3 ms·

I believe the closest precedent is: Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Upright_Music,_Ltd._v._Warner_

I believe the closest precedent is: Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Upright_Music,_Ltd._v._Warner_Bros._Records_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Upright_Music,_Ltd._v._W....

FeepingCreature 3y ago
Wow, that's horrible. I didn't know that sampling and mashups required an explicit license. Looks like it's in the EU as well. edit: Hm, Pelham v Hütter C-476/17 might offer some grace for mashups under the quotation exemption at least. Though I wouldn't rely on that.
- shanebellone 3y ago
  "Wow, that's horrible. I didn't know that sampling and mashups required an explicit license." The conclusion essentially boils down to "remixing is not fair use". Today's hip-hop is a direct result of that decision because sampling became prohibitively expensive.
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    It’s not legally fair use but no musicians consider it stealing. Remember, the session players who wrote those hooks and grooves were not given a copyright. They got paid a flat fee. They could not care less if their drum beat, bass line or horn part was reused in a creative new way. The lawyers of the copyright holders sure do care, though!
    - mrtranscendence 3y ago
      Session players having been paid a flat fee were not the only ones whose music would get sampled and remixed, though.
    - alwayslikethis 3y ago
      Copyright infringement is not stealing, full stop. It is just that, an infringement on a commercial interest that the government grants.
      - shanebellone 3y ago
        "Copyright infringement is not stealing, full stop. It is just that, an infringement on a commercial interest that the government grants." This perspective is incredibly obtuse. You use the law (that you fundamentally reject) as a justification for a semantic debate that no one is having. Whether you label it as infringement or theft, the impacts are identical. Regardless of the terminology, you are withholding a payment that is owed for something you've unlawfully taken. Check your footing, your moral high ground is located in the Mariana Trench, alongside debtors and fraudsters.
  - lexandstuff 3y ago
    The verdict was reached in December 1991. A lot of sampling has gone on since then.
    - shanebellone 3y ago
      Correct, but this case shaped the sound and economics of hip-hop. Regardless, sampling now carries a cost; or legal repercussions.

FeepingCreature 3y ago

Wow, that's horrible. I didn't know that sampling and mashups required an explicit license. Looks like it's in the EU as well. edit: Hm, Pelham v Hütter C-476/17 might offer some grace for mashups under the quotation exemption at least. Though I wouldn't rely on that.

shanebellone 3y ago
"Wow, that's horrible. I didn't know that sampling and mashups required an explicit license." The conclusion essentially boils down to "remixing is not fair use". Today's hip-hop is a direct result of that decision because sampling became prohibitively expensive.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  It’s not legally fair use but no musicians consider it stealing. Remember, the session players who wrote those hooks and grooves were not given a copyright. They got paid a flat fee. They could not care less if their drum beat, bass line or horn part was reused in a creative new way. The lawyers of the copyright holders sure do care, though!
  - mrtranscendence 3y ago
    Session players having been paid a flat fee were not the only ones whose music would get sampled and remixed, though.
  - alwayslikethis 3y ago
    Copyright infringement is not stealing, full stop. It is just that, an infringement on a commercial interest that the government grants.
    - shanebellone 3y ago
      "Copyright infringement is not stealing, full stop. It is just that, an infringement on a commercial interest that the government grants." This perspective is incredibly obtuse. You use the law (that you fundamentally reject) as a justification for a semantic debate that no one is having. Whether you label it as infringement or theft, the impacts are identical. Regardless of the terminology, you are withholding a payment that is owed for something you've unlawfully taken. Check your footing, your moral high ground is located in the Mariana Trench, alongside debtors and fraudsters.
- lexandstuff 3y ago
  The verdict was reached in December 1991. A lot of sampling has gone on since then.
  - shanebellone 3y ago
    Correct, but this case shaped the sound and economics of hip-hop. Regardless, sampling now carries a cost; or legal repercussions.