would not be in if you didn't sample the recording at all?

And to get even more basic, by what inalienable right does a person have a right to own information?

Do you feel you owe the first person to string together the words "simple as that" some money now?

Re:Samples

[cpt kangarooski]

Juries ;)

(but you ask a lawyer first since he might have an insight into what the jury will decide, and it's cheaper and faster than going to court)

Re:Samples

[psycht]

Unless you reject the greedy assumption that art must be controlled and deciminated legally by whoever owns it and realize it should belong to the public for the good of society.

put yourself in the place of the creative mind that used their talent to make this music that you so care to sample.

now ask your self again. who does it belong to?

let me know when you write a book. I'm going to "sample" a few pages.

Re:Samples

[ddstreet]

According to the Fair Use doctrine, I can sample your music withour permission.

Sure, but you can't sell anything you've sampled without permission; commercial re-use isn't "Fair Use".

Re:Samples

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you sure could, but you couldn't sell it.

Re:Samples

[Planesdragon]

Sure, but you can't sell anything you've sampled without permission; commercial re-use isn't "Fair Use".

Wrong. Fair Use is implicity commercial.

When lawyers talk about "Fair Use", they don't mean making short clips for your computer or making an MP3. They meah committing criminal / civil copyright infringment for a purpose that deserves to be exempted from the copyright monopoly.

What you're think of is, AFAIK, "reasonable use."

Re:Samples

[dr.badass]

Er, bad phrasing. I considered it right after I posted, and got a 'Troll' moderation for my troubles.

Fair Use IS law, but it is not a right under law. It is a defence. (Granted, on many levels there's not much difference, but that wasn't my original point.) Quoth your link :


In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include...


Now, I am not a law student, but I think you stand on firmer ground with a parody, protected under your 1st Amendment right to free speech, than you do with calling sampling Fair Use.

Re:Samples

[Planesdragon]

Trouble with your reductionalist BS is that you can take sounds from other tracks and arrange them in a sufficently creative way to create a new original work.

You aren't familiar with how the law works, are you? (The song you quoted is obviously parody / commentary, and so is classic Fair Use.) (IANAL-RU?)

The parent poster's right about spot on. The problem isn't one of artistic merit, it's of who can convince what jury & judge that a particular part was both copied and significant enough to be a protected element.

Copyright has been totally perverted and sampling is a casualty as much as anything else.

While I agree that copyright has been perverted, how do you get "sampling" as a casualty?

Re:Samples

[Relic of the Future]

Puffy essentially steals all the music from a song and sets different lyrics to it... like Wierd Al.

Weird Al has to get (well, he may not HAVE to, but he alwasys does, just to avoid this kind of problem) has to goet permission from the original artist to do his parodies. Would you like to try again?

Re:Samples

[Anonymous Coward]

What about visual artists who use newspapers or other printed material in collage and photomontage work. Should they have to pay some phone company because they used the yellowpages as a canvas and some parts of it are still visable?

Re:Samples

[poot_rootbeer]

Take Negativland's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" : it contains a recognizable sample from U2's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" but is obviously an original work which is critical of the record industry establishment. While I recognize the sample, I can't find the ideas represented in the original work of U2, nor do I recognize the overall song structure. Something has obviously been created.

And that "something" has a name, and its name is "a derivative work".

Puffy essentially steals all the music from a song and sets different lyrics to it... like Wierd Al.

Not like Weird Al at all. Sean Combs pays licensing fees to the songwriters of the Police, Led Zeppelin, etc. songs that he 'remixes' into his own work.

Al Yankovic is creating works of parody, which he is allowed to do without paying license feea. Still, he (usually? always?) seeks the permission of the artists whose music he parodies, and most enthusiastically give their blessings.

Re:Samples

[gripdamage]

Who said he didn't? I just said that Puffy is doing musically something similar to Weird Al, only not funny (at least not intentionally).

Puffy gets permission too by the way. Would you like to try again?

Re:Samples

[Unregistered]

Not any more. At least in fasciast America.

Re:Samples

[bofkentucky]

Yeah, but getting Jimmy Page and Robert Plant hookers, scotch and cocaine should not be grounds for destroying Kashmir.

Re:Samples

[jedidiah]

You might have a point if such a "comparable point of view" was enshrined in our Law. However, such a "comparable point of view is not".

The "parasitic" notion that copyright exists for the public good (rather than for greed) is not just a freaky, hippie idea: it's a part of the US Consitution.

Re:Samples

[Relic of the Future]

Ah, I mistook your argument. I thought you were defending Puffy and saying he shouldn't have to pay the $1.5m for not getting permission for this sample. (Post you replied to said "yes, Puffy should pay", you posted something disagreeing with it; you see why I'd be confused?) Yes, he USUALLY does get permission, but in this case he did not. So, do we agree that we agree?

Re:Samples

[rwsorden]

Your examples are fine - for the case that you are aware or have the means to become aware that you are creating something similar to what someone else has been done before. Take the following unlikely but possible situation as an example. Let's say I lock myself in a recording studio for 1 month and I spend the time creating a song, having no contact whatsoever with the outside world. At the end of the 1 month period of time, I then release the song on the Apple iTunes store and sell 1 million downloads in a 24 hour span of time. What should happen if another musician comes to realize that the bassline of my song is identical to the bassline of a song he/she wrote 30 years earlier (that I had never heard or listened to in my life) and decided to sue me?

Re:Samples

[silverhalide]

It's interesting you mentioned Weird Al. Also brings to minds Mad Magazine. Both Al and Mad have fought extensively to establish in the courts that parodies *are* quite legal, and to make a parody of something, you have to use the same background music/artwork! I think in Weird Al and Mad's case, they always replayed the music with their own bands or drew the artwork with their own artists, so maybe that's how they slipped it past the courts. If that's the case, artists should take a clue from this. To use a sample, just make your own sample that sounds nearly the same as the original one, and you're set.

For example, Static Revenger, a dance DJ/producer, created a song, "Longtime", that appears to use a sample from Boston's famous song, Longtime. However, upon further investigation, it turns out that he just made a really good cover of the original song and used it in his "remix". Now he's safe from being sued since he didn't sample it directly.

Hiphop producers should take a cue from this and adopt the practice. It's definitely cheaper than paying off $1.5/million a sample!

Re:Samples

[Anonymous Coward]

I TOTALLY HATE YOU you stupid FESTERING PIECE OF SHIT. Nothing you ever say is EVER OF ANY VALUE and you are just taking up SPACE that a worthwhile person like CHARLIE MANSON could be consuming. I would rather have FIVE HUNDRED MANSONS than the ONE of YOU THAT EXISTS you fucking MORON.

Re:Samples

[black mariah]

Wow, this is fucking stupid. As nice as it would be to live in a utopian society where everything was free, we don't so it isn't. Working musicians, musicians whose sole income is from their music, rely on that control to keep their van running, to keep their guitars strung, and to keep food on their table. It's complete bullshit to think that music should "belong to the public for the good of society". Music belongs to the creators. You know why? Because any good musician makes music for THEMSELVES. Anyone else that happens to like it is just along for the ride. To claim that the music that I make should belong to the public is fucking ludicrous. My music belongs to ME and nobody else.

It's not greed, it's personal. My music is my channel for aggression that keeps me from running around shooting morons like you.

Re:Samples

[jameson71]

Right. Just like Academia, and all other areas. The idea is that the original source must be cited. Not that you can not use it. Credit given where credit due. It just so happens that since in the recent past, the technology needed to record and distribute high quality sound recording has had a high barrier to entry. This created a gigantic, profitable business. Music tenda to have a theme and variations. Copyright a theme, and you stifle innovation on the variations. How many 4 note permutations out there are there? Hmmm... How many can I afford to copyright NOW?

Re:Samples

[black mariah]

Fine then. ALL samples should be cleared and paid for. If you're such a shitty musician that you can't play a fucking guitar yourself, you shouldn't be allowed to run a sampler either. If it's so damned unrecognisable, what's the point in the first place?

And at least Weird Al plays his own damn instruments. Man, I never thought I'd defend that guy...

Re:Samples

[dvdeug]

Sure, but you can't sell anything you've sampled without permission; commercial re-use isn't "Fair Use".

It certainly can be. Parody is a common example of commercial fair use.

Re:Samples

[SN74S181]

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

How is some drivel pop music that Dr. Dre produces, or a few riffs of drivel pop music that he steals, the 'promotion of Progress of Science and useful Arts'???

Seems to me that progress isn't stopped, or even slowed down, by many copyrighted works being secured for 'non-limited Times' or by 'limited Times' at all. So either can be granted by congress (limited or unlimited time spans), and neither is unconstitutional. Now, if it were more than artistic expression, if it were an actual useful art it would be different.

Re:Samples

[charon_on_acheron]

"The old saying that "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission" does not apply here."

Basically, it should be changed to "It costs more to get forgiveness than permission."

Re:Samples

[Anonymous Coward]

"It costs more to get forgiveness than permission."

In some cases, you won't even get forgiveness. In the worst cases, artists have lost every last right they had to a song -- as in, never being allowed to perform it or sell a recording of it, even without the infringing sample -- in addtion to having to fork over all royalties earned to date, and a separate amount for damages.

The worst part is that it can usually be prevented by clearing the sample ahead of time, in exhcange for 1% or (say) $10,000.

Re:Samples

[Anonymous Coward]

Hiphop producers should take a cue from this and adopt the practice.

Except that's exactly what Dre is supposed to have done - they replayed the bassline on his track, they didn't play a long sample of the original recording.

Re:Samples

[sbillard]

Sorry I am not familiar with Negativland's "ISHFWILF"
I never thought of the Puffy - Wierd Al comparison....but u r right. I grew up when Run DMC, LL Cool J, and Public Enemy were getting started. There were plenty of other, more talented "rappers" and "deejays" that never got airplay. Using samples for the sake of using them is wrong, but if the samples somehow relates, or artistically contrasts what your "outter loop" is saying, then that is fsking sweet.

Re:Samples

[ddstreet]

Parody is a common example of commercial fair use.

True. But by "commercial" I meant non-parody use, i.e. using something in the same way as it was originally created. In this example, Dr Dre used the sampled music in a non-parody commercial way. That's just not legal without permission from the original author.

Re:Samples

[e2d2]

The eaxmple you cite would be an obvious flaw in the system. There are only so many possible bass lines that can be produced and eventually in the current sytem this is possible. But that example is not the same situation as Dr. Dre encountered. He knew the bass line was from a certain song and actually sought a "musicologist" to determine whether he could use it or not. He knew he was walking a thin line and simply should have contacted the copyright owner.

But yes, the example you give would spotlight an obvious flaw in the system if it occured.

Re:Samples

[dvdeug]

But by "commercial" I meant non-parody use, i.e. using something in the same way as it was originally created.

Quotation is a form of commercial fair use. A newspaper can quote a speech without having to get permission.

Re:Samples

[ddstreet]

Quotation is a form of commercial fair use.

Only if it's to report news; news reporting has specific mention in the Fair Use clause. "...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..."

Speechwriters can't lift parts of other people's speeches without permission. Many public speeches however give implict permission to reproduce them, such as most government official's speeches. A private speech, for example a Tony Robbins motivational speech, most certainly can't be re-used by someone else.

Re:Samples

[jedidiah]

It is not the job of the Congress to be an art critic. Laws that can be used to abused Dr. DRE can be used to abuse University Professors.

If the work that was "stolen" from is more than 14 years old, then the current copyright is stifiling by colonial standards. Whether or not you value Dr. Dre, the fact remains that the lack of a meaningful public domain is starting to harm the creation of new works.

This case actually demonstrates that "progress" is infact having the breaks applied to it.

Karma

[friedegg]

Dr. Dre boots users from Napster.

Re:Karma

[javiercero]

LOL, payback is a bitch, ain't it Dr?

So let me get this straight:

Dowloading songs for my own listening is a vicious crime.

Using other people's music to make tons of money w/o ever paying the original musicians is not?

Maybe Dr. Dre is a Republican with such double standards.....

Re:Karma

[bofkentucky]

ummm, where's the double standard on the right...the left appears to be the one making the big bucks off this war (Diane Fienstein's D-CA hubby got the real Iraq rebuilding contract, halibutron's is pocket change to this contract). The left is the one hanging Bill Bennet while defending Clinton, it the left who forgot Clinton made his own carrier visit in '93 and the D-Day staged photo-ops in '94

Re:Karma

[sootman]

I survived Dre, Metallica, and Madonna only to get kicked off of Napster by the estate of Roy Orbison.

Re:Karma

[javiercero]

tzzzzz wrong!

Bennet wanted to hung Clinton because he was an "inmoral" person. Plus Bennet wrote books on "virtue, morality, etc.". Now he has a gambling problem, his excuse: "well I did not write about it." Clinton's sexual exploits were dealt as a matter of national attention by the Repugs, the same group that has had his share of "indiscretions" hell most of them are few times divorcees (heck even Newt had his wife sign the divorce papers while in the hospital for Breast cancer, as he prepared to engage to his assistant... 20 years his junior!!!). Now Bennet claims that this matter is between him and his wife... Same goes for W's twins or Jeb's daughter, heck they can do crack and get away with it.. because that is a family matter and eveyone should be off their case. Heck but they had no problem calling Chelsea the WH dog.... do you want me to continue?

Right-nuts double standards come from some of the following facts: If a Democratic president makes ANY thing, it is bad, terrible and immoral. If a Republican makes the same or worse mistake: it is a "youthful" indiscretion.

Did Clinton dress in a military Uniform while president? No. In fact no American president has done that before, neither Washington, neither Grant, not even Ike. This is from a person who served in the national guard and can not present proof nor whitnesses about his last year of service. AWOL is for 1 month or less, any more than that is called dessertion. This is from the same people who were on Clinton's case for having escaped the draft. Heck when Cheney was asked about his reason not to go into the military was that he had "other priorities". So if Cheney does it, it is OK of course! He had "other priorities"... but if Clinton does it: How can he lead our troops when he did not serve in the military?

And on... and on... and on.. and on...

Re:Karma

[bofkentucky]

Bennett gambled away his money on his time, it is his concern. Clinton lied under oath, on the court's time, which makes it America's time and money, thats the double standard here. The only politicos I see pushing gambling (casino and/or lottery) are Dem's, and their targets aren't multi-millionire authors and bureaucrats, they are the poor people who do not understand probability and compound interest.

Re:Karma

[javiercero]

LOL, thanks to prove my point!

Bennett gambled away his own money, funny thing is that he made that money by writing books about virtue and morality, and by attacking other people when they were falling those "Standards." Quite ironic if you ask me.

BTW who brought Clinton to court? Who spent $50Million of the tax payer's money to find out that the president is having oral sex.

Bennet chose to attack the president, and that is fine: he set the standards for the game. Now, if we apply the same standards to Bennett, and he fails them misserably... so yeah, right wingers and double standards go hand in hand....

Payback is a bitch, ain't it? Repugs sure can dish it, but they act like little bitches when it comes to take it....

Re:Karma

[bagsc]

I got it! My mp3 playlist is a whimsical parody of the pop radio, and therefore these 3-4 minute "songs" are relly "samples" and therefore perfectly legal to use artistically and profit from. Booya, andre.

Re:Karma

[sql*kitten]

Maybe Dr. Dre is a Republican with such double standards.....

It's worse than that, he isn't even a real doctor!

Re:Karma

[mink]

man, you were robbed, this should be at +5.

Copyright

[Evil Adrian]

Once the copyright expires, you can do what you want with it. Isn't that the way derivative works work?

Samples ARE protected by copyright. In this case it doesn't fall into parody or critique, so why are you asking one of the silliest questions I've ever read in my life?

Google yields answers in abundance, you don't need to ask slashdot readers for every silly little thing. ::takes a happy pill::

OK I'm better now.

Re:Copyright

[gurps_npc]

But copyrights NEVER expire. Oh, they SAY that copyrights expire, but everytime it gets close to their expiration date, Congress pushes through a new law extending it (Has happened several times in the U.S.)

Copyrights originally were supposed to be 20 years. That would mean anything written in the 60's and 70's should be fair game now. But they extended everything.

Re:Copyright

[Zathrus]

So any sample is a derivative work?

How short is a sample? What if I recreate the notes on my own instead of actually using a sample? Is that still covered by copyright?

In actuality there have been court rulings on all of the above - and the answer is 4 notes, doesn't matter, and yes. Which leads to something like an absurdly small number of harmonies available (~96k? I don't recall, but it's silly) before everything is copyrighted. Odds are, if you write a song now, you've violated someone else's copyright.

Perhaps the real question is whether or not the sample is a substantive portion of the song -- if so then it's probably a derivative work. Otherwise it's not. What the hell is a substantive portion? It's just like the legal definition of pornography - I'll know it when I hear it. There are shades of grey, not everything is black and white, and not everything should be, otherwise you paint yourself into silly little corners and do more harm than good.

Remember, just because the answers are out there - be it on Google, in the court system, or public opinion - doesn't mean that they're the right ones. Ask any minority group (not just blacks) in the Southeastern US prior to 1960.

Re:Copyright

[allism]

And, if you read the article, you would have noticed that the song that was sampled was only 21 years old in 2001. Hardly expired since the copyright time period was extended.

And ya know, sometimes it's more fun to have an actual discussion about stuff than to just surf websites about a topic.

Re:Copyright

[Evil Adrian]

I think that when you are taking recorded audio directly from another source, and you are incorporating it into your own work, you should realize that you are stealing.

Like, how retarded ARE you to not figure that out?

It's not YOUR audio, it's someone else's.

DUH.

Re:Copyright

[mark_lybarger]

actually, i thought it was 14 years + one 14 year extension. at least that's what oriley is doing with most of their books, putting them into public domain after either 14 or 28 years (depending on author's wishes).

you're right, we'll never see any thing from this or last century enter into the public domain during our lifetime.

Re:Copyright

[Zathrus]

Actually originally fourteen years with an extention to twenty eight if you filed for it.

Filing for copyright extentions is actually a fairly reasonable thing - as long as there is an upper limit. That way if you want to preserve your copyright you have to keep paying (presumably more) to keep the work out of the public domain. In theory it would ensure that only works of substantive value to the copyright holder kept their copyright while the vast majority of works fell into the public domain.

Yeah, you can make an argument that it only really helps corporations, but if an individual author feels that the work has value either in current form or in derivative form (say, a movie or game about a book) then they could continue renewing copyright. Toss in some rules about different cost structures for individual vs corporate filings, a penalty for assignation of copyright from personal to corporate status, etc. and you might just start getting things back on the right track.

Re:Copyright

[phat_joe23]

The copyright never expires when the commercial lobbies keep getting Congress to push the extentions further and further. See the recent Sonny Bono memorial act. Disney had their balls in their throat because Steamboat Willie's copyright was about to expire, and it brought up the possibility of other companies using images of Mickey as Steamboat Willie without permission.

Samples are protected by copyright, yes. But Fair Use does not only protect parody and critique. Fair Use presents four prongs, not all of which have to be completely satisfied.

The argument from pro-sampling (particularly audio collage) artists here, though, is that using a small sample of your song (or t.v. show, or movie, or spoken word of your book, or whatever) should not automatically be protected when it's not clearly financially ripping you off (i.e., bootlegging).

If I make an experimental piece which uses a little snippet of Britney Spears' vocals, am I somehow cutting into her market share? What if I'm not even selling my art? In the current environment, I can still be sued.

The point of copyright was to protect artists while encouraging creativity, not stifling it.

/joe

Re:Copyright

[pfankus]

Funny how only in capitalist modern societies this musical copyright thing is such an issue. I'm a graduate student in musicology (yes, that means I make less than an IT helpdesk tech), but throughout history most famous musicians and composers made their living ripping off their peers (ever heard of JS Bach, Mozart, Beethoven)

Samples ARE protected by copyright

By the same token, it's funny how a crappy bass line can cost $1.5mil....pay me half that, and I'll actually write a good one....

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't fall into parody or critique, but it well could be argued to be a "transformative work" and thus be an acceptable Fair Use. (Fair Use exceptions can include instances parody, critique, transformative works and for-educational-purposes.)

Re:Copyright

[IPFreely]

Also, if you read the article, you would have noticed that the song in question was not "sampled" in the since that a piece of the original recording was played back directly in the new song. Dr. Dre hired a musician to play a baseline that was similar to the original song.

Dre testified that before hiring a musician to play a bassline from the Fatback Band's 1980 song "Backstrokin'" for his 2001 track "Let's Get High," he consulted a musicologist who said the riff was commonplace.

The jury agreed, calling the rapper's actions innocent infringement, but fined him anyway.

There should be a clear distinction of the definition of sampling as in taking a direct segment of the original recording, vs. reproducing a particular phrase or melody with new musician/instrument/recording.

The question I have is this: Does London-based Minder Music Ltd. own the copyright of the recording that was "sampled" or the score, the music on paper? Typically the publisher takes the recording, but the artist owns the score. So are they claiming ownership of the score used by Dr. Dre because of their copyright of the recording?

Need More Input....

Re:Copyright

[elmegil]

Whereas if I listen to it, "reverse engineer it", and play it note-perfect myself just to reuse it, I'm not stealing?

Re:Copyright

[cpt kangarooski]

It was 14 years, and if the author was still _alive_ in the last year, and opted for it, he could get the extra 14.

'Course music wasn't copyrightable back then anyway.

Incidentally, the public domain cutoff is 1923. Without going into details, anything published prior to that is in the public domain in the US. Some later materials may also be in the public domain.

Re:Copyright

[mefus]

I think that when you are taking recorded audio directly from another source, and you are incorporating it into your own work, you should realize that you are stealing.

Like, how retarded ARE you to not figure that out?

It's not YOUR audio, it's someone else's.

Can someone mod this +1 Funny?

Re:Copyright

[Gumshoe]

I think that when you are taking recorded audio directly from another source, and you are incorporating it into your own work, you should realize that you are stealing.

It's not stealing; if anything, it's copyright infringement. Stealing refers to the theft of physical property and it's downright misleading to describe infringement of copyright as theft.

Like, how retarded ARE you to not figure that out?

I don't know to be honest, but the entire executive and legislative branch of the British and American governments are just as retarded as me it seems. I mean, why have copyright laws at all if the theft laws legislate all of this?

Re:Copyright

[mark_lybarger]

is that written music or recorded music? there wasn't really recorded music at the time, but i'd say written music would be granted the same copyright as a written article.

Re:Copyright

[Zirnike]

Upper limit? No need.

First year, copyright filing fee is $1000. Second year, $2000. Third year, $4000. Half a mil at 10 years. $524 mil at 20. I think that'll work out nicely, don't you? Inflation adjusted, of course... Just in case.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be a clear distinction of the definition of sampling as in taking a direct segment of the original recording, vs. reproducing a particular phrase or melody with new musician/instrument/recording.

As mentioned in many other posts : There is a distinction, but it only means that there are 2 separate copyrights.

Does London-based Minder Music Ltd. own the copyright of the recording that was "sampled" or the score, the music on paper? Typically the publisher takes the recording, but the artist owns the score.

Note : the 'publisher' represents the artist -- the record company gets the rights to the recording.

Minder Music directly represents the artist in question. If you look in liner notes of most CDs, you'll see those lines like (from the first CD I had lying around, Cake's "Fashion Nugget") :

Friend Is A Four Letter Word
(J. McCrea/Stamen Music/BMI)

Now, John McCrea wrote the song. But in court, you'd be hearing from Stamen Music, the publisher, who probably only publishes things by John McCrea.

The publisher in question is more often than not, just a legal entity, representing only one person. From that same album, for instance, is this :

The Distance
(G. Brown/G.P. Brown Pub./BMI)

Greg Brown wrote the song, and his publisher is, well, him. Or rather a limited corporation owned by him.

None of this is really intuitive until you consider that it's a holdover from back in the days before there were recordings. At that time, the 'publisher' actually published the music, in written form.

[Someone with a better grasp of this please respond to the parent, as I'm really not intimitely familiar with this.]

Re:Copyright

[cpt kangarooski]

Yeah, you'd think that. But it was only for maps, charts, and books.

Music in any form wasn't eligible for copyright until 1831. (and they still didn't have sound recordings, so they meant lyrics and composition)

Re:Copyright

[dr.badass]

Whereas if I listen to it, "reverse engineer it", and play it note-perfect myself just to reuse it, I'm not stealing?

In that case, you're infringing on the owner of the song, but not the owner of the recording.

If you want to listen to a piece by Mozart, 'reverse engineer it', and re-record it, there's nothing wrong with that, his work is in the public domain.

You just can't copy bits of someone else's recording of the same piece.

Re:Copyright

[Zathrus]

There must be an upper limit - simply because otherwise you have to pass a Constitutional amendment (in the US).

And realize I said things about personal vs corporate for a reason -- your plan just handed corporations a ton of IP with very little downside. If I write a book I might be able to pay for the copyright fees for a few years at most... after that it's unlikely I'll recoup my costs. And if a corporation would like to market a toy, make a movie, etc. out of the book then they're almost certainly better off waiting for it to fall into the public domain when the fees get too high than they are paying me anything while it's still copyrighted.

Oh, and don't worry - they'll be able to copyright their work for considerably longer than you could've. And have fun fighting off the lawsuits about any other works based on the original work, since they'll claim that it was actually derivative of their work and not the public domain original.

The personal to corporate assignation fine is to avoid stupid things like having a corporation assign rights to the CEO/CFO shortly before the copyright expires, have them pay the individual fee, and then assign it back.

Copyrights are entirely reasonable if they're done for a short enough period of time (10-30 years as a rough guess). The current laws have gone way off the deep end though. In all likelihood we need different terms for different types of IP (books vs movies vs music vs code vs whatever), but I'm not going to step into that yet.

Re:Copyright

[Catiline]

Which leads to something like an absurdly small number of harmonies available (~96k? I don't recall, but it's silly) before everything is copyrighted.

If you simply play one note at a time, one note per second, you can play every four-note combination on a piano (all 59,969,536) in 1 year 320 days.

And given that every harmonic pair has a "dominant" tone (which one your ear will recognize the note as), you could quite easily use this to calculate^W compose a musical piece that ended all "creativity" in music afterward.

Re:Copyright

[mingot]

there wasn't really recorded music at the time

Sure there was.

Re:Copyright

[Gonarat]

Google around and take a look at Copyright in the 19th and early 20th centuries, you'll find it interesting. First there was sheet music. When Player Pianos were created, there was an uproar about Piano Rolls (the punched paper that "plays" the keys). When the gramophone was created, a whole new can of worms was opened since music could be recorded and replayed for the first time, and lets not forget radio.

