Did The Library Of Congress Just Honor Copyright Infringement?
from the questions,-questions,-questions dept
Every year, the Library of Congress selects 25 recordings (music, spoken word, etc.) to honor by naming them to the National Recording Registry. Among the works so honored this year is De La Soul's classic first album, 3 Feet High and Rising. Now, this decision to honor that work set off some shocked responses from folks like Copycense, who quickly pointed out that there's tremendous irony here. That album more or less changed the entire concept of sample-based hip hop music, because its success made the band a legal target. While the album still is out there, it's effectively illegal, because the massive number of samples involved in the album can't be cleared, and thus the band has had to use workarounds to rerelease any of the tracks.Copycense also points out how utterly ridiculous this is. The Library of Congress is the home of the Copyright Office, who has done nothing helpful in terms of sample-based music. Copyright law has made it illegal (even if some still practice it, but not in the same manner as it was being done in the past -- at least not "legally.") And yet... here is the Library of Congress honoring just such an album. An album that couldn't actually be released today.
If the Library of Congress really wanted to honor that album, rather than listing it in the National Registry, how about fixing the law so that creativity of that nature is allowed to flow, rather than having it criminalized?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, de la soul, library of congress, national recording registry
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Slow down there!
I'd prefer if it was only done by those talented enough to do well and stay out of jail--that insures real adrenaline fueled mixes get released to the wild.
;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slow down there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slow down there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slow down there!
Heh, I AM that frat boy who played guitar in college to woo unsuspecting women and I STILL liked that comment, particularly in the Bender voice....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Slow down there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slow down there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slow down there!
"I'd prefer if it was only done by those talented enough to do well and stay out of jail--that insures real adrenaline fueled mixes get released to the wild." Huh? OK? If you say so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slow down there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hyperbole much?
It's illegal the same way watching movies in a movie theater is illegal (i.e., you just need to get permission).
This is a problem that doesn't need hyperbole to be addressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"In 1989, when the LP was released, samples were a new frontier and many on the album were used without clearances"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But that doesn't make this type of music illegal. It makes it illegal to do without the proper permissions.
Just like "walking into a house" is not illegal. It's only illegal if it's someone else's house and you do it without their permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just like property law does not make "bulding entry" entry illegal.
What about this is so f-ing hard to understand? Good lord!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This particular album is illegal and is being honoured by the system that made it illegal.
What about this is so f-ing hard to understand? Good lord!
Pathetic. Troll harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sounds alot like the MPAA/RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Clears throat for best Indigo Montoya voice:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My name is Inigo Montoya and you killed my name.... prepare to die
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I understand that they didn't get all necessary clearances for the album. De la says it's the label's fault. The label said it's De la's fault.
Whether any particular artist did or did not get permission to use a sample doesn't make "sample-based music" legal or illegal, just like whether any particular person got permission to enter my house doesn't make "entering a house" legal or illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
they can't sell this album right now BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL TO DO SO
capice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is as clear as I can make it.
This album is not equal to "sample-based music." It is a particular example or iteration fitting into that larger category.
So, the fact that this particular example "is illegal" does not mean "sample-based music" is illegal.
?Me comprendes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What everyone was saying is that THIS track is illegal. Dela Soul's track is illegal! Your original post was all about Dela Soul being the "it" that was described! That wasn't hyperbole, that was everyone describing De La Soul's track is currently illegal because we've changed into a "permission" culture unless otherwise stated!
This wasn't about sample based music. This was about De La Soul's track being illegal until they get permission. It's quite dishonest to try to turn this into something about sample based when everyone is describing the De La Soul track.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It", in that case, is "sample-based music." In fact, "sample-based music" is not illegal.
If that's not what he meant, then maybe he's just guilty of confusing writing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Illegal"?
Hell, a lot of places now want to actually see your release forms rather than taking your word for it. Freaking CD replicators demand proof of clearance these days, since technically they're the ones making the copies and are the actual infringers in this case even though they only provide a service (interesting how Youtube avoids that somehow). But then again, why would anyone *want* to press CDs these days?
Great album, nonetheless, and sampling still rocks the world. No need to worry about "Legalizing It", we sample-based artists are doing just fine thank you very much. On that note: we've been operating on the free music business model since the 80s, so maybe all of you might want to pay a little more attention to how we keep fed. Hint: it's not t-shirts, or charging to hang out with people (which is so gross), or giving lectures; we utilize a thing the kids call "hustle".
Now, could everyone apply their collective knowledge to providing affordable healthy food and decent inexpensive healthcare to people? This puffed-up indignation over vibrations that sound pleasing is getting a little ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Illegal"?
FTFY. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Illegal"?
"charging to hang out with people (which is so gross)"
Sorry, but in my book, that statement would put your band on the douche bag list.
2 instances I will mention(of many), at The Tower Theater. Henry Rollins, after his show, slid out the load door on Ludlow Street, leaned up against the wall and crossed his arms. It was funny to watch ppl walk by and be like is that... LOL Then it was a mob scene. But Mr. Rollins stayed until he spoke with everyone who was there. Instant favorite. Biohazard. They rolled dice on Ludlow street until we had finished loading every piece of equipment, and talked to every fan that wanted to. THATS THE WAY YOU TREAT FANS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Illegal"?
doot doot doot do doot do do doot doot
Oh wow that video is psychodelic..
Oh and I apologise since now you I cant get it out of your head either.
doot doot doot do doot do do doot doot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Illegal"?
The fact that some are able to do ok doesn't mean it's not worth worrying about the inhibiting effect of copyright on sample-based music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Illegal"?
My understanding was that it has never been cleared, and thus cannot be rereleased. There are old copies of the CD out there, but no new ones.
And, I cannot find the album on iTunes, and Amazon appears to only have the physical copies, not MP3s for sale. And I'm guessing that's the reason why. Also, Amazon doesn't even have the 30 second clips that you can hear for it... again, probably because of the lack of clearance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HEY, LIBRARIANS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm...
2. I think you're letting anti-government fervor cloud your thinking as:
a) LOC houses the Copyright Office - all they do is register the rights and keep track of that information, they have nothing to do with the actual legislation regarding use.
b) By doing this LOC is more so making a statement about Fair Use rights - something librarians take very seriously when it comes to copyright. They're legitimizing the use of the samples.
c) I'm a librarian, and a state government librarian [though public] at that. Trust me. We're probably the most subversive group on the inside you can find. Why? We believe in access to and use of information. I don't know one librarian that touts DMCA controls as something positive. In my opinion, they're making a subtle statement about the idiocy of sample permissions being necessary.
d) As government employees they are most likely barred from directly lobbying for a political view. The people who can [and are] lobbying for changes would be the American Library Association - a group which pretty much any LOC librarian would be a member of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm...
Expect that they create the exceptions to the DMCA every 3 years. Of course, if you were a pro like you said, you should already have known that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ummm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Renoir’s “Yvonne and Christine Lerolle at the Piano”, should not have been "preserved" because it includes the small image of painting by Degas in the background.
Andy Warhol's art should not be "preserved" because it is derived from protected images. All appropriating collages should be removed from museums that receive any type of public funding. Jeff Koons should be thrown in jail. Every blues song following the same chord progression should be equally destroyed.
Every single song ever sampled will eventually be absorbed into the public domain, so what difference does it really make? Future generations will be thankful for the preservation of this record. And that's what this is really all about: the preservation of culture -- even if it's derivative and controversial or "illegal". As long as it's innovative, inspiring and culturally significant, who are you to judge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]