Dr. Dre to pay $1.5 mil for "Illegal Sample" 871
jwlidtnet writes "According to MTV, Dr. Dre has lost a lawsuit filed over a presumably-uncleared sample on his last album (Dre still hopes to appeal). This is certainly not the first time that something like this has happened: in the mid-nineties, British band The Verve were forced to pay all royalties from their song Bittersweet Symphony (*and* alter song credits) after Allen Klein--who owns the rights to the 1960's Stones catalogue--discovered that the song used a sample from an orchestral recording of "The Last Time."
Thing is, though, that many groups believe that such lawsuits shouldn't occur except in the most blatant circumstances; among these groups, Musicians Against the Copyrighting of Samples and the group Negativland are perhaps the most outspoken. Should samples be protected by copyright, or should artists/musicians have the right to manipulate the old into the new?"
Samples (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
Samples ARE protected by copyright. In this case it doesn't fall into parody or critique, so why are you asking one of the silliest questions I've ever read in my life?
Google yields answers in abundance, you don't need to ask slashdot readers for every silly little thing.
OK I'm better now.
The same laws should apply (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer to the delimma (Score:5, Insightful)
I say let their own crap bite them in the ass like this.
It's only proof that the copyright laws have been perverted to the point that they cause more problems than the apparent protection they give.
too bad, Dr. dre.... being bit by your own is the only way to get you to wake up.
Samples and Ring Tones (Score:4, Insightful)
What's it say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Allow me to be a bit cynical here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Rapper scratch ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, this music copyright business is seriously messed up. I wonder if African tribes and australian Aboriginas realize they're sitting on a gold mine, that they should start collecting on their millenia-old drum "samples" copyrights.
Re:Right back at ya (Score:3, Insightful)
However, given that, the Stones, whose song was sampled in this suit...were some of the biggest thieves in their day...by their own admission. Keith admits to 'lifting' riffs here and there all along the way. But, the big difference was, as I see it, they took the music from the past, mostly the blues, as building blocks for new creations of music. Music that was created and played by them...NOT a sample of someone else's music.
To me, a remake, is a new interpretation of an older song...and there have been many good ones over the years, but, stealing someone elses drumbeat they played...or any other instrument...well, that's not being creative, that's just re-packaging someone elsess work and calling it your own.
I think one of the problems with today's music, is that somewhere along the line...the taking from the music of the previous generation and building upon it for new sounds was lost. It is one thing to 'hear' the influences of past artists like the Stones or Zeppelin in a new groups sounds...it is quite another to hear Robert/Mick's actual vocal performances...or Page/Richard's riffs they played just being repackaged, reformatted and regurgitated and having it called art/music.
I don't see any creativity in this...
Re:Right back at ya (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line: learn to play your own damn instruments!
Not 'sampled', 'replayed' (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW do you mean a major part of the sampling song or of the sampled song? Eg, if you sample some half-second odd noise which has no place in the original recording, and build a song around it, should you have to pay?
Re:This will get reversed. (Score:2, Insightful)
One of them requires actual talent for one thing....
Live By The Sword (Score:3, Insightful)
You're goddamm skippy they should be. If they want music to enter the public domain, let them fight the psychotic duration of copyright.
Re:Sampling vs. arranging (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand the sentiment, but I disagree. When you put your music or your story or your ideas out there for people to enjoy, people take them and make them a part of their lives. Your work becomes more than your work, it becomes what people take from it and what people add to it. That's our culture. To fence this culture off from everyone, to refuse to let people build on your ideas, is wrong and unnatural.
If someone takes a few notes of your song and weaves it into new music, I don't see how that is stealing from you. What have you lost? The idea of sampling as theft is worse than that of copying as theft. If the new song is radically different than the sampled song, then the sampled artist hasn't even lost a theoretical sale.
Re:Right back at ya (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm being slow, but it seems like getting a song I would normally have to pay for for free is is a financial gain. I have the song to listen to, plus I still have the cash. This strikes me more as the difference between someone who steals a trade secret to produce a new product and a common shoplifter.
Re:Right back at ya (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you haven't listened. Hip-hop was the successor to jazz and rock as a new, vital, interesting music form. Once. Listen to the first Tribe Called Quest album (for one). Just because people make sounds from a clarinet or guitar instead of from a tape doesn't matter, what matters is the end product is different from the original in a significant way. You are making arbitrary judgements - why is replaying a lick you heard someone else play on a guitar different from reprocessing sounds recorded elsewhere into new sounds? They're not stealing, they're building, and that's the heart of creativity, building on the works of others.
