The shady one-man corporation that's destroying hip-hop.

[dust1n]

The shady one-man corporation that's destroying hip-hop. - Slate Magazine

"Last week, a mysterious company, Bridgeport Music Inc., sued hip-hop mogul Jay-Z, accusing him of breaking the law when he recorded his 2003 single "Justify My Thug." The song is an obvious nod to Madonna's "Justify My Love," but she is not the plaintiff. Instead, Bridgeport is suing because Jay-Z did something that is normal in hip-hop: sampling. He took a few notes, looped them in the background, and produced the tune. Bridgeport claims to own those notes, and is demanding a fortune in damages and a permanent ban on the distribution of the song.



Bridgeport is an unwelcome addition to the music world: the "sample troll." Similar to its cousins the patent trolls, Bridgeport and companies like it hold portfolios of old rights (sometimes accumulated in dubious fashion) and use lawsuits to extort money from successful music artists for routine sampling, no matter how minimal or unnoticeable. The sample trolls have already leveraged their position into millions in settlements and court damages, but that's not the real problem. The trolls are turning copyright into the foe rather than the friend of musical innovation. They are bad for everyone in the industry—including the major labels. The sample trolls need to be stopped, either by Congress or by court rulings that establish sampling as a boon, not a burden, to creativity."

Another musician, Girl Talk, mash all sorts of songs together into new songs, and then credits all musicians.

Are these things intrinsically wrong? It was my understanding that media was free up to 30 seconds...

 

[Mathematician]

They are bad for everyone in the industry—including the major labels.

Could care less about them, but I feel for the artists.

 

[dust1n]

Could care less about them, but I feel for the artists.

Well, yah, who cares about the labels?

 

[blackout]

Is there a reason they can't play a few notes of their own
and loop them in the background?

 

[dust1n]

Is there a reason they can't play a few notes of their own
and loop them in the background?

It would no longer be a motif. For the song in question, the song would not even make sense anymore. It's existence is playing off the existence of the other song. That, and there should supposedly be nothing wrong with sampling.

It would also eliminate entire genres of music?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiTdCmBGLiY&feature=related

Can't really just make your own notes in a background loop...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If you're capitalizing off of someone else's work, why not pay them?

 

[dust1n]

If you're capitalizing off of someone else's work, why not pay them?

And by them, do you mean a lawyer who collects copyrights to music by the thousands solely to sue other artists for using samples? Should it matter? The original sample is something different than what it is being sampled from. The manner of sampling, and the method in which it is applied and altered or added to is something that the original artist them self did not do.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And by them, do you mean a lawyer who collects copyrights to music by the thousands solely to sue other artists for using samples? Should it matter? The original sample is something different than what it is being sampled from. The manner of sampling, and the method in which it is applied and altered or added to is something that the original artist them self did not do.

Yes, I'm fully aware of methods and uses of sampling, and can appreciate it when used creatively. I also don't see why people who want to use source material for their samples can't get permission ahead of time, or pay the person who owns the sample.

 

[blackout]

And by them, do you mean a lawyer who collects copyrights to music by the thousands solely to sue other artists for using samples? Should it matter? The original sample is something different than what it is being sampled from. The manner of sampling, and the method in which it is applied and altered or added to is something that the original artist them self did not do.

If the sample is so ALL IMPORTANT to the musical creation,
that the hip hop creation could not exist without it,
and that the hip hop artist cannot effectively create their own loops FROM SCRATCH,
than the original creator of the original music that was sampled,
should be paid.

Obviously the original music is a thing of HIGH VALUE
in the hip hop industry.
That would be HIGH value,
"Source Material"
not even "value added".

 

[blackout]

Record your own songs/compositions/motifs,
then
use your own songs/compositions/motifs
to source
your own loops
for your new creations.

It's like first painting your own artwork,
then making a collage out of it.
Instead of making a collage out of other people's artwork.

Or pay for marketed source artwork,
or
use public domain artwork.

I wonder what the legalities are there?

