3 ms·
"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 us
by 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 agoIt’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 agoSession players having been paid a flat fee were not the only ones whose music would get sampled and remixed, though.
- alwayslikethis 3y agoCopyright 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 agoThe verdict was reached in December 1991. A lot of sampling has gone on since then.
- shanebellone 3y agoCorrect, but this case shaped the sound and economics of hip-hop. Regardless, sampling now carries a cost; or legal repercussions.