6 ms·

I'm sorry...but are you kidding me? This article is nothing more then some guy whining about how jay-z of someone else's lyrics. Regardless if it's a patent t

I'm sorry...but are you kidding me? This article is nothing more then some guy whining about how jay-z of someone else's lyrics. Regardless if it's a patent troll or not, he didn't own the rights to it and yet still made a fortune. The music industry spends millions every year prosecuting people in favor of the musicians...but now when the tables are turned, people start crying about it.

enneff 13y ago
You seem to be missing the point. The point is that sample-based music can (and should) still be an original work. This "sample troll" (nothing to do with patents, btw) is unethically stifling creativity in the music industry. That's bad for everyone.
- nav1 13y ago
  Not to mention that the original authors of the sampled music will not receive any money from this. This is simply an abuse of the copyright system.
  - shock-value 13y ago
    No it isn't. The fact that the original authors sold off the rights for (perhaps) a pittance is regrettable, and depending on the circumstances possibly illegal. But that's a separate issue. Samples are still valuable and whoever their rightful owners are, they deserve to be in control of their use.
    - nav1 13y ago
      But why should that be? How does this encourage creativity? If anything it turns sample-based music into a legal minefield.
      - shock-value 13y ago
        It encourages artists to come up with great new samples, either for use in their own songs, to license for use in others' songs, or both! How does it not encourage creativity? As an example, just listen to Kanye West's "Stronger" and compare that to the original source of the sample, Daft Punk's "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger", which itself prominently samples Edwin Birdsong's "Cola Bottle Baby". Now imagine neither Daft Punk nor Edwin Birdsong was ever compensated or asked permission for Kanye's work, and neither was Edwin Birdsong compensated or asked permission for Daft Punk's usage. Is that in any way fair? Both the newer songs essentially owe their popularity to that single iconic sample! If you don't want to go the legal route by getting permission to reuse others' music, then make an entirely original song. Plenty of people still do that, you know. Sampling others' work is a privilege, not a right.
        dalke 13y ago
        "How does it not encourage creativity?" Creativity comes in many forms. It can include a reinterpretation of existing material. Walt Disney films like Snow White were based on materials from the public domain. Were they uncreative for having not come up with a completely new story? The book series "Wicked" is a very popular revisionist telling of the original Wizard of Oz books. The copyright for the books (but not the movie!) lapsed just months after L Frank Baum's literary estate had come out of copyright. (Gregory Maguire, the author of Wicked, had thought it was decades out of copyright when he started writing the book.) It's impossible to tell a revisionist story without having some story to revise. Do you really believe that Maguire was less creative with Wicked than if he had written some other series entirely? If copyright were 10 years longer and so he needed to get a license from the estate, would you say he was less creative? Similarly, a commercial parody like "Pretty Woman" requires something to parody, like "Oh, Pretty Woman", and it makes little sense to parody something that no one knows anything about.
        enneff 13y ago
        Those are really egregious examples of sampling, where the sample is almost the entire song. I agree that in those cases the original artist should be compensated, just as the original composer must be compensated when you do a cover. But most sample-based music is not like this. Other examples raised in this discussion thread, such as the Beastie Boys' album "Paul's Boutique", use samples as a form of sonic collage. Works like these should be regarded by the law as original works, just as a visual collage would be. Should The Winston's be compensated for the near-ubiquitous "Amen Break'? Or James Brown for "Funky Drummer"? Or the countless others that provided the elements (samples) upon whole genres of modern music are founded? I argue that it is in society's interest to answer "no", simply because the works would not exist were there legal barriers hindering its creation.
- shock-value 13y ago
  > The point is that sample-based music can (and should) still be an original work. No it shouldn't. Or at least it should still require consent of the original sample owners (and any compensation that would entail). If it were so easy to make samples and they were so disposable that anyone could come up with them, then there would be no need to sample older work and no one would do it. But in actual fact it's difficult to create catchy samples, and they are therefore valuable, and their owners deserve to have rights over them.
  - enneff 13y ago
    Under those terms sample-based music cannot exist, so you are de facto against sample-based music. I, and many others, disagree.
    - shock-value 13y ago
      Then it shouldn't exist. If you can't get the rights to reuse someone else's music as your own (whether because you can't afford it, can't get into contact with the artist, etc.) then you shouldn't do it, ethically or legally. I mean, if you are going to make a mix and play it for some friends or as a DJ at a local club or even release something online for free, then fine, it's still probably technically illegal but I'm not going to get all rustled up about that. But if you start making any legitimate money off it, you better have gotten those rights secured or else you deserve whatever legal consequences you have coming to you -- in both a moral and a legal sense.
      - dalke 13y ago
        You believe that the Supreme Court decided Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc incorrectly? Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_I.... : > The members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew—Luke, Fresh Kid Ice, Mr. Mixx and Brother Marquis—composed a song called "Pretty Woman," a parody based on Roy Orbison's rock ballad, "Oh, Pretty Woman." ... Acuff-Rose Music refused to grant the band a license but 2 Live Crew nonetheless produced and released the parody. ... The Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of § 107. You are free of course to suggest that the law is otherwise, and even that the law itself is immoral and unethical. But as it stands, it is sometimes legal to copy portions of another's work, without a license, sell it for a profit, and be within the law. And I am free to continue to believe that commercial parody is ethically and legally fine.
r0s 13y ago
If you don't see the problem with IP hoarding by non-artists you're either a shill or naive.