Sampling is just another issue that has come up over the years. I think at some point that we really need to overhaul all the copyright laws. There is a problem when there are many opinions about what is "legal" and what isn't. Between this, all of the file sharing arguements, and the repeated extentions of length of copyright, the system is no longer working as is -- but we aren't the first to face these issues.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

throughout history most famous musicians and composers made their living ripping off their peers (ever heard of JS Bach, Mozart, Beethoven)

I doubt you are a musicologist. JS Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven ripped each other off? Each of these artists produced quite original work, work that even now is being "sampled" - check out the irony in NAS's new "I Can" single, which has a pseudo-historical perspective on vague Egyptian/Black references set to a European melody - too bad his little band of "musicians" couldn't come up with anything else to capture the feeling of practice and reaching your goals than ripping off European culture. Come to think of it, most popular hiphop singles contains samples from European instruments. I wonder if Bach's descendants could sue NAS...

Re:Copyright

[beakburke]

How about we give eveyone the same terms, person or corporate? 30 years maybe? According to the economists' AC brief in Eldred vs. Ashcroft, increasing the length of copyright past 50 years does little to promote further creation, because money earned more than 50 years from now has very little present value, plus most of the value is capured early on. The upside us losing the case is that we can retroactively shorten copyrights too, if congress really wanted to, since the court ruled they had such authority.

Re:Copyright

[SN74S181]

In the case of Music, many times what is copyrighted is the sheet music; yes, the note sequence. Often a performance of the music is also copyrighted.

So you can't just listen to a recording, transcribe it to staff paper, and play it back yourself.

Re:Copyright

[SN74S181]

Copyright laws establish property rights. Once property rights have been established, theft becomes a possibility, so laws regarding theft become enforceable.

It's really not that complicated.

Re:Copyright

[SN74S181]

Except then John Cage or Terry Riley show up and start 'preparing' the Piano, and your permuations go to infinity.

Whoops.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Your lack of understanding of copyright law is astounding.

Re:Copyright

[Evil Adrian]

Yeah but Britney might not have wanted to be involved in your project. What if she thinks it's offensive/sucks? Do you have a right to use her voice on something she doesn't want to be a part of from an artistic standpoint or otherwise? I would argue no.

Re:Copyright

[Gumshoe]

Copyright laws establish property rights. Once property rights have been established, theft becomes a possibility, so laws regarding theft become enforceable.

This is almost too dumb for words.

According to your reasoning, copyright infringement is in fact a criminal offence because it's theft of property. I'm glad the judiciary hasn't realised this yet. All these years people have been fussing with civil lawsuits when all along it was criminal offence. Crikey, the DMCA seems almost superfluous using your logic.

If you can show me one instance where somebody was successfully prosecuted for theft because they infringed on someone's copyright then I'll gladly emigrate.

It's really not that complicated.

I used to think that too...

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

You read so much of the drivel and ignorance on Slashdot that it's shocking you even know how to spell the word 'copyright' properly.

The same laws should apply

[Repugnant_Shit]

If I'm going to get in trouble because I legally encode CDs into Ogg/MP3, then why shouldn't an artist get in trouble for actually profiting off someone else's work? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the law should apply to everyone.

Re:The same laws should apply

[limekiller4]

Repugnant Shit (that's his username, really) writes:
"If I'm going to get in trouble because I legally encode CDs into Ogg/MP3, then why shouldn't an artist get in trouble for actually profiting off someone else's work? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the law should apply to everyone."

It isn't a matter of "if," it is a matter of degree. EVERYTHING is unoriginal. I'm quite sure that someone played an F note at some point before 1980, so is the original band infringing copyright? Do you need three notes in sequence to qualify? Four? How about if the riff is recognizable by 50% of the population? Where? New York? New Zeland? Now or then?

Re:The same laws should apply

[phat_joe23]

Just because the law is applied wrongly in one case doesn't mean it should be applied wrongly in every case. You should not get in trouble for encoding your CDs. /joe

Re:The same laws should apply

[HanzoSan]

If everything is unoriginal why the hell should artists own anything?

Why should dre own his shit if you admit no one really owns the music because nothing is original?

Re:The same laws should apply

[Anonymous Coward]

and he won't. Yet another misinformed user spreading FUD via lack of knowledge. PEOPLE, if you DON'T KNOW, ASK, or STFU!!!!!!

I've got a written email here FROM the RIAA AUTHORIZING me to encode all my store bought CD's to MP3 and ON TOP OF THAT, it AUTHORIZES me to STREAM them to myself at WORK. Write the RIAA, get your own letters tards.

Re:The same laws should apply

[limekiller4]

HanzoSan writes:
"If everything is unoriginal why the hell should artists own anything? Why should dre own his shit if you admit no one really owns the music because nothing is original?"

Perhaps I misspoke or was unnecessarily vague with my wording. I agree with you. Ownership of information -- music, in particular -- strikes me as a very bizarre concept and not at all a beneficial or obvious way to proceed.

The point of copyright, as admitted by it's founders, was to encourage people to create things and share them in exchange for a limited monopoly on that creation. To claim that copyright is necessary in the field of art one must be claiming that art would come to a grinding halt if nobody was given a monopoly for doing so. Obviously not the case. Graffiti is a good example (and perhaps one of the oldest, which may not be an unrelated coincidence) but there is an endless supply for which this holds correct.

I understand copyright in things like engineering and pharmaceuticals, or any case, really, where a foray into development will not be made without a financial incentive. I'm not sure you have any hobbists out there looking for a cure to AIDS. But I don't understand copyright in art at all. It's simply ludicris.

Re:The same laws should apply

[Repugnant_Shit]

I know I shouldn't (and I haven't so far :)) But if I do end up getting screwed by a dumb law/wronly applied law, I hope everyone who breaks it gets screwed. The more people get pissed about something the more likely they are to act. In this case maybe it would lead to better copyright laws.

Re:The same laws should apply

[Sacarino]

A written email, eh. When did they start coming out with those?

One thing I have never understood

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that the verve pipe lost all that money, when it was barely perceptible that they used that sample, or dre gets busted for this sort of thing.... and on the other side, Puff Daddy has stolen everything he has ever made, blatantly... and puffy has more money than dre, verve pipe, and me put together...

Re:One thing I have never understood

[TrollBridge]

Puffy made deals with the owners of the materials he 'sampled'.

Sure it doesn't say a lot about his... talent (*chuckle*), but at least he did it the legal way.

Re:One thing I have never understood

[streettech]

Ahhh damn it, I was going to make a P'diddy joke but you beat me to it.

Re:One thing I have never understood

[H310iSe]

god it makes me angry when people say that. Just because i don't like opera doesn't mean opera composers don't have talent, or artistic merrit. Maybe Puffy isn't the greatest, ok, Puffy is not the greatest hip hop producer out there but don't say it's a lack of talent to re-roll samples into new music. Have you ever tried it? I'd say it's just as hard to make a good song out of samples and original stuff mixed together as it is to make a good song from 'nothing' - which never happens anyway, I challenge you to find one song, ever, that had no relationship whatsoever to the music that came before it. If you sample in your mind or on your DAT it's irrelevent.

Re:One thing I have never understood

[richlb]

How is it that the verve pipe lost all that money...

It was The Verve. The Verve Pipe are from Lansing, Michigan.

Re:One thing I have never understood

[Anonymous Coward]

But he doesn't just incorporate a collage of samples in to a new piece...

he pretty much plays the entire instrumental track of an existing song, adds hiphop drums, changes the lyrics and raps over it

Re:One thing I have never understood

[Anonymous Coward]

More than 50% of people who buy Rap/Hip-Hop/RNB are white, so maybe it isn't just the "n*ggers" who are are stupid.

Negativland

[Anonymous Coward]

The Negativland album about Pepsi is an absolutely classic example of ripping samples. These kind of lawsuits are silly - it's not like they are making money BECAUSE of their samples - well, okay, I guess a whole album dedicated to Coke and Pepsi advertisements is, though!

The answer to the delimma

[Lumpy]

Should samples be protected by copyright, or should artists/musicians have the right to manipulate the old into the new?"

I say let their own crap bite them in the ass like this.

It's only proof that the copyright laws have been perverted to the point that they cause more problems than the apparent protection they give.

too bad, Dr. dre.... being bit by your own is the only way to get you to wake up.

Re:The answer to the delimma

[Anonymous Coward]

-Sharp Zaurus SL-5500.... because all other PDA's suck compared to it.

"PDA's" eh? How about you quit abusing that apostrophe, and learn its proper use?

Re:The answer to the delimma

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you fuck off you fucking stupid grammar nazi.

Re:The answer to the delimma

[Anonymous Coward]

Delimma? wtf is that? Try Dilemma.

Sampleing Vs Rerecording

[Eu4ria]

Is there a difference between sampleing and rerecording the melody/tune of another song and using that? ie Vanilla Ice and his "Ice Ice Baby versus queen and 'Under Pressure'

It's a derivative work

[tphil913]

If the artist is taking a piece of music and morphing it for his own song, it's a derivative and protected by copyright. Pay the royalties or don't use the sample.

If you don't think that something like this is copyrighted, then you can toss the GPL right out the window. It's the same principle - a derivative.

Re:It's a derivative work

[studerby]

sample

I've never believed that use of a sample necessarily led to the creation of a derivative work. A derivative work is legally defined in the statute, 17 USC 101 :

A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

As I read this, to be a "derivative work", the base work must be "recast, transformed, or adapted", i.e. modified but still recognizably the same (more or less whole) work.

While a quote, reference, or sample may be "derivative" in everyday terms or in some sort of academic analysis, it doesn't seem to meet the legal definition.

However, with all the sampling decisions so far, it seems that Federal judges don't agree with me, the bastards...

To make this clear with an example, let's assume that Moby Dick is still copyrighted. I don't exactly think that beginning a new novel with '"Call me Ishmael", he said snidely.' would make the new novel a legal "derivative work" of Moby Dick, despite the intellectual heritage.

the old saying

[maddh]

"talent borrows, genious steals"
-matt

Re:the old saying

[RabidOverYou]

"fools misspell"
-Rabid

Re:the old saying

[waxcrash]

Or

A good artist copies,
A great artist steals.

Samples and Ring Tones

[Quarters]

If artists get huffy and litigous when someone composes a ring-tone of a section of one of their songs then they shouldn't be suprised when they get busted for doing essentially the same thing. Samples are derivative works and are part of the copyrighted original work. Stealing isn't legal if you don't take everything.

Re:Samples and Ring Tones

[Mr. No Skills]

Good points.

With music recordings, there are two copyrights.

There is the copyright of the composer who created the song, and there is the copyright of the artist who recorded the song. These are two independent things.

When an artist records a song, they credit the composer, and the composer gets compensated when the recording is sold or the sheet music is sold. The artist gets compensated when the specific recording is broadcasted.

Sampling, in the context of the original article, potentially violates both these areas. You could sample a unique way of producing a note into a keyboard, like a horn section note from a James Brown song, and use the keyboard to manipulate the frequency into notes. You have ripped off a performer in this case (the horn section, who may have given their copyright to James Brown with their studio contract), but not the composer. If you take a sample to loop it you have now taken the recording and possibly the composer. Or, if you re-record the loop you have only ripped off the composer.

Some artists look the other way because they like the result, or are compensated, or don't care, or like new attention in old work. However, they might claim property rights as in these cases.

A good artist, just like a good programmer, will credit others' work they derive theirs from. Even if its just a little sequence of notes that forms part of their composition.

Ring tones should credit the composer.

My 2 cents...

actually

[C_nemo]

i heard the Stones song mentioned, and thought:

"Damn, thats almost The Verve"

It was kinda obvious. btw Metallica should be sued for copying David Bowie's "Andy Warhol" on "Master of Puppets"(the song)

Re:actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that unlike Metallica and The rolling stones, David Bowie is not a complete prick. On the contrary, as anyone following his statements on copyrights will have noticed. ;)

Re:actually

[C_nemo]

But a set of complete pricks (Metallica) ripping of a cool guy like David Bowie? Bowie should sue them until Lars Ullrich learns how to play drums(may be quite a few years in the future)

The Human Factor

[Sloppy]

In 1991, Metal Church wrote a very catchy song about their opinion on this. I think I'll reproduce it here, totally without permission. You can then debate how self-referentially hypocritical it is for me to do that.

The Human Factor
by Kurdt Vanderhoof / Mike Howe

I just can't believe my ears, some music out these days
The human factor has diminished, in oh so many ways
Fancy footwork gets top bill and I'll put on such a show
One more MIDI cable and my band is ready to go
One more moneymaker and I'm set for life
Stealing from others will make my future bright

One, make some money
Two, overexpose
Sincerity is felt much more when the human factor shows
When the human factor shows

I just need a sample cause no one says it's wrong
It's so easy to rip-off using someone else's songs
Everybody wants to be a star in modern days
But if I don't have talent then I'll just get by this way
Changing programs faster than I dare to say
Musicians all make mistakes who needs them anyway?

One, make some money
Two, overexpose
Sincerity is felt much more when the human factor shows
When the human factor shows

I just heard a song today I think I'll use a part
Incorporate it my own way and that is just the start
I'll change the lyrics that they wrote to satisfy my needs
I wrote the book. Two easy steps. "How to succeed."
[snip]

Metal Church... ah, what a great band that was.

Re:The Human Factor

[zsmooth]

There are a couple Metal Church albums in the iTunes Music Store, but not this song. Guess I won't be hearing it. :)

Re:The Human Factor

[armyofone]

In case you're interested, Kurdt's current project is here

Re:The Human Factor

[mbourgon]

That's catchy - anyone know where I can find an mp3 of it?

Re:The Human Factor

[commodoresloat]

the p2p networks, of course!

Re:The Human Factor

[Anonymous Coward]

One, make some money
Two, overexpose ... Three, Profit?

Not all bad

[Anonymous Coward]

If these rulings mean we don't have to hear "Bittersweet Symphony" ever again, you must admit that this is a benefit.

Re:Not all bad

[los furtive]

Seriously. That was one wasn't a sample, it was a blantant rip.

What about covering a song...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you need permission from an artist when you cover a song?

Erm...

[Pingular]

Has anyone else noticed how you require a special liscence for each piece of music you play if it's to the public yet DJs get away with just buying the normal versions? Weird eh :)

What's the Licence

[Prowl]

If its a BSD style licence, then there's no problem.

If its GPL, then Dre has just incurred the wrath of RMS...

"Dr Dre vs RMS"

is that the name of the lawsuit or the title of the track?

Irony,

[phaln]

This is irony at its finest, people. So many artists don't want you to get MP3s for free, yet they have no qualms crying out for free samples. Of course, this excludes those groups that don't much mind the MP3 "revolution". Keep on rockin' in the free world, yo. But, for the others, that takes a brass set of cojones.

Re:Irony,

[tomaco-junkie]

Maybe they should pass a law that if you can sample music if you want but your music then has to be made available freely on p2p networks.

Re:Irony,

[TC (WC)]

I will, of course, point out that that makes absolutely no sense, as making the result freely available doesn't help the guy who made the original music being sampled...

Hey... I'll just sample this whole track so it's freely available for everyone!

Re:Irony,

[tomaco-junkie]

yes... i thought of that halfway through comment... dunno why i decided to post anyways... guess i needed the attention :(

Sampling Just like microsoft "innovation."

[buckinm]

Should samples be protected by copyright, or should artists/musicians have the right to manipulate the old into the new?

If the song is copyrighted, why should little pieces of the song not be? If you can't come up with your own ideas, get out of the music business.

Re:Sampling Just like microsoft "innovation."

[Jeremi]

If the song is copyrighted, why should little pieces of the song not be? If you can't come up with your own ideas, get out of the music business.

Anyone have a link to the article about the guy who used a computer to generate every possible four-note sequence, and copyrighted all of them? Given those copyrights, it's pretty much impossible to legally create any Western-style music these days.

Shouldn't this be covered by fair use?

[Trepidity]

If you're excerpting a very small part of another work and using it in a work that is substantially of your own creation, isn't that the point of fair use? Isn't this somewhat similar to quoting a line from a book in your own book?

Re:Shouldn't this be covered by fair use?

[TrollBridge]

"If you're excerpting a very small part of another work and using it in a work that is substantially of your own creation, isn't that the point of fair use?"

As long as you're properly citing your sources, it's fine.

I beleive the point here is that Dre didn't properly credit the original entertainer's work/contribution to his own.

Re:Shouldn't this be covered by fair use?

[Prior Restraint]

...isn't that the point of fair use?

Not really. Fair use is restricted to non-commercial works.

IANAL

Re:Shouldn't this be covered by fair use?

[senrik]

~ If you're excerpting a very small part of another work and using it in a work that is substantially of your own creation, isn't that the point of fair use? Isn't this somewhat similar to quoting a line from a book in your own book?

In the case of a book, it must be attributed and the like.
Fair use does not cover making $$$ off anothers work.

Re:Shouldn't this be covered by fair use?

[canajin56]

You can have quotes from a book when you review it, and you can sell that review, for money, to a magazine or newspaper.

Fair use has many parts. One of these is the right to copy a work that you own for personal use. Another is the right to make a parody, which can be sold commercially. Another is the right to quote for the purpose of review, or for use in a paper, report, or publication. (With proper citation)

Sampling is none of those things, and thus it is not protected. Well, I suppose in some cases, it could be used as a parody, but not in THIS case.

IANAL

Re:Shouldn't this be covered by fair use?

[mark_lybarger]

i think the quoting has to be part of a summary or such. i'm not a copyright expert, but i don't think you can write a book on apache, and then quote what another author wrote in their apache book. "according to mr. apacheExpert in his book, Apache Administrators, "only under extreme, extreme circumstances should you consider installing the mod_php"". instead you say, "many apache experts agree that mod_php should only be installed under the most extreme circumstances". (that was just an example, i'm not militant against mod_php at all). IMO, in music it's much easier to identify a ripped tune, than in a written page.

Re:Shouldn't this be covered by fair use?

[Prior Restraint]

I stand corrected.

Re:Shouldn't this be covered by fair use?

[cpt kangarooski]

No it's not. Commercial impact is a factor, but not probative. Check out the 2 Live Crew case where the Supreme Court found it fair use to make a parody of the song Pretty Woman and sell it commercially. It is also a fun read.

Sampling vs. arranging

[BobRooney]

Taking a recorded track and using it in your own recording in a studio is called sampling. I call it theft. Hiring musicians to play a modification of a song you have made on your own is arranging and IS protected. I.E. it becomes YOUR intillectual property, assuming you cite your sources as creating the original that you then changed. Rap, as a genre is notorious for sampling? Is it because they are not actually musicians? Maybe. *ducks

Re:Sampling vs. arranging

[L-Train8]

Taking a recorded track and using it in your own recording in a studio is called sampling. I call it theft.

I understand the sentiment, but I disagree. When you put your music or your story or your ideas out there for people to enjoy, people take them and make them a part of their lives. Your work becomes more than your work, it becomes what people take from it and what people add to it. That's our culture. To fence this culture off from everyone, to refuse to let people build on your ideas, is wrong and unnatural.

If someone takes a few notes of your song and weaves it into new music, I don't see how that is stealing from you. What have you lost? The idea of sampling as theft is worse than that of copying as theft. If the new song is radically different than the sampled song, then the sampled artist hasn't even lost a theoretical sale.

Illegal Samples

[Scoria]

Upon reading that Dr. Dre was instructed to "pay $1.5 million for an 'illegal sample,'" I was beginning to anticipate something entirely different than a story regarding lawsuits related to intellectual property. :-)

Re:Illegal Samples

[The J Kid]

Yeah, I've got a whole collection of 3 to 8 minute long samples on my pc....

But then again, I got them off KaZaA, so It's legal, right?

copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

are slashdot stories copyrighted? I'd like to sue whenever a duplicate is posted. I could make millions!

This will get reversed.

[tonysee]

There are only so many original riffs you can come up with, people... You have to allow for re-use. Otherwise, you might as well sue Led Zeppelin (Babe I'm Gonna Leave You) and Chicago (25 or 6 to 4) for ripping off the chord progression to the Beatles' "While My Guitar Gently Weeps." You're going to see familiar melodies, progressions, riffs repeated throughout music. There just aren't enough combinations and permutations to prevent it.

Re:This will get reversed.

[cayenne8]

But there is a MAJOR difference between playing a riff on an instrument yourself, and actually using a recording of another artist's performance of the riff....

One of them requires actual talent for one thing....

:-)

Re:This will get reversed.

[tonysee]

Yeah, and a quick read of the article informs you that Dre had another musician play the bass line.

But wait, this is Slashdot, what am I doing reading the article.

Re:This will get reversed.

[gurps_npc]

By that logic (and I agree with you), then ALL music should be sent into the public domain. The basic thing is eventually every possible nice sounding song will be written.

Music is not a business, it is art. As such, credit should be given, not money.

When I sing a song for my personal amusement, should I be forced to pay the author?

If I have a HORRIBLE voice, so I ask my girlfriend to sing it to me, should I then be forced to pay?

What if I record her singing to me?

What if I say this is cool and post on the net for others to hear?

At what point should I pay the author?

Re:This will get reversed.

[Anonymous Coward]

You having to pay your girlfriend is a little off-topic here, but not surprising.

Re:This will get reversed.

[cayenne8]

Well, I admit I got a bit confused..the one with dre vs. the group that sampled the Stones song...however, I think the reply I made above was addressing a comment on sampling...

Re:This will get reversed.

[BillFarber]

Not enough permutations? Lets see. Assuming just the notes in Western style music, and limited to a piano, we have 88 notes. Assuming that our theme is 20 notes long, that allows for 88^20 possible themes. This doesn't even take into account note length, chords and dynamics. Throw in Eastern style scales and you really have a lot of possibilities. I suppose theoritically the number of possible themes in music is finite, but realistically we have a few songs left to write.

Re:This will get reversed.

[HanzoSan]

Too bad, if thats true perhaps musicians should retire and release all the music for free, I mean all the music which can be made with copyright has been made.

Re:This will get reversed.

[cens0r]

But not all of those work... there chords, scales, and chord progressions,. You can't play a C major and then a C minor in close progression and expect it to sound good. There are alot less combinations when you take this into account.

Re:This will get reversed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Chord progressions are chord progressions, not songs. Given a chord progression one can build a large number of melodic lines, and that's not even taking into account tempo or musical style (classic rock, salsa, etc.). And one has to consider whether the riff is an idiom, like a common V-I turnaround as opposed to being something more creative like a Charlie Parker solo or a recognizable chunk of a popular song.

What amazes me on this thread is how people forget that musicians sometimes do get sued for plagarising others' works. George Harrison was sued over "My Sweet Lord". Billy Joel over "We didn't Start the Fire" (I think that was the one). In the end it boils down to whether the end work is truly original enough.

[ The pity is that we can't sue a band for using the same riffs for multiple songs. Would have been great to put the Spin Doctors out of our misery. And the other day I heard another Blues traveler song that sounded like one of their earlier hits. ]

As far as there being no room for further creativity. Well, I think time has proven us wrong in that regard. It's hard to push the envelope, but new styles do come along and old styles fade away. I think that will continue for some time.

Re:This will get reversed.

[death to hanzosan]

I mean all the music which can be made with copyright has been made.

Your statement is false in every imaginable sense of the word. A billion billions of songs are yet to be written. Take a look at the number of possible bit permutations in a 3-minute mp3 file. That number is almost as vast as the number of atoms in the Universe. If you can get your head around that number, your mind is capable of far greater leaps of imagination than mine.

Re:This will get reversed.

[BillFarber]

Who says it has to sound good to any particular person? Also, there is a fair amount of classical and jazz music that combine similar major and minor chords in the same theme. It is a technique often times used to convey more complex and contradictory emotions.

However, even if you narrow the choices down to "pleasant" sounding riffs, I still say the possibilities are virtually limitless.

If not, couldn't we say the same thing about novels?

Re:This will get reversed.

[cens0r]

You can say the same things about novels. Just like every note I ever play is based to some degree off everything I've ever heard, every word I write is based off of every word that I've read.

The perfect example for this that I have is that when I was about 9 years old I decided I was going to write a song. I got out sheet music and using my saxaphone banged out a melody. I used a little casio keyboard to add rhythm and drums. I played it for my parents proud as punch and they told me I'd re-written amazing Grace. Now it wasn't exactly the same (only the first couple measures) and I don't know that I'd ever heard that song before, but I was able to come up with something similar just by chance.

The same thing can easily happen with novels. Can you copyright sentance structure? I'm sure you could find many novels that have identical sentences (structure and language) and quite possibly identical paragraphs. Now if the rest of the novels are different no one is going to complain.

In this particular case you've got a bass riff, played by two different people, on two different instruments, at two different times and used in two unmistakeably different songs. Why is that different from two novels having the same sentance? What if Dr. Dre had had the riff played on theremin instead of bass, would that have sufficed?

Re:This will get reversed.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Assuming just the notes in Western style music, and limited to a piano, we have 88 notes."

So if I take somebody's melody and play it an octave lower or transpose it to another key, then I've created a totally new melody?

There are not 88 different notes to start off with. The note "C" is the same note no matter what octave it is. Actually it's not the notes that matter; it's the intervals between the notes that matter. If I sing 3 notes in a row ascending with there being an interval of a major 3rd between the first 2 notes, and an interval of a minor 3rd between the 2nd and 3rd note, it's going to sound like "do mi so" no matter whether the notes are "C E G", "F A C", or "G B D." So what you need to do is count the number of possible intervals there can be between 2 notes. Effectively there are 8 possible intervals ranging from unison to an octave. (Intervals above an octave tend to be heard as being the same interval as the interval an octave lower. That is, a Major 10th wiil usually be heard as being the same as a Major 3rd. "C E[a major 10th higher] G[a minor 3rd higher than the E]" still sounds to the ear like "Do Mi So.") So we have instead 8^19 possible themes (20 notes will have 19 possible intervals). Dynamics don't matter -- everybody sings "Jingle Bells" with at least slightly different dynamics and it is still heard as being "Jingle Bells." Chords don't matter either -- while you can change the feel of "Jingle Bells" by reharmonizing it, it is still heard as being the melody "Jingle Bells." Note length can make a difference if there is a drastic change in most of the notes of a melody, but minor changes do not make it sound like a new melody.

