Sampling and the New Laws

i was reading about a case that went to court over NWA's use of a sample.
basically they are saying that you gotta get the sample licensed or pay.
I don't think that'll stop sampling as an artform (chop em up!) or the majority of us who make music on a local level.
what impact do you think this law will have on the sound of hip hop as a whole ?

That's not new...

This law has been around since Biz's "I need a haircut " album.(The album that brought the whole sampling thing to the forefront.

Album notes
Recorded At BMV Studios, New Jersey.All lyrics written by Biz Markie.Unfortunately, I NEED A HAIRCUT is best remembered as a record that made things difficult for rap artists. After the album's release, Biz Markie was slapped with a lawsuit by Gilbert O'Sullivan for the unauthorized sampling of his "Alone Again Naturally" on the Biz's "Alone Again." Sullivan won, the record was pulled, and a new ruling prompted all record companies to clear hip-hop samples before their release on record. Following this fiasco, Biz Markie slipped in popularity, and has kept a low profile ever since.

The thing is HipHop was never supposed to go beyond the ghetto. Hiphop was alive for years before the mainstream even caught wind, and even longer before they started to pay attention to it. Sampling was done soo tastefully and "broken down to its very last compound" that copyright owners never had a clue. It wasn't until BIG dollars were being made that anyone paided attention. Now that Rap is the number one money maker in the world, here they come.


If you sample keep doin ya thing. They Will Never "Shut it down." Heres a list of a few people that's hard to clear samples of...

http://www.onestopbeats.com/samples.html


BTW. Its not the artists that object to being sampled....its the greedy copyholders. Remember, 97% of the people you sample don't even own their own masters....PAY ATTENTION YOUNGENS.....Most artists were cheated out of their ownership rights(or just sold them not knowin)

Yeah it is new. A new law passed yesterday regarding sampling. It used to be that you didn't have to clear a sample if it was just a stab or snippet. Now you have to clear anything sampled or "lifted" as they called it.

Peep it:

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday (Sept. 7) that rap artists should pay for every musical sample included in their work -- even minor, unrecognizable snippets of music.

Lower courts had already ruled that artists must pay when they sample another artists' work. But it has been legal to use musical snippets -- a note here, a chord there -- as long as it wasn't identifiable.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati gets rid of that distinction. The court said federal laws aimed at stopping piracy of recordings applies to digital sampling.

"If you cannot pirate the whole sound recording, can you 'lift' or 'sample' something less than the whole? Our answer to that question is in the negative," the court said. "Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way."

Some observers questioned whether the court's opinion is too restrictive, especially for rap and hip-hop artists who often rhyme over samples of music taken from older recordings.

"It seems a little extreme to me," said James Van Hook, dean of Belmont University's Mike Curb College of Entertainment and Music Business. "When something is identifiable, that is the key."

The case at issue is one of at least 800 lawsuits filed in Nashville over lifting snippets of music from older recordings for new music.

The case centers on the NWA song "100 Miles and Runnin," which samples a three-note guitar riff from "Get Off Your **** and Jam" by 1970s funk-master George Clinton and Funkadelic.

In the two-second sample, the guitar pitch has been lowered, and the copied piece was "looped" and extended to 16 beats. The sample appears five times in the new song.

NWA's song was included in the 1998 movie "I Got the Hook Up," starring Master P and produced by his movie company, No Limit Films.

No Limit Films has argued that the sample was not protected by copyright law. Bridgeport Music and Westbound Records, which claim to own the copyrights for the Funkadelic song, appealed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of No Limit Films.

The lower court in 2002 said that the riff in Clinton's song was entitled to copyright protection, but the sampling "did not rise to the level of legally cognizable appropriation."

The appeals court disagreed, saying a recording artist who acknowledges sampling may be liable, even when the source of a sample is unrecognizable. Noting that No Limit Films "had not disputed that it digitally sampled a copyrighted sound recording," the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court.

Richard Busch, attorney for Westbound Records and Bridgeport Music, said he was pleased with the ruling. Robert Sullivan, attorney for No Limit Films, did not return a phone call to his office.

So if you make your joints unrecognizable you should be good right?

Oh see the first poster didn't mention it got changed to having to clear stabs..

stryke wrote:So if you make your joints unrecognizable you should be good right?

By this new law you still have to clear it.

If you really make it unrecognizable the hope is... well that it won't be recognized (duh!) But if someone still recognizes the shit somehow even after you've **** with it oh so much, you are gonna have to pay up.

So what about Rompler sounds? if we use them do we have to pay royalties to Yamaha, Korg, and others?

this law is **** stupid.

So even if you sample and chop then filter, eq, compress everything someone can still step up and say "That's my sound."Because even if you've done all you can to it i'm pretty sure somewhere in the world that sound exsist or bares a close resembelance to something....That's nuts.


Peace.

thats why you got to keep the underground ALIVE f@#k these mathaf@#kers, with there rules and sh!t. if you really want to get at them put your sh!t on an indies label or release it on a white label.

THATS BULL SHIAT. .

[quote="Archetype_J"]Yeah it is new. A new law passed yesterday regarding sampling. It used to be that you didn't have to clear a sample if it was just a stab or snippet. Now you have to clear anything sampled or "lifted" as they called it.


Not to argue with you homie...but that simply is not true....

This is an old folklore spread throughout the underground...It has always been Law. If you check your copyright papers(if you've ever gotten anything copywritten) it is plain as day right on the first page. Check it....

it's retarded. none of you producers should be intimidated by this shit, this is basically the major labels using their iron fist to keep their monopoly on every kind of music produced. basically, p diddy, dre, etc. have the funds from the labels to clear anything, so it's ok. however, independent producers can't possibly cop out the money to clear a sample from the o'jays, etc. it's restricting music, plain and simple.

personally, if it's out there, it's up for grabs. furthermore, negativland, the tape beatles, and several other bands have demonstrated that we're constantly bombarded with commercials and pop music. this shit pollutes our airwaves, and we're constantly exposed to it whether we like it or not. if you throw it in my face, it influences me, i'm entitled to re-appropriate it.

to hell with sample laws. don't be intimidated.

I agree with kybeats this is not new, it's always been if it is reconizable you had to clear it. It does not matter if it was a hit or stab if it could be proven in a court of law that you sampled it from another you had to pay. Their is no new law their is just a new interptaion of the law that alreay exsist based on the federal appeals court ruling. Even if you sampled a group of horn hits and replayed them in a diffrent order your still in violation of the master recording copy rights because you lifted those horns off a duplication of the master recording / if it can be proven you have to pay

Yo I wish sombody could sue GORILA BLACK for stealing BIGs hole style of rhyming