Digital Sampling in music is now Piracy!

[Admiral Ackbar]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18338

This is interesting because according to this article the new rules meant to stop digital piracy will apply to music sampling. Meaning that maybe hundreds of artists and music producers will now be liable for sampling on their tracks.

"According to Associated Press, three judges sitting on the panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said the same laws currently in place to halt music piracy will also apply to digital sampling."

I recall this happening to the Verve with "Bittersweet Symphony." It was their only hit, but they sampled a Rolling Stones riff in the song if I recall correctly. It was a small riff but under Englisgh law it was a violation since they never recieved permission. The Rolling Stones sued and got all the profits. Supposedly the Verve, who only had one big hit in the US, never saw a dime.

It's ironic. The music industry fought for these anti-piracy laws. Now it looks like the laws that they fought for may come back and bite them in the ass!

[sblymnlcrymnl]

How is this new?

[daikaiju]

I'm sure the reprocusions will be far and wide - and for the most part, unwelcome...however, in lighter news, perhaps it will curb some of the recycled pap we hear on the airwaves these days and bring back some originality.

[bignick]

There goes every puff daddy song.

[punqsux]

it dosent matter. music today sucks (god im old) if it wasnt around in the 80's i dont want to hear it ^^

[hutno]

There goes every puff daddy song.

Isn't it Pillidly Doodadidily by now?

[Nirvanaguy777]

it dosent matter. music today sucks (god im old) if it wasnt around in the 80's i dont want to hear it ^^

hey now wait a minute thats not....yea your right......

[WeaponX2099]

This can be very bad. It's bad because now there can be no experimental underground albums like the Danger Mouse's Gray Album. People and critics called one the best albums of the year. This is probably the reason for the ruling.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

it dosent matter. music today sucks (god im old) if it wasnt around in the 80's i dont want to hear it ^^

Please, the 80s were the fucking dark ages of music.

[daikaiju]

it dosent matter. music today sucks (god im old) if it wasnt around in the 80's i dont want to hear it ^^

I'm not so sure about the 80's, however POPULAR music today sucks as hard if not harder than it ever has...But fear not, there IS still good music out there - you just have to dig a little deeper to find it. And I'm old enough to remember when Never Mind the Bollocks came OUT.

[evilpenguin9000]

This can be very bad. It's bad because now there can be no experimental underground albums like the Danger Mouse's Gray Album. People and critics called one the best albums of the year. This is probably the reason for the ruling.

I agree with that. When these laws are stifling a new synthesis of music they aren't doing anything. Copyright law is just stupid at this point.

[x0thedeadzone0x]

Great, the RIAA is getting even more ridiculous/paranoid.

[MrBadExample]

I recall this happening to the Verve with "Bittersweet Symphony." It was their only hit, but they sampled a Rolling Stones riff in the song if I recall correctly. It was a small riff but under Englisgh law it was a violation since they never recieved permission. The Rolling Stones sued and got all the profits. Supposedly the Verve, who only had one big hit in the US, never saw a dime.

Just a slight correction: The Verve asked for permission first but were denied so they used an orchestral recording of the song (which is still copywritten to Jagger/Richards) and got sued. The Verve lost of course and now the song can never appear on any future cd's including compilation and Best Of cd's.

Moral: Don't fuck with Mick & Keith.

[Final Starman]

What exactly is music sampling?

[moiety]

What exactly is music sampling?

Exactly what it implies. :wink:

If today's music didn't suck so bad (and I'm talking the last 3-4 years at least), then maybe more people would be out there buying more cd's and not feel the need to dl/share music. Granted, I still feel they are going way overboard about music sharing, but you know - if a product is good, people will buy it. Obviously the product -music- is not very good.

[Sporadic]

This can be very bad. It's bad because now there can be no experimental underground albums like the Danger Mouse's Gray Album. People and critics called one the best albums of the year. This is probably the reason for the ruling.

Oh yeah the Gray Album was amazing. Too bad he ouldn't release that (legally)

[Reality's Fringe]

It's gotten artists in trouble for a long time (see: Beastie Boys) but it's getting taken to a new level now. Personally, I think that if sampling is done right (see again: BEastie Boys) it can be a great musical experience. Now it just seems to be a buzzword for music recycling. The law should be that your sampling has to lead to a good song. I'd agree with that.

[danny-o]

What will every rap artist in the world do now?

[Admiral Ackbar]

This can be very bad. It's bad because now there can be no experimental underground albums like the Danger Mouse's Gray Album. People and critics called one the best albums of the year. This is probably the reason for the ruling.

Actually, the Danger Mouse Grey Album Was never legal. See, ripping a couple notes was never illegal. He mixed nearly two whole albumbs. That's different. But if he just sampled a few notes that would be no problem.

The thing is, for years rap artists and other artists have done this by taking small legal samples. They sampled a couple notes. It was okay. Now In guess they're liable for that sampling. Or maybe if they sample in the future. I don't know if this law would be retroactive.

[ElwoodCuse]

This doesn't mean there will never be any more sampling, it just protects the artist's whose work is sampled. It's not new, either, remember when George Lucas sued Dr. Dre for sampling the THX sound?

Cover songs are covered under similar laws, and even the original artist can't prevent another band from covering their work--there's just different royalties and stuff involved if the original artist does not give permission. The Straight Dope has a good article about cover songs.

[KingDox]

RIAA Booo! well it's not that big of a shock. But how is this law different from past laws about sampling ? But it won't do much to stop the kids on the net making interesting music.

A great site to see these personal mixes is
http://www.partyben.com/

this guy has some fantastic songs on his site as well as some nice dj mixes. I highly recomend the Mass Destruction (George W Mix) he has on the site.

[camoor]

3 freaking notes! 3 FREAKING NOTES

I'm going to realease a "Mennen" deodorant song techno remix. RIAA be damned.

BY MENNEN MENNEN ziga ziga woot woot BY MENNEN MENNEN ziga ziga beep boop beep boop

Dammit I just bought Amplitude for $2. I hope none of that money goes to the RIAA.

[dafoomie]

The RIAA members have deals with each other that allow small sampling, like what rappers do. So if you're in "the club", you can do it, but if you're not with one of those big labels, you're screwed. This is just another example of screw the little guy.

[Alpha2]

You know what? the more these idiot screw around with rights the more people are just going to get pissed off and start finding ways of sticking it too them or just outright ingore the laws and find ways to fly under their radar.

And you know what I dont think the RIAA protects video game music. I can see it now the next Snoop Dogg song using samples from Contra or Nelly using Metroid samples... holy crap!





*runs to copy-right office*

[punqsux]

it dosent matter. music today sucks (god im old) if it wasnt around in the 80's i dont want to hear it ^^

[WeaponX2099]

No, ithink Lil flip had to namco for Pac-man music in Game over

[GuilewasNK]

There goes every puff daddy song.

Beat me to the punch on that one.