Furthermore, your math is based on a 20 note melody, which is totally arbitrary. As other posters have pointed out, it only takes 4 notes being the same to be defined as being the same melody. Four notes equals 3 intervals, so now your math becomes 8^3 possible melodies (actually distinct melodic fragment would be a better term). So now we have only 512 different melodic building blocks. The odds that a new melody has at least partially copied some existing melody is actually quite high! However that doesn't mean that it will sound like you copied someone else's melody. Some fragments of a melody give the melody its distinctive sound and will therefore sound like you are copying another melody, whereas other melodic fragments do not give a melody its distinctive sound, and you can copy those and still not sound like you are copying someone else's melody. For an example of a distinctive fragment, think of the first 5 notes of the "Close Encounters" theme -- you can't put those 5 notes (4 intervals actually) in your song without people recognizing that you are copying "Close Encounters."

Which melodic fragments are distinctive and which are not is a judgement call, which is why a judge has to decide if it is copying.

Re-recording is covering a song.

[Anonymous Coward]

And when you cover a song, you have to pay royalties. Simple as that.

Re:Re-recording is covering a song.

[Animats]

And when you cover a song, you have to pay royalties. Simple as that.

Under US copyright law there's a compulsory license and a statutory rate for that. The author of the song gets paid a set price and can't turn you down. The record industry (but not ASCAP) loves this.

There should be similar arrangements for sampling.

Still Dre

[Anonymous Coward]

US$1.5 million really isn't that much when you consider the fact that he earned US$51.9 million in 2002 alone.

http://www.bet.com/articles/0,1048,c3gb3061-3725 -1 ,00.html#boardsAnchor

Re:Still Dre

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but his addiction to white biatches probably consumed $49 million of that, so ...

Re:Still Dre

[HanzoSan]

$51.9 million in revenue or is this what he has in the bank?

I'm sure he got alot of money off of Eminem but I'm also sure he pays Eminem alot of money.

Lets not forget all the advertisement costs of running the label,

Re:Still Dre

[death to hanzosan]

How in God's name do you have any clue about the financial arrangment between these two musical figures? Did you ever for a moment consider that they work for the same recording label and are paid by the same people?

Crazy copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time. I'm still amazed that profiting on other people's hard work is illeagal. I mean this doesn't make any sense. Those stupid copyright laws should be banned.

Shaggy

[Kadagan AU]

This is probably off topic, but it's about music sampling.... sorta... I don't know whether it should be legal or not. But every time I hear the song "Angel" by Shaggy start to play, I think it's "The Joker" by Steve Miller Band, and it pisses me off when it's not. Just had to say that.

Re:Shaggy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean "Angel Of The Morning" by Juice Newton?

Re:Shaggy

[Tadrith]

Actually, the song was not only arranged around "The Joker" by Steve Miller Band, the lyrics were somewhat lifted and the song was also arranged around "Angel of the Morning", by Merrilee Rush and the Turnabouts. Juice Newton's version is a remake of the one by Merrilee Rush and the Turnabouts. :)

And yes, I've always hated that song too.

Re:Shaggy

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here, I always wondered if it was just me that made that connection :)

Ice Ice Baby

[thehun101]

Another not too old example of this sort of samping is Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" He stole his main beat from "Under Pressure" by Queen and David Bowie.

I would have to agree that this sort of sampling without consent is illegal. Of course, the Vanilla Ice case was very blatant.

-the Hun

Re:Ice Ice Baby

[bathmatt]

Personally, I think that anything that Vanilla Ice does should be illegal

Re:Ice Ice Baby

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is, he claims it's different because the riff to Ice, Ice Baby contains one extra 32nd (or is it 16th? or 8th? I forget... No longer than 8th anyways) note isn't included in the riff to Under Pressure.

Re:Ice Ice Baby

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for appearing in The New Guy. That was funny.

Correct....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think GPL violations should be pursued except in the most blatant violations.

Rapper scratch ?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

When rappers scratch, they move the LP back and forth. So, what happens during the backward stroke, when the record is played backward ? does Minder Music pay Dr. Dre ? if the record is scratch slowly, does Dr. Dre pays Minder Music slowly, by installments ?

Seriously though, this music copyright business is seriously messed up. I wonder if African tribes and australian Aboriginas realize they're sitting on a gold mine, that they should start collecting on their millenia-old drum "samples" copyrights.

Re:Rapper scratch ?

[Dr. Photo]

Millennium-old copyrights won't exist until 2923.

Re:Rapper scratch ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to get a flamebait for this... but I want to correct this. Rapper's don't scratch they rap. Deejays scratch.

Re:Rapper scratch ?

[donutz]

I wonder if African tribes and australian Aboriginas realize they're sitting on a gold mine, that they should start collecting on their millenia-old drum "samples" copyrights.

Well, only if the Disney-owned Congress approves copyrights retroactive several millenia...but I think this will only happen if Disney can acquire the rights to said drum samples.

Seriously though...if you're going to "borrow" part of someone else's song, you should either get permission or suffer the consequences of pissing off the creator.

Re:Rapper scratch ?

[Surak]

Now that's funny! :)

Re:Rapper scratch ?

[phuturephunk]

...I doubt how many people here know who Q-bert or Craze is, so it really wouldn't matter..But yeah, I agree..Rappers MC, Selektas scratch..Get it right FEWLS!..;-)..

Re:Rapper scratch ?

[Dr. Photo]

Or so we hope.

Re:Rapper scratch ?

[dr.badass]

...I doubt how many people here know who Q-bert or Craze is,

Nah, there's a couple that poke their heads out when there's a story about Linux audio or something. I for one have a signed copy of Wave Twisters and a Craze signature-edition mixer. :)

Rappers MC, Selektas scratch..Get it right FEWLS!..;-)..

Yeah, but also, MCs rap. And back when the DJ was always the Selector, the MCs were called DJs.

But what's in a name? :)

Re:Rapper scratch ?

[Lysander Luddite]

First the DJ scratches, not the rapper.

Regardless, Cool Herc (the inventer of the scratch) has said he wishes he got a buck everytime somebody scratches a track.

If he had patented it he probably would.

Re:Rapper scratch ?

[ewwhite]

And we scratch on nifty Technics turntables like these.

Re:Rapper scratch ?

[cyril3]

I wonder if African tribes and australian Aboriginas realize they're sitting on a gold mine, that they should start collecting on their millenia-old drum "samples" copyrights.Ask the congolese pygmie girl whose voice is sampled on the Deep Forest song. She tried to get something for it and was thrown out of court.

I read this somewhere some time ago so it could be not totally true but it does sound good doesn't it.

Re:Rapper scratch ?

[commodoresloat]

Where did he say that? What nonsense. I'm sure he wants millions, and perhaps he deserves them, but if I had to pay a buck every time I scratched, I would find another way to fill my free time. This kind of attitude would stifle creativity far quicker than any kind of "piracy."

Re:Rapper scratch ?

[Lysander Luddite]

It is on the documentary "Scratch". It's near the end. That was my point, we wouldn't have an entire subculture because of a single patent.

Re:Rapper scratch ?

[Vengie]

insightful? mods wtf. that was a joke.

Obligatory Simpsons quote

[frodo from middle ea]

Lisa: Bart, we're just going to borrow them.
Bart (winks, slyly): Oh, heh, heh, gotcha

if = 30 second clips avoid royalties

[Splork]

they = 30 second samples should not be copyrightable either.

(ever notice how the cheap movies never play more than 30 seconds of a song

Re:if = 30 second clips avoid royalties

[Hagakure]

I believe they still have to pay for that, it is just cheaper to pay for 30 seconds of a song vs. a whole song if you can get the recognition accomplished with that.

What's the definition of a "sample"

[cK-Gunslinger]

By that, I mean what's the threshold between a single note and a copyrighted sample? After all, all music is composed from a limited number of notes, right?

Can an artist claim rights to the use of a 'G' followed by a 'B flat?'

Re:What's the definition of a "sample"

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, IANAL. I am also too lazy to log into my slashdot account on this computer. I am however a former music student (7 years of music, pre and post highschool) and an afficionado of various styles.

I think in order for something to be considered a sample, it must be a recognizable part of a song. In the case of your example, G followed by Bflat... not quite, as that is just a stringe of two notes. If however, you a pattern of G's and Bflats, and if someone used a segment of such pattern with the same or partial arrangement of instruments that you used, it could be considered an Example. Case in point, the (in)famous use of the bass line from Queen's Under Pressure, as used by Vanilla Ice in Ice Ice Baby. This is quite clearly a sample and nothing more then a simple pattern of 2-3 notes.

I also think there is a substantial sizelimit that you can use for a sample - approxamently 2-4 measures of music. This is more for the ease of the musician using the sample ... too much and you end up making a (imo, half assed) cover of the song your sampling. Too little, and it just "doesn't work."

Sampling has been dead for 10 years

[L-Train8]

The problem with the Verve was that they copied the Stones' song completely, slowing down the tempo a bit. Dr. Dre copied a short riff from a song by the Fatback Band. Experts at the trial said that the riff in question is common in a lot of music, and not unique to the Fatback Band song.

In neither case was the music actually sampled, that is, a bit of the original recording used in the new music. While that technique was commonplace in the 80's in rap music, it occurs a lot less frequently today. After some litigation, most notably Gilbert O'Sullivan's lawsuit against Biz Markie, ended unlicensed sampling, most artists started to re-record bits of songs to mix into their raps. The amount of music re-recorded is not enough to infringe on the copyright of the original music, and since it isn't an actual sample of the original recording, it doesen't infringe on that copyright either.

As for the issue of whether sampling should be legal, I say yes. Check out the Beastie Boys album Paul's Boutique to hear sampling as an art form at it's peak.

Re:Sampling has been dead for 10 years

[miTTio]

For that matter, check out Dj Shadow.

His first album: Entroducing, if i recall correctly was entirely made from samples.

Re:Sampling has been dead for 10 years

[BernardMarx]

As for the issue of whether sampling should be legal, I say yes. Check out the Beastie Boys album Paul's Boutique to hear sampling as an art form at it's peak.

Paul's Boutique is good, but Public Enemy's It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back is excellent. It is a perfect example of how hip-hop sampling can be an artistic collage of hundreds of different samples, as opposed to the mainstream rap process of "looping", or playing someone else's track (be it guitar, bass, drum or entire song) and rapping over it. Check out PE's site here.

There is also a great issue of Stay Free Magazine (The Copyright Issue) that covers many different angles of art and copyright. It contains a brilliant interview with Public Enemy's Chuck D as well as some good articles on the public domain, Disney and the Sonny Bono Copyright extenstion act. The issue as a whole is essential reading for all those concerned with intellectual property and intellectual freedom, and I highly recommend it.

Re:Sampling has been dead for 10 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but they were cleared. No one is saying you can't cample music, they're saying that you need to ask/deal with the original recording artist first...

Re:Sampling has been dead for 10 years

[miTTio]

I was not disagreeing with the parent, just trying to get another note worthy artist out in the light.

Re:Sampling has been dead for 10 years

[mvdw]

I take it you haven't heard of the Avalanches, then? Go to your local p2p network, type in "avalanches", and get some of their gear. It is seriously good. Especially look out for "frontier psychiatrist", "since I left you", and some of their longer works like "breezeblock session" and "gimix". Then go out and buy it, if you can get it where you are (because of legal issues...)

Re:Sampling has been dead for 10 years

[BigJimSlade]

AFAIK, *all* of DJ Shadow's albums are samples, either via a turntable or a sampler. His latest, "The Private Press," makes particular use of one-off (privately pressed) records.

It's disappointing that his use of samples tends to limit his marketability; Shadow has said that "Six Days" (the single from The Private Press) is probably the best song he will produce and there's no way he can effectively take it to the public. Worth checking out - even for people who don't typically like dj/hiphop type music (such as moms!).

Re:Sampling has been dead for 10 years

[glesga_kiss]

You'd be surprised how popular Shadow is. Everyone I know has Private Press and just about every song has been used in television commercials and interludes. Last week I remember noticing three different shadow tracks on BBC one in the space of 10 minutes.

Six Days was also in the charts, and received a fair amount of radio airplay on BBC Radio 1.

Re:Sampling has been dead for 10 years

[miTTio]

I guess I am suprised. I live in the south where country music and old rock rule the air waves. Heck, we just got an 80's pop music channel too.

I have really enjoyed all of shadow's releases, but I probably would have never been turned on to his music had it not been for some friends that were dj's in the local scene.

BTW - I'm kinda bummed I missed out on the Diminishing Returns Party Pak

Re:Sampling has been dead for 10 years

[miTTio]

I think that you are correct, but for some reason I hold Entroducing near and dear to my heart; I always recommend it as a starting point for getting people into shadow.

I agree with your marketability remarks. Most of the people that I have met, I live in atlanta, ga, have found shadow through word of mouth.

Re:Sampling has been dead for 10 years

[glesga_kiss]

Ah, you're Stateside. I'm in the UK, where DJ Shadow is pretty popular. Not amongst the S-Club7 lovers of course, but anyone who listens to breakbeat/hiphop/turntablism has at least one of his albums.

Check out some of the other acts on MoWax and Ninja Tune, there's some great stuff in there.

just take a sample of 2 works...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. figure out which work you want to steal^h^h^h^hample.
2. combine it with another copyrighted work... say a nice John Cage song... (copyrighted silence is wonderful)
3. distribute to the masses under dr dre's rules.
4. make money for doing little work.
5. repeat ad infinitum until you decide that the music industry needs a revolution.
6. find something different and risque and go to 2.

Simple answer

[stanmann]

The answer is really very simple. If an artist uses a sample, then they should be obligated to pay royalties. That is how the law is written today. Now, perhaps that should change. But why?
So that people who can't play instruments can "borrow" other artists work
I don't think that is a good plan.

Here is a better plan. Fix copyright back to 70-100 years Max.

OTOH, if two artist independantly develop the same riff, then both are free to use it, However if there is a significant gap between the first and second. The second is and should be obligated to acknowledge influence, or prove that it is not a derivative work...

One example that comes to mind was the first time I heard the new Madonna song... some crap about life in America and yoga and pilates. Anyway I was immediately reminded of Falco's Rock Me Ammadeus.

IMHO copyright applies if it's recognizable ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

IMHO copyright applies if the sample is recognizable and non-trivial. i.e.

- If you use a verse, or even a couple bars, from "Sergant Pepper", pay up - to Michael Jackson. B-) If you use half a track to go "veep-a-veep-a-veep" for your percussion, who cares if it's from Sergant Pepper, A Night at the Opera, or Behtoven's fifth? (But why didn't you just use one that's in the public domain by now anyhow.)

- If you play a couple bars backward, fair use. If you play a track backward, pay up.

- If you get a non-signature (i.e. lots of people do it) drum riff or guitar lick off a record and cut-and-paste it into a new composition, who cares? (Even if the whole composition is pieced together from such samples.) If you take a few bars of a solo, or a bar of something heavily orchestrated, pay up. If it's somebody's signature lick, learn to play it yourself (so it's no longer a signature) or pay up. And if it's more than a few notes, pay up for playing it yourself, too.

But that's just me.

Re:IMHO copyright applies if it's recognizable ...

[Anonymous Coward]

But recognizable to whom? "Recognizable" is far to subjective to be a usefull metric.

Re:IMHO copyright applies if it's recognizable ...

[angle_slam]

Have you listened to the "samples" at issue here (Fatback Band and Dr. Dre)? Once you hear both, you can definitely hear the original song. Dre's song is just the bass line from the Fatback Band song with a beat and rapping. If you were familiar with the Fatback Band, you'd definitely recognize the bass line.

No Easy Answer

[istartedi]

I think it requires... wait for it... judgement. That's right. Judges will actually have to judge.

What's are the general guidelines for judgement? I think there should be 3 classes of works as far as sampling is concerned. Class 1: The samples are more like notes, it's difficult to tell where they came from, or even if you can tell where they came from the resulting composition is a totally new work. Sampling artist keeps all royalties. Class 2: extensive use of sampling to the point where you have a medley or a "cover" of an existing work or works. In that case, the sampling artist should pay whatever they pay now to do a cover, except that this fee might be divided among several artists. Many "house mixes" would probably be class 2. Class 3: outright copying of a song, with digital or analog modifications providing little more than a thin veil over the original material, and not adding any real original value. To the Class 3 "artist" sorry--no soup for you. You forfeit any royalties you earn back to the original artist.

Now, I realize there are all kinds of shades of meaning in between these classes, and no easy answer. It's a shame we don't do more jury trials for cases like this, because I think most ordinary people would be able to figure this out without writing 1600 page anesthesia documents. The Verve example cited is a classic case of Class 1 sampling that was hammered as if it were Class 3 trash. I never would have known the Stones had a hand in there if I hadn't been told.

Re:No Easy Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

the answers easy. sampling is an artform. u try to record 50 sounds from 50 of your favorite records and make something new out of it.

it seems like more than that though

[Trepidity]

It doesn't seem that the only complaint is the lack of credits; there seems to be additional licensing required. That is, he'd still be getting sued even if he had properly cited the origin of the sample but hadn't paid royalties or otherwise cleared it.

Re:it seems like more than that though

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point, I eluded to exactly that in another post, but forgot on this one. Thanks for pointing that out.

"Shut the fuck up and get what's comming to you"

[nagora]

Those were Dr Dre's words to Greg Palast (as reported in "The Best Democracy Moeny Can Buy") when asked about his suing of Napster to pay for infringing on his "intellectual property rights".

I DO hope the Doctor is enjoying his own medicine.

TWW

Make royalties mandatory...

[drinkypoo]

But allow all sampling, however great.

Royalty amount: Song is 5 minutes, sample is one minute long, 1/5 of profit is royalty payment.

You can always sign a contract to sell it for less, but this means that anyone can sample anything but they have to pay. Also any length sample should be credited if desired by the owner.

Re:Make royalties mandatory...

[elmegil]

Interesting, but impractical. How long is that lovely full orchestra hit that everyone used in the early 80's (you know, from Yes "Leave It" to Art of Noise to....you name it). It's probably no longer than some single notes. At which point you'll have insanity like the guy who was sued for copyright infringement against Cage's 4'33".

Re:Make royalties mandatory...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, sounds similar to "mechanicals", statutory royalty payments in the US and Canada.

Re:Make royalties mandatory...

[recursiv]

Great idea. So I can take any loop based music (most modern rock, pop, rap, techno etc), pay 2% for an 8 second loop, and loop it back together?

Most music is repetitive. The value of music is not linearly distributed with respect to time.

There.

You're being stupid

[krog]

too bad, Dr. dre.... being bit by your own is the only way to get you to wake up.

You clearly demonstrate miscomprehension of the situation.

Dr Dre has never been against sampling. it is suicide for a hip-hop artist to be against sampling. this is the one thing that basically all rappers/producers can agree on.

Dre is against file sharing of music. Not sampling. Are you too dim to see the difference?

Re:You're being stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Sampling is stealing a part, file sharing is stealing the whole. So using this amazing logic: I can't just steal $1000 from a bank, but it should be ok for me to visit 100 banks and remove one $10 bill from each of them right?

Re:You're being stupid

[mark_lybarger]

Are you too dim to see the difference?

well, in one instance, i copy music (download) from someone else and use it without paying the copyright holder.

in the other instance, an artist copies a music sample into his song to EARN A PROFIT, without paying the copyright holder.

sure i see the difference now. in one area i abstractly deny the original copyright holder potential income because i copied the work, and in the other another musician is making a fortune off the works of others.

now where's that friggin' kettle.

Re:You're being stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

you obviousally are being the dumb one... DUH dr dre is against sampling YET HE DOES IT..

so he needs the fricking wake up call..

Get real and think before you post.

Re:You're being stupid

[Bendy Chief]

Apparently a jury of his peers was too dim to see the difference between two forms of copyright infringement.

When you think about it, unauthorized sampling is more odious than sharing as the sampling offender is actually profiting fiscally from ill-gotten gain, as opposed to merely gaining digital information.

Re:You're being stupid

[kingkade]

Unfortunately, you are not using the same logic. Sampling a tune, melody, or any work for that matter, may be legal even if you don't ask for explicit permission. If it's not legal, then he should pay the royalties for using someone else's tune. (IMO, copyrighting a short tune it sort of silly). Taking Dres music and simply serving it to the planet is not.

So using this amazing logic: I can't just steal $1000 from a bank, but it should be ok for me to visit 100 banks and remove one $10 bill from each of them right?

You are making the mistake of thinking that if you can draw an analogy, then it must be correct.

Re:You're being stupid

[Elwood P Dowd]

Dre is against file sharing of music. Not sampling. Are you too dim to see the difference?

Um... Yes?

While I understand that they are two different things, I do not understand what would put them on different legal ground.

Re:You're being stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you learn how to fucking spell properly and we'll call it even, you stupid prick?

Re:You're being stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Dre is not against sampling you fucktard AC. He's against sharing music.

Re:You're being stupid

[Savatte]

Old man Dre is using other people's art as a springboard for his own projects. You aren't doing anything with the songs you download. It's a matter or intentions.

Re:You're being stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

pussy.... you are a scare pussy..
nyahh. nyahh... you pussy....

I get some real enjoyment watching you try to be a man (yet you are such a pussy that a 11 year old girl can kick your ass)

so what do you have to say about that you ball-less pussy?

nyahh.... gutless pussy who has no balls :-)

Re:You're being stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, so that means that Dr Dre is performing much more of a evil act by PROFITING on someone-elses art. whil I am simply listening to that art and enjoying it.... the reason it was created in the first place...

so from what I see... Dr. Dre needs to be publically have all his copyrights stripped from him and nullified as an example to the rest of the "artists"

Dre INTENDED to defraud the artist with INTENTIONS of making a profit from it.

I understand now.

Re:You're being stupid

[Elwood P Dowd]

Reread my post. I understand that they are actually different things. That doesn't imply any legal distinction that I can think of. "A matter of intentions" doesn't necessarily mean anything legally in this case.

Re:You're being stupid

[damiam]

You make a financial gain off your download, because you still have the money you otherwise would have spent on the song. An artist also makes a financial gain off a sample, and usually they even have the consent of the original group to do it. In this case, Dre thought he did but didn't. That's all there is to it.

Re:You're being stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it does. And intentions matter legally in many other areas of law as well.

Re:You're being stupid

[dustman]

While I understand that they are two different things, I do not understand what would put them on different legal ground.

Sampling should be considered "acceptable use", like quoting another work. Do it too much, and it's plagiarism, but a little bit is ok.

Re:You're being stupid

[Elwood P Dowd]

Many examples where intention matters leap to mind. I still haven't heard anyone explain why they matter here. That's all I'm asking for.

Re:You're being stupid

[egburr]

It is a matter of intentions.

Dre took someone else's copyrighted "property" and added to it or modified it and then sold it for financial gain. People pay him for his work, but he does not pay the other artists for their work which he used. His intention is to make money off of other people's work without acknowledging or compensating those other people.

The file-sharing public is downloading songs to listen to and enjoy for themselves. No money changes hands; nobody profits financially; whether somebody loses money is arguable. Their intention is to enjoy some music without absurdly high costs.

It was not a sample.

[eples]

From MTV's article:
"Dre testified that before hiring a musician to play a bassline from the Fatback Band's 1980 song "Backstrokin'" for his 2001 track "Let's Get High," he consulted a musicologist who said the riff was commonplace.

He had another musician play some notes - it wasn't a sample from a copyrighted work. Surely there is a difference.

Re:It was not a sample.

[dr.badass]

He had another musician play some notes - it wasn't a sample from a copyrighted work. Surely there is a difference.

Yes, and it's only slight.

There are 2 types of copyright here : One, the copyright of the song itself (picture sheet music, lyrics), and the copyright of the recording.

The bassline would still be covered under the first, but only a sample of the bassline would be under the second.

If you have a CD of Mozart's 'Jupiter' Symphony, the copyright of the music has long-since expired (They didn't have Disney back then), but the particular recording you're listening to is copyrighted. In such a case, you couldn't sample the recording without permission, but you could certainly play it yourself. Er...you and your orchestra.

Re:It was not a sample.

[CoreWalker]

There is not much of one.
...and stop calling me Shirly.

Re:It was not a sample.

[geekoid]

if the same riff is played by 1000 other musicians, then it shouls matter where it came from, its in the creative commons.

This is like getting sued because you had a character in a book say 'Hello'. That phrase probably appears in a lot of books.

Re:It was not a sample.

[Anonymous Coward]

[what the fuck is a musicologist?]

It's kinda like a whatthefuckologist.

Re:It was not a sample.

[death to hanzosan]

Are you truly so incompetent that you cannot perform a simple Internet search? Do people this incompetent actually exist? It's shocking to me, I am sorry. Here you are:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=musicolog ist

Re:It was not a sample.

[tmark]

He had another musician play some notes - it wasn't a sample from a copyrighted work. Surely there is a difference.

And what if I have person A type code that happens to be identical to person B's code , while specifically telling them exactly how and what should be typed ? Should we consider the "new" code to be different from the "original" code ? And if so, does all copyrighted - and copylefted code lose any and all protection ?

Re:It was not a sample.

[teamhasnoi]

Interestingly, you can print out fonts, scan them in, import them back into a font, and they are yours free and clear in the US.

Doesn't seem to have hurt the graphics/typography industry any.

mi2

Re:It was not a sample.

[cei]

Let's take a clean room example... Person A hears the riff, goes into another room and hums it to bass player B. It's ok in other forms of reverse engineering. Why not here?

Re:It was not a sample.

[TC (WC)]

Because it isn't only the implementation of music that has copyright on it... The initial composition also has it's own form seperate from the copyright of the performance.

Re:It was not a sample.

[merlin_jim]

He had another musician play some notes - it wasn't a sample from a copyrighted work. Surely there is a difference

Yeah there is something of a difference and this is murky ground (as others have said)

Take a recording of someone else and use it unaltered and you are clearly on the wrong side of copyright law

Take a section of a song that someone else composed (and the composition itself is copyrighted) and you may be on the wrong side of the law, depending on if the section you used is unique.

If the "musicologist" (WTF is a musicologist? Anyone ever heard this term before? Would George Clinton be a "funkologist"???)

Sorry I digress... If the "musicologist" that Dre consulted is correct then Dre shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Oh and then there's the other side of the coin: Some people feel that if a single note is different then its a different work. Some people feel that if the timing is slightly different then its a different work. Some people feel that no section of a song should be copyrightable because its so easy to derive that section without having to steal it, and since all art (and especially music) is derivative... blah blah blah...

For those curious, I'm a DJ that makes his own music entirely from samples and loops. And yes, I license all my samples. But if one day I find something cool and quirky and not for sale at any reasonable price I would not feel it unconscienable to use it without permission.

Copyrights are Supposed to Benefit Society

[fastdecade]

Taking a recorded track and using it in your own recording in a studio is called sampling. I call it theft.

I call it art.

What happened to the idea that copyright law is in society's interest. It was supposed to provide an incentive to content creators - protecting the upside that typically motivates them to create content.

