Freer Samples?
As we noted in the December issue, an appeals court dealt a surprising blow to longstanding musical practice last fall by ruling that even de minimis sampling from another song constituted copyright infringement. NYU's Brennan Center and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have now filed an amicus brief [PDF] urging reconsideration.
Restricting themselves to the narrowest necessary argument, the amici primarily argue that sampling such that an "ordinary lay observer" would not even recognize the appropriation should automatically be considered de minimis. Which seems right, of course, but much of the most interesting "sampling" relies precisely on the recognition. When Busta Rhymes or Jay-Z and Panjabi MC quote the Knight Rider theme song, the whole point is precisely to evoke the "feel" of the series and, in the latter case, to juxtapose a bit of iconic '80s western culture with traditional bhangra sounds. Or, to pick a less recent example, there's the dinner scene from Don Giovanni, in which the main characters listen to a medley of contemporary operatic "hits" such as Una Cosa Rara, until Giovanni's much put-upon manservant Leporello exclaims "I know that one all too well" after hearing a few strains from Mozart's own Nozze di Figaro, another opera featuring an oversexed aristocratic cad.
While the original decision here obviously deserves to be overturned, it seems too small a victory to protect sampling just in those cases where the sample is so tiny and altered as to be rendered unrecognizable. I don't expect anyone, after all, would have thought there would be an infringement case if, rather than sampling the three note loop at issue there, it had just been recorded in the studio anew—though it does seem perverse that the difference between legal and illegal activity should turn on the auditory equivalent of cutting-and-pasting vs. typing a quoted passage in manually. The truly creative uses of sampling involve quotation or reference, which depend upon recognition. A cultural world in which allusion is defined as theft seems an awfully impoverished one.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This will seriously affect electronic music and hip hop as we know it. There are some really good songs with minimally recognizable samples in them, and to think that creative (unlicensed) mixes of songs will no longer be legal is a pity. Ancient Greek and Roman poets and writers constantly referenced other works, but in the context of their own work, it was still a unique creation. I think there's a difference between passing off someone's essential song as your own (which is wrong) and borrowing a small snippet (a theme, if you will) and creating that into something else entirely. Many famous composers did this all the time - that's why they called their pieces Theme and Variation. What a bunch of crybabies our society is.
Then again, I really hate Puff Daddy for slaughtering Led Zepplin's "Kashmir" and The Police's "Every Breath You Take", and I won't miss the song-abominations that he hopefully won't be making or remixing anymore.
Hey smacky,
Wasn't Jimmy Page complicit in Puff's "Kashmir" rip-off? And I think "Every Breath Your Fat Dead Bullet-Riddled Body Won't Be Taking" was redone, not sampled, as well.
Jimmy Page performed it with him on SNL so I would say he was OK with it. I kind of liked the song.
UFP -
"Every Breath Your Fat Dead Bullet-Riddled Body Won't Be Taking"
LMAO - good one. that's what Puffy titled his rendition, I think.
Yeah, I believe it was a lucrative deal for Jimmy Page, now that you mention it. In fact, I vaguely remember hearing about him and Puffy Paint performing the song together live at an awards show.
I think, actually, that Sting may have auctioned off "Every Breath You Take" to Puffy also. At least I would expect that much from Sting. God forbid Andy Summers would stoop to that level. Maybe Sting's logic was that he knew Puffy would make such a piece of crap that -- wait, gosh, there really is no logic behind that move except for capital, I guess.
I think what I was originally trying to say is that, the only good that will come of this --(aside from protecting blatant rip-offs, but that is not what this addendum is about - it's singling out insignificant references) -- is that hopefully bad song writers like Puffy will run out of money eventually, when people realize that the only hits they have are the ones that they are buying off of creative people.
I think theme and variation should be available to any musician free, provided that the sample is not the primary and only concept of the song, or is not readily recognizable as what it was borrowed from.
Question: what if songs accidentally resemble other songs, by happenstance? (i.e. include other songs' riffs by coincidence, but not direct samples.) Is that crimethink, too?
this isn't going to stop shit.
There's always the public domain. Any day now we'll have a hit rap song sampling "This Land Is My Land".
J.S. Bach can rip off (riff off?) Phillip Nicolai's Wachet Auf (Sleepers Awake) for both his Air for the G String BMV 1068 and for a Cantata BVM 140.
Procol Harum can rip off Bach for A Whiter Shade Of Pale.
But Sean Puffy-Puf Daddy-P. Diddy-Bo Diddley-Dum Diddy Doo Combs will now be denied his chance to add to our cultural heritage.
I mourn for the loss to mankind when I think of what might have been, not to mention Snoop Dog's own version, A Whizzle Shade of Pizzle.