Re:Samples (Score:5, Insightful)
In written word, it's considered a serious offense if, say a poem, or even a snippet of a poem, is republished as part of a larger work without credit given to the original author. Why should a (recorded) bassline be different than a poem in regards to copyright?
Re:Shouldn't this be covered by fair use? (Score:2, Insightful)
You can have quotes from a book when you review it, and you can sell that review, for money, to a magazine or newspaper.
Fair use has many parts. One of these is the right to copy a work that you own for personal use. Another is the right to make a parody, which can be sold commercially. Another is the right to quote for the purpose of review, or for use in a paper, report, or publication. (With proper citation)
Sampling is none of those things, and thus it is not protected. Well, I suppose in some cases, it could be used as a parody, but not in THIS case.
IANAL
Re:Right back at ya (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think sampling is used in place of playing instruments more than 10% of the time, you're not paying any attention. There are SO many things that can be done with sampling and scratching that can't be done with "instruments" under any circumstances. To simply say "don't do those things" is about as short sighted as saying that the RIAA's distribution model is the only one that ought to ever be.
Samples = More Record Sales (Score:3, Insightful)
'Tell the truth, James Brown was old / Until Eric B. and Rakim Made 'I Know You Got Soul."
And sure enough, I bought the James Brown box set a couple years later. Any interest I had in Jazz music started from hearing different producers sample the Blue Note library, and from then on I just started buying records by artists that had been sampled, hoping to find something interesting.
The point is, a lot of these musicians who are being sampled have been washed up for years (case in point, Gilbert O'Sullivan who sued Biz Markie for sampling "Alone Again (Naturally)".) Yet, after Biz sampled that record I went and found the 45 to hear it. If it weren't for Dre sampling that record nobody in the US would've heard it to begin with. Do you think the whole resurgence of P-Funk amongst white teenagers/college students would've happened if it weren't for Dre sampling so many Funkedelic and Parliament tracks?
Re:Right back at ya (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Right back at ya (Score:5, Insightful)
Daniel
Re:Copyright (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Right back at ya (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right back at ya (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to get into a long discussion over this, but this is a little shortsighted. These are tiny samples -- nobody it ripping off an entire sone here. Sure there's mixing involved -- but it's absolutely an art form. That's like saying that a collage, or a video documantary made with found footage is not an art form. Is scratching and mixing someone's records not an art form? You try it...it's tough as nails. As far as making your own rap/hip-hop/whatever, you've got all the equipment you need in your personal computer to mix that. If you're intersted, try it out. Further, if you made it, and you think it sounds good...and it satisfies you -- it's art. There's no argument...if the creator calls it art, that's what it is, whether or not you like it.
Oh come on -- stealing someone elses drumbeat? If using someone else's drumbeat is stealing it and not creative -- the Stones never wrote an even remotely original tune...ever. The 4/4 beat is the cornerstone of blues and rock (and alot of jazz) -- none of these genres "invented" the 4/4. You can only be so creative with that basic beat. If this is the case, is there no new music that you consider art (or original art) then? What if two people programmed their drum machine the same way? Still not art?
It's cool that you don't like a certain genre. Everyone is welcome to their personal tastes. Of course rock-pop/rap/country aren't particularly creative. They're all pop music, and pop music has never been particularly creative, especially when mass-marketed. It's called pop for a reason -- and that's because it's made for, and marketed to the lowest common denominator. But just because it's popular art doesn't mean that it's not art at all.
Re:Right back at ya (Score:5, Insightful)
To be more clear: you area not involved in legal competition, you're are illegally stealing value from their product. On the other hand, if you merely looked at available products, and made knock-offs that didn't pretend to be the same as the original, you would be involved in normal market competition and thus be in the right.
This, of course, is discussed in detail in many nano-tech articles/books, in particular Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age", which makes it clear that eventually it will not be the product which is sold generally, but instead the plans (i.e. pure intellectual property) which are sold.
Alternately, certain products may be more efficient to produce en mass, as opposed to some nano-synthesizer, and those will still be sold as completed products.
"Every musician is a magpie and a thief. " (Score:5, Insightful)
MTV did a "Rockumentary" years ago about The Who [amazon.com], wherein Pete Townshend, the guitar legend did utter "Every musician is a magpie and a thief." and then explained that music and "hooks" or riffs are like expressions in a language. You can come up with something completely original, only to hear a song on the radio later and think "Oh, that's where that came from!" It's impossible NOT to use "samples" of other people's creativity. There's a finite number of chord changes on a guitar, for example. Most of them sound bad. There are few sweet ones left. Rythm is the only degree of freedom left, and it still leaves a finite set.
They should give credit, not money (Score:3, Insightful)
This suit in particular should have been laughed out of court. It was just 6 bass notes. The artist just blended these note to create something new.