BUT is it in society's interest to restrict works which build on other work? That's progress and should be encouraged at all costs.

None needed, UNLESS...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the song has not yet been commercially released. Then you do need permission. But once that artist releases it commercially, it's fair game for covering.

Shouldn't the suit be for $900,000,000,000

[Dave21212]

That's $150,000 per song times 6 million copies for a total of $900,000,000,000 ?

Why didn't they just recreate?

[Reverend Raven]

This is so strange. Why didn't Dr. Dre (and the Verve) just recreate the sounds rather than use a sample from another song? From someone who's in the record industry (a good friend of mine) it's so easy to recreate rather than outright steal the sample.

Re:Why didn't they just recreate?

[goosman]

The article states that he had a bass player play a riff from this particular song. It was not sampling. If using a riff is theft the entire genre of "The Blues" is screwed.

Re:Why didn't they just recreate?

[Jack Comics]

Because recreating the sounds requires something resembling musical talent. And hip-hop "artists" and rappers, at least for the most part, just don't have that.

Re:Why didn't they just recreate?

[oRdchaos]

I love the fantasy world slashdot creates where one ignorant person who won't read the article makes a comment and triggers a whole backlash of people who feel the need to make themselves look stupid by continuing the illusion.

All the way

[bperkins]

Hopefully there courts will finally give some guidance on this.

The ironic thing about this is that when sampling started becoming popular and people did it very heavily, the result was much more creative and interesting than it is now.

Then you would take sounds from loads of sources and slap them all together. Now you just find a catchy riff, go talk to their lawyers, an let some talentless hack mutter something over it.

I'm afraid though, that the music industry has foisted such a restricted idea of fair use on all of us that it's going to be difficult to get the legal system to go againt them.

Bring It On

[devnullkac]

Should samples be protected by copyright? As long as copyright law and the DMCA exist in their current form, Hell yes! Many uses of copyrighted material appear "fair" but are prohibited by current US and international law. Just because one of those uses is especially lucrative (read: desired by the masses enough to pay for it) doesn't mean we should ask that enforcement be relaxed for that use. In fact, quite the opposite.

If you believe fair use should be broader than it currently is, then this is your chance for corporations to work to your benefit: they may just decide to lobby for new law which makes such uses legal for everyone, not just corporations. Just make sure your representative (presuming you have one) doesn't let the law be too specific.

Not 'sampled', 'replayed'

[Bananenrepublik]

OK. But there was no sample. It was a replayed bass line. Now, if they had made up a bassline of their own, and someone found a song which played the same six notes, could they sue as well?

BTW do you mean a major part of the sampling song or of the sampled song? Eg, if you sample some half-second odd noise which has no place in the original recording, and build a song around it, should you have to pay?

Re:Not 'sampled', 'replayed'

[dr.badass]

OK. But there was no sample. It was a replayed bass line.

There are 2 types of copyright here : One, the copyright of the song itself (picture sheet music, lyrics), and the copyright of the recording.

If you have a CD of Mozart's 'Jupiter' Symphony, the copyright of the music has long-since expired (They didn't have Disney back then), but the particular recording you're listening to is copyrighted. In such a case, you couldn't sample the recording without permission, but you could certainly play it yourself. Er...you and your orchestra.

Re:Not 'sampled', 'replayed'

[hondo77]

Now, if they had made up a bassline of their own, and someone found a song which played the same six notes, could they sue as well?

Ask Vanilla Ice and he will tell you that the answer is "Yes".

Re:Not 'sampled', 'replayed'

[alexo]

OK. But there was no sample. It was a replayed bass line. Now, if they had made up a bassline of their own, and someone found a song which played the same six notes, could they sue as well?

Actually, four notes are enough.

Re:Not 'sampled', 'replayed'

[TMB]

Now, if they had made up a bassline of their own, and someone found a song which played the same six notes, could they sue as well?

Depends whether the new artist heard or ought to have heard the old song.

So if your new song has the same riff as one by Joe's Garage Band, who've only ever played in Joe's garage, you're safe. But if you went to see Joe's Garage Band when they played at Joe's Corner Pub, or live in Joe's city where Joe's Garage Band gets regular play on KJRS (uh... apparently Joe lives in Iowa), whether or not you listen, you're liable.

[TMB] (not Joe)

Re:Not 'sampled', 'replayed'

[jpsowin]

Dang.

Everyone is in trouble if that is true (including me!) because 80% of the songs that people listen to are simple stuff like G C D Em (just in a different key). Sure, there are some others but it's not as catchy to people for some reason. Pick up a guitar, and you'll find you can play WAY TOO MANY SONGS by knowing 4 chords.

So if there is not "fair use" of melodies and "bass lines" then every musican is in trouble. There are only so many!

Re:Not 'sampled', 'replayed'

[Catiline]

IMO that ruling is absolutely ridiculous.

There are only a limited number of note combinations possible, and of those a smaller set are msuically harmonic ("pleasant to the ear"). *ANY* selection of notes smaller than an entire work will, eventually, be repeated elsewhere and thus defining what constitutes the integral piece of "creativity" naturally limits creativity. Ignoring music theory constraints (eg. change in key, note length, scale harmonics) there are just under 60 million 4-note combinations playable on a 88 key piano. Playing one note per second continouously, one person (machine?) could play a sequence of notes that hit every combination in one year, 320 days.

&ltsarcasm>Anyone up for calculating such a musical "composition", copyrighting it, and going after all later musical artists? </sarcasm>

Re:Not 'sampled', 'replayed'

[Anonymous Coward]

that was 10 notes...

Re:Not 'sampled', 'replayed'

[black mariah]

Small clips, IN MY OPINION, aren't enough for anyone to worry with. Drum hits, single notes, whatever. Entire beats, whole guitar parts, orchestra parts, MAJOR AMOUNTS of a song should be. I don't get the point of sampling other people's stuff to make your own as long as you're using half a damn song.

Re:Not 'sampled', 'replayed'

[jechonias]

at stereo rough mp3 compression giving 1mb per min (doing this from v poor memory) thats (365+320) 685 days or 16,440 hours or 986,400 minutes or 986 gig. That is a serious album, where exactly are you going to get a cd / dvd that big? On the other hand in a few years ide drives will have that kind of capacity real cheap. perhaps this would be a neat investment earner for the FSF or similar?

Re:Not 'sampled', 'replayed'

[black mariah]

There's a vast difference between a chord progression and a riff. Just playing notes in sequence means nothing. When you play something emulating another song, you're ripping it off. What everyone here is failing to remember is that there are laws against PLAGIARISM, Fair Use or not.

Re:Not 'sampled', 'replayed'

[recursiv]

http://everything2.com/?node_id=1029506

I saw this mentioned elsewhere on the thread too. A melody does not have a "keyspace" of all 88 keys on the keyboard. No melody uses a range that wide. The vast majority of melodies you hear fit in one octave. (12 notes)
And the vast majority of the rest fit in 2.

Go read the link. Be enlightened.

Re:Not 'sampled', 'replayed'

[tomaco-junkie]

But if the small clip, say three seconds, is used over and over again in a song (like in rap) then that is copying. It's not just how much of the original song is used but also how much it's used in your new song.

Co-Creaters deserve appropirate compensation

[CreodeRiot]

If an artist uses a piece of another artist's work, the former should share any profits with the latter and give credit. Just as if they were co-creaters, which in this case, they are. It's the same as if you write a song with another artist, and then put it out on your own without crediting or including your co-writer in any financial rewards. This would obviously be wrong.

Sampling vs. Stealing.

[DJTodd242]

Well, I listen to "Industrial" music, where sampling is a major part of the music. Taking a quick sound bite from a movie, or the like is a far cry from building "your" song around a looped bit of music from the Rolling Stones (The Verve), David Bowie (Vanilla Ice) or any band on the planet (P. Diddy).

However, there are cases even withing the small genre of EBM/Industrial where the artists got a little sample happy. KMFDM had to re-release thier album NAIVE due to not clearing a huge sample from Carl Orff's Carmina Burana. Actually, Apotheosis got burned for the exact same sample. One case that bugged me was a Toronto band, Malhavoc, having to do the same thing with an album because they sampled Mick Jagger screeching in Sympathy for the Devil.

The question begs asking though, how is that really any different from a band like Velvet Acid Christ who have sampled pretty much every word ever uttered by Brad Pitt.

Dr. Dre, and all of the other artists who "create" based solely around someone elses music are just getting what they deserve. Even in a clear case of parody like the Simpsons, Matt Groening et al. get permission before using a product name. (At least they used to.)

Re:Sampling vs. Stealing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, aint that a bitch? why do most people regard sampling as a "rip-off".
I suppose none of you heard The Avalanches, or Prefuse 73. Now the first band used 600(!) samples in their 15+ debut album and they succeeded in serving up a plate of fresh sounds.
Sampling IS NOT copying, it's merely using EXISTING timbres to create something new.
Now I'm talking about short samples..sampling a whole bassline or whatever that's copying.

Re:Sampling vs. Stealing.

[glenstar]

Velvet Acid Christ who have sampled pretty much every word ever uttered by Brad Pitt.

Not to mention about half of the movie version of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".

Re:Sampling vs. Stealing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr Dre used a bassline from another song because he liked the groove. Pretty much exactly the same way Apotheosis et al use the Carmina Burana theme; they like the atmosphere, and want to create something new out of it.

Now get off your "my music is better than yours" high horse. The same goes for everyone who mentions IDM/Intelligent Hip-Hop, "Classic Rock", Classical, Jazz, or any other music form from the past thousand years or so - _all_ of them quote passages from other pieces of music. Just because you happen to prefer one style over another, that doesn't make the others any less valid.

Re:Sampling vs. Stealing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I've heard of Prefuse and The Avalanches.

Sampling is capturing a segment of data from a signal at discrete intervals. Nothing more, nothing less.

You elitist fuck.

"Implication"

[Khakionion]

So what about "Weird" Al Yankovic? As I understand it, he usually asks for permission to parodize popular songs. However, when Coolio denied him permission to do "Amish Paradise," he did it anyway. And "The Saga Begins?" Heck, he had an illegal copy of the script, but all George Lucas said when he heard it was "hey, that song's pretty cool."

Is there something wrong with that picture? Honestly, I don't know. Someone tell me. Foobar.

Re:"Implication"

[DJTodd242]

Actually, you're mistaken there. Al asked for permission to parody Gangster's Paradise from the record label. The label, totally within thier rights, gave permission. Al had assumed that they'd ask Coolio. Apparently Coolio was none to thrilled.

I beleive they've worked it out, and Coolio knows that Al wasn't poking fun maliciously.

Re:"Implication"

[streettech]

I thought that Coolio gave Weird Al permission to do the song, that's why he didn't get sued. When Coolio can out against the song it was because he had a gansta rapper image to maintain.

Re:"Implication"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Weird Al thought he had gotten permission from Coolio to do "Amish Paradise." Coolio's people cleared it without ever asking Coolio himself. Coolio got upset about it after the fact, but it was too late at that point. Since it was a parody, Coolio didn't have any recourse, so nothing could be done about it.

Weird Al asks permission out of respect. Half the time, the song is enough of a parody that he doesn't need to.

As for "The Saga Begins," Weird Al didn't work from an actual script. He got all his information about it on the Internet, and it just turned out that it was right on the money.

Re:"Implication"

[Anonymous Coward]

The F'd up thing about that is that Coolio's song was just a weak cover of Stevie Wonder's "Pastime Paradise." Coolio never did manage to score with an original song.

Re:"Implication"

[Anonymous Coward]

weird al was given a copy of the script.

coolio was trying to act like a bad ass when the truth is he or someone from his org gave permission to do the parody. he just wanted to look 'cool'. so pathetic. go do som'more cola commericals ya f ck.

Re:"Implication"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wierd Al MUST ask for permission. As for "Amish Paradise", as Wierd Al himself noted when asked about this "[Coolio] always cashes the royalty checks"...

Re:"Implication"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not when it's a real parody, he doesn't. You could argue fairly convincingly that "Amish Paradise" is a parody of "Gangsta Paradise," which is considered "fair use" and for which he does not have to ask permission (see the infamous 2 Live Crew "Pretty Woman" Supreme Court decision). But he asks for permission every time whether it would be covered by parody or not, and doesn't release the song if the artist refuses.

To take another example from the same album, "Gump" is not a parody of "Lump," so he would have had to ask permission from the Presidents Of The United States Of America to do that one.

In either case, since Weird Al didn't write the music, he has to pay to use it. That's where Coolio's checks come from.

This is fine, but....

[dacarr]

The only concern I have is that, if taken to the extreme, rock groups could sue other rock groups for borrowing so much as a riff. An example would be Pink Floyd suing Phil Collins because Phil's "Rain On Me" sounds vaguely like PF's "Wish You Were Here". (Other references could be found in the old "Copycat Corner" segments that were done (and maybe still are, it hasn't been aired in my area for years) on the Dr. Demento show.)

(This is not to be confused with the sampling thing. Yes, I know all about A.L. Webber's Phantom and PF's "Echoes".)

It's certainly karma under the headlined circumstances, but where does one draw the line? I don't particularly want to be sued by Justin Hayward of the Moody Blues because a song I wrote sounds vaguely like "Nights In White Satin", or by Rob Jenkins because a song I wrote uses spacy-sounding plucked violins and xylophones through a reverb effect as in Enya's "Orinoco Flow".

So yeah, lesson learned, get permission before you sample, but let's hope this doesn't get as bad as I've outlined.

Re:This is fine, but....

[Shabazz]

Way to go for the Onion approach to Slashdot commenting.

Please provide additional hypothetical examples of something that pretty much everyone understands to reinforce ad nauseum a point that (once again) everyone understands.

Sorry to vent, it's just one of those days you know? Maybe I've should take some PCP and listen to "Dropping Names" by the Beastie Boys from Paul's Boutique (which song samples "Hey A-Pocky Way" by The Meters.)

It's not an either/or

[Anonymous Coward]

Should samples be protected by copyright, or should artists/musicians have the right to manipulate the old into the new?

They can pay a royalty for the copyrighted sample and then have the right to manipulate the old into the new all they want.

This is a rare case.

[techstar25]

Since the late 80's most rappers and their respective producers normally go out of their way to make sure that all samples are cleared by the copyright holders. In the 80's Biz Markie used some samples and was sued, so since then rappers have been more careful. Of course there are always idiots who try to get away with it, like "Ice Ice Baby", sampling "Under Pressure" In most cases the copyright holders have no problem with rappers using their samples if the money is right. Dr. Dre has been using samples his whole career, so it's strange that he would get caught using a sample without proper permissions.

Re:This is a rare case.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article. He thought he did clear it with his "musicologist", in that it wasn't offensive to replay that part of the bassline.

Derivative Works

[DdJ]

We need a big revamping of the concept of derivative works in general.

Because of that, samples should not be made free in isolation. Doing so would remove some fairly significant pressure on the commercial world to look at the "derivative works" issue as a coherent whole, and come up with sensible new general solutions.

re:rappers not musicians

[Anonymous Coward]

No they're not, in the traditional sense. Rap music today is defined by technicians (DJs & studio engineers) and poets (MCs). Sampling,while making old music "new and improved", still derives profit from the prior work of others. Any arguments denying royalties from sampling, to the original artists, could be applied to P2P music sharing.

So should...

[kypper]

Phantom of the Opera composer Andrew Lloyd Webber for ripping of Pink Floyd.

Re:So should...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear hear! He also has some Floydian riffs in Jesus Christ Superstar...

Re:So should...

[Anonymous Coward]

C C# D D# E E D# D C# C
Doo doo doo doo doo-doo...doo doo doo doo-doo.

you mean napster?

[kingkade]

I'm not sure if you're referring to Dre and Napster, but he was annoyed about people knowingly stealing and distributing his music, this seems, at best, about him "stealing" a *sample*. There's a big difference IMHO.

It's probably easier to defend "I didn't know I needed to pay royalties for this sample" versus "I accidentaly shared my entire (probably stolen) music collection of MP3s with the world".

Re:you mean napster?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is there any difference?

Copyright is an absolute. You copyright something as a whole and part of that copyright prevents unauthorized derivative works. Whether you steal 5 seconds, 50 seconds or 5 minutes of work, the law states you can't do it.

On top of things, the man is making GOBS AND GOBS of money by stealing 5 seconds of someone else's work and using it to his advantage.

This all goes back to the line in the sand that IP law creates. You can copyright something but someone can make copies for themselves but never spread the copies.. If they are making fun of you then they can take the work, munge it a little and spread copies. If they are making music, they CAN'T take the work, not even a beat or 3 and spread copies.

So yes.. We soon see that IP is artifical and arbitrary. Anyone ever hear the song made entirely up of samples of Homer Simpson saying 'Doh!'? How does that apply here? We have samples being stolen, but we have parody at work.

Uh oh, the system isn't consistent... And they wonder why people want to see IP law reform.

Re:you mean napster?

[kingkade]

We have samples being stolen, but we have parody at work.

OK, let's say he purposefully stole that sample, then I agree money should obviously paid (even though I think it should be on a sliding scale given that a sample is usually short and not an entire "work"). What I don't agree with is that, it is debatable that if it was this Backstroking sample that was taken or whether Dre created it himself. But IMO it is NOT debatable if I take someone's work give away copies. Just my opinion on the matter.

Theme and Variation, Qoating vs Sampling

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there is a huge difference between theme and variation, or quoting some one and sampling. Sampling is basically the same as stealing, but the other 2 are paying homage to the original creator. The difference being is that you don't steal it and reuse right out of the recording you take the music take piece of the melody, maybe reharmonize it, change parts of the melody, and it theme and variation you basically change the whole thing so that each variation only barely hints at the original. But most of the pop musicians didn't study music in a conseravtory and wouldn't know any of this if they were beat to death with it.

Re:Theme and Variation, Qoating vs Sampling

[Anonymous Coward]

the perfect retort to your snobby and antiquated post is this snippet from Deltron 3030:

Simple minded people always poin't the finger
To bring it to a close as if life is their role, their path
When all paths are intersections
It all depends on the persons perception
I believe you held something back for too long
It grew strong
And energy has its own will
And people think they make music still
But music is there with out you or me we just manipulate

uh oh, 1.5 million!

[Flunitrazepam]

He could probably sell eminem on ebay for that much

Live By The Sword

[Bob9113]

Should samples be protected by copyright, or should artists/musicians have the right to manipulate the old into the new?

You're goddamm skippy they should be. If they want music to enter the public domain, let them fight the psychotic duration of copyright.

Bj�rk got caught out

[T-Kir]

I remember when Björk released her second album "Post", she had an opening sample of the song "Possibly Maybe"... turns out she'd nicked it from an artist called "Scanner". I'm not sure if they sent out the legal hounds, but the album still hadn't been pressed in certain countries so the sample was removed (I'm listening to the said track on the UK album, and it has the sample).

This is long ago, so my memory is a bit hazy on the details.

Re:Bj�rk got caught out

[unicron]

I have a KMFDM album with an illegal sample called. The album got pulled but I was still able to find a copy of it at a used cd story...cool collector's item.

Re:Bj�rk got caught out

[Anonymous Coward]

But, see, it shouldn't be a 'cool collector's item' because anybody should be able to find an MP3 of it anywhere. Didn't you know? Music is supposed to be free, and there's supposed to be no intrinsic value in having an 'original' copy of a work. You shouldn't be able to benefit in prestige for 'hoarding' that rare version of the CD. gimmie gimmie now, dude.

Yes

[Chris Burkhardt]

Should samples be protected by copyright,

Yes, the exclusive rights to the entirety of any original work should belong to the creator. Fair use is a good idea, but rather vague. I guess the lenght of the sample, and the importance of it in the work which it is a part of (both the original, and the work is it being included in) dictate whether it is Fair Use or not.

or should artists/musicians have the right to manipulate the old into the new?

Yes, but it isn't a God-given right, it should be given by the artist (or whoever they sold the rights to). Artists shouldn't be so stingy with their creations. Maybe exclusive copyrights shouldn't be protected automatically in the US (or internationally), maybe public domain (or some lesser copyright) should be default, and copyright should have to be claimed. Either way it is fortunate that with the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License, and, even better for non-software use, the Creative Commons' Licenses (as well as all the other not-as-restrictive-as-copyright and copyleft licenses), more people are realizing that it is OK if other people use their creativity to make even cooler things.

Having said that, if an artist (or copyright owner) doesn't want you to use their creation, then don't. If your project depends on someone else's creativity, it should be scrapped anyway.

Same deal with peer-to-peer and copying copyrighted music against the will of the copyright holder... there is so much music in the world which is not copyrighted, or which the artist would happily give permission for you to use, why bother with the RIAA's offerings? You don't need the music. And if you want it so bad, respect the artists, respect the record label they have chosen to give the rights to their music to, respect the trade association that record label is a part of, and buy a CD.

The simple answer?

[naelurec]

I suppose the simple answer is this: Any sound sampled from a copyright piece of work, no matter how big or small, without proper permission from the copyright holder is illegal.
I suppose some of you can say "but what if it is SO small .. " -- well my thoughts are pretty simple on this: if the sample is so small, then just make your own. Given the amount of music technology out there (synths, portable recording units, software, etc..) -- create your own sample and use it.
Under those circumstances, if your imitating too much as to be in a copyright violation, your still screwed (ie same as recording a cover and selling w/o permission) but if you have to do that, you *PROBABLY* shouldn't be an artist creating your own original pieces to begin with. :)

I think they're right

[Doomstalk]

Sampling music should be covered as a derivative work under fair use laws. Then again, the music industry won't go quietly even against themselves. Oh well, theres a possible good side, maybe they'll sue eachother into bankruptcy. ;)

recontextualization is a form of creativity

[The Benjamin]

Consider this: It's been standard practice in jazz soloing for just about ever to cleverly quote melodies of other tunes.

Or how about this: Both Beethoven in the Diabelli Variations and Bach in the Goldberg Variations devote a variation to quoting a tune written by another.

But if we going to focus simply on commerce, than let's consider this case: Dido release an album. No one cares. Then Eminem uses a sample from her album in his song "Stan" which is a huge hit. Suddenly people are interested in Dido. The song the sample came from is all over MTV. Now I ask: should Eminem have paid to clear the sample, or should Dido have paid for all the free exposure?

Recontextualizing as a creative act has been around for ever. Using old ideas to make new ideas is at the very heart of creativity.

The difference...

[chrisgeleven]

Sampling is basically taking an exact copy of a section of another group's/artist's song and adding it to your own song unaltered or changed somewhat but still recognizable. Great examples include just above every single Puff Daddy/P.Diddy song in existance. Usually it is either a lyric or a riff or two from a song that is sampled.

A cover is pretty much an exact copy or different version of a song by another group, usually with almost the exact same lyrics (if not the same) and just about the same music (maybe "modernized" to fit the style of the band who is playing it).

In order to sample or cover other groups music, you have to ask for permission and most likely have to agree to pay some kind of royalities. Credit must be given to who wrote the song as well (you can read the credits for covers in the jewel case inserts that every CD with a cover on it comes with).

However recording a riff that you write on the guitar (for example) that is similar to another song by another band is quite different. There are only a finite number of riffs and the chance of someone accidently using a riff that was already used by another song is very great. I'm sure everyone has heard songs on the radio that at first glance sound like another song at the first listen.

You can get in trouble for recording a similar riff if you did so on purpose and with the intent on confusing listeners to the music. I might be wrong, but there was a controversy about a Michael Jackson (what's new eh?) song (the one used in that Free Willy movie) that sounded just about exactly like another song music wise that an artist claimed to have wrote before Jackson wrote his song. I can't remember if either party sued the other and what the outcome of the case was, but every once in awhile you do hear about bands and artists suing each other over possibily stealing each other's songs.

Re:The difference...

[senrik]

~Michael Jackson (what's new eh?) song (the one used in that Free Willy movie) that sounded just about exactly like another song music wise that an artist claimed to have wrote before Jackson wrote his song.

Was that the BeeGees one? If so, then the answer is: Michael was sued and he lost. It was too close.

Juice Newton

[The Jonas]

Actually, I believe the song was rearranged around Juice Newton's hit Angel of the Morning.

Re:Juice Newton

[Anonymous Coward]

Juice Newton, Merilee Rush & the Turnabouts (1968 i think), and Shaggy stole it from Eddie Curtis and Chip Taylor. And if you will check the credits on the album you will see that Shaggy also credits the writers (and also credits Steve Miller for the joker)

according to an article + sampling thoughts

[shoot speed kill lig]

he didn't "sample" anything - he wanted to copy (as in imitate) a bassline, consulted a so-called "expert" who told him it was a generic riff

and the real kick in the pants, of course, is that the jury knows even less about "sampling", "riffs", and "music" than that "expert"

PLUS, dre's lawyer expects their verdict will be thrown out due to inconsistencies

sampling is right and good

people who sue over something sampled are only JEALOUS because they are afraid that the person who sampled them will make more $$$ then they did

and if you think, "well without the original work in the first place that thief wouldn't have been able to sample anything..." that's fine, but you still have that original work ANYWAY - it's not like any "stolen" riffs DISAPPEAR from the "original", never to be heard on it again

(of course, I realize that many people may actually feel that way about works that have been sampled, but tons more songs are "ruined" that way by inclusion in commercials, bumpers, etc)

and if you REALLY want to stretch it by saying you shouldn't be able to base your work on someone else's (or, expand their work) then FORGET IT - EVERY idea is based on another idea in SOME way

(and anyway, if you really do believe that, you can't argue it anyway! I just made that argument, and by your own beliefs you can't "steal" MY argument) :)

Copyright should be enforced on ALL or NONE

[shatfield]

If we (non-musicians) must feel the heat of copyright enforced by the United States of the RIAA, then so should the musicians. If we can't copy them, they shouldn't be able to either.

Karma, yes indeed....

[nicedream]

Dre's protege wears a "Fuck Napster" shirt on MTV

Photo here

Bad ass mofo

[ManDude]

Sample or no sample the Man will try and stop him. Dr. Dre is simply the baddest ass mofo on the scene and the courts are trying to take him down. The record industry is becoming fearfull of his power and will do anything to stop him. Takes A Nation of Millions.

Rosetta Stone of Humor

[limekiller4]

Only pure idiocy could create a system by which an original song's worth is increased dramatically by an action that will get you sued by the owner of that song.

You're misinformed.

[Anonymous Coward]

From Weird Al's official site:

What about Coolio? I heard that he was upset with Al about "Amish Paradise."

