Supreme Court Asked To Reverse Music Sampling Case

CaptainEbo writes "In Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films, the Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals eliminated the 'de minimis' exception for copyright in sound recordings, which allows artists to sample small amounts from earlier work to produce new creations. The defendants in this case have now asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Also involved in this suit are civil rights vetrans from the Brennan Center for Justice and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Both have filed an amicus brief urging that the Sixth Circuit decision be reversed. 'The Court of Appeals decision to target trivial borrowing from sound recordings isn't supported by copyright law or sound policy,' says Marjorie Heins, coordinator of the Free Expression Policy Project at the Brennan Center. 'It ignores the history and purpose of the Copyright Act and stifles creativity.'"

Comments

Interesting

[Pan T. Hose]

If "trivial borrowing from sound recordings isn't supported by copyright law" then we can start copying pop music like there was no tommorow. Gentlemen, start your Pirate2Pirate applications! But seriously, wouldn't it render the new Creative Commons Sampling Plus License irrelevant? Any lawyers here?

quoth & misquoth

[evilmousse]

When someone produces a speech, or writes a paper, few would argue that that someone shouldn't have some kind right of ownership on the work.

When someone coins a phrase, do they gain ownership of the phrase? of course not.

Noone is allowed to reproduce the text of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech and claim it as their own.
EVERYONE has the right to include the phrase "I have a dream" in direct reference to MLKjr, in indirect reference to anything relating to him, and in contexts completely irrelevant to him. Frankly, I'd say it is property of the culture, in the most basic sense: more than the author's original words & intentions are invested into the meaning of the phrase: also invested are the hearts and minds of the people who were however subtly changed by it, and the culture they built upon it. I won't claim to know how to legislate that last part...

Anyway, the current music copyright as property over every infintessimally small component of music can NEVER work. Music is made of notes, Books and speeches of words. Somewhere between the componant and the comprised is where the MEANING of the work is reached, and that is the scale at which to begin protecting.

open source music NOW!

(I can go on for hours about how culture is only getting MORE self-referential and just meta in general, so this is really restraining myself..)

Re:quoth & misquoth

[cpt kangarooski]

What basis is there for such a claim (that "there needs to be a good reason")?

Copyright is artifical. Surely all laws must have a good reason to exist, lest they infringe upon our freedoms unjustifiably.

Not every discussion needs to begin with first principles, especially not the sort to be found on /.

I agree, but it's a good idea to bear them in mind whenever we're thinking about problems with the current law and possible replacements.