Copyright is supposed to be a balance, a lmied time balance at that. For any community to grow, it is imperitve that there is no strangle hold on who controls art.
Sure, if I try to release someelse complete work as my own, thats wrong, or if I change a song and say it was an originall thats wrong. but taking a sample it not wrong, its neccessary for the growth of a community.
try to remeber, this case involves a repper, but it is bigger then rap music, so try not to let your personal taste for the particular genre taint how you react.
Personally, I don't judge music by genre, I only judge whether or not I like a piece of music on the singkle piece of music.
Re:Right back at ya (Score:5, Insightful)
Past tense; so what is Hip-Hop now?
And on topic, we will never again see a legal release like "Paul's Boutique" because it costs too much to clear the samples. But there only needs to be one.
Plagiarizing Music...I'm divided (Score:4, Insightful)
Some bands, like "The Avalanches" have done same really skillful, clever, and artistic sampling to make some great, thoughtful songs.
Other bands have simply taken some riff from another popular song, and used that riff's catchyness to make their own crappy song sound catchy.
Now, I'd be pretty pissed off if I spent 25 years mastering the guitar in order to write and perform some amazing riff and used it to make a really popular song, only to have some other musician at his computer take a "sample" of the best part of the riff and use it in his own song. That riff, whenever you hear it, will remind you of my hit song; and I may not want to be associated with the crappy song that the other musician wrote. Essentially, one artist tries to steal another artist's glory.
For example, one thing that made U2 so popular is Bono's distinctive voice. He worked long and hard to be able to find a sound that people would want to listen to. So why should another artist be able to take a "sample" of him singing a famous line, paste it into his own song, and then sell it ???
Especially when an artist samples a riff from another genre, then uses it in a song which appeals to a market that wouldn't know it was a sample. You know Will Smith's song, "Men in Black"? The whole thing is a remake and rewording of an older song (someone pleeeease help me identify it). All he did was put on a drumbeat and put in some new words. So why does he earn millions for it?
There's nothing so amazing about taking a drum track and using Windows Sound Recorder to mix in the best parts of someone else's song. But, as long as you have the other artist's approval, there's no problem with it.
Personally I'm not a fan of "Come with me", Puff Daddy+Jimmy Page's remake of Led Zepplin's song "Cashmere", but at least it had the original Artist's approval.
Re:Right back at ya (Score:3, Insightful)
to the average person, thats lik saying:
"Hacking is not equal to cracking..."
there both the same to anyone outside the 'scene'.
BTW nice list, theres a couple I haven't heard, I think i'll try to find a copy to borrow and see if its worth having my own copy.
Re:Right back at ya (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Right back at ya (Score:5, Insightful)
can you think of any artform where that statement is not true?
Change your bottom line (Score:4, Insightful)
Bottom line: learn to play your own damn instruments!
You are right up to your bottom line. It has nothing to do with playing your own instruments, it has to do with giving credit. You sample someone else's work, give them credit.
And for the record, Dre hired someone to play the riff, he didn't just lift the sample. RTFA, it is right there. Besides, sampling can be simply done, or in very creative ways. In ways, it may take more skill to resample something creatively than just replay someone else's riff. Musicians are always influenced by other musicians, and therefore may pick up riffs and techniques. Sampling is just another way of doing it. Sure, it can be blatant and a simple ripoff (Puff Daddy) or it can be inventive (Beastie Boys).
The real bottom line: give credit where credit is due.
Re:Right back at ya (Score:3, Insightful)
But is Rap Music: Yes
Is it Art: Yes
Is it Good: No
The reason why I dont think Rap is good is not because of it a mixture of old music in a loop. I have seen this done far more musically. But the music seems to be strictly anger based music. (the words may have a positive message) but the combination of the rhythm and mono-tonic notation of the singer, Just gives a feeling of anger to the listener. And its excessive use of repetition give a primal nature to the music that doesn't encourage mental stimulation or relaxation, it just stresses the brain. Rap doesn't produce any positive benefit and there is little diversity within its own type of music.
Re:Right back at ya (Score:2, Insightful)
The GPL, for instance, is a copyright license explicitely granting permission to use and modify the copyrighted work. The absence of such an agreement implies that this work is not up for grabs.
Just because you think its artistic does not make these actions legal. Spraypainting on public property isn't legal either. Now whether the city will prosecute is a different matter. That's the city's decision to make. But the tagger shouldn't assume that since they've made a beautiful mural they will have any sort of protection from the law.
And there's plenty of reason for an artist not to let another artist use their work. Suppose an artist which uses their music to distribute the message of white power wants to use a sound sample from an artist who preaches equality. Shouldn't that artist have the option to tell this white-power advocate that they don't want their work going to a cause they wish to fight?