That was a very unfortunate case of misunderstanding between Al's people and Coolio's people. Short version of the story: Al recorded "Amish Paradise" after being told by his record label that Coolio had given his permission for the parody. When Al's album came out, Coolio publicly contended that he had never given his blessing, and that he was in fact very offended by the song. Al immediately sent Coolio a very sincere letter of apology for the misunderstanding, but has yet to hear back from him.

millenia-old drum copyrights are expired.

[Anonymous Coward]

They can go ahead and copyright new ones, but the old ones are in public domain now.

Two words:

[Erbo]

"Melancholy Elephants."

Sampling vs. Re-Recording

[hairybacchus]

Sampling is a big deal, because you are using a chunk of the master recording, which is the end-product of many, many dollars of recording, mixing, mastering, promotion, artist development, etc. I worked for a while in New York with the guy who produced Rump Shaker and he had an attorney that dealt with all of his sample clearances. Moreover, there is no standard licensing charge for samples. The owner of the master recordings can charge you whatever they want, or not let you use it at all, because it's their product, and using their product to make your own product is not "fair use", it's profiteering.

On the other hand, re-recording a piece of a song is a lot cheaper and is subject to compulsory mechanical licensing, meaning that you pay 8 cents per re-recorded song for every CD you sell. Nobody can stop you from doing that. Dre did that with many P-Funk tunes on The Chronic.

It's one thing to re-interpret someone's idea. It's another thing to appropriate their implementation - the creator has every right to control that as they see fit.

If you read the link...

[Lank]

You would have seen the part where they mentioned that the song Dr. Dre is being charged with sampling has been sampled by other artists 80+ times. I think the copyright owners looked the other way with all of those other artists, but heard the Dr. Dre album and didn't like it, and decided to sue him. Targeting rappers for ripping you off makes sense to me, while not suing someone who uses your work in a way that you like is kind of hypocritical. But hey, that's the way our legal system works.

No sample

[yerricde]

when you are taking recorded audio directly from another source

No recorded audio was taken. The lawsuit alleged infringement of a melody in the bass line, closer to Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs (the "My Sweet Lord" case) than to any sampling case.

"amen brother" et al.

[Anonymous Coward]

what about other sample-dependent genres, like 'drum and bass?' in my experience, nearly all commercial dnb producers make liberal and unlicensed use of drum tracks, and i haven't heard of a single lawsuit being filed.

at this point, couldn't a suit over popular breaks such as 'amen brother' or 'soul pride' envelop the entire industry?

ministry

[hpavc]

i cannot imagine what all the samples for the psalm 69 album would have been. i gather he band didnt even keep track of all of them and when asked to start making a list for them they dumped the sampled entirely.

sounds like a good excuse for that crappy disc at anyrate.

Attribute it

[Wireless Joe]

How about if you use a trivial amount of someone else's work, you just make sure you attribute it correctly, and add something to the liner notes that says,

"If you like this song, then you should check out (band X), whose inspired (riff, backbeat, whatever) made this track what it is.

That way, the "original" artist gets the credit, and maybe a sale. I know I'd fire up iTunes and try one $.99 song to check it out.

Re:Attribute it

[senrik]

~ How about if you use a trivial amount of someone else's work, you just make sure you attribute it correctly

You mean kinda like the way Sting did on the First Solo album where he borrows (and attributes) a prokofiev melody?

Samples = More Record Sales

[bedouin]

This is a quote from a song by Stetsaonic, around '88 or '89, I don't remember:

'Tell the truth, James Brown was old / Until Eric B. and Rakim Made 'I Know You Got Soul."

And sure enough, I bought the James Brown box set a couple years later. Any interest I had in Jazz music started from hearing different producers sample the Blue Note library, and from then on I just started buying records by artists that had been sampled, hoping to find something interesting.

The point is, a lot of these musicians who are being sampled have been washed up for years (case in point, Gilbert O'Sullivan who sued Biz Markie for sampling "Alone Again (Naturally)".) Yet, after Biz sampled that record I went and found the 45 to hear it. If it weren't for Dre sampling that record nobody in the US would've heard it to begin with. Do you think the whole resurgence of P-Funk amongst white teenagers/college students would've happened if it weren't for Dre sampling so many Funkedelic and Parliament tracks?

Of course it should be protected...

[Rorschach1]

Just because you're sampling only a few seconds of an old hit doesn't make it right. The human brain has a tendency to remember and recognize even very small bits of songs... by sampling someone else's work, you're taking advantage of the listener's recognition of that sample. Seriously, either get permission, or come up with something original, for Christ's sake...

Real musicians don't care

[CausticWindow]

Samplers, drum machines and synths are the tools of the untalented. How difficult is it to make a block busting hit by sampling another block busting hit?

And don't even get me started on drum machines. You press some keys at random, and suddenly you've got a danceable beat. If it really were this easy to make good music, then we'd all be good musicians.

Technology is the scourge of music. Every mother and his brother are wannabe producers spewing forth homogenized electronic music.

Electronic music, there's an oxymoron for you.

Re:Real musicians don't care

[cens0r]

The fact that wannabe's spew forth homogenized electronic music just proves that it takes talent to use drum machines and synths. Sure it's easy to buy a korg triton and use the default sounds to create a song fairly quickly. It will probably be pretty generic sounding. However to actually edit the sounds and create new sounds using that technology is hard. When listening to electronic music, I can often pick out what equipment bands are using because they don't change the pre-sets. On the other hand listen to OutKast, Underworld, Boards of Canada, or Orbital. They use the technology to create entirely new sounds. This is not easy. If it was there would be more quality electronic artists. In fact the number of quality artists in all genres is probably about the same.

Re:Real musicians don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

"Samplers, drum machines and synths are the tools of the untalented. How difficult is it to make a block busting hit by sampling another block busting hit?"

Technology isnt a talent substitute. Its still difficult to produce a great record with the technology, possibly even harder.

"And don't even get me started on drum machines. You press some keys at random, and suddenly you've got a danceable beat. If it really were this easy to make good music, then we'd all be good musicians."

Have you ever used a real drum machine, Ie a 909? you have to program every sound it makes, every loop, every phrase. its not as easy as you might think. Also bear in mind that if you as a producer find it easy someone else will find it easy and thus your sound will be unoriginal.
Once again Technology isnt a substitute for talent

"Technology is the scourge of music. Every mother and his brother are wannabe producers spewing forth homogenized electronic music."

ARGH... try listening / getting out more.. listen to some of these musicians, goto the Detroit Electronic Music festival (wish i could, im in the uk) Listen to Ritchie Hawtin, Jeff Mills or any of the other Techno pioners, listen to soemone like DJ shadow (Hip hop beat digger), then tell me that what they are doing is easy and that any idot could do it.

Traditional music is limiting in its expression, how many instruments sounds can you play/produce at one time...

Electronic music, there's an oxymoron for you.

Re:Real musicians don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

This is same as saying every programmer should code in assembly and not use high-lever programming languages.

Sure, you don't need as much talent and Java has given people with no real programming skills ability to create crappy, bloated and buggy software. However, if you have lots of experience/skill and use high-level languages you can usually get your job done faster and you can do things you couldn't have done (without great difficulties/effort) in assembly (by playing real instruments).

4 words...

[steve's nose is blee]

Hey Dre...4 Words, Mo' Money...Mo' Problems -Notorious PIG aka P. Jiggly

Define "little pieces".

[Rui del-Negro]

Things aren't that simple.

Define "little pieces". If you play a sequence of 50 notes from some existing (copyrighted) song and use that sequence in one of your songs, are you infringing on the copyright? What if the sequence is just 10 notes long? Or what if it's just 3 notes long?

Does it matter if you made them up yourself (and just happened to sound exactly like that existing song) or if you deliberately copied them? Or if you think you made them up, but may in fact have heard the song before, and got the idea from there?

It's not a matter of "coming up with your own ideas", it's just that sometimes you have an idea that someone else had had before. And sometimes your idea involves (deliberately) using some pre-existing material in some new way.

If you write a book, chances are some sentences you use have already been written in other books. Some of which you may even have read. Does that mean you're "copying" from those books? Some sentences from Douglas Adam's books, Monty Python's, etc., are used over and over in lots of different contexts. Should people be forbidden from using them? Does the fact that your book or article has a paragraph starting with "and now for something completely different" mean you have "no ideas" and that you should "get out of the writing business"?

The first step in deciding whether someone is "copying" a part of a song or not should be to determine if that part of the song is unique enough (i.e., if there are 50 songs using extremely similar chords, it's kind of hard to say it was an "original idea" in the first place).

Then you have to determine if the sample is easily recognisable in the new song (if it's reversed, full of echo, etc., it's virtually impossible to determine its origin, even if the author admits he started with a sample from an existing song).

Finally, you need to determine if that sample could have been replaced with a custom sample that would result in the same overall effect (ex., instead of using an explosion from "Doom", could you have recorded a "new" explosion, and used that instead, resulting in something almost indistinguishable from the Doom explosion?).

Naturally, all this is still rather subjective, but at least it's "objectively subjective" (in other words: you know there's a subjective element). Saying "all tiny little pieces of a copyrighted song are copyrighted and can never be used in another song" sounds very "neat" and very objective but doesn't make any sense.

Possibly the most famous musical copyright dispute: Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music.

RMN
~~~

Re:At what point should I pay the author?

[I(rispee_I(reme]

post on the net for others to hear

Derivative work

[yerricde]

Under US copyright law there's a compulsory license and a statutory rate for that. The author of the song gets paid a set price and can't turn you down.

The mechanical license applies only to reasonably exact copies, possibly with a minor change in style. It does not apply to putting the bass line under a completely different song, which is considered a "derivative work". There is no exception to the derivative work monopoly of copyright, except possibly under 17 USC 107 for parodies and other limited fair uses.

Re:"Shut the fuck up and get what's comming to you

[Anonymous Coward]

Beautiful :~)

Hey! How about this!

[bmajik]

if your "music" is comprised entirely of time shifting/compressing a recording of someone else's work, while you "add value" by speaking profanely over it... ...maybe you should consider not checking "musician" on your census..

Re:Hey! How about this!

[Chef_TM]

How elitist and dismissive you appear to be. Dr. Dre is a musician simply because he makes music that MANY people find enjoyable. This is irrespective of the technology or words he uses. So you find technology and profanity distasteful. I find implied snobbiness and an attempt at passing off opinion as fact, offensive. But thats just my opinion. And I am willing to admit to that.

It's the copyright owners right

[Anonymous Coward]

to decide weither it should be sampled or not, and not the 'thief'. why is this so difficult to understand? you create something, you copyright it, it's yours. not some other schmoe's to do with as he/she pleases ... I really don't understand why this confusion even exists! can anyone enlighten me on this? because I really don't get where the confusion is. IMHO, this is an open and shut case, nothing to see here move along please.

How Much of a Sample?

[ausoleil]

If a work is copyrighted, generally the implication is that the whole and all parts therein are, indeed, copyrighted performances.

A musician cannot copyright a note or a chord, for example, the chords D / A / G are used in succession in many songs. "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who, "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet" by Bachman Turner Overdrive are among them. However, a musician CAN copyright the exact performance of his/her playing those chords. That' to my thinking, is a sample.

Now then, take it further. I can't copyright a word. Forget getting the rights to the word "guitar" just to name one of about 300,000 in the English language. But I can copyright a string of words -- like "MY guitar gently weeps" and then sue the pants off if you stick them in your song. Of course, "My guitar gently weeps" were George Harrison's words, ironically the same guy sued for plagiarism in his song "My Sweet Lord." Go figure.

To add to the confusion, add public domain performances, and public domain literature. Rush uses direct quotes from S.T. Coleridge in their song "Xanadu." They cannot copyright them, they are public domain. But, in the song, there is a point where the words are an original set of lyrics by Neil Peart and you can bet your bottom Canadian dollar that those are as copyrighted as it gets. Moby uses public domain performances to great effect, indeed, generating new songs from antique recordings. They're his and our to harvest.

So, at the end of the day, if Dre used someone else's work without permission and rights clearances, he's guilty and should pay up. If the law is wrong, then work to change it. But if you were the guy he sampled and din't pay, you'd be mighty p/o'd and go get a lawyer.

It's all grey.

How techno is made....

[rxed]

I used to work as computer tech in a recording studio. We had a huge CD library of samples, and database of who used what sample. I remember one day there was a big fight between two techno artists because they've used same sample in two different albums. Anyways, if you ever wonder how techno is made... its completely compiled from samples with one 'connecting track'. Its funny because those two guys who fought about the same sample were acusing each other of not being creative enough.

A smlar case

[Rui del-Negro]

Some tme ago, ntel tred to copyrght the letter "". Of course, Apple clam they were the ones who nvented t...

RMN
~~~

Wes-syied!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, great post there Cumander Tyco, we really care about that!

Dr. Dre's musicologist has exquisitely tiny feet

[Jbrecken]

Is all this talk of song stealing giving anyone else Harvey Birdman flashbacks?

I've now got that stupid Shoyu Weenie song stuck in my head.

Babe I'm Gonna Leave You

[thegameiam]

actually, "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" is a good example - it's by Joan Baez, not Led Zepplin. She recorded it in 1962, even though most people consider it a Zep song from Led Zepplin I (1969).
So permission and royalties were obtained, as they always should be...

David Barak
Fully RFC 1925 Compliant

It's called COLLAGE, dammit!

[gekkotron]

Seems pretty cut-and-dried, but both the **AA and most comments here just don't f*cking get it.
An artist working with paper can legally take a picture out of a magazine, photocopy the Mona Lisa, whatever, and add it to their own art. No laws are broken, and the artist ends up with a new piece of art uniquely their own, but added to by the inclusion of other imagery.
For those who say anybody can do that/I could be a star by using other peoples' music/waahhh/(standard /. Bitch'N'Moan(tm), I say, quit trolling. That argument's been around for years about many things, but those who say that, about collage, music, whatever, never do what they say they could. Do you really think you could put music together the way an accomplished DJ act such as FatBoy Slim does? Can you do collage to the caliber of Braque?
It's the same thing!

"Every musician is a magpie and a thief. "

[aphor]

MTV did a "Rockumentary" years ago about The Who, wherein Pete Townshend, the guitar legend did utter "Every musician is a magpie and a thief." and then explained that music and "hooks" or riffs are like expressions in a language. You can come up with something completely original, only to hear a song on the radio later and think "Oh, that's where that came from!" It's impossible NOT to use "samples" of other people's creativity. There's a finite number of chord changes on a guitar, for example. Most of them sound bad. There are few sweet ones left. Rythm is the only degree of freedom left, and it still leaves a finite set.

Re:"Every musician is a magpie and a thief. "

[Anonymous Coward]

Rhythm is not finite, but I fear for the days when we have to wait weeks between the beat counts.

Re:"Every musician is a magpie and a thief. "

[mcpkaaos]

There's a finite number of chord changes on a guitar

Hardly true. I suggest you learn a few things about chord progressions before you make such a statement. There may be an finite number of chords that can be played on a guitar, but you can arrange those chords in any way you see fit over an infinite number of those chords with several methods of inversion over 12 keys in 7 modes over however many scales you wish to use or invent. You aren't even limited to playing a chord on a single instrument. Why not play around with implied chords using several instruments? Ever tune a drum kit? Ever use a key to imply a chord? There are some amazing things you can do if you sit down and think about it.

And when you say most chord changes sound bad... well... for hundreds of years the chords you so LOVE today (especially those tense dimished 7ths or anguished minor chords (Dm7 anyone?)) were considered dissonant and avoided (or disallowed). The sounds you hate today just might become your passion for music tomorrow. I think the last 80 or so years of western music can back me up on that.

And for anyone that thinks music has any kind of limit... go talk to your local jazz player. He/she will learn you a thing or two about variation. No one, and I mean no one, knows the art of movement like the jazz masters*. I would bet even the classical composers would marvel at the momentum picked up by a solid jazz ensemble.

*Disclaimer: I am not a jazz musician.

Sorry, I know this post is borderline off-topic, but I just don't believe that we are so limited with music that we have to beg, borrow, and/or steal riffs or lines from other musicians. It's up to the individual to determine how far they are going to explore when composing a piece: Take the easy way out and bang some open string riff in the common keys (C/Am, E/Cm, F/Dm, G/Em) or spend some time thinking about movement and really open your piece up to innovation. It's not the hook that makes your song, it's the vision that you and your audience has when it's heard. If it is, though, you might want to consider auditioning for the next popcorn punk band and hope your teenage angst holds out. I'll use Tool as an example. They are arguably one of the most important bands in modern rock, yet none of their songs really solidify any hooks. Each piece swirls with movement and progression without your standard rise and fall riffs common to so many rock bands. They show more classical influence than anything else, IMO. But I digress...

In the end, however, my opinion is this regarding sampling (and yes I've done my fair share): If you use a sample to pay a sort of tribute to another artist by coloring your own piece with a little of theirs... no sweat. You are basically in cover band territory here. Think Higher Ground covered by the chili peppers back in the early 90's. If you need to sample someone because you can't come up with any other way to fill a hole at the end of a measure... it's time to head back to the studio and put a pot of coffee on for the long night ahead. I love a good sampling job, don't get me wrong. But when the sample is used like a crutch I sorta lose a little respect for the artist and all interest for the song. How many of you wanted to gouge out your own eyes when you heard the bassline from Under Pressure so shamelessly sampled for Vanilla Ice's early 90's tragedy? I didn't like the song, but not because it was cool to hate the man. I disliked the song because he used a sample of an already well known bassline as the hook for his own music. That's just sad. I mean no offense, but I strongly believe that it's difficult (if not impossible) to find your own voice while using someone else's words.

Anyway, this was WAY longer than I intended. Sorry for the rant, just wanted to express an opinion. :)

--
mcp.kaaos

Re:"Every musician is a magpie and a thief. "

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Pete Townsend also utter "Every musician is a child pornographer"? No? Nevermind.

Re:"Every musician is a magpie and a thief. "

[TC (WC)]

That's all well and good... there are still a finite number of chord changes. There are a finite number of notes you can play at the same time. Therefore there are a finite number of ways to change between two different combinations of notes. There may be an infinite number of melodies you can play with multiple chord changes, over an infinite period of time, but that was obviously not the intention of the grandparent.

I'll also point out that we're talking about melodies that are as small as four chords. The combination of four chords is definately finite.

Re:"Every musician is a magpie and a thief. "

[TC (WC)]

I like how all the news outlets went on about it when he was charged but very few mentioned it when he was cleared.

Re:"Every musician is a magpie and a thief. "

[chthonicdaemon]

All musicians copy other musicians work. I have often written songs and played them to my friends only to get a 'hey, but that sounds like...'

I worry about where the world is going when I can copyright a riff (which are usually just a few measures of music). Maybe I should release a huge box set of riffs (bass and guitar), which are electronically generated and then played by cheap musicians. Then I can analyse all songs written after the release of my album and sue all the artists for using 'my riffs'.

Sounds like a good gig.

Re:"Every musician is a magpie and a thief. "

[Captain Pedantic]

Pedo Townsend wasn't cleared, he was cautioned. That means that he admits guilt, he is on the sex offenders list for 5 years, and he has a sample of his DNA taken, but that he doesn't go to prison (thank being a relatively famous musician for that).

Interesting..

[Ryan Amos]

This has been a hot topic in the music industry for almost ten years, it's nice to see it getting discussed here. But IMO it depends on the extent of the sample. If you sample some instruments or maybe even a couple spoken words, that falls under fair use. But then there are songs out there that will sample an entire chorus, or a chord progression. Those artists SHOULD have to pay royalties. Getting greedy doesn't help anyone.

Re:Interesting..

[w3svc_animal]

I agree wholeheartedly....please allow me to sample your post :

This has been an extremely hot topic in the music industry for almost ten years, it's great to see it getting discussed here. But IMHO it depends on the extent of the sample. If you sample some instruments or maybe even a couple spoken words, that falls under fair use. But then there are songs out there that will sample an entire chorus, or a chord progression. Those artists SHOULD have to pay royalties. Getting greedy doesn't help anyone but the greeder himself.

Re:Interesting..

[Ryan Amos]

Gimme my royalties, bitch. ;-)

whats the difference?!

[HanzoSan]

Both are under copyright. Stop making excuses.

In the mid-nineties

[Anonymous Coward]

in the mid-nineties, British band The Verve were forced to pay blah blah blah...

My god, it sounds so long ago... I am getting so old. ; P

ice ice baby

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes me think of Under Pressure by Queen. Now I'm going to have that dingding sequence in my head for the rest of my shift.

difference?

[kingkade]

That wasn't denied. Stop not thinking. And hold yor knee.

They should give credit, not money

[geekoid]

If I sample a 3 second piece of music, there should be no royalties to be paid. The attitude that there should be is destroying rap music. Making it very difficult for new artists to make it in that business. The creativity of rap in the 80s was outstanding and blooming. Then the lawsuits started and new artisit we're stifled.
This suit in particular should have been laughed out of court. It was just 6 bass notes. The artist just blended these note to create something new.

Copyright is supposed to be a balance, a lmied time balance at that. For any community to grow, it is imperitve that there is no strangle hold on who controls art.
Sure, if I try to release someelse complete work as my own, thats wrong, or if I change a song and say it was an originall thats wrong. but taking a sample it not wrong, its neccessary for the growth of a community.

try to remeber, this case involves a repper, but it is bigger then rap music, so try not to let your personal taste for the particular genre taint how you react.
Personally, I don't judge music by genre, I only judge whether or not I like a piece of music on the singkle piece of music.

Re:They should give credit, not money

[Darth RadaR]

The attitude that there should be is destroying rap music.

<jest>You say that like it's a bad thing</jest>

But, by the same token, if you make money mowing lawns with my lawn mower, aren't I entitled to a cut of the profits?

Re:They should give credit, not money

[geekoid]

poor analogy.

a better on would be:
well there isn't a good analogy at all, becuase it is about something unique to a non tangible thing, identicle copying.
the best I can come up with is:
If I mow a lawn just like you do, should I have to pay you?
or better, of I mow a small pice of my lawn like you mow your entire lawn, should I have to pay you?

One thing is sure:
I won't stick my other hand under a running lawn mower.

Re:They should give credit, not money

[Darth RadaR]

Okay, I'll be more blunt because you're obviously biased (OTOH, I'm biased because I have worked as a musician:). You're making a soup. You go into my garden and take one of my onions without my permission and make your soup. Your soup sells like mad. Since you used my onion to make a soup, shouldn't you pay me for my onion? After all, your soup wouldn't be quite as yummy without my onion. Even if you carmelized and sliced the onion to "make it your own", it's still my onion that you took.

Re:They should give credit, not money

[radja]

ofcourse, nobody took anything. they copied, so you've still got all your onions..

Re:They should give credit, not money

[Darth RadaR]

ofcourse, nobody took anything. they copied, so you've still got all your onions.

A bass line is sampled and put into a song that makes a lot of money. Song copyrights aside, the person sampling the bass line isn't paying for the bass guitar, amplifier, bass strings, musicianship (practice, practice, practice), 1/4 cables, microphones (or direct box), studio time, tape, etc. If a person is profitting off of my bass line, after all I put into it as a musician, I'm due some return for my work and money spent.

Pissing off the creator

[druxton]

...sure didn't work for Sodom and Gomorrah.

A Recent Phenomena...

[Jerrry]

It's a good thing laws like this didn't exist in the past, or half of the classical music repertoire wouldn't exist. Classical composers based much of their music in whole or in part on previous works by other composers.

mathematical induction

[geekBass]

I can prove that he didn't still the bass line by mathematical induction. Would you say he stole an F# note since two bass lines start with F#? No. (p(k) is true) Now consider two notes - say F# and D. Would you say that he stole the bass line because two were same (notes and timing and the actual bass sample if you want to be picky)? I guess not. (p(k) => p(k+1)

But seriously, at what point do you say - ok you stole this?

Re:mathematical induction

[Anonymous Coward]

we are all proud of you that you just learned induction in your beginning algebra class, now shut the fuck up you are not funny.

Not the first time

[dr_dank]

According to this article, Lucasfilm sued Dr. Dre for sampling the "THX deep note" on his Chronic 2001 album.

Re:Not the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

What the article fails to mention is that he was found not guilty. Turns out he contacted Lucasfilm to try and use the sample, they declined so he created his own...

oh ok, so I can do this.

[HanzoSan]

take Dres CD, put my voice on the beginning, say some garbage advertisement, like "hell yeah, go to www.website.com and get free shit" and then call it a new song, spread it all over kazaa and suddenly its legal?

If its legal so are all the movies on Kazaa which have those 1 minute clips with the guys on it.

Re:oh ok, so I can do this.

[recursiv]

NO IT IS NOT LEGAL.

For the love of Jesus, it was a bass line that was probably 4 seconds, not a whole song.

Not only that it was REPLAYED.

Improv

[brettlbecker]

I used to play a lot of jazz sax, and knew people who could improv like mad, and one of the common techniques was to start from somewhere in the score in front of you, then move off to somewhere new, then to bring in some other themes from different artists, and to use those themes then to color your own variations... and to move away again into something creative, and finally back to the original score. It was a circular thing that was extremely satisfying to listen to, and it couldn't exist without sampling, though of course this was actually *playing* what was played before and not just ripping it, but in principle it's the same, especially if the improv session is being recorded.

It's a dark day when creativity is stifled because someone 'owns' the 'patent' on a 4-bar riff.

B

What is Jazz?

[ruzel]

Jazz as an artform made itself from sampling -- only to them it is called quoting. You play a few notes from somebody else's tune, or the main melody only to mess with it -- and that's the objective! -- to take someone else's idea and create something new with it. In art and writing, this is called allusion. In science it is called citing and in code it's called open source. I put all of these items in scare quotes because when it comes down to it, they are all borrowing and none of them are piracy.

Whoever it is that thinks ideas just spring from the firmament wholly formed and uninfluenced is in dire need of a reality check or at least a trip to Disney World to play a round of spot-the-original-idea. Art springs from human life and human life is made up of a lot of art. To continue to enforce these draconian laws in the name of money will be at the cost of art and culture.

Considering how many people watch "The Bachelor" and "Fear Factor" though, maybe my point is moot. The memepool is getting damn shallow.
____________________

Plagiarizing Music...I'm divided

[Anonymous Custard]

Well whenever you sample something, it's polite to ask the owner of the music whether it's ok to do so. Without proper references or approval, you'd be plagiarizing their work.

Some bands, like "The Avalanches" have done same really skillful, clever, and artistic sampling to make some great, thoughtful songs.

Other bands have simply taken some riff from another popular song, and used that riff's catchyness to make their own crappy song sound catchy.

