Bob James/Madlib

[djdiggla]

I think the law for sampling should be more like the law for doing cover versions, in that there's set rates that apply & that there's nothing stopping you from doing it even if it's crap. I.e permission is assumed. At the moment upfront costs are punitive especially for small labels. Stones throw is a case in point as if they're small enough for it be impossible for them to pay upfront for everything but every so often they're big enough to get caught.

 

Also I think some of the argument so far are confusing the two types of copyright - the song & the recording. If you take loads of sounds but everything is pitched and timed differently how us it the same "song" even if it is using the same "recording"? As it currently stands in law you can't sample the recording without also sampling the song...,hence the mess with the Verve/Rolling Stones thing already mentioned.

What he said

[Jam Burglar]

HOW'S ANNIE?

 

Fucking Bob, ruining things for everyone.

 

Boooyaaaahhh!

 

The way I see it, let's take some more of these cases to trial. I know its expensive, but I want to see somebody really get to the fair use/transformative use arguements. Some of these samples, especially shit like the Jazzy Jeff "Here we go Again" joint or "Peter Piper", okay I can see that, but in many cases, with drums, bass, additional samples, etc. that's transformative enough for me to argue fair use. Sometimes it's how you loop it, sometimes its what you add, sometimes its context. At some point there's no material similarity, and at some point the fact that you're making something new out of something old trumps the copyright holders right to enforce.

 

When you get into really chopping and flipping, even if the sample is still recognizable, that's fair use all day long as far as I'm concerned. For example, KRS One Step into a World flips up The Champ more than enough as far as I'm concerned.

 

But yo, fools are scared to try the cases. All these gangsta ass rappers and they're scared to try the suit. If you look at the suits that have been tried, it's pretty much the Beastie Boys and few other cats who have stood up.

 

But fuck it, I say sample anyway. Take the risk, or set up an LLC and have that own the track. As long as you're not making large dollas then there are no profits to chase. Graf is illegal, sampling is illegal, the whole shit is illegal. Fuck it.

[Jam Burglar]

And god damn it, for the last time Slick Rick did not sample Nautilus for Children's Story. He just recreated the goove with a drum machine, etc. He "covered" it.

[R Funksmith]

I don't think this fact changes any of the arguments, but just so you know, a chord progression cannot be copyrighted. Only a melody.

 

Of course if you sample a chord progression you are sampling a recording, but if you write a tune over someone else's chords with a different melody you are fine. Happens all the fucking time.

 

The most common chord progression in pop music (based on my own unscientific research) is I - V - vi - IV and the second most common is vi - IV - I - V, which is exactly the same as the first except it starts on the vi. Just off the top of my head: Closing Time, Building a Mystery, track 2 from Green Day Dookie, that song with the circus freaks in the video by Red Hot Chili Peppers, also Under The Bridge by them, With Or Without You, Save Tonight by Eagle Eye Cherry, the chorus of Take On Me...

 

just imagine all the amazing pop songs we'd lose if they couldn't have been written because of copyright law (I don't know how to do the comic sans thing)

[Jam Burglar]

I don't think this fact changes any of the arguments, but just so you know, a chord progression cannot be copyrighted. Only a melody.

 

Of course if you sample a chord progression you are sampling a recording, but if you write a tune over someone else's chords with a different melody you are fine. Happened all the time in jazz

 

For copyright on the composition the Court will look at "substantial similarity" to try to find out if you actually copied (since a lot of times people say they came up with the composition independantly). I don't think it matters if its chord progression, melody, etc. its just that chord progression is often less unique so there's less likely to be substantial similarity. On the recording some Courts are saying substantial similarity doesn't matter. Under that theory, if you sample the recording, you're infringing, even if you just sample 1/2 a second. The only way to avoid liability then is fair use. It's still way up in the air though. We've been at a standoff for 30 years now and nobody is really trying cases. That Marvin Gaye shit was totally fucked though. I don't know what that jury was thinking.

[DJ Rock Well]

Is Eagle Eye Cherry the one who's homeless now, or is that Finlay Quaye?

[Guest petesasqwax]

is it wrong to hope it's one of them?

[djdiggla]

But yo, fools are scared to try the cases.

 

 

I think it's more scared of the justices who probably don't like "rap" from the start and would be happy to put their biased opinion on record rather than create case-law that tests formerly settled issues.

[goldielocksnthethreebrares]

You can't copyright music ethically, not in this day and age with digital downloads etc. Music is for people to enjoy, aside from costs of the record, freely.

[Chris]

i wish that was the prevailing mentality about food and shelter... i'd probably spend more time making music if it were