For an entirely "out of left field example:
There is an entire industry out there of people who live and die by these sampling laws. In the areas of competition dance and cheerleading (in highschool and college) and aerobic competition routines are set to 2-3 minutes of music that used to be entirely covered by the previous sampling laws. Essentially the songs are heavily remixed (and usually significantly sped up) with no one song lasting longer than 10 seconds of the full mix. That can mean as many as 60 different songs would be used to create one mix!
Many of these producers are home-studio types with nothing more than a PC and a copy of Adobe Audition and their customers are usually schools and/or individuals looking for limited use. If they have to start paying a royalty fee for every 3 to 10 second clip it will bankrupt these people!
Just another overlooked, yet heavily damaged, industry in our so-called capitalist culture!
No wonder entertainers all lean left! They keep getting government sanctioned subsidies thanks to the courts!
Offspring said it best:
"Look at you and your struggle for freedom
But you ain't nothing
We all pay the man for living"
(can someone lend me a dime to pay for that lyric copy/paste?)
Everything borrows heavily from it's predecessors, from science to culture. I've always wondered, what's so special about the written word, song or art that copyrighted material stays out of the public domain for 5 times as long as a patent. Why not do a tradeoff, give greater control to the original arist and reduce the time of exclusive ownership? It's not a perfect tradeoff, but better to lose sampling of songs a decade or two old than to lose 90 to a 100+ years of it, since that's where we're headed anyways.
I think Krusty said it best when Gabbo crank called him, "If you aren't Steve Allen you're stealing my bit!"
So how would this resolve against the overwhelming majority of pop songs that follow the same tired I-IV-V-vi etc. patterns?
Maybe this is good news in disguise, as Nickelback will most certainly litigate itself to death on this decision.
ranger,
I think this ruling applies to composers using the riff and/or sample commercially, for profit. The only way I could see someone needing a license for mixing a cheerleading tape would be maybe for a monetary prize, or for the Superbowl or something on that scale.
I am going to seriously consider mixing a song for that Downhill Battle interest group. It would be a great way to actually disprove the ruling's logic through concrete example.
In fact, Downhill Battle's idea of making a bunch of different, unique songs out of a 1.5 (or was it 3?) second loop shows nicely exactly why I have a problem with this anti-sampling legislation. There are simply infinite possiblilities for even the smallest of loops/samples. How can you illegalize creativity? (even if it's cheezy creativity, a la Puffy). It's just not right. If I am an artist, and I'm smart enough to do something cool and original with a 1.5 second borrowed riff, I should be making money off of it - not paying some washed-up jackass royalties for what is probably only 2-3 notes of some other song.
I think this ruling applies to composers using the riff and/or sample commercially, for profit.
I doubt it - very few things in copyright law turn on whether you do it for profit. Haven't read the decision, though, so I could be wrong.
Perhaps someone could, er, sample the decision for us?
downhill battle was great. that was a lot of fun to participate in.
I have just learned that Philipp Nicolai ripped off Hans Sach for his lyric to Wauchet Auf.
Is there no end to the thievery???
I'll bet Tchaikovsky never properly renumerated that poor blind begger for the melody Tchaikovsky stole for the introduction to his Piano Concerto No. 1 in B-Flat Minor.
I'm beginning to think that all musicians are looters and second handers!
I'm just waiting for the copyright screw to turn a wee bit tighter. Then I will publish a dictionary, and sue every user of the English language for copyright infringement. Every work will be sampling my dictionary, and therefore every work will illegally infringe. I'll end up controlling the entire language! Every speech, article, lyric! Mine! Mine! Mine! You'll all be mine! Mine, I say! Bwahhahaha!
The best part? I don't have to publish an exhaustive dictionary. All I need are the pronouns, prepositions, articles, conjuctions, and auxilliary verbs. About 100 words, give or take. It's pretty much impossible to do anything in English without those 100 words.
Yeah I know my life is going to be a lot poorer if Busta Rhymes can't "allude" to the "Three's Company" theme in his next record exploring inner-city love triangles. Whatever.
...it does seem perverse that the difference between legal and illegal activity should turn on the auditory equivalent of cutting-and-pasting vs. typing a quoted passage in manually.
Julian, why don't you try to recreate the sound of four or five seconds of any famous recording, then come back and tell us it didn't take much more effort than just cutting and pasting some data? If the whole project didn't turn you into a babbling lunatic, I'd be surprised.
I'm against these absurdly long copyright extensions we've been seeing lately, but I know the type of effort, time and money involved in producing a successful recording. I don't see how it's wrong for the owner of a recording to be able enjoy the fruits of any and all uses of it for as long as the law allows.
Your worry about our future in an terribly culturally impoverished world seems about as relevant to anything as when Woody Allen went before Congress asking them to ban colorization of old movies. Somehow we'll get by, I think.
Of course I'm a total hypocrite, as all the mp3s on my computer will attest.