Now, I'd be pretty pissed off if I spent 25 years mastering the guitar in order to write and perform some amazing riff and used it to make a really popular song, only to have some other musician at his computer take a "sample" of the best part of the riff and use it in his own song. That riff, whenever you hear it, will remind you of my hit song; and I may not want to be associated with the crappy song that the other musician wrote. Essentially, one artist tries to steal another artist's glory.

For example, one thing that made U2 so popular is Bono's distinctive voice. He worked long and hard to be able to find a sound that people would want to listen to. So why should another artist be able to take a "sample" of him singing a famous line, paste it into his own song, and then sell it ???

Especially when an artist samples a riff from another genre, then uses it in a song which appeals to a market that wouldn't know it was a sample. You know Will Smith's song, "Men in Black"? The whole thing is a remake and rewording of an older song (someone pleeeease help me identify it). All he did was put on a drumbeat and put in some new words. So why does he earn millions for it?

There's nothing so amazing about taking a drum track and using Windows Sound Recorder to mix in the best parts of someone else's song. But, as long as you have the other artist's approval, there's no problem with it.

Personally I'm not a fan of "Come with me", Puff Daddy+Jimmy Page's remake of Led Zepplin's song "Cashmere", but at least it had the original Artist's approval.

Re:Plagiarizing Music...I'm divided

[clonebarkins]

Personally I'm not a fan of "Come with me", Puff Daddy+Jimmy Page's remake of Led Zepplin's song "Cashmere", but at least it had the original Artist's approval.

Uh, I think you mean "Kashmir" (as in the country) not "Cashmere" (as in the fabric).

Re:Plagiarizing Music...I'm divided

[rmjiv]

... Will Smith's song, "Men in Black"? The whole thing is a remake and rewording of an older song (someone pleeeease help me identify it

The original song is Forget-Me-Nots by Patrice Rushen. According to this site, Weird Al has also done a version of it.

Re:Plagiarizing Music...I'm divided

[EZCheese]

You know Will Smith's song, "Men in Black"? The whole thing is a remake and rewording of an older song (someone pleeeease help me identify it). All he did was put on a drumbeat and put in some new words. So why does he earn millions for it?

Same reason any song makes millions: because a lot of people liked it enough to shell out their hard-earned cash for it. Financial success has nothing whatever to do with artistic merit or hard work (I'm not saying they're directly opposed to each either - they just have nothing to do with one another). Will Smith took a great piece and said "this is interesting, but what if I tried this" and lots of people dug it.

Composers have been borrowing liberally from one another for a very, very long time (check out all those cantus firmus masses from the Renaissance). And as much as we may not like it, sometimes the "general public" (for lack of a better term) gets more excited about the derivative piece than the original.

Ever heard of Anton Diabelli? Probably not, but he once wrote a little waltz theme that no one today would probably care much about except that Beethoven wrote a set of variations on the tune that is now widely considered to be one of the greatest examples of the theme and variations genre. From a purely artistic point of view, I think borrowing is a good thing - it lets idea small ideas grow into big ones. In the modern age of copyrighting, there are legal issues to be worked out, but the creative impulse goes back a long way and, I think, should be allowed to continue.

Re:Plagiarizing Music...I'm divided

[awarnack]

Will Smith / "Men In Black" == Patrice Rushen / "Forget Me Nots" c. 1982

Re:Plagiarizing Music...I'm divided

[Anonymous Custard]

Uh, I think you mean "Kashmir" (as in the country) not "Cashmere" (as in the fabric).

yes, thanks:-) don't know where my brain was...

Re:Plagiarizing Music...I'm divided

[Anonymous Custard]

The original song is Forget-Me-Nots by Patrice Rushen.

thanks!

Re:Plagiarizing Music...I'm divided

[rockedbottom]

can someone please help me out -- doesn't Will Smith's Black Suits Comin' ( Nod Your Head ) sound like an old Deep Purple song ? Each time i hear that ( thankfully not that often anymore ) i'm reminded of Blackmore.

Re:Plagiarizing Music...I'm divided

[daftgirl]

No, that site does not say that Weird Al did a version of it. It's just on that guy's list of songs with lyrics he misunderstood.

Sampling is reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Sampling is the musical equivalent of literary allusion in poetry and prose.

Re:Sampling is reasonable

[Anita Coney]

No, sampling is analogous to quoting. A sample is an exact copy of a piece of a work. A quote is an exact copy of piece of a work. See?

Re:Sampling is reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

No, quoting does not incorporate the meaning and connotation of the quote as fully into the work as allusion does. In the Grapes of Wrath, the preacher's last words before he was killed were an allusion to the last words of Christ. What Steinbeck did is no different from, for example, incorporating a 5-second "na na na" clip from The Beatles' "Hey Jude" into a gangsta rap song.

Re:Sampling is reasonable

[Anita Coney]

I'll say it again. When you sample you make an exact copy of a portion of a work and use it in a larger work of your own. When you quote you take an exact copy of a portion of a work and use it in a larger work of your own. These are identical. Exactly the same. Equal. Synonymous. Should I go on?

The "Simple answer" is 7 years

[snooo53]

I say why compromise at 70+ years?? We should give all media 7 years (with perhaps the option of 1 renewal for a total of 14) and THATS IT! After that it's free for everyone to distribute how they please.

The artists, authors, and companies had their chance to profit during that time. These endless copyrights are only stifling innovation and tying up our court systems. There should be no compromise. Let's do what the founding fathers intended and create an innovative society again.

Well If...

[vandel405]

pff, Well if downloading mp3s off napster is legal, then I don't see what's wrong with sampling!

MacOS?: Musicians Against the Copyrighting....

[Aqua OS X]

Anyone else knowtice that the acronym for the "Musicians Against the Copyrighting of Samples" is "MACOS"?

I pulled up that site and was confused for a bit. All I saw was a MacOS logo with a big strike through it. I thought I stumbled upon some random geek's Mac hatred site ;)

The Underlying Problem

[aster_ken]

Yes, Dr. Dre booted people from Napster.
Yes, Dr. Dre is very outspoken against pirated music.
Yes, Dr. Dre lost a copyright infringement suit.

But the underlying problem here is not Dr. Dre, and it is not the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

The underlying problem is this: we have broken intellectual property laws.

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has taken America's already stringent copyright, trademark, registration, and patent laws and forced them upon signing members in slightly revised format.

So now all of these broken laws are *entrenched* the world over. Dr. Dre, even as huge (no pun intended) as he is, will not make a difference changing these laws any more than you or I. I've said it before, people. The only thing that will finally fix these problems is getting a *huge* player - someone like AOL/Time Warner, General Electric, or Microsoft to stand up and say, "Hey! We feel that the current intellectual property laws are stifling competition, encouraging frivolous lawsuits with exponentially too large damages, and generally causes the state of mankind's advancement to diminish. Their reach should be reduced, and their protections should be diminished." then we will *not* get IP reform.

So that leaves the average Slashdot reader three choices:

1) Whine about it, do nothing, whine some more
2) Write your congress people, consumer advocate groups, and manufactureres of IP and try to educate them on the true damage that current IP laws are causing
3) Create and support a viable alternative that will gain momentum from consumer and commercial support that eventually can replace current business models and content-creator demand

There are several projects in all three groups that have been started already. Some links:

For item 1: Slashdot.org - seriously, there's more whining on here than just about anywhere else I go.

For item 2: Please note that these links are very US-centric. As I am from the US, I do not know the laws or government structure of other countries and cannot make recommendations on who or what to write.

http://www.house.gov - Write your representative. It is their *job* to voice the opinions of their constituents (though usually they voice the opinions of whoever contributes the most to their campaign fund).

http://www.senate.gov - See above.

http://www.whitehouse.gov - Write the president. Your letter may not be read, but please try.

http://www.aclu.org - American Civil Liberties Union. These guys *try* to protect your freedoms. Try to make this an issue of civil liberties rather than commercial interests.

http://www.eff.org - Electronic Frontier Foundation. DONATE! They need your money to continue fighting our fight!

http://www.futureofmusic.org - Future of Music Coalition. They're trying to come up with a compromise. I don't know if it'll work, but it's worth the reading.

http://www.lp.org - Libertarian Party. Support candidates that support you! The Libertarian Party believes in a system of government that doesn't restrict individual freedoms.

http://www.democrats.org - Democratic Party. Write to their leaders. Encourage their platform to support legislation that would reduce the life of a copyright or encourage the rejection of software and "method" patents.

http://www.gop.org - Republican Party. See above.

For item 3:

http://www.boycott-riaa.com - Discussions on getting the RIAA out of the picture. It's not totally productive, but some good ideas have come from their members.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/6540 - A new peer-to-peer network that may actually get started. Developers and content-creators are especially encouraged to read this article AND the user comments.

http://www.azoz.com - GREAT site. It's the home page of the guy who wrote the previously mentioned article. More details on the p2p thing plus details on creative commons license, defeating RIAA propo

However, rap doesn't benefit society.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll even prove it to you mathematically.

"Rap" is a 3 letter word.

"crap" consists of four letters.

3/4 of crap is rap.

Rap is a major component of crap (shit).

Here's the dilemma:

[Anita Coney]

Should samples be copyrighted?

I think samples should have protection when they are being used as hooks. E.g., Vanilla Ice ripping off Queen and David Bowie's "Under Pressure" to create "Ice Ice Baby."

But, on the other hand, if you're not using a sample for its hook value, why use it?

The best solution: Create your own music! If you find a song with a great drum loop, don't sample it, create a better beat! It's one thing to borrow from another's style, but to use the exact same sample shows NO creativity!

Or even longer

[Anonymous Coward]

Bowie should sue them until Lars Ullrich learns how to play drums(may be quite a few years in the future)

How about if Bowie sues them until Ullrich learns to not talk like he's perpetually 12 years old? That would take centuries!

Doh! indeed...

[kingkade]

He's not making a false statement, he's stating his opinion.

Stating that all rap music consists of samples with "with a bit of a drum machine loop and muttering some rhymes on top of it" is *maybe* his opinion, but regardless, he's trying to pass this off as fact. That's what I was highlighting to point out his shitty resoning trying to invalidate an entire genre of original, important, and creative music.

Additionally, and most importantly, it wasn't even the case that I said him saying "rap wasn't creative". That WOULD be an opinion.

You should read the whole post carefully before replying.

Doh! I forgot, this is Slashdot.

Re:Doh! indeed...

[cayenne8]

Ah...I never said all of it consists of samples...but, the articles did reference this aspect of some artists doing such...

It is my reasoning, however, that rap today is pretty much "c"rap....I mean, I think a musical talent is something that is a gift to a person, that not everyone has. But, anyone can spew forth obcenities, violence, and promote a lifestyle that will get you nowhere fast in life....and put this all to a drum loop....that ain't talent or art....IMHO.

Apparently someone likes it...but, I don't see it, in its present day form, lasting that long as a major genre...

Re:Doh! indeed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all rap promotes negative lifestyles, and a lot of rap is done over original music (often it's looped, but it's not sampled). There are also rap groups (such as the Roots) who play their own instruments.

Re:Doh! indeed...

[freestyle-fiend]

But, anyone can spew forth obcenities, violence, and promote a lifestyle that will get you nowhere fast in life....and put this all to a drum loop....that ain't talent or art....IMHO.

Yes, but I would not consider doing so to be artistic. However, there is much artistic hiphop. If you are defining "rap music" as music which promotes bad things, then I would have some understanding of your position. Remember, there is much hiphop that provides a positive message, which gives a good discussion of the undesirable things in life or which combines undesirable utterances with high quality verse. Perhaps you have missed some irony in one of these recordings or misunderstood the intended meaning. I could complain that the sung music that I have heard sounds whiney and promotes sexism and the worship of money, but I know that it would be unfair to do so without giving sung music a fair listening. Listen to some real hiphop and then make your argument.

Rap is a vocal style (I dislike "sing music", but I don't pretend that it is all artistically unworthy, even if some of it genuinly is). The rapped words in hiphop are lyrical poetry (it is possible for poetry to be good or bad, even if it ends up being rapped). The non-vocal part of hiphop requires a very high level of skill to be done well and the skill is a gift.

Apparently someone likes it...but, I don't see it, in its present day form, lasting that long as a major genre...

Once upon a time people took offence at rock music. It was new and challenging. Hiphop has been around for three decades. It was already mature when it spawned the crappy spin-offs that caught your attention, and (thankfully) it will be with us for a little longer.

Re:Doh! indeed...

[mink]

Wow this is just like all the people who claim Anime is 4 frames per second, or that all white people cant jump, or all nerds/geeks are the same.

OT:Re:Copyright

[dr.badass]

'Course music wasn't copyrightable back then anyway.

Come to think of it, a lot of music wasn't all that copyable back then. Both because there wasn't anything to record it with, and where large pieces, like symphonies, are concerned, because it was generally an expensive task to hand-reproduce sheet music for an entire orchestra. (Eat that, movable type!)

And of course, you'd have to have an orchestra to play it with. :)

(I'm don't disagree with anything you said, your post just got me thinking -- Moderators, please don't give me another unwarranted 'Troll'!)

...more to this than 'stealing'

[swyterw]

So lets say i write (and copywrite) a song with a bassline that goes AABAC. this repeats itself throughout the entire song. then, someone else writes a song (maybe after hearing mine, maybe not) that has the bassline BACAA that repeats throughout the song. they're essentially the same. should i be able to sue?

can we expect there to be an unlimited supply of note combinations? clearly not. And the fact is that some people stumble upon amazing basslines, but just cant back it up with proper vocals, or drums...

I think this issue really revolves around the question "what is the goal of artistic endeavors?" If you're looking to become rich and famous, then the money-driven music industry is the way to go (and attempts to shut down the free (as in beer) exchange of music are justified). if, instead, one seeks to make an impact on the world, then we should accept our musical heritage and use it however we can. Dre made money because he knew what was worth using, and what was worth ignoring in the original song. In this respect, he can be considered a gifted musician -- he is not just doing something anyone can do. Modern technology is allowing more people to manipulate audio like never before in history -- people outside of the mainstream will make songs that you can't ignore.

Music based on samples is the new punk rock. Corporate America will hate it...until they cash in on it.

Re:...more to this than 'stealing'

[colonel blood]

You cannot copyright a bassline or a rhythm. The copyright of a song resides in the combination of chord progression + lyric + melody.

However, lets not forget that a sample is a digital copy of a recording. If you admit to sampling then you essentially infringe up to three copyrights (of the record company, the publisher and the artist).

Therefore, replaying a riff is ok. Sampling it isn't.

And just wait till the Dre/Truth Hurts case reaches it's conlusion. He didn't use a short sample...he used 4 minutes of it. And that is just plain stoopid.

Where there's a hit there's a writ!

Should depend on the sample...

[mtrupe]

Sampling James Brown screaching "eeeeeow!!" is no problem, but what about when Coolio and Vanilla Ice steal entire songs and just rap over them? That takes no talent whatsoever.

I think its funny that Coolio got pissed off at Wierd Al for doing a parody of Ganster's Paradise (Amish Paradise), when Coolio's songs are almost entirely "stolen" (Fantastic Voyage to name one of the most blatant rip-offs).

Personally, I'd rather not listen to "artists" who don't have the talent to read or write real music, but to each his own I guess.

Who cares?

[BCW2]

The music industry has turned into such a bad effen joke, that it doesn't relly matter anymore.
People download for many reasons, artist rip each other off daily, and the labels steal from everyone in sight. Hope the whole thing implodes soon, then I can go to the artists site I want to and get my music for a quarter of the price.

The original artist should have _some_ say...

[jdreed1024]

Should samples be protected by copyright, or should artists/musicians have the right to manipulate the old into the new?"

Well, first of all, this is a useless question. Something can be protected by copyright, but you can still obtain the rights to manipulate the old into the new. Now if you mean "should they have the unrestricted right...", that's something else.

I'm not going to get into whether or not it should be copyrighted, but I believe the artist should have some say in whether or not their song gets used in someone else's song. I'm not going to get into how that could be enforced, since I don't know. But consider this:

You're David Bowie. You right this really cool song with Queen called "Under Pressure". It has a really distinctive bass line. It's a very popular song. Then, a generation later, this punk-ass, no talent retard called "Vanilla Ice" uses that part of your song in his song "Ice Ice Baby", which ceases to be popular after about two weeks. Suddently, your radio airtime goes down, since people hear that bass line, think it's Vanilla Ice, and shut the radio off. (Don't laugh - I've seen people do this - anyone who was a kid or teenager in the '90s associates that line with Vanilla Ice before David Bowie) How would you feel about that?

Now, you can say, "Well, he shouldn't have let them use it", but did he have any control? I don't think so. Ice probably just paid money to some copyright clearinghouse, and they let him use that sample. I wonder if David Bowie actually cares....

Re:The original artist should have _some_ say...

[nochops]

Actually, If I remember correctly, Bowie sued (and won) against Vanilla Ice about the very sample you're referring to.

Vanilla Ice said his sample was different (by a single beat) and therefore unique. Bowie said it was a blatant rip-off and should be paid.

AFAIK, he was.

hehe

[DarkOx]

Now muscians will have to do clean room work. This is great pretty soon all performing artists will have to be sure to never listen to copyright works that are in anyway similar to there music/product. Now more people that the mainstreem pays more attention to will fell the hurt. I used to be really opposed to this kinda nosense but recently I have realized nonsense is what it is gonna take for regular people to recognize all this bad legislation , legal precedent, entertainment industry lobbing, as creating an insane restriction on them. Things NEED to get worse before we can have a real backlash/revolution and they can get better.

you beat me to it

[Scudsucker]

Yeah he got sued for that, which makes him a bigger hypocrite than Metallica by a hair. Lars and James where huge tape traders back in the day, yet they all ended up suing Napster for infringment.

Even better, replayed a "commonplace" tune

[kilroy_hau]

From the article:

he consulted a musicologist who said the riff was commonplace.

The jury agreed, calling the rapper's actions innocent infringement, but fined him anyway.

Samples are good!

[auralogic]

I say intelligent artists should copyright they're samples! Firstly, artists don't earn alot of money, associations such as the PRF (Performing Rights Society) can help track down a groups commision on radio plays and live shows etc. Secondly, It might sound crazy that a split-second sample (possible just a kick drum beat) could be worth 1.5M USD but it might have just made the track and credit should be given. If an artists (such as Dr.Dre) wants to use a great sounding sample then he can bloody well go an ask the author of the sample if he can use it and I'm sure that for a modest amount of money (artists aren't usually that greedy!) they can use the sample. Dr.Dre, knew he was using someone else's sample, and he's a real dumbass for not checking it out first. I'm happy for the bloke that's 1.5M USD richer for creating that sample..it could happen to you. INTELLIGENT ARTISTS COPYRIGHT THEY'RE SAMPLES!

oxymoron: rap "music"

[Anonymous Coward]

you know it.

Sampling != Stealing

[LynchMan]

So many people seem to be bitching that 'Sampling is stealing' or 'Sampling is not stealing'. Just because an artist has samples of something in their song, does not mean they stole it. The artist could have received permission to use the sample, or may have purchased it. It also does not mean that the artist does not have samples. 'Samples' do not have originate from music either. You can sample movies, news broadcasts, video games - anything with sound.

I'm fan of industrial and EBM, and many of those artists use samples also. Yes, a good amount tend to be from movies or TV, but it is the same deal.

Plus what is with all the suing? A lot of times the artist's have had to pull CDs (Apothesis, KMFDM, countless others) for using samples without permission.

If memory serves

[jkabbe]

Didn't the same thing happen to MC Hammer? You think they'd learn.

Can't touch this....

They can't have it both ways

[thedarkstorm]

I don't see how/why they should have it both ways. What I'm saying is, why should they be allowed to make money off another musicians work and then scream when somebody downloads their music for free? Yes, they thought is "but it's only a 'sample' of the other song". I don't think that matters one bit though. If you play, you pay.. one way or the other. Or nobody should pay.

This is a matter of individual choice...

[tweakt]

Should samples be protected by copyright, or should artists/musicians have the right to manipulate the old into the new?"

That is really up to the creator of the original work (or the current copyright owner), and the licensing terms they've agreed on.

Part of the priveledge of actually creating a completely original work, is you get to decide if others can use it, and if so, how it can be used.

There is no rule that says no music can be sampled without permission. And there should be no rule that says all music can be sampled without permission.

You can share your own work with the public by selecting the appropriate creative commons license and including it with your work or displaying it on your website.

Not a new issue.

[pete-classic]

Caught, Can I Get a Witness?

Please note that "Can I Get a Witness?" is the name of a Marvin Gaye song, so most of the title is a "sample."

"What do you mean we're stealing beats? Ya'll can't copyright no beats!" -Flavor Flav

-Peter

Blind Justice

[serutan]

The riff Dre used came from a 1980 song by the Fatback Band. Did the Fatback Band sue him? No. The record company, Minder Music Ltd, sued him. Because he damaged them in any way? No. Because they can.

The punch line:

The jury agreed, calling the rapper's actions innocent infringement, but fined him anyway.

So the guy pays $1.5 million for an innocent mistake that caused no harm. Where did this jury come from, a sitcom?

Here's the next question: Musicians generally don't make money from record sales. Standard recording contracts are written such that all the expenses of production, advertising, manufacturing, distribution, etc. come out of the musician's share, usually leaving Zero. Record companies take all the profits from record sales. So how much of this fine is Dr. Dre's record company going to pay? My bet is Zero.

A big problem here..

[crashx99]

is that most of the /. community doesn't like Hip Hop and therefore thinks that it's bad immediately, notwithstanding Eminem though, he's ok! For reasons, that would take too long to explain, but nonetheless, I believe that's why a lot of /.'ers use the argument that 90% of the music on the radio is crap ecause, "unforunately" Hip Hop is in every music genre now. Look at the sucess of Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, Incubus, Rehab, etc.. why? because the sound is "fresh" (albeit stolen), and it's a little too hip hoppy for the guys who like.. umm, Phish... And if you really want to know about music, check out every American music genre, look who innovated and created everyone of them, and see when they became popular, and for what reason they became popular with the "mainstream"... that's it.. and sampling is good, because there's a lot of crap out there that could use a good home on someone elses tracks.

Re:A big problem here..

[jankyPhil]

Dood! Phish rules, brah! Tray is, like, the best guitar player ever!

Just ask yourself, What Would Jerry Do? ;)

(old school jamband fan, also hip-hop fan)

Re:A big problem here..

[Stormie]

..notwithstanding Eminem though, he's ok!

Yeah, well, that's because Slashdot sampled Eminem on such hits as Will The Real Bruce Perens Please Stand Up? and My Name Is.. First Poster! We love the guy!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

i remember

[waspleg]

when that happened cause i got my account shutdown, as i had The Chronic (which i own) ripped into mp3 shared

so yes Dre can in his own words "blow me"

how's that platinum plaque now buddy ;)

Dead? You haven't been listening.

[Gregoyle]

Check out DJ Shadow (his groundbreaking Endtroducing or the new Private Press), Moby, or RJD2, just to name a few, if you'd like to hear some amazing use of sampling that goes far beyond Paul's Boutique.

I would argue that sampling has yet to hit its peak as an artform. Just because some amazing stuff has been produced in a genre doesn't mean that everything that comes afterward is crap.

Well actually

[death to hanzosan]

A sample is by definition a highly limited excerpt of the original work. Highly limited excerpts are traditionally granted immunity under the guise of "Fair Use". For instance, I could not print the entire script for the new Matrix movie, but I can give away one line spoken by Neo. That line is "whoa".

Your commment is the product of a fantastically stupid mind.

Serves Dr.Dre Well!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm radically against any type of copyright because there used in a capitalist system to stiffle creation, not protect it.

But this time, EAT THIS DR. DRE

This shitface cockmaster get the change for his lawsuit against Napster and P2P sharing networks. How does it feel to be on the other side of the fence Mr. Dre??

Don't make sampling illegal, promote creativity

[Kedanoth]

My basic stance in the subject is: Don't make sampling illegal, but discourage it in favor of more creative efforts from the artist.

It should really be up to the record labels to basically try and promote some effort in the artist to create an unique experience in their songs, by just not accepting every Tom, Dick and Harry who show up with a tape made with snippets of 30 songs with a "whoop" in the middle by said "performers".

Of course, this will never happen, since record labels only look out for the interests of Numero Uno, themselves.

"Every musician is a magpie and a pedophile? "

[krysith]

He's obviously not a pedophile, but try explaining that to the law... click here

Re:"Every musician is a magpie and a pedophile? "

[aphor]

Are you a troll? I think your comment might have some subliminal relevance, but you've either done a poor job of expressing it, or maybe you're trolling. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt..

Re:"Every musician is a magpie and a pedophile? "

[krysith]

I apologize for doing a poor job of expressing my point. Perhaps I should be modded "off-topic". I was simply drawing a link between the Pete Townshend quote of quite a ways back and the current news regarding PT. Today I read in the paper that PT was fined for doing research on the web about pedophilia. The police have no doubt that he was only doing research, yet still merely veiwing materials for research is considered no excuse. I believe that limiting what information people can view and research legally is a BAD THING, much worse than a lawsuit over sampling. I support Pete Townshend and think he is getting screwed over. I just saw the quote and it reminded me of what I had just read.

Re:"Every musician is a magpie and a pedophile? "

[Captain Pedantic]

Better that Pete Townsend gets screwed over than the children whose images he looked at.

Yes he should be able to research any subject, but paying good money to subscribe to a child porn website is not the way to do it. I remind you that he wasn't writing a book about "child pornography on the 'net".

There are legitimate ways to research. He could have got in touch with child protection agencies or even the police. Unfortunately, he did exactly the same thing as people who get off on pornographic pictures of young children. Why shouldn't he have been prosecuted?

Why is this on /. ??

[voxel]

News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.

I know we arn't all nerds here, but do nerds listen to Dr. Dre? Reminds me of the begining scene of the movie Office Space... Where the white-guy "nerd" is listening to hard core rap, and when a black guy walks by, he sheepisly puts his head down while turning down his radio at the same time... Halarious.

Re:"Shut the fuck up and get what's comming to you

[EyesWideOpen]

That's weird because I believe Eminem, who is heavily involved with Dr. Dre, said that same exact line in one of his (earlier) songs (I think it was Kill You off of the Marshall Mathers LP but I'm not sure). I wonder if that is why he said it that way.