enneff 13y ago

You seem to be missing the point. The point is that sample-based music can (and should) still be an original work. This "sample troll" (nothing to do with patents, btw) is unethically stifling creativity in the music industry. That's bad for everyone.

nav1 13y ago
Not to mention that the original authors of the sampled music will not receive any money from this. This is simply an abuse of the copyright system.
- shock-value 13y ago
  No it isn't. The fact that the original authors sold off the rights for (perhaps) a pittance is regrettable, and depending on the circumstances possibly illegal. But that's a separate issue. Samples are still valuable and whoever their rightful owners are, they deserve to be in control of their use.
  - nav1 13y ago
    But why should that be? How does this encourage creativity? If anything it turns sample-based music into a legal minefield.
    - shock-value 13y ago
      It encourages artists to come up with great new samples, either for use in their own songs, to license for use in others' songs, or both! How does it not encourage creativity? As an example, just listen to Kanye West's "Stronger" and compare that to the original source of the sample, Daft Punk's "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger", which itself prominently samples Edwin Birdsong's "Cola Bottle Baby". Now imagine neither Daft Punk nor Edwin Birdsong was ever compensated or asked permission for Kanye's work, and neither was Edwin Birdsong compensated or asked permission for Daft Punk's usage. Is that in any way fair? Both the newer songs essentially owe their popularity to that single iconic sample! If you don't want to go the legal route by getting permission to reuse others' music, then make an entirely original song. Plenty of people still do that, you know. Sampling others' work is a privilege, not a right.
      - dalke 13y ago
        "How does it not encourage creativity?" Creativity comes in many forms. It can include a reinterpretation of existing material. Walt Disney films like Snow White were based on materials from the public domain. Were they uncreative for having not come up with a completely new story? The book series "Wicked" is a very popular revisionist telling of the original Wizard of Oz books. The copyright for the books (but not the movie!) lapsed just months after L Frank Baum's literary estate had come out of copyright. (Gregory Maguire, the author of Wicked, had thought it was decades out of copyright when he started writing the book.) It's impossible to tell a revisionist story without having some story to revise. Do you really believe that Maguire was less creative with Wicked than if he had written some other series entirely? If copyright were 10 years longer and so he needed to get a license from the estate, would you say he was less creative? Similarly, a commercial parody like "Pretty Woman" requires something to parody, like "Oh, Pretty Woman", and it makes little sense to parody something that no one knows anything about.
      - enneff 13y ago
        Those are really egregious examples of sampling, where the sample is almost the entire song. I agree that in those cases the original artist should be compensated, just as the original composer must be compensated when you do a cover. But most sample-based music is not like this. Other examples raised in this discussion thread, such as the Beastie Boys' album "Paul's Boutique", use samples as a form of sonic collage. Works like these should be regarded by the law as original works, just as a visual collage would be. Should The Winston's be compensated for the near-ubiquitous "Amen Break'? Or James Brown for "Funky Drummer"? Or the countless others that provided the elements (samples) upon whole genres of modern music are founded? I argue that it is in society's interest to answer "no", simply because the works would not exist were there legal barriers hindering its creation.
shock-value 13y ago
> The point is that sample-based music can (and should) still be an original work. No it shouldn't. Or at least it should still require consent of the original sample owners (and any compensation that would entail). If it were so easy to make samples and they were so disposable that anyone could come up with them, then there would be no need to sample older work and no one would do it. But in actual fact it's difficult to create catchy samples, and they are therefore valuable, and their owners deserve to have rights over them.
- enneff 13y ago
  Under those terms sample-based music cannot exist, so you are de facto against sample-based music. I, and many others, disagree.
  - shock-value 13y ago
    Then it shouldn't exist. If you can't get the rights to reuse someone else's music as your own (whether because you can't afford it, can't get into contact with the artist, etc.) then you shouldn't do it, ethically or legally. I mean, if you are going to make a mix and play it for some friends or as a DJ at a local club or even release something online for free, then fine, it's still probably technically illegal but I'm not going to get all rustled up about that. But if you start making any legitimate money off it, you better have gotten those rights secured or else you deserve whatever legal consequences you have coming to you -- in both a moral and a legal sense.
    - dalke 13y ago
      You believe that the Supreme Court decided Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc incorrectly? Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_I.... : > The members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew—Luke, Fresh Kid Ice, Mr. Mixx and Brother Marquis—composed a song called "Pretty Woman," a parody based on Roy Orbison's rock ballad, "Oh, Pretty Woman." ... Acuff-Rose Music refused to grant the band a license but 2 Live Crew nonetheless produced and released the parody. ... The Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of § 107. You are free of course to suggest that the law is otherwise, and even that the law itself is immoral and unethical. But as it stands, it is sometimes legal to copy portions of another's work, without a license, sell it for a profit, and be within the law. And I am free to continue to believe that commercial parody is ethically and legally fine.

r0s 13y ago

If you don't see the problem with IP hoarding by non-artists you're either a shill or naive.