http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000625575
Somewhere P diddy cries softly.....
Somewhere P diddy cries softly.....
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Court to hip-hop nation: No free samples
- Thread starter Ripclawe
- Start date
- Status
Here come the frivolous lawsuits.
Up and coming rapper: "Oh cool! Notes A-B-C sounds really good together"
*releases chart topping song*
6 months later -
Obscure artist with song copyright: "Hey I invented the A-B-C pattern. Pay me now!"
I think there was actually a lawsuit like this a while ago.
Up and coming rapper: "Oh cool! Notes A-B-C sounds really good together"
*releases chart topping song*
6 months later -
Obscure artist with song copyright: "Hey I invented the A-B-C pattern. Pay me now!"
I think there was actually a lawsuit like this a while ago.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
why would some one sample a one note rather than just playing it?
Music Copyright is a fantastically interesting area and i stab myself in the face with a fork in protest at the fact that i quit my job in that industry...
"That is complete bullshit. Not that I'm defending P. Diddy or anything, but there are tons of legitimate artists that use samples to create something entirely new. This is just a case of the courts not understanding the medium."
it depends how much that sample is used, but if you use something that wasn't created by you then you HAVE to pay. That's the law, and every artist knows this. If P Diddy puts out a record say, oooo, a song that is him talking/rapping over a Police song thats been sampled then he has to pay to use that Police sample.
Music Copyright is a fantastically interesting area and i stab myself in the face with a fork in protest at the fact that i quit my job in that industry...
"That is complete bullshit. Not that I'm defending P. Diddy or anything, but there are tons of legitimate artists that use samples to create something entirely new. This is just a case of the courts not understanding the medium."
it depends how much that sample is used, but if you use something that wasn't created by you then you HAVE to pay. That's the law, and every artist knows this. If P Diddy puts out a record say, oooo, a song that is him talking/rapping over a Police song thats been sampled then he has to pay to use that Police sample.
Chuck D of public enemy had some interesting things to say in a recent interview with Stay Free magazine regarding the fact that music industry lawyers make a great deal of money off the whole sampling issue.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
"Corporations found that hip-hop music was viable. It sold albums, which was the bread and butter of corporations. Since the corporations owned all the sounds, their lawyers began to search out people who illegally infringed upon their records. All the rap artists were on the big six record companies, so you might have some lawyers from Sony looking at some lawyers from BMG and some lawyers from BMG saying, "Your artist is doing this," so it was a tit for tat that usually made money for the lawyers, garnering money for the company. Very little went to the original artist or the publishing company."
is there no MCPS equivalent in the US? ASCAP or something like that?
Both those companies represent artists and gather the royalty fees that are due to the IP owner(s).
But, as you say, it also wouldn't surprise me if the record companies try to get in the way of both those companies because, basically, record companies are scum who don't care about their artists.
is there no MCPS equivalent in the US? ASCAP or something like that?
Both those companies represent artists and gather the royalty fees that are due to the IP owner(s).
But, as you say, it also wouldn't surprise me if the record companies try to get in the way of both those companies because, basically, record companies are scum who don't care about their artists.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
"That really sucks for real sampling artists like Dj Shadow"
not really - he probably has the license to sample what he samples.
I think this is the crux of a lot of the arguements here - a lot of artists don't believe they should *pay* to use Samples of other peoples work, which is just wrong.
not really - he probably has the license to sample what he samples.
I think this is the crux of a lot of the arguements here - a lot of artists don't believe they should *pay* to use Samples of other peoples work, which is just wrong.
DCharlie said:
Shadow, like most cut and paste hip hop producers, probably okays about a quarter of what he samples (and that's being generous).
Many of these records contain hundreds of samples. Tracking down and paying every recording artist would not only require thousands of manhours to achieve, but the incured legal fees and costs would price these works out of financial viability.
Flynn said:
It helps that Shadow tends to sample the deeply obscure; if he's not clearing a sample, it's probably because no one is likely to go after him for it. Still, lousy ruling.
Let's not forget what happened to Biz Markie when he released his song "Alone Again".
FnordChan, who needs a haircut
This got me thinking....
The label that owns the rights to John Cage's 4'33" (a song that consists of complete silence) has already sucessfully sued an artist who "covered" Cage's track.
Does this mean they can now sue any artist who utilizes a period or even a fraction of a second of silence as an illegal sampling of their song?
The label that owns the rights to John Cage's 4'33" (a song that consists of complete silence) has already sucessfully sued an artist who "covered" Cage's track.