In the words of Steatsonic

[CausticWindow]

Steatsonic - Talkin' all that jazz (Tommyboy Records)

Well here's how it started
heard you on the radio, talkin' bout rap
saying all that crap, about how we sample
giving examples, think we'll let you get away with that
you criticize our method, of how me make records
you said it wasn't art, so now we're gonna rip you apart

Stop, check it out my man, this is the music of a hip hop band
jazz.. we'll you can call it that, but this jazz retains a new format
point, where you misjudged us, speculating creating a fuss
you made the same mistake politicans have, talkin' all that jazz

Talk, we'll I've heard talk is cheap
more like beauty, talk is just skin deep
and when you lie and you talk a lot
people tell you to step off a lot

You see, you misunderstood
a sample is a tactic, a portion of my method, a tool
in fact, it's only of importance when I make it a priority
and what we samples up by the majority (?)
but you and Minardi (?) are turn to thought (?)
narrow minded and poorly taught
about hip hop fame for the silly game
to erase my music, so no one can use it
you step on us, and we'll step on you
can't have your cake and eat it too
talkin all that jazz

Lies.. it's when you hide the truth
it's when you talk more jazz than proof
but when you lie and adress something you don't know
it's so whack, that it's bound to show
the things we write are always true sucker
just get a grip, now we're talking 'bout you
seems to me that you have a problem
so we can see what we can do to solve them
rap is a fad? you must be mad
with this old bat (?) we get respect you never had

Tell the truth, James Brown was old
till Erik & Ra came with 'I know you got soul'
rap brings back old r&b and if we would not
people could've forgot
we want to make this perfectly clear
we are talented and strong and have no fear
of those who choose to judge by lack of sass
talkin' all that jazz

Now, we're not trying to be a boss to you
we just want to get across to you
that if you're talking jazz the situation is a no win
you might even get hurt my friend

Steatsonic, the hip hop band
are like Sly and the Family Stone we will stand
up for the music we live and play
and for the song we sing today
for now, let us set the record straight
and lay the (?) have a form and a formal debate
but it's the part that you remember though
what you reap is what you sow
talkin' all that jazz

Re:In the words of Steatsonic

[saihung]

Well sure, but don't forget that they also said:

Speaking of a girl named Susie,
said she'd do anything to soothe me.
Take off clothes or put them back on.
Ain't that right, Wise?
"Word is born!"

And really, isn't that more insightful?

G , C & D

[Jeehoba]

Something like 50% of all folk songs from the 50's and 60's used this combination of guitar chords. So if we say that an artist can't use a sample from something that is already done, shouldn't we say that someone can't play that combination of chords on an acoustic guitar for a new song? The musical scale is limited on most instruments, so there is no way around reuse. Its almost like copyrighting air and then charging everyone eveytime they breathe.

Re:G , C & D

[WebMasterJoe]

It's been established that you can use the same chord structure, but the melody on top of those chords can't be the same. A lot of songs use the 1-4-5 pattern (G, C & D) or the 1-6-2-5/1-6-4-5 (think Heart and Soul), but they have to have a different melody. You'll notice that a lot of recent cartoons have songs that sound almost the same as well-known tunes. Same chords, same instrumentation is fine, but the melody has to be different.

As a musician, I wouldn't consider sampling somebody else's music without setting up some sort of contract for royalties. But I'm much more apt to use live musicians, and come up with my own stuff. I guess that's the jazz talking.

bittersweet symphony

[dildofire]

that case is absolutely ridiculous to me. first of all, the stones song really doesn't sound anything like the verve song. yes, the riff is the same, but the stone's version is played on guitar and at a faster tempo. the other reason is: the verve licensed the sample from the stones beforehand. it was only after the song became a hit that they got sued.

i got the last bit of here. could be bullshit. i don't know.

He's an original artist in rap

[CrazyJim0]

If you listen to alot of rap beats, they're ALL stolen off someone else's shit. Dr. Dre was always good at making new beats. Its freaking gay he has to caugh up money to some punk ass lawyer.

If the guy was for real that sued, he'd have contacted Dre and asked if he could lay down some new beats. I'm sure if had an ounce of class and explained it right, Dre woulda helped him up. Death Row is always looking for fresh new artists.

What this is just the system bein the same ol bitch it always is. I know I'm poor and never had a chance(even with a CMU degree), but I'm not a player hater. The more crap I hear like this, the more I'm going to go Fight Club on corporate bastards.

Listen

[fizban]

Here's the issue:

There's a difference between someone playing a series of notes using their own instruments or voice and someone taking an actual recording of someone else playing those notes and putting it into their own recording.

The first one is great, fine by me. Go play whatever music you want to.

The second is a piece of crap. If I spend countless hours and money working to create a "sound" in a recording studio, mixing and mastering it through my blood and sweat and someone else uses that *exact work* to make money for themselves, *without my permission*, then I'm going to be damn pissed.

If you want to come to me and ask my permission and we come to an arrangement whereby you can use my *actual recorded work* in your recording or performance, that's fine with me.

Using an exact recording, *without permission*, is just not cool. I can choose to charge you for it or give it you for free, but it's *my* choice, because it's *my* work.

It's all about respect, people.

Re:Dead? You haven't been listening.

[L-Train8]

I didn't mean to suggest that there are no great artists out there who could take the art form further. I meant that the current legal landscape stifles creativity and limits the artists. Current laws will have to be drastically revised before the medium can truly expand and reach its potential.

Just plain funny.

[Sternn]

So Dr. Dre is, for the second time, hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit, and has lost.

And after all the complaining about Napster. Hell, he was one of 2 artists who made a PSA against Napster, and yelled the loudest.

Anyone else find this extremely funny?

The only more ironic thing is the lawyers who are defending him are more than likely the same ones he had that attacked Napster. In fact, I am willing to bet they are part of, if not paid for by, the RIAA.

I would throw out the old "it's time for the doctor to take his own medicine" but it looks like someone beat me to it.

So I'll just say hahahah. hah.

Karma is a bi0tch.

-S

I defended the guy in this thread

[CrazyJim0]

But if he wore a shirt that says "Fuck Napster", then he deserves his ass leeched for money.

Napster is a sign of free trading, free books for libraries, and generally culture available to the masses who are too poor to afford it.

When you say "Fuck Napster", you also say,"I love this corrupt system we live in." So when you get burnt by your own rules, the rules that keep a man down, then you get what you deserve.

Re:I defended the guy in this thread

[Nugget]

No. When people say "Fuck Napster" they are saying that the people in our society who are creating should have a right to determine how their creations are used.

This is true for people who choose to restrict their creations with a license such as the GPL or for people who choose to restrict their creations by selling it for profit.

And the people who aren't creating but are rather just consuming should have fuck-all to say about it.

if you want the world to have more free music that's available to "the masses" then pick up the musical instrument of your choosing and start playing. You have no right to subvert other people's work.

Re:"Shut the fuck up and get what's comming to you

[nagora]

I think it's safe to assume he was quoting.

TWW

The nerve of re-using music bits!

[AvantLegion]

How dare Dr. Dre and other so-called "artists" (what a laugh!) get by by ripping off and re-using little bits of music!

I mean, that's like.. like... re-using bits of SOURCE CODE!

Is Dre a bad-ass

[Glonoinha]

I guess we are about to find out if Dr. Dre has given up his gang-banger past, or if $1.5M exceeds his generosity and patience.

Fo' shizzle my nizzle, Dre if you are reading this leave me an email address to hook up at, I am pretty sure that for $1M I can make this all go away, save you half a Meg and make an example out of those punks at London-based Minder Music Ltd.

You ain't got no problem, Dre ... I'm on the motherfscker. Go back in there and chill them niggas out, and wait for Glonoinha, which should be coming directly.

Re:Is Dre a bad-ass

[FunkSoulBrother]

You know, I don't think I've ever heard anybody say "fo shizzle my nizzle" except for Snoop Dogg, and white people making fun of rappers.

Re:Is Dre a bad-ass

[Glonoinha]

I confess, I am either Snoop Dogg or a white person making fun of rappers.

My post was totally honest though (the first part anyways.) I guess we are going to find out of Dre is still 'Death Row Records' material or if he is going to play by the rules. Those hard core Compton gangster rappers are some bad mofo's, Tupak and Biggie didn't cost anybody $1.5M and both saw their last breath when someone pulled up next to their car at a stoplight and proceeded to ventilate it with a machine gun. Because of some 'perceived disrespect.' $1.5M will buy a LOT of 'perceived disrespect.'

Re:Is Dre a bad-ass

[Afrosheen]

What are you getting at? That John Fogherty's days are numbered?

Minder music? Mind this beyaaaaatch! pow pow pow

note to the clueless>the preceding is a joke

Re:Is Dre a bad-ass

[th3space]

"You know, I don't think I've ever heard anybody say "fo shizzle my nizzle" except for Snoop Dogg, and white people making fun of rappers"

I'm pretty certain that it was JayZ that started that horrible little trend...and the only reason I say this not because I'm a proponent of the term, nor of rap in general (hip hop, yes. rap, no.), but more because of the fact that I had a legitimate argument over a) what was actually said and b) who actually said it first with my girlfriend...I lost. :(

Re:Is Dre a bad-ass

[nitelyfe]

Nope, it was E-40 (http://www.e-40.com/) from Vallejo California that started the trend. All the rest are just 'bitters'.

Re:Is Dre a bad-ass

[th3space]

e-40, eh? maybe I didn't lose the argument after all! *goes to research*

Re:Is Dre a bad-ass

[thebigbadme]

I love your comment, if I had mod. points I'd mod it up.
For those of you with-out a clue.. watch the movie Pulp Fiction, then apply some language construction skills (slang?), and mix with a dash of humor.

Samples should not be copyrighted to a point

[Anonymous Coward]

Sampling of short segments of music, tv, movies, etc should be legal. Maybe 30 secs at most, probably 15-20 secs is more reasonable, maybe it could be a certain percentage of the work sampled. The people on here that feel that even the smallest of samples should be protected better watch what they say. Just think if we had to pay a royalty every time we used/created a snippet of code already done by someone else? Or everytime a musician plays an A? Or the C chord? Should he/she have to pay for that? Like others have said, it is IMPOSSIBLE to create music that doesn't "sample" is some form or another.

The Simple Solution...

[Loki_1929]

Put copyrights back to 14 years, as they were originally intended to be, and you'll solve nearly all problems arising from using old samples in new songs. But hey, that might affect the income of the few artists who actually do profit from the current business model, so I guess we can't do that.

Can't work with classic material because the "public domain" has become a fantasy? Welcome to my world.

Sampling is not dead

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I love Paul's Boutique and It Takes a Nation of Millions (and let's not forget Fear of a Black Planet, an incredible sampling record), I have to say that the album "Since I Left You" by the Avalanches takes sampling to a much higher plane. These are real musicians. Yes, they are sampling, but what they are doing gives the source material new depth, accessibiltiy, and meaning. These are artists who work in collage with the instruments of the new millenium.

I'd recommend this incredible artwork to anybody -- and how often are you willing to say that about an album? There are decent reviews of it here and here.

Check it out y'all.

Copyright & Fair Use Basics

[AnalogDiehard]

There are copyrights for sound recordings (form SR) and for performing arts (form PA).

Form PA is used for copyrighting printed music and/or lyrics on traditional staff paper.

Form SR is used for copyrighting a finished music production that can be played back on any music reproduction device. Every track on every album has a form SR associated with it.

You cannot copyright a rhythm or a "riff"; the copyright protects a complete song on the basis of melody, lyrics, and chord/bass structure. Huey Lewis & the News won a copyright infringement against Ray Parker Jr in 1981 when a court concluded that the "Ghostbusters" theme song was too identical to "I want a new drug".

However there are publishing licenses, mechanical licences, print licenses, et al as described here. These are the protection mechanisms of copyrighted music that go all the way back to the birth of radio in the 1920s. Sampling falls under the definition of a music reproduction device. If a sample artist intends to "lift" a segment of a prerecorded work for profit, they need to get mechanical license to use them or they risk forfeiting all profits to the copyright owner. The precedent was established all the way back to Vanilla Ice plagiarizing the main hook from Queen's "Under Pressure" for his hit song "Ice Ice Baby".

Fair use applies when there is no profit earned. Earn a profit and you attract trouble if you don't get permission to use samples. There is a good primer on copyright fair use here.

So if I...

[g00bd0g]

were to write some software that would generate every possible iteration of 4 different notes and copyright them all, I could completely kill the music industry and/or become very, very rich? Same thing applies to say, printed media, what if I printed every possible combination of pixels on a piece of paper and copyrighted them all, I would own all the artwork possible?

Don't laugh... with increasing computer power this stuff is actually becoming possible.

This /. article...

[zurab]

This /. article is an illegal sample of the real article at mtv.com. Slashdot should expect to hear from MTV's lawyers shortly and expect to be sued for $3.5mil. Also, the jury will find that this is fair use, free speech, all the good stuff, but will still fine /. for $1.5mil anyway. Good luck!

Rap != Angry Words

[davidmcn]

I think you are well off base by saying that the "music seems to be striclty anger based musc. (the words may have a positive message) but the combination of the rhythm and mono-tonic notation of the singer, Just gives a feeling of anger to the listener." Quite the contrary, there are a number of artist around, though some of their music is anger derived, that I would argue, do not leave their listener angered due to the cadence of the music.

One person already mentioned The Roots, an inovative Rap/Hip-hop group that plays its own instruments in a soothing blend of melody and rhythm. Other examples also abound, which do use other musical pieces as their backdrop. For example, a song called I'll Be Around by Rappin' 4-tay samples The Spinners classic song and Coolio's C U When U Get There which utilizes Pacobel's Canon in D. These are only 3 examples, of which many more exist if one takes the time to listen to more than the songs with excessive radio airplay. I can understand if Rap is not a music you enjoy, as there is likely something that you like to listen to that I prefer not to hear. However, to say that it doesn't "produce any positive benefit and there is little diversity within its own type of music", is far from the truth as saying 2+2 = 5.

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Dre hired someone to play the bassline, and hired a musicologist to attest to it's commonality in pop music. He did NOT sample it.

And, the definition of a sample is not a digital copy of a recording. People were doing tape loops before you were born.

No rap/hip hop without sampling

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they have no fucking talent to begin with they play a real song and just jibber jabber over top of it. You too can become a hip hop "artist".

Geez, The Beatles own the world then.

[teamhasnoi]

Try finding 6 note phrases that haven't been recorded by The Beatles.

Hey Paul, can I have Florida and Montana?

I can't believe this judgement. Sounds like a case of "I didn't sell 9 million records, but I'll sue the guy who did, and pay for my next album called 'Sour Grapes'."

So who do I pay if sample bittersweet symphony?

[McQuaid]

Or does it matter what portion of the song I sample.

I could see this down the road... Oh you wanna use that bit? Well, you gotta pay royalties to 20 other people.

Personally, I think this hurts creative works.

If it's totally blantant thats another matter.
An example of this is White Lines. The original is liquid liquid by cavern. It's used in the movie 25th hour. They never received a dime or credit until Duran Duran redid whitelines.

Re:"Shut the fuck up and get what's comming to you

[Anonymous Coward]

Wigger?

Ghost Busters / I Need A New Drug ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but we own that melodic structure.

Re:Ghost Busters / I Need A New Drug ?

[Zodman]

That's "I Want a New Drug" by Huey Lewis and the News (and Ray Parker Junior's "Ghostbusters"). The fact police.

Name of album

[seen2much]

Is there anyone else out there that though when read this the name of the album was "Dre still hopes to appeal". Or is it just me?

I'm divided on the issue...

[Kjella]

First off, it was not a sample, it was a replay. But let me try to rephrase what the ambiguity is as a matter of computer code (+1, Geek):

Sampling would be like copy&pasting a piece of the code. Paying for someone to play it would be like giving another coder the assigment to write a piece of code that does the same thing. First is illegal, second is legal.

But what if you spec it so accurately that they will be almost exactly the same? Like, I want *that* sound. Exactly like that. Suddenly you're in a gray area. In this case, it's not a trade secret, it's not patented, and you have seen the source code (or heard the riff), and how closely are you allowed to reimplement it?

Kjella

Re:I'm divided on the issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't use "spec" as a verb. It's annoying.

biyatch

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be creative, it may be art, it may be wonderful but someone else wrote it. Pay up..biyatch.

copyright this, and make a fortune

[Unominous Coward]

yo

this been a problem a decade ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some other artist has thought about that

Spider Robinson already predicted this...

[Arthur Dent]

Check out one of his short stories Melancholy Elephants.

how soon will software look like this

[asscroft]

Dre used a common place bass riff, that was first developed by the stones. It's an element used as part of the song. It accomplishes a certain amount of rhythm and timing, and also gives a harmony to the melody. He might have dropped it a key or so to go with the other elements of the song. And he got sued for using it.

What if whoever the hell created the stack or the queue or the binary search tree or even the array copyrighted those data structures. We'd be screwed, having to pay licenses and get permission before we did anything.

Seems to me at some point your bass riff is common knowledge and public domain. This is a perfect example of why copyrights are too long. I just hope we can keep copyrights and patents out of software design until they either get reduced to a reasonable time limit.

What a great way to stifle creativity and future development: Patent and Copyright everything for ever so that nothing can ever be improved, tweaked, modified, extended, adapted or used in a manner other than originally intended by the original owner. Dark Ages, here we come!

If they had IP back when they invented addition, we never would have been allowed to do muliplication. Hell, I bet the patent holder for counting would have sued the inventors of both mulitplication and adding.

blah blah, this is a boring ass post isnt' it. hmm, delete or submit????

Re:how soon will software look like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Dre used a common place bass riff, that was first developed by the stones. It's an element used as part of the song. It accomplishes a certain amount of rhythm and timing, and also gives a harmony to the melody. He might have dropped it a key or so to go with the other elements of the song. And he got sued for using it.

Playing the notes himself (or getting someone else to) is entirely different to stealing a recording of someone else's playing.

Re:how soon will software look like this

[Anonymous Coward]

so he didn't play the notes himself, he payed a bass player to play the notes himself. You did RTFA, right? or at least read the other comments where someone explained this after s/he had read the article.

And, to put it in a software context, lets say you copied and pasted the stack.h file rather than rewriting it yourself. That's akin to sampling, is it not?

the difference is that stack.h may have a copyright notice ala //copyright me 2002 that isn't seen in the exe, but can be seen in the source. Dre should have published the source to his song (the sheet music) with the copyright notice to the bass riff included.
haha.

MSCOS?

[moosesocks]

Something tells me that the Musicians Against the Copyrighting of Samples are going to get into a lot of trouble with apple (Take a look at their logo...)

Funny, though. The name of an anti-copywright group violates copywright laws! Beautiful.

This reminds me of a Spider Robinson story

[Anonymous Coward]

in which there were copyright problems because there are a finite number of possible pieces of music and all of them had been used up.

Take a look at this hypothesis...

[LeoDV]

I always thought that if I was a musician, all my music would be GPL: you could get tabs, scores, MP3s, in short the music and everything that went into it online, since it's going to be there anyway.

But I also thought that since it would be GPL, any person sampling my music would have to make it GPL, right? So if an artist who samples one of my songs just uses normal copyright, I should sue him till he makes it GPL? The idea being that people wil want to sample *his* song and make it GPL, and so forth.

Of course, the implications of this are immense (how could GPL apply to music, etc. etc.), but it's just something I thought of and I feel it should be brought here. Hell, maybe an Ask /.?

Re:Take a look at this hypothesis...

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

I always thought that if I was a musician, all my music would be GPL:

Public Enemy has been doing stuff like this. Revolverlution was kind of open source. They released some tracks on the net, with some other hooks that artists could use in remixes. (ftp source repository). People sent them remixes (patches) and they put the best ones on the album.

They're one of the biggest samplers of music, and one of the most sampled. They had a song Caught, Can I Get A Witness where they're in a fake court over a sample (and I wanted to be the first with that link, somebody else beat me to it, I modded him up for it too). They has some issues with a record being released, couldn't get it on disc so they released as MP3s. Label hated that, so they broke with their label and went on to AtomicPop where the album was downloadable for $8 (tho AtomicPop has since died).

Re:Take a look at this hypothesis...

[awarnack]

There's always the Open Audio License and The Open Music Registry, for starters...

Work for hire

[yerricde]

Rapper's don't scratch they rap. Deejays scratch.

Rap deejays typically work for hire, and a work made for hire is the property of the employer (17 USC 201). Thus, the rapper scratches by hiring a deejay.

Quote from DJ Spooky

[BoneFlower]

Heres a take from an artist that employs sampling... Something to consider.

"Sampling is like ancestor worship... you're reconfiguring the records that stuck in your memory"
-DJ Spooky in an interview for
Better Living Through Circuitry, an extremely good documentary about the rave scene

ha ha

[CakerX]

can this be the same Dr. Dre shutting down napster in Y2K over copywright viloations. Well, good dr, if your gonna use other people's music, PLEASE DON'T BITCH WHEN OTHERS USE YOURS

It's worse.

[rk]

there are just under 60 million 4-note combinations playable on a 88 key piano.

It's much worse... because playing high C is the same as middle C, so it's only 12 choices with (maybe) three choices of tempo, which give you only about a million and a half. Most of those sound like crap or are uninteresting (C# C# C# C#... whoo!)

A few things..

[bludwulf]

One: Here's a list of songs that have also sampled Backstrokin'. If you dig around you can find a lot of cool stuff on this site.

Two: The technical term for using a part of another song that isn't sampled but rather played again on instruments is "replaying".

Three: Another example of the Verve "sampled but tempo changed" phenomenon is the Souls of Mischief's "93 'Til Infinity". The track in question is Billy Cobham's "Heather", sped up 170%. It sounds so good that I have a copy of "Heather" by itself, sped up 170%.

I'm surprised to not see any DJ Shadow references! This guy makes all of his music from extremely obscure samples. Check out "Thud Rumble A", by him, Cut Chemist, and Steinski. Steinski is another heavy sampler.

Some amazing use of sampling (as well as many amazing original beats) can be found on MF Doom's "Special Herbs" albums, volumes 1-3, and on "Special Blends", which contains hip-hop classics over his beats. They are amazing.

I'd also like to take the time to plug People Under the Stairs (the group, not the movie) because they bring it oldschool & are very innovative with their sampling. They do use a real bassist for some songs as well, who is also amazing. They also happen to be the masters of the simile: "We shoot the gift like NRA members on Christmas morning!"

Not. Re:Sampling has been dead for 10 years

[WolfWithoutAClause]

The problem with the Verve was that they copied the Stones' song completely, slowing down the tempo a bit.

Um. No. The Verve recording took only 4 notes from the stones song, and none of the lyrics!

If you listen to it, there's 4 notes that start at the beginning and they continue to loop underneath for the entire song. That's the 4 notes that they stole. Actually they didn't steal, they told the Stones that they wanted to use those notes they said ok, and the Stones more or less reneged on the deal when they found out that they'd looped it right down the whole track; and more importantly because they could, demanded full rights (legally it's a derived work as soon as you copy a single note, more or less).

The Verve probably could have held out for atleast partial credit, but the Stones played hardball and apparently knew that the Verve couldn't release their album without the Stones permission for the track, so the Stones had them by the balls.

Re:Not. Re:Sampling has been dead for 10 years

[Anonymous Coward]

And the 'sample' wasn't even part of the original version of the Stones song, but a derivative work!

And I find it slightly ironic that the music from the song 'New York' by Richard Ashcroft (singer/songwriter for The Verve) appears to have been lifted wholesale and used on a track on the new Fleetwood Mac album without any sign of a credit...

Law

[nnet]

The law is pretty clear. If you use copyrighted works in your own works without the authors permission, then make money from that work, you have broken the law.

Re:Law

[Todd Knarr]

I'll have to agree. The RIAA, the labels and lots of the artists want hard enforcement of copyright law (and then some) when it comes to us copying their work. Why shouldn't they be subject to the same rules when it comes to them copying someone else's work? If they want to make fair use of stuff without running afoul of copyright infringement prosecution, then they should press for protection of fair use.

And this is news for nerds how?

[CONTROL_ALT_F4]

Honestly, I could give a rats ass about music. Where is the technology news here?

Shorter copyright would make this a non-issue.

[Zork the Almighty]

We should revise copyright back to the original (in the US, anyway) fourteen year term. That would solve a host of problems, including this one. A modern song can use samples from old music without concern, wheras "remixes" and "dance mixes", which get their appeal and commercial value from current commercial works would have to pay. Musicians would surely like this, but the copyright industry would never let it happen.

sampling is not stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

sampling is not stealing, but referencing... and in a lot of cases, it is acknowledgement of the original artist's influence, as long as there is at least some reference to the source.

it is curious that in order for a thesis, whitepaper or any other written document to gain credibility, a significant amount of quoting, referencing and footnoting is required.... yet when it comes to expression of a musical kind, this practice is taboo.

when an author writes a book, they are not required to call a representative of every author they cite.... much less pay for the use of their written word.

if i wish to make a musical statement, and i think someone has said it better... why am i not free to re-iterate that statement in the context of my own interpretation?

Its not the only case against Dre

[chillmost]

and Co. That one hit this past summer from Truth Hurts...Addictive. Dre helped produce it along with DJ Quik. The song has heavy Indian Influences. He's being sued by some lawyer on behalf of the composer of the original version in India. I've heard the original. They totally ripped it off. It is basically the same song with Truth Hurts vocals dubbed over. This is a multi-million seller in India. Somehow they though they would get away with it. More info here.... http://www.musiclw.com/events.html

Negativland

[vex24]

Negativland makes a compelling case for fair use of copyrighted materials. They don't rip off songs wholesale, nor do they "cover" songs and merely change a few notes or lyrics. They turn the media that the sample completely on it's head, and rearrange it into something entirely different than the original. For Negativland, the fun seems to be picking out interesting or unusual media and using it in their act at the very edge of fair use (but still legally), with interesting results.

They often get harrassed by those they've sampled from. They really are the answer to the question, "Who samples legally?" and "When is it ok to use copyrighted materials without permission?" They also make tremendously creative and entertaining art. Thank you Negativland!

another obligatory Simpsons quote

[Fry-kun]

Homer: Those [songs] suck. They're worse than nothing! I can write WAY better songs!
Lawyer: go ahead, but don't use A flat or G natural - those notes are owned by Disney

Re:These Negros are out of control!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

In this age of technological advancement we should be able to train monkeys to be our slaves, implant microsoft DRM protected firmware in their brains to protect us from hackers!

Can I arrange to get some sort of copy of that?

[pr0ntab]

I've got lots to trade.

Just a question.

[clambake]

What stops somone from recording every possible audio signal for half a second and then copyrighting them all and claiming that avery song in existance is infringing? I'm serious, is it technically not feasible? Would teh courts just throw it out? Why isn't some get-rich-quick guru doing this now?

