3 ms·
This article is rather spectacularly missing the point. It suggests that it's the movie equivalent of prosecuting filmmakers for using the standard idea of an e
by jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
This article is rather spectacularly missing the point. It suggests that it's the movie equivalent of prosecuting filmmakers for using the standard idea of an establishing shot, as seen in The Magnificient Seven. That's quite obviously not the same thing - no-one prevents filmmakers using an idea. But sampling is the equivalent of a filmmaker using the ACTUAL FOOTAGE from The Magnificent Seven and putting it in their own movie and selling it as if it were their own. That is quite obviously not going to fly.
The article suggests that Jay Z raps over a break from a Madonna song and is then surprised when the bill comes? The reality is that if Madonna released a track with chunks of a Jay Z record in the background, he'd be the first at the door wanting to be paid in full.
The fact that record companies want to be paid when their products are sampled is not remotely new, it has been understood and established since the 1980s. For anyone, even in the dim and distant dark ages of 2006, to be surprised by that state of affairs is baffling.
- beedogs 13y agoThe funny thing is that that Madonna song samples a Public Enemy track for its beat. The sample was obtained without consent. (The lyrics were also stolen from Ingrid Chavez, also without consent. She sued and won.)
- camus2 13y agoThe funniest is Madonna stole the beat of "Justify my love" from My Bloody Valentine,an indie rock band. They sued Madonna and won.