 

[HonestJoe]

I've always found the idea of sampling a well known bit of music as a backing track dishonest. It usually feels like nothing more than a marketing ploy, used to catch the attention of casual listeners.

I certainly don't see why the legitimate owners of the copywrite of the original track shouldn't at least be asked permission and, if required, compensated for the use of something that is clearly both valuable and intrinsic to the success of the new track.

That said, I don't agree with these "sample trolls" buying up rights for the sole reason of suing samplers after the fact. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[blackout]

I've always found the idea of sampling a well known bit of music as a backing track dishonest. It usually feels like nothing more than a marketing ploy, used to catch the attention of casual listeners.
............
...

Yes. That's exactly what it seems like to me. A Hook.
But it's somebody else's hook....

 

[dust1n]

Yes, I'm fully aware of methods and uses of sampling, and can appreciate it when used creatively. I also don't see why people who want to use source material for their samples can't get permission ahead of time, or pay the person who owns the sample.

They certainly could get permission ahead of the time, but that person doesn't own the sample? The sample is created after the matter. Even then, should it be right that if sampling without permission/royalty to the person who made some sounds in which you derived a sample from then someone who does nothing but collect copyrights and sew the artists 20 years down the road?

And how far do you go in enforcing these standards? What do I have to do to a sample before it becomes something else? What if the original sample is unrecognizable... say, if I reversed it, added LFO, and slowed it down to half the speed? Where do you draw the legal lines of what a sample is? Does it only apply if it is a sample with the same notes? What if I transposed the same sample into another key? Are those the same notes?

 

[dust1n]

If the sample is so ALL IMPORTANT to the musical creation,
that the hip hop creation could not exist without it,
and that the hip hop artist cannot effectively create their own loops FROM SCRATCH,
than the original creator of the original music that was sampled,
should be paid.

Obviously the original music is a thing of HIGH VALUE
in the hip hop industry.
That would be HIGH value,
"Source Material"
not even "value added".

You realize hip hop started off as a few black guys, one who was scratching a couple of vinyls in real time (yea, corporate made vinyls) while others rapped over them. And they were in fact 'effectively creating their own loops' from 'scratch'. It had little to do with inability in a musical sense, but more so in a financial one. Not to mention, hip hop is not the only genre of music known for sampling. Sampling is probably founded in tens of thousands of albums. How do you go back in time and sue an entire generation of black musicians for sampling music?

And your second paragraph implies than what is put on or over or done with a sample can add no create value. It is of my opinion that whatever is what of a sample (including words over them) can add just as much to the sample as the sample can for the person who took the sample.

 

[dust1n]

Record your own songs/compositions/motifs,
then
use your own songs/compositions/motifs
to source
your own loops
for your new creations.

It's like first painting your own artwork,
then making a collage out of it.
Instead of making a collage out of other people's artwork.

Or pay for marketed source artwork,
or
use public domain artwork.

I wonder what the legalities are there?

In the past, all media sampling up to 30 seconds was protected by law. I'm not sure how this guy gets away with suing people, and I'm still trying to read up on it. While we are out though, perhaps we should have sued Andy Warhol for using the Campbell soup can. I guess if a photo has an Arby's logo in it, they should be attributed as well to the creation of the photo.

 

[blackout]

You realize hip hop started off as a few black guys, one who was scratching a couple of vinyls in real time (yea, corporate made vinyls) while others rapped over them. And they were in fact 'effectively creating their own loops' from 'scratch'. It had little to do with inability in a musical sense, but more so in a financial one. Not to mention, hip hop is not the only genre of music known for sampling. Sampling is probably founded in tens of thousands of albums. How do you go back in time and sue an entire generation of black musicians for sampling music?

And your second paragraph implies than what is put on or over or done with a sample can add no create value. It is of my opinion that whatever is what of a sample (including words over them) can add just as much to the sample as the sample can for the person who took the sample.

I was directly responding to your reply that the music could not exist without the samples. That implies that they are of foundational importance.