Does this mean they can now sue any artist who utilizes a period or even a fraction of a second of silence as an illegal sampling of their song?
Mason said:
It's not really bullshit, it depends on the type of sample, the length of the sample, and the context in which its used. I think, ultimately, it will lead to better "art" being made, we don't need MORE copy/paste hacks splicing together song hooks and calling it their own because they added a drum machine.
FnordChan said:
And as long as he gets the rights to use something someone else created, and as an artist himself he should realize that it's simply both protocol and, well, fucking polite, then there shouldn't be any problem.
Credit where it's due, and if money is needed, so be it.
xsarien said:
I'd like to agree with you, but having enjoyed the hell out of the sort of samplefests that simply can't be made legally nowadays (say, Paul's Boutique or DJ Z-Trip's Uneasy Listening) I'm concerned that the damage a crackdown on sampling does to creativity outweighs the gain by artists (or, more to the point, their labels). I think Chuch D was on the right path earlier when he said the whole sampling thing has become a way for the industry to make money off each other; I can't say I think the original artist being sampled is going to be particularly affected either way.
FnordChan
Remember kids: Personal injury lawyers are greedy and those lawsuits are frivilous, Copyright lawyers are protecting IP.
What I want to know is why music has become a fundamentally different medium than other art forms (or even older music) when it comes to creating derivative works. Authors often take lines from the greats and work them into their pieces, intentionally as a reference, not trying to steal the line. Jazz musicians used to always riff on lines or melodies from other artists in their solos etc. and AFAIK there wasn't any issue unless an artist wanted to record a song written by someone else. Visual artists do it all the time too don't they? Or would they all be paying Shell and Shell's graphic designers when they use the logo and smear shit all over it?
This can't all be black and white.
What I want to know is why music has become a fundamentally different medium than other art forms (or even older music) when it comes to creating derivative works. Authors often take lines from the greats and work them into their pieces, intentionally as a reference, not trying to steal the line. Jazz musicians used to always riff on lines or melodies from other artists in their solos etc. and AFAIK there wasn't any issue unless an artist wanted to record a song written by someone else. Visual artists do it all the time too don't they? Or would they all be paying Shell and Shell's graphic designers when they use the logo and smear shit all over it?
This can't all be black and white.
I'm of the belief that music through disuse and overuse should becomes part of the public domain.
Music that has been pounded into our consciousness to the point that its part of our permanent cultural landscape -- whether it be Happy Birthday, La Cucaracha or even I'm Too Sext -- evolves past being just a product, it becomes part of our language.
Music that is forgotten, for whatever reason should be fair game as well.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the creators of copyright law, believed that author's rights should only last for several years -- and this was at a time when it took months to move a book from one side of the country to another.
Music that has been pounded into our consciousness to the point that its part of our permanent cultural landscape -- whether it be Happy Birthday, La Cucaracha or even I'm Too Sext -- evolves past being just a product, it becomes part of our language.
Music that is forgotten, for whatever reason should be fair game as well.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the creators of copyright law, believed that author's rights should only last for several years -- and this was at a time when it took months to move a book from one side of the country to another.
DJ Demon J
Banned
scola said:
I'm not going to enter into the copyright argument here, just want to point out that I think it's a lot different for an author to take a line from Hamlet and use it to make a point in 1 page of a 400-page novel than for a musician to take a 10-second sample that makes up the majority of a 3-minute song.
DJ Demon J
Banned
Flynn said:
"Part" being the key word, and this is several hundred years after his creation of those works, not 5, 10 or 20 years.
Flynn said:
Which does nothing to bolster the argument for free sampling of music. As DJ said, quoting one line of Hamlet, either for a character or an author to make a very specific point is much different than a constant loop of a part of a song that is clearly not even skirting into the public domain.
DJ Demon J said:
Oh no I totally agree with you. Further, however, there is a big difference between Puff Daddy, sampling two bars of music to loop endlessly then grab the chorus to put between raps, and say Trent Reznor's use of Stevie Nicks lyrics in Star Fuckers Inc. or Jimmy Eat World's use of the words from Crimson and Clover with entirely different melody and delivery in "a Praise Chorus". I think there should be some elemnt of fair use where if a musician were to use a line from a movie, or a riff from a classic song, as long as it is duly noted as such, freely. Like I said I think there is some gray area to this, but I also understand that there is a line here and you can't just go and (essentially) record someone elses song without paying royalties
My point is that art enters the public consciousness...and it's my belief that at that point it can no longer be restrained by copyright law because it lives on its own.
