Court Rules Against Unlicensed Sampling

An anonymous reader writes "Looks like there is no room at all for *any* sampling of "commercially protected" music. According to the open and future-looking judges, 'Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way.'" As the article puts it, this includes "minor, unrecognisable snippets of music." The decision was in the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Comments

Maybe this will foster some more "creativity"

[jbarr]

OK, I admit that I'm not a fan of the the current "mix" and "sampled" genre of music, but to me, it seems like there's not a whole lot of artistic innovation in mixing together stuff that's already been created. Yes, some will slam me for that statement, but how about coming up with something brand new or evolutionary instead of rehashing and recycling old music?

Is anyone else getting tired of seeing the use of, or the slight modification of "retro" stuff being pawned off as "new"?

Re:Maybe this will foster some more "creativity"

[cei]

Um, maybe you're not familiar with classical music... Stuff written a few hundred years ago, by the likes of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and others, quite often incorporated themes and melodies that were popular among the people (either traditional or sometimes written by lesser known composers) but then were built into massive new works through orchestration and ornamentation. How do you reconcile the "current" methods of mixing and sampling against the classical methods?

Re:Maybe this will foster some more "creativity"

[enigmatichmachine]

whoa there buddy! now, just tell me what kind of music you like, and I'll find you something sampled that will blow your mind in how they reworked it... I agree that most samples are just taking the beat and melody and resampling over, but there is in fact new ART being produced using sampling/mixing, most of which never makes it into the mainstream... sad fact is, most people prefer boring rehashes to new, innovative use of samples, so, send me an email with the music you like, name a few bands/composers whatever, and i'll find something genuinely new for ya.

Re:Maybe this will foster some more "creativity"

[bechthros]

" Is creativity creating somthing new or is creativity just reworking something old?"

Speaking strictly in the context of contemporary (that is to say, scalar rather than modal) Western music... Put it this way. There's twelve notes. TWELVE. Period. Given the constraints of a four minute pop song, I think the obvious answer to your question is B. Seriously. There is no chord progression, no melody, no riff that is completely original, that has never been thought of before. They are possible mathematical sequences in a giant matrix, and each one has been discovered. I mean, every blues song has the same chord progression (1-1-4-1-5-4-1-1)! Every jungle song has the same drum loop ("amen brother")! The things that define genres or styles of music is a commonality in technique or purpose. It would be a bad thing for music if that commonality were made illegal.

Re:"minor, unrecognisable snippets of music" banne

[Cecil]

Oh, they've made it precisely difficult enough so that automatically suing every independent music creator is an easier route, and for the few who don't settle, let the courts prove them wrong if the independent artist finds they're somehow wealthy enough to fight with the RIAA's lawyers.

Naturally, the RIAA is fine with this.

Re:Just asking to be made fun of...

[BrynM]

wow, imagine that. they may have to actually learn to play an instrument to record music... give me a break

Where to start with your bit of ignorance... With modern technology, your idea of an "instrument" is dated. Turntables can be used as a distinct instrument (even a melodic one - go listen to Fungo Mungo or Mr. Bungle). Most sampling is actually done with keyboard equipment which are fully considered musical instruments. Sound design, song srtucture, arranging and recording/mixdown are considered very musical endeavors. Did you know that there was a (short) time that the electric guitar wasn't considered an "instrument" because it was amplified? Finally, everyone I know that samples actually can play a traditional instrument such as guitar, piano or (wait there's no instrument) vocals.

For the record, I play: Keyboards/Piano, Guitar, Bass, Drums and compose electronic music as a hobby. I personally don't sample from records except to grab an instrument that I can't obtain on my own (like a hammered dulcimer). I usually sample noises (think noisician like Art of Noise or Nine Inch Nails). The point of this ruling is not the blatant derivitive works - this actually effects a lot of traditional musicians as well who grab a sanre drum sound or a violin sample (single notes).

Re:15 year old song?!?!?

[Eneff]

In defense of George Clinton, he lost a pile of money on people sampling his stuff in early rap. This was a time when he was barely making it week to week because he had someone else stealing his royalties.

and no, fair use doesn't apply to sampling. That's what they're saying. And frankly, if you look at what fair use is, it shouldn't.

Now I like The Grey Album and the Avalanches and much of the meta-art genre, but under current laws this is the correct implementation.

This is a legislative problem and only solved with a ballot or a gun.

I might be in the minority here...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but I think this is OK. Does anyone remember "Funky Cold Medina" by Tone-Loc? He basically ripped of "Jamie's Crying" by Van Halen and made a bundle of cash off of it. I remember reading an interview with Eddie Van Halen where Van Halen said he did not authorize the use of his song or got paid any royalties from it. Same with "Ice Ice Baby" by Vanilla Ice, although I think Vanilla Ice eventually had to pay royalties to Queen and David Bowie.

Now, I think a 5 second sample is OK, like what the Beastie Boys and Public Enemy used to do, but taking an instantly recognizable riff and using it repeatedly without authorization, making a ton of money off of it without paying royalties just seems wrong to me.

Re:"minor, unrecognisable snippets of music" banne

[alexo]

> If someone takes part of my song, and doesn't pay me, I would get a little upset.
> It's possible to spend two days of time, just getting a kick drum, and the associated compression, eq etc right.
> I shouldn't be paid for that when someone lifts it?
>
> Come on. How would you like it if your boss just didn't pay you for 2 days of work.
> You'd get a little upset, especially if he made a few million dollars from it.

When most people do "2 days of work", they get paid for "2 days of work". Once.
Yet some people think that it is their god-given right to be paid again and again for the same "2 days of work".

> I have absolutely no mercy or compassion for music stealers, and that's exactly what they are.

With this attitude, don't be surprised when others will have no mercy or compassion for you.