If the sample is recognizable,
and the hip hop artist makes money off the new work
the original artist/s should be paid also.

If no money is made,
it's of no matter.

If the sample is not recognizable
then I guess no one's the wiser.

 

[dust1n]

Yes. That's exactly what it seems like to me. A Hook.
But it's somebody else's hook....

Except when a hook is approached in two different manners, it could be two totally different hooks.

[youtube]U5tqAbrZeX0[/youtube]
Isaac Hayes: Walk On By [Live at Music Scene, 1969] - YouTube

[youtube]2cjv7hEAytU[/youtube]
Tupac - Me Against The World - YouTube

Hey, he really took that hook away and reused it.

 

[blackout]

In the past, all media sampling up to 30 seconds was protected by law. I'm not sure how this guy gets away with suing people, and I'm still trying to read up on it. While we are out though, perhaps we should have sued Andy Warhol for using the Campbell soup can. I guess if a photo has an Arby's logo in it, they should be attributed as well to the creation of the photo.

That's funny! I was just thinking of Andy Warhol and the Campbell soup cans.
I was wondering if he owed Campbell's any percentage he made off he work,
or if they had some agreement.

In a way actually, Warhol's work is so iconic and memorable it's like an advertizement of added value (for Campbells).
On the other hand if it hadn't been Campbells soup, and it had been some obscure little known brand,
the painting would never have become so iconic to begin with.

If some little obscure band is sampled,
and a hip hop artist makes that band well known
through his/her use of a sample of that little known band,
then really they have advertized for the little known band.

It really depends who is serving who economically
in the relationship.
This should be decided between artists and heirs to artists.
(spikes in sales can easily help determine, who is adding value to whom)

I dunno who these guys are who are doing the suing.
If they are not actually representing the interests OF the original artists
then it just sounds like more American Lawsuit ********.
If they are actually representing the interests of the original artists directly,
then I can hardly see an issue.

 

[dust1n]

I was directly responding to your reply that the music could not exist without the samples. That implies that they are of foundational importance.

The samples could not exist without the sampler. Being sampled isn't your own work or creativity, it's the one who sampled it.

If the sample is recognizable,
and the hip hop artist makes money off the new work
the original artist/s should be paid also.

When do you draw the line at recognizable? You can alter a sample do have the tiniest time differences. You can keep extending that time difference to any degree. It's still recognizable, but it's no longer the same composition.

And who are all the artists with foundational importance. The singer? How about the studio musicians? The label? The sound engineer (I mean, it's really the one who made the recording a recording through his own labor and craft). What if it is a cover song? What if it had the same lyrics but a completely different arrangement? What if the music is the same but the secondary vocals play directly off of the original vocals, changing completely the meaning or emphasis of the original song.

If no money is made,
it's of no matter.

If the sample is not recognizable
then I guess no one's the wiser.

If it's illegal to sample, it's illegal to sample, regardless of money is made.

 

[dust1n]

That's funny! I was just thinking of Andy Warhol and the Campbell soup cans.
I was wondering if he owed Campbell's any percentage he made off he work,
or if they had some agreement.

In a way actually, Warhol's work is so iconic and memorable it's like an advertizement of added value (for Campbells).
On the other hand if it hadn't been Campbells soup, and it had been some obscure little known brand,
the painting would never have become so iconic to begin with.

If some little obscure band is sampled,
and a hip hop artist makes that band well known
through his/her use of a sample of that little known band,
then really they have advertized for the little known band.

It really depends who is serving who economically
in the relationship.
This should be decided between artists and heirs to artists.

There are lots of artists who have stolen commercial art, Warhol is giant more known for it. There is no one to measure how much the original sample benefit or will benefit the sampler, and there is no way to measure how much advertising has been done by the sampler for the sampled.

I dunno who these guys are who are doing the suing.
If they are not actually representing the interests OF the original artists
then it just sounds like more American Lawsuit ********.
If they are actually representing the interests of the original artists directly,
then I can hardly see an issue.

As long as music ownership operates as it does now, you will never have the original artists being represented.