Good thing there wasn't copyright law in the 1700s

[io333]

Or we really wouldn't have many of the works written by the masters backthen. Mozart rewrote Handel, Beethoven rewrote Mozart, etc., etc., etc... and heck, most of them were often just orchestrating the pop music of the day anyway.

So if there were copyright laws back then, we would have had a huge mess of lawsuits at the time, and posterity (us) would have been left very little.

I wonder how much we are taking away from *our* posterity. When they look back on us to see what we gave them, what will it be?

20 Bux

[Brewtooth]

Well! I guess Dr. Dre won't be paying me that 20 Bux he owes me!~ LOL

Not the first time for Dr. Dre.

[Anonymous Coward]

He already lost to a Indian musician in a similar case.

http://www.rapnewsdirect.com/1000,202,1401.aspx

But you know what! this Bappi guy use to copy whole songs from likes of saturday night fever and other disco hits and made a fortune in indian film music in 70s and 80s. Now he sued Dre.

(sorry for posting same last time in wrong place)

So sue Picasso too

[dogfart]

Well, if using a "sample" of someone else's coptright work is illegal, then what about this?. There is a "sample" of an obviously copyrighted newpaper right here in the painting. The nerve of that Picasso guy! Can't he create his OWN original art? No, instead he steals SOMEONE ELSE's work.

Someone should sue this guy. Really.

http://www.negativland.com/audio.html

[zakezuke]

http://www.negativland.com/audio.html

haven't bothered to look if someone else offered that link, but a good documented example of what resulted in a land mark case of copyright infringement, and a little dog named snuggles

The right to quote

[zlazhd0tter]

A primary focus of this discussion seems to be based on the mechanics of paying in order to use a sample from another artist. Obviously, this megabucks business is as problematic as any in the modern world, when the laws of copyright and publishing are based on life in the 1800 century. However: an important function of 'clearing samples' is an opportunity for the sampled artist to accept/deny being quoted in a specific context. Surely, the discussion is now moving into the field of arts, freedom of speach and (post)postmodernity...and the general, up untill now, 'stop-the-sample-clearing' sentiment does not come as a complete surprise. Having said that, I believe in an artists right to choose (not) to be quoted in a certain context. First of all, there are ethical issues at stake. Allow me to illustrate with a (rather lame) example. Lets say, for instance, that my (hypothetical) band recorded a song containing the frase: "...the light is so white, you can never win my love tonight...". Suddenly some neo-nazi group decides to sample the phrase: "white, you can never win". Without the ability to refuse to clear the sample, I could end up propagating for thoughts and ideas that neither I or my original text never held, because it is quoted completely out of context. Second, imagine that the drum/bass-track from this song is being sampled by some sexist hiphop artist, using the sample as a musical platform for rapping about 'bitches' and 'hoes'. Presuming that I am not having the option of disallowing the sample to be used, my music will (again) be associated with values and ideas that I might happen to be completely against. Further, this association might also be made by my usual recordbuying audience as well, and might damage my future prospect of selling my records. This is why I believe that the ability to accept/deny a sample is indeed still an important right for the sampled artist. About using samples in general, I think William Shakespeare is known to have said: "talent borrows, genius steals". In the given context, I believe that talent uses raw samples, while genius incorporates older musical ideas in a way that is unrecognisable and sounds completely new, yet somehow familiar. I hope that the discussion is still alive, and yes, you do have the right to quote my post ;-)

The right to quote

[zlazhd0tter]

A primary focus of this discussion seems to be based on the mechanics of paying in order to use a sample from another artist. Obviously, this megabucks business is as problematic as any in the modern world, when the laws of copyright and publishing are based on life in the 1800 century.

However: an important function of 'clearing samples' is an opportunity for the sampled artist to accept/deny being quoted in a specific context. Surely, the discussion is now moving into the field of arts, freedom of speach and (post)postmodernity...and the general, up untill now, 'stop-the-sample-clearing' sentiment does not come as a complete surprise.

Having said that, I believe in an artists right to choose (not) to be quoted in a certain context.

First of all, there are ethical issues at stake. Allow me to illustrate with a (rather lame) example. Lets say, for instance, that my (hypothetical) band recorded a song containing the frase: "...the light is so white, you can never win my love tonight...". Suddenly some neo-nazi group decides to sample the phrase: "white, you can never win". Without the ability to refuse to clear the sample, I could end up propagating for thoughts and ideas that neither I or my original text never held, because it is quoted completely out of context.

Second, imagine that the drum/bass-track from this song is being sampled by some sexist hiphop artist, using the sample as a musical platform for rapping about 'bitches' and 'hoes'. Presuming that I am not having the option of disallowing the sample to be used, my music will (again) be associated with values and ideas that I might happen to be completely against. Further, this association might also be made by my usual recordbuying audience as well, and might damage my future prospect of selling my records.

This is why I believe that the ability to accept/deny a sample is indeed still an important right for the sampled artist.

About using samples in general, I think William Shakespeare is known to have said: "talent borrows, genius steals". In the given context, I believe that talent uses raw samples, while genius incorporates older musical ideas in a way that is unrecognisable and sounds completely new, yet somehow familiar.

I hope that the discussion is still alive, and yes, you do have the right to quote my post ;-)

this reminds me of another song...

[jmorse]

http://www.thesonglyrics.com/r_song_lyrics/ratt_ly ric2.html

What goes around comes around. Or, if you prefer this more relevant version:

http://worldlyric.com/b/beastieboys/what_comes_aro und.html

Droppin' heat rocks on Dr. Dre's bitch azz...

Fundamental Difference

[mlknowle]

I belive there is a fundamental difference between

a) re-createing or re-interpreting another artist's theme with your own intruments; this is the essence of creativity and artistic response. As far as I am concerened, the only thing you owe the orginal artist here is credit

b) digitally swiping and replaying another's recording in your own; even if you change the speed (the verve) around a bit, you're simply repackaging someone else's work. The fundamental idea of music is that you are creating and assembling notes, wheras this crap is just replaying and rearanging other's taped notes.

Re:Fundamental Difference

[chthonicdaemon]

The article says that Dre hired a musician to play the baseline (and that it was a common riff anyway, according to a musicoligist he hired). I reckon this would fall into the first catagory. Bear in mind that I haven't heard the song, but it sounds like he was 'quoting' the baseline of another song just as the parent said about all the classics.

He said it..

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was up to me
You muthafuckas would stop comin up to me
Wit your hands out lookin up to me
Like you want somethin free
When my last cd was out you wasn't bumpin me
But now that I got this little company
Everybody wanna come to me like it was some disease
But you won't get a crumb from me

Let the RIAA butt sniffers pay!

[mrmeval]

And pay big!

I think the bigger problem

[SCHecklerX]

Is that these 'artists' do not give the guy who did the original music any credit. Like that remix of the police song, "Every breath you take" How many kids who listen to that shit even know who the police were? It's like taking shakespeare quotes, and claiming them as your own. Bullshit.

And don't forget...

[commodoresloat]

Bomb the Bass (Tim Simenon) made "Beat Dis" in the 80s or early 90s entirely out of other records. Then there was M/A/R/R/S and the classic "Pump up the Volume." In neither case could anyone say the artists didn't create entirely new works of art.

Superfreak

[Zodman]

I'm still spewing that MC Hammer ripped off Rick James' "Superfreak" to make "You Can't Touch This". Superfreak is one of my favourite songs ever and all they ever play on the bloody radio is "You Can't Touch This". The bastard!

Re:Superfreak

[Tokerat]

Didn't MC Hammer sample just enough of that to not get sued, or claim it was a work of parody, do to the "You Can't Touch This"?

Re:Superfreak

[Zodman]

After a bit of searching on Google, I found this little snippet on the matter:

http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:eOw4PSoFDQk C: www.ibiblio.org/emusic-l/back-issues/vol054/issue0 3.txt+%22rick+james%22+superfreak+hammer+you+%22to uch+this%22+court&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

It's crapping on about other stuff, but about 3/5 of the way down the page it mentions that MC Hammer paid Rick James to use a 7 second sample of Superfreak to create the musical equivilent of the SARS virus.

Re:"Shut the fuck up and get what's comming to you

[commodoresloat]

Well then I sure hope Dr. Dre paid for the sample.

ObSimpsons

[eap]

Exactly. Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue...AAY!!

Bad Decision...

[MacDaffy]

I'm a musician. The idea that Dr. Dre can be sued for using a quote from a bass line in his own song is ridiculous. Music is rife with quotes from songs.

Should mariachi bands sue Paul McCartney for using a popular figure of theirs in "Ob-La-Di-Ob-La-Da?" Should Steven Stills sue everyone who's used the VI-V-IV progression from "Love The One You're With?" (It's the part that goes "...And there's a rose in a fisted glove...")... Should the writers of "Louie Louie" sue whoever wrote "Angel of the Morning?" (Same song!) Should Chuck Berry sue the Beach Boys for approximating "Sweet Little Sixteen" in "Surfin' USA?" George Clinton should be as rich as Croesus for all the quotations made of his various musical incarnations.

The jury fined Dr. Dre for using the bass line from a 1980's song called "Backstrokin'" by the Fatback Band. Now that I know that "Let's Get High" derives from that song, I want to hear it. Far from harming the originators, I think it helps them--especially if credit is given on the quoting work. Eminem's version of "Bitch, Please" led me to seek out and buy the original by Snoop Dogg. One of rap's germinal works, "Rapper's Delight," is based on the bass line of Chic's "Good Times" (that was ruled an infringement, as well, but I don't think Chic was harmed by forming the basis for a musical movement).

There need to well-reasoned, clear-cut standards for quoting and sampling of work. Every musical movement has been built on adaption and adoption of what has preceded it. Hip-hop/rap, especially, is a music that owes its vitality to free but restrained quotation. Originators of works deserve to be protected and compensated, but I think that they are also enriched by quotation, not only materially, but in that their creation retains life, albeit in an altered form.

Site regarding sampling law

[angle_slam]

Here is an interesting site about some of the legal issues regarding sampling.

Fair use

[Christ-on-a-bike]

What about fair use?

Exactly

[CrazyJim0]

"When people say "Fuck Napster" they are saying that the people in our society who are creating should have a right to determine how their creations are used"

So when Dr. Dre lost this lawsuit, he lost to his own rules of control. Since someone else could lay claim that he controlled the music.

All culture is just rehashes of another culture. In fact most music is cliche and overdone, especially country.

Anyway Napster means alot more than "losing control of your music." Napster is the freedom to distribute information that was difficult before. I want to see more corporations "lose control", so I say,"Go napster, go!" Its not the start of a revolution, its just part of it.

Re:Exactly

[mlrtime]

All culture is just rehashes of another culture. In fact most music is cliche and overdone, especially country.

And you don't think rap is cliche and overdone? Go to BB and take out all the rap music that doesn't talk about Bitches, Drugs, Money or Guns.

See how much you have left.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I like Will Smith!

Re:Exactly

[mink]

Crybabies like eminem dont.

Actually, it HAS been done...

[Dave21212]

...back in October 2001 or so.

awful writes: "Two composers in Australia have copyrighted over 100,000,000,000 phone tone dialing sequences. They state in the article that they are lampooning copyright laws that protect big business rather than artists. Their website has more info and explains how they did it. You can check your number and make sure it hasn't been copyrighted by these guys. They have already recieved one offer of money - from a guy who wanted to purchase the copyright to his number so he could stop direct marketing firms from calling him."

Hehehe, they even have licensing, a MUST SEE !!!
" In order to ascertain if you are in breach of international copyright law you may test your number against our composition database by clicking here."

Do The Math

[Not The Real Me]

If someone goes to the bank and illegally "samples" $100 from the bank, are they less of a criminal than someone else who goes to the same bank and illegally "samples" $5,000,000?

Stealing is stealing. Period.

If Dr. Dre wanted to do the right thing, he would've gotten a release or negotiated some sort of agreement *BEFORE* using that sample. That is, unless he thinks he can save a few dollars by hoping that no one spots the theft.

BTW: Led Zeppelin got nailed a few times for "sampling" various blues artists. Led Zeppelin was required to pay Willie Dixon for infringing on his copyrighted material.

Re:Do The Math

[fenix down]

Oh, Lord help us all.

Re:Do The Math

[WNight]

I don't think sampling a small piece of a speech or song is stealing. It's pretty pathetic that our society does. I think you should be able to build on what other people have created. This isn't an issue of copying some great new musical riff or speech sample because of inability to create your own, it's about using pieces of our shared culture that have meaning only because we all share them. Sampling Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook" means something different than the words alone. Using a Queen riff in your song is both a tribute and a comment, depending on the context.

Nobody is saying that sampling sizable portions of a work should be allowed but if you aren't allowed to copy or use aanything it really inhibits your ability to comment, or add to the common culture. And frankly, having to ask for everything is ridiculous. I'm sure Richard Nixon wouldn't give (have given) his permission to be quoted by someone he feels would insult him but that doesn't mean society wouldn't benefit from it.

It's pretty far from stealing $100 bills and frankly I think you're an ass for even trying to suggest a similarity. Argue sensibly or don't even bother.

Hold the fuck on for a second

[recursiv]

Where did you get that number from? Your ass?

Let me run some calculations here... First of all, let's assume that a 4 note melody will fit inside a range of two octaves, a very liberal estimate.

Next factor in the fact that a melody transposed is still isomorphic to the original, and recognizable by anybody as the original.

Therefore the first note doesn't matter in terms of defining the melody. What does matter is the intervals between the subsequent notes.

Now, in a 2 octave range there are 24 notes. So each of the 3 remaining notes could be one of 24 notes. 24^3 = 13824. Holding out the notes for a whole second seems quite long for the average melody too. Let's assume an average of .25 seconds per note, which is more representative of reality.

So we have 13824 * 0.25 seconds, or 57.6 minutes. I guess they would all fit on a cd.

I'm assuming you're doing something absurd like counting every note on the piano, in which you get a lot of "melodies" that would bounce between the highest and lowest octaves on the keyboard. Sorry, but that sounds like crap. That's not even a melody by the conventional definition.

Re:Hold the fuck on for a second

[Anonymous Coward]

...and many of the 13824 "melodies" would sound like Schönberg (much of his music sounds essentially random), since they use the entire octave rather than a specific key.

The amount of recycling of old patterns and melodies in music is huge, but most people simply don't notice unless it's something really obvious and really popular.

HE DID

[recursiv]

For the love of god, the idiocy on this thread is really beginning to get to me. If you had looked at the article at all, you would have seen that what you are suggesting IS EXACTLY WHAT HE DID!

Not only that HE CONSULTED AN EXPERT who told him the riff was commonplace.

Anyone want to buy my new browser?

[sllim]

I have decided to take Internet Explorer 6.whatever and strip it down and reskin it so it is only a few megs.

You will loose some functionality but Micro$oft still offers IE6.whatever for you for free.

Screw it, I won't sell it.
But I will claim it as my own.

And the difference is..................

does this happen to visual artists?

[josephbanks]

i think it's interesting how music is so heavily scrutinized for adapted or appropriated content. the visual art world is WAY less uptight about this sort of thing. appropriation is statement just as much as anything else, is it not? granted, there is alot more BUSINESS to music than there is to (most) visual arts, but it's a shame that it should be treated so businesslike.

Like the RIAA and the music nazis...

[UrGeek]

...and their laptops in Congress and the White House care a flying iota what anyone on Slashdot thinks.

We are doomed.

It's even worse than I thought!

[prockcore]

I turns out that Dr. Dre isn't even a real doctor!

It's not the similarity that's wrong.

[Krylloan]

It's not the similarity that's wrong, it's how the music was created. Was it copied or did it just through chance, turn out to be similar.

It is likely that a sample of, at a guess, 2000 amplitude samples, could be statistically shown to be identical (ie derived) to a certain other section of music, within an extremely thin margin of error, even if the sample has undergone simple changes (echo, stretching etc). If there was heavier morphing, say shifting the frequency without changing the length, or putting it through unusual filters, it would still be able to be shown that it was derived if the sample was long enough.

Once it has been shown to be (within reasonable doubt) derived, it is then illegal.

IMHO if an artist deliberately cuts, morphs, and pastes a piece of music without permission, whether it is a minute or a microsecond, he is doing wrong, just as stealing 1c from somebody's wallet is wrong.

Creating samples is bloody easy. I am surprised at the need to sample others music, unless it is done for the mere fact of gaining an association with the artist who you sampled.

If I were a decent music artist and some musician who I didn't like put some of my music on anything they sold or performed, I would feel justified in forcing them to give me everything they earned from the music, and also whatever fines resulted from the infringement.

If there was a song you liked, that you heard was sampled by someone else, would you be interested in checking out that song? Or would anyone you know? If so, in that, there is all the justification you need to show that sampling without permission is wrong, because they are gaining advertising and therefore possibly sales, through an association they were not legally allowed to make.

Video killed the radio star

[Miqlo]

The current situation makes it impossible for anyone except big-name and big-money artists to use samples of other artists work. And once again, it is not the original artists who are behind all all this, but the record companies who own the copyrights.

Let me illustrate an example. Back in the early nineties, the copyright on music was still limited to thirty years from creation. At some stage there was a literal surge of brilliant house music based on old 70's funk and soul songs. Now this music was mostly produced by small time artists (show me one big-time house-artist?) who weren't really making any money worth mentioning either. Still, the record companies noted this trend greedily quick and lobbied the new (current) law that keeps copyrights in effect for 70(!) years.

Now think about this, 70 years ... , anyone hip on basing a tune on some moley old folk tune recorded on a stone tablet in ancient sumeria? Point is, I *really* doubt that the original 70's artists care 0.02$ for not getting $20 a year of RIAA filtered royalties versus having their work resurected into modern culture, do you?

Finally, since this same type of law applies to movies also, forget about sampling in a cool movie quote in any of your tunes too.

Miq

Sir Mix-a-Lot

[Talisman]

"I just need a sample cause no one says it's wrong
It's so easy to rip-off using someone else's songs"

Sir Mix-a-Lot did a remake of Black Sabbath's Iron Man on his 1988 Swass album, and guess who played the hard rock chords while he rapped over them?

Metal Church.

Talisman

Re:Sir Mix-a-Lot

[shreak]

Performing a cover of a song is a lot different than snatching samples.

No doubt the lyrics were licenesed, royalties paid, etc...

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. Sampling can be creative. It's just not right to take someone elses creative product and call it your own.

=Shreak

A bigger question

[MacWiz]

Did you know that it requires a lawyer to file a charge of criminal copyright infringement?

You can't report it to the government. I tried. Called the Dept of Justice in Washington, D.C.
They said call the FBI.

The last time I called the FBI it was about a question regarding the legality of a business transaction. It concerned payola and webcasting. They said they didn't have time for me. When I mentioned Jesse Jordan and the rest of those college kids that got arrested for listening to music, they hung up on me.

This is who I'm supposed to report the crime to?

Justice goes to the highest bidder.

Musical enumeration (a work in progress)

[Peter Eckersley]

Anyone up for calculating such a musical "composition", copyrighting it, and going after all later musical artists?

These guys have already started (slashdot coverage) .

I'm entirely supporting Dre

[goldcd]

I've just paid tribute to his work by taking a 60 minute continuous sample of his last album for us all to share on p2p.

Car Junk

[Jayman2]

Some artists make sculptures from old parts of cars and other junk. Does it mean that Ford can sue the artist because their exhaust pipe from the Mondeo forms part of the sculpture? No, and the same should be the case for musicians. Perhaps these people should look into simply removing some of the miserable creamy-pop cover songs that are being pumped into the market like a giant lethal injection for any kind of taste or appreciation of the original.

i don't care

[VanillaCoke420]

I don't care why he has to pay, I just think it's about bloody time that he does!

Remember ..

[ciupman]

.. This crap started with Vanilla Ice ..

Vanilla: "My sample is completely diferent..." (refering to the music Under Pressure with Bowie and Freddy Mercury)

yeah yeah, sure it is.. !!

Didn't Dr. Dre get all POed over Napster?

[Newer Guy]

If I recall, Dr. Dre was one of the most outspoken critics of Napster, claiming that downloading copyrighted material was morally wrong and calling downloaders theives. Now, he's the one getting nailed for copyright violations...and unlike the average music downloader, he stole the stuff and used it for COMMERCIAL purposes...as opposed to non-commercial personal listening. I smell a hypocrite here...

Re:"Shut the fuck up and get what's comming to you

[glesga_kiss]

Can you believe all this litigation is from a guy who once said "fuck the police"?

Dre is about as sold-out as it is possible to get. Shame, because he was a great producer, and The Chronic was a classic.

Plagiarism

[hymie3]

If you use some-one elses work in print publication, you have to cite them, even if it's only part of a phrase.

Why shouldn't musicians be required to do the same thing? It's one thing to be influenced by the works of Lucy Maud Montgomery, and another to include the line "And over the river in purple durance the echoes bided
their time" in your work.

Were you influence by? Fine. That's homage. Did you include someone elses work? If you don't cite them, then that's plagiarism.

Is there a musical counterpart to this? If not, there should be.

You have not heard ...

[jotaeleemeese]

... about Karlheinz Stockhausen, Steve Reich and many other composers.

In the moment you re-arrange something, from a musical point of view, you are creating something new.

Of course the lawyers aided by clueless politicians and idiotic citizens have to spoil the fun.

Re:You have not heard ...

[mlknowle]

So if I shuffle the tracks on my play list I have created a new album (every ten burns - thanks Steve J)? Where do you make the distinction?

Serves him right!

[Kosi]

IIRC was he next to Metallica whinning about the evil evil filesharing.

My response as musician, my response as writer

[SolemnDragon]

1. I write music.

I was fortunate enough to be at a B. B. King concert where he talked about the sample made by- i forget by whom, but it sold a million records. And he said, (and i am paraphrasing)"How do i feel about this? They sold a million records!!! How do you think i feel? You want another sample? You go right ahead, please! Ain't NONE of my records sold that many that fast!! Sample ALL of 'em!"

But for me, I feel that the atmosphere in which we work as musicians is very different from the atmosphere that Bach or Mozart or even Frederick Hand wrote. We have not simply a more litigious nature, but a tendency in the industry to take larger chunks of a work and make them the basis for works of art that then may make large profits. And if it's a derivative work, then the original artist deserves both credit on the liner notes, AND the chance to give permission. Remember, that's why we have copyright in the first place, to give the original artist a chance to make a living off it. And if they choose to make that living by encouraging others to buy their album by lending a sample, that's great. If they choose not to, nobody should go using their music except as a quote... and that's very different from a sample.

Yes, artists write music all the time based on different styles. Yes the masters borrowed from each other all the time. YEs, architects still build in the style of Wright. But on the other hand, If you copy a painting that's now in the public domain, that's very different from going to a new artist's exhibet, copying something modern, and then changing the upper third of the work and passing it off as your own idea. Putting a small mona lisa in the upper right corner is a derivative work, and fortunately it's well-known enough that it's recognisably so and usually more acceptable... music just isn't all that recognisable to many- you have to have heard it many times before. If my 'midnight miles' track were turned into something else, nobody would know but me and my former bandmates, who would be shocked and alarmed, since i've got the copyright for the melody and Mike's got the copyright for his almost-impossible-for-amatuer-play-because-of-the- finger-strength-involved guitar part. The drums were pretty standard and the bass was negligible. And i'd be distressed. The fact that many of the early blues players died penniless really bothers me, and i feel that this was partly due to the lack of credit that they got.

2. Oke. The above was a quote, paraphrased from B.B. King at a concert.

It was spoken aloud in public, which isn't copyrighted as far as i know- you have to have recorded it in some way first for that to be the case, i think- (i could be wrong) But it's still a quote. Quotes, especially from written or other recorded medium, fall under Fair Use, and that's what i feel is at issue here. If you're using a substantial quote from a work, it's not right if you don't give credit. Even if you're using a small quote which expresses an original thought or observation. If someone were to 'borrow' three paragraphs of one of my stories, or the title, if it were particularly unusual and directly related to the plot, or the plot itself... I'd be distressed. Hell, I'd be furious. However, if someone read one of my poems, said, oh- i see this differently- and wrote a poem expressing a different idea on the topic, in a different way, that's acceptable (of course), because when THEY wrote it, it would be an entirely different work. If it happened to also be about sunflowers, well, that's oke, there's lots of sunflowers, and if it happened to be about artistic madness and sunflowers, well, that's oke too, because it's their take on the concept, in their own words, and Making People Think is Part of What Art is All About. That's why students get credit for stringing together lots of little quotes- all cited- and it's fair use, but if they fail to cite, or they try to paraphrase and offer it as their own work, they can fail the class on g

"Lyrical poetry"

[Holocaust Administra]

Yes, yes, it's "lyrical poetry" - however, how does it compare to the best of Asian and Western poetry? Extremely poorly, in technical terms; in fact, so badly, it seems like incompetent morons screaming. Go read some Keats, Donne, or Zen monks.

Re:"Lyrical poetry"

[freestyle-fiend]

how does it compare to the best of Asian and Western poetry? Extremely poorly, in technical terms; in fact, so badly, it seems like incompetent morons screaming.

I think that you're only considering the bad hiphop.

Go read some Keats, Donne, or Zen monks.

I will do.

It's a matter of weighing pros and cons...

[sin(theta)]

Did it ever occur to the Fatback Band that having their riff in an updated track twenty years later might actually give them some renewed exposure?

Up until now I'd never actually heard of the group, and may have actually been tempted to check them out. But in light of this lawsuit thing I'm not going to dig them up, they can linger in musical obscurity for all I care.

Music musings

[Anonymous Coward]

if you like to argue about music you should go to my new site www.bcrrc.net

If Pythagoras were alive...

[Anonymous Coward]

...he would sue all of your asses for using the 12-tone scale.

Either give it to me or leave me alone

[thedbp]

the way i see it, these corporations saturate our senses with this drivel every day. logos, jingles, neon, billboards, radio, tv, constatntly pushing their product on us through controlled delivery mechanisms in a blanketing and unescapable manner. i wish i could go one day in a normal life without seeing the coca cola logo or go a month without hearing shania twain. but through monopoly and mind control they have infected every single facet of our lives with advertisement, music posing as advertisement, and advertisement posing as music.

and now we can't take what they've force fed us and throw it up in their greedy faces, digested and reformed, sometimes more creative than they would like?

you can't stop a natural reaction to this kind of stimulus, people. eventually some judge somewhere will have owned an early NWA record and smack down this kind of ridiculous, greed-driven nonsense.

just think - all the people involved in the entire process would be so much better off doing something else with their time rather than arguing over such a trivial matter. i mean shit, i'd rather Dre was in the studio sampling the shit out of Funkadelic to release as a not-for-the-public 'bootleg' on an italian label.

just my 2