You, sir, are making arbitrary judgements. So where's the protection for the original work of art on which that new work is based?
Re:Right back at ya (Score:1, Insightful)
Then you haven't listened. Hip-hop was the successor to jazz and rock as a new, vital, interesting music form. Once. Listen to the first Tribe Called Quest album (for one). Just because people make sounds from a clarinet or guitar instead of from a tape doesn't matter, what matters is the end product is different from the original in a significant way. You are making arbitrary judgements - why is replaying a lick you heard someone else play on a guitar different from reprocessing sounds recorded elsewhere into new sounds? They're not stealing, they're building, and that's the heart of creativity, building on the works of others.
I agree with this. It becomes a matter of musical taste at the end. I've had endless discussions with rock-only people who disapprove hip-hop music. There are distinct differences between Hip-hop and most genres of music.
If you ever seen a session or freestyle, in it's rawest form, you'll see it becomes poetry on the fly. Music is the medium that the poetry carries on and to attract a broader audience it uses, 'samples' of popular beats. A true fan or enthusiast will enjoy it by it's lyrical finese not by the beats it borrows.
That's why some of the greatest hip-hop artists make their own beats and create their own lyrics. Dr. Dre's current business is to create beats and sell them to artists; the 10% of the whole music label pie.
I know posting this in slashdot becomes a matter of, "well the musicians 'borrowed' why can't we?". But if you start talking about a genre that you don't respect or understand, it becomes an ignorant bout. (like not reading the article)
A big problem here.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Right back at ya (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the whole idea should be to EMPOWER precisely this sort of use for older art. Based on that, this lawsuit is an obscenity that demonstrates the problem with the current copyright scheme.
Code is meant to eventually be free. Want is irrelevant.
Don't make sampling illegal, promote creativity (Score:2, Insightful)
It should really be up to the record labels to basically try and promote some effort in the artist to create an unique experience in their songs, by just not accepting every Tom, Dick and Harry who show up with a tape made with snippets of 30 songs with a "whoop" in the middle by said "performers".
Of course, this will never happen, since record labels only look out for the interests of Numero Uno, themselves.
Re:Right back at ya (Score:5, Insightful)
The first is, for example, the rampant sampling of Parliment by Dr. Dre. He's taking it because it's a funky beat and he wants to use it.
But then there's the way "found sound" artists like Negativland do it. They're stealing samples because of their CULTURAL significance and not just because it's some funky beat. For example, their recent album Dispepsi used samples from Pepsi ads (among other places) to make points about corporate greed, etc.
In these cases, the fact that it is a sample is the WHOLE POINT. Even if you could recreate the sample, it wouldn't be useful anymore at that point.
Should Dr. Dre have to pay for his samples? It's up to debate, obviously. Should Negativland? I'd argue that what Negativland does is the very thing that Fair Use was set up for. I'd say no way.
Re:Right back at ya (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you are slow, because while getting music for free instead of paying for it would obviously leave you with more cash, financial gain in this case is not your primary purpose. The primary purpose of music listeners is to listen and enjoy the music whether they pay $0.00, $0.99/song, or $17.99+tax for a CD.
The parent poster had said: Musicians who sample are deliberately using copyrighted material in the pursuit of financial gain, as opposed to the listeners who have no such interest
Now if your purpose was to sell and make profit from others' music you have downloaded or otherwise gotten for free (presuming you were doing so illegally) then you would be "in the pursuit of financial gain"; IANAL, but I believe it makes a big difference legally; and obviously, in reality as well.
Re:Right back at ya (Score:4, Insightful)
playing 3 chords, a simple drum beat and singing about love is hardly music also?
Re:Right back at ya (Score:4, Insightful)
And they wonder why record sales are down....
Re:Right back at ya (Score:2, Insightful)
Take a look at this hypothesis... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I also thought that since it would be GPL, any person sampling my music would have to make it GPL, right? So if an artist who samples one of my songs just uses normal copyright, I should sue him till he makes it GPL? The idea being that people wil want to sample *his* song and make it GPL, and so forth.
Of course, the implications of this are immense (how could GPL apply to music, etc. etc.), but it's just something I thought of and I feel it should be brought here. Hell, maybe an Ask
Re:Right back at ya (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not just "Paul's Boutique." It's the entire Skinny Puppy and Front Line Assembly catalogues. It's Plunderphonics, Negativland, Mentallo and the Fixer, and
Half of the albums I love would never have been released in the current climate regarding samples. Ironically, their use in that music is what prompted me to find and buy a bunch of the sources - which I would never have heard of otherwise.