Loops of songs, especially those from well-known songs, have resonance and impact because they're so ingrained in our brains -- a place, I believe, where copyright law is rendered moot.
It's sad that our imaginations are so much freer than what we're allowed to create in the real world.
Loops of songs, especially those from well-known songs, have resonance and impact because they're so ingrained in our brains -- a place, I believe, where copyright law is rendered moot.
It's sad that our imaginations are so much freer than what we're allowed to create in the real world.
Sampling law ought to be that samples under a certain length -- say, 1 or 2 seconds -- are completely unrestricted. You can't compare what DJ Shadow and The Avalanches do to, say, those foolios who "sampled" Steely Dan (read as: rapped over a nonstop loop of the first few bars of "Black Cow").
Also, as a general comment, copyright law is DEEPLY fucked up. It has been completely perverted from its original intentions...and I'm not sure the original intentions were entirely well thought-out to begin with.
Also, as a general comment, copyright law is DEEPLY fucked up. It has been completely perverted from its original intentions...and I'm not sure the original intentions were entirely well thought-out to begin with.
-jinx- said:
I always thought it would be cool to create a computer program that does a side by side analysis of two songs. It calculates the percentage of the original song used, then how many changes have been made to the original sample, the volume of the sound, edits, reversing, etc. and spits out a quantifable number that states how much the new song depends on the old one.
That number could then be applied to generate a flat fee, which the sampler would pay to the artist.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
"Music that is forgotten, for whatever reason should be fair game as well.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the creators of copyright law, believed that author's rights should only last for several years -- and this was at a time when it took months to move a book from one side of the country to another."
Music IP is under the 70 year rule. Once a work is over that 70 years, you can use what you want.
"I always thought it would be cool to create a computer program that does a side by side analysis of two songs."
a program was demoed to us that would strip out samples, but it was based on an unscrambable code that is somehow immovable from a sample no matter what happens to it (i have NO idea how that would work). It, however, necessitated that the music you record is stamped with a unique key - so would only be applicable to music made from now. Someone had created a track from samples and the program runs through the track and tells you were the samples are from.
Copyright / public domain etc. The thing is, if copyright totally goes away, then it becomes a free for all for freeloading wankers. If there were no copyright laws, then someone actually good would make a great song, then a week later you'd have another 500 versions by every shitty band around - and the original writter wouldn't get a penny. Which would be shite.
Put into todays context - if i wrote some stompingly great track, then Papa Queer just samples it and raps over the top of it, then i'm entitled to some cash. And he fails to clear the sample , then i sue.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the creators of copyright law, believed that author's rights should only last for several years -- and this was at a time when it took months to move a book from one side of the country to another."
Music IP is under the 70 year rule. Once a work is over that 70 years, you can use what you want.
"I always thought it would be cool to create a computer program that does a side by side analysis of two songs."
a program was demoed to us that would strip out samples, but it was based on an unscrambable code that is somehow immovable from a sample no matter what happens to it (i have NO idea how that would work). It, however, necessitated that the music you record is stamped with a unique key - so would only be applicable to music made from now. Someone had created a track from samples and the program runs through the track and tells you were the samples are from.
Copyright / public domain etc. The thing is, if copyright totally goes away, then it becomes a free for all for freeloading wankers. If there were no copyright laws, then someone actually good would make a great song, then a week later you'd have another 500 versions by every shitty band around - and the original writter wouldn't get a penny. Which would be shite.
Put into todays context - if i wrote some stompingly great track, then Papa Queer just samples it and raps over the top of it, then i'm entitled to some cash. And he fails to clear the sample , then i sue.
Kcerrid 31
Member
-jinx- said:
LOL You guys are too much, man. As a producer myself (mainly Dance\House), I fully understand how samples can enhance your core groove, no matter how short the sample. I also understand the importance of giving credit to the original artists.
But if you're gonna go the rip-off route, at least have the decency to "mask" the sample a bit (higher pitch- slower tempo, and vice versa). Producers would be amazed at how easy it is to reinvent a great song to the point where even the original artist wouldn't recognize it.
I will however, say that it pisses me off to no end that hack motherfuckas are getting rich off of ZERO creativity, while innovaters are considered musical weirdos. Oh, that is of course until THEIR music is sampled by some hack artist
ZootedGranny
Member
I think people would be surprised how long some of the Shadow samples are, but like someone said, I doubt Colonel Bagshot and Mother Mallard's Portable Masterpiece Company are ever going to hear a Shadow record.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked