Did The Library Of Congress Just Honor Copyright Infringement?

from the questions,-questions,-questions dept

Thu, Apr 7th 2011 12:28pm — Mike Masnick

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

50 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 12:39pm

Slow down there!
Hey, some people sample music for the illegal thrill of it; if this sort of thing was legal we'd have to put up with gutless frat-boys trying to impress chicks with their sampling skillz. (Like they presently do with guitars.)

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 thread ]
Squirrel Brains (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:00pm

Re: Slow down there!
Because of your profile pic, I read your comment in my head with the voice of Bender.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. LemurBoy (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:08pm

Re: Re: Slow down there!
As good as Lobo's original comment, re-reading it in Bender's voice just made it 10 times better
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:16pm

"Copyright law has made it illegal"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:20pm

Re:
Oh, I see. It's not illegal, it's just illegal. Thanks for clearing that up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:21pm

Re:
But they DIDN'T get permission. From the article about the album:

"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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:21pm

Re:
Has anyone informed the proper authorities about this flagrant breaking of the law? Homeland Security should seize the Library of Congress's domain at once!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:26pm

Hypocrisy in Government? Nah. Does not exist. LOL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
VoicesInMyHead (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:26pm

Re:
Hyperbole...
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 thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:36pm

Re: Re:
Must be a youngin. In 1989, this was common. It was not until these kinds of songs became popular, and made money, that the leeches started to say hey, he used a 3 second sample of our song in a 6 min song, lets get paid. Lets liar up, and gets paid. So one did it, and another, then another, then we have the shit storm of lawsuits, and copyright thicket we have today. Go listen to Paul's Boutique and see how many samples you notice, and how entirely different they are from the originals. But I guess gettin paid, or trying to get paid, became more important, than maybe using that to their advantage and maybe even collaborate together with artists that sampled your music to create new stuff TOGETHER to get paid that way. Oh yeah, that requires actual work, and we cant have that now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
Really, it was until about 2005.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:45pm

Re: Slow down there!
Or how about some people hear music and get moved. Moved to the point where they try to create something else that reflects their interpretation of what moved them. It may just be adding images/video to music in line with the lyrics/subject matter of said music. Or in the case of samples, a beat, 3 seconds of a song that reflects what you are trying to get across, whatever. If I were in a band I would love to see what inspires my fans, and what about my music moves them. Most would feel that way. Our webpage would include imbeds from our fans youtube pages or whatever they use to post videos.

"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 thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your point being?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Huph, 7 Apr 2011 @ 2:06pm

"Illegal"?
I can't find any verification yet, but *surely* the samples on this album have been cleared by now? It's for sale in major online outlets like Amazon and iTunes. I know for a fact that those particular services won't sell albums with uncleared samples. (I know because I lied to get an album on Amazon). It's even on Pandora, another stickler for proper license verification.

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 thread ]
anymouse (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 2:14pm

Re: Re: My name is Inigo Montoya and you killed my name.... prepare to die
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 2:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Slow down there!
"As good as Lobo's original comment, re-reading it in Bender's voice just made it 10 times better"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 2:25pm

Re: Re:
Right. Because watching a movie in a theater is totally illegal.

/sarc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 2:27pm

Re: Re:
Yes. I understand.

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 thread ]
The eejit (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 2:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Slow down there!
Now all it needs is a "Good NEEEEEEWS, everyone!" in front of it with Hubert Farnsworth's voice and TD becomes Futurama NOW.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 2:35pm

Re:
Again, way to miss the point, brah. IN the article itself, there is a note that the required clearances were not given in all circumstances for this work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 2:36pm

Re: "Illegal"?
This puffed-up indignation over vibrations that feel pleasing.

FTFY. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 2:37pm

Re: "Illegal"?
Please enlighten an old guy on hustle. In my day if you hustled someone, you ripped them off in some way.

"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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 3:08pm

Re: Re:
I'm not sure how I'm missing the point.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 3:12pm

Re: "Illegal"?
"No need to worry about "Legalizing It", we sample-based artists are doing just fine thank you very much."

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 thread ]
Prashanth (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 3:16pm

I'll be honest: I totally agree that it's ironic that a federal entity is effectively supporting copyright infringement, but I don't think it's right that you're asking the Library of Congress to do something that's clearly not its job, and in doing so, I fear that you'll undermine your credibility among a few (very few, to be sure) outside observers. That's just my 2 cents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 4:08pm

Re: "Illegal"?
I can't find any verification yet, but *surely* the samples on this album have been cleared by now? It's for sale in major online outlets like Amazon and iTunes.

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 thread ]
Mudlock, 7 Apr 2011 @ 4:16pm

HEY, LIBRARIANS!
Stop being all passive-aggressive by giving awards to illegal materials (and winking and nodding by the copy machine, and surreptitiously email academic papers to people whose schools haven't paid to license the right journals, and avoiding buying expiring ebooks) and come out with a clear statement about copyrights. People LIKE librarians. You could do some good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fattyboombatty (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 4:45pm

Re: Re: Slow down there!
wwwwwwwwwoooooooooooooooooooossssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fattyboombatty (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 4:48pm

Re: Re: Re:
and they did it without getting permission - illegal under the terms of reference you just defined
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fattyboombatty (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 4:51pm

Re: Re: Re:
you can't buy a new copy of this album right now - only leftover original copies of the release

they can't sell this album right now BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL TO DO SO

capice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 5:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
No kidding. But even if this particular instance of "sample-based music" is illegal, that does not mean "copyright law has made [sample-based music] illegal."

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 thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 5:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That it was until about '05. Was I unclear?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 5:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok.

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 thread ]
Pasquale, 7 Apr 2011 @ 5:33pm

Ummm...
1. This is really hyperbolic.
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 thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 7:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, you're the one that brought it up. Nagging about it makes you look like you didn't bother reading the article at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 7:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*facepalm*

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 thread ]
Jay (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:01pm

Re:
This is the same LoC that actually made jailbreaking the iPhone legal... Saying that they shouldn't know about copyright infringement and doing something about it is ignoring their "job" of allowing exceptions to the DMCA every 3 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 9:23pm

Re: Re: "Illegal"?
Do the hustle! ;)

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 9:52pm

Re: Ummm...
I thought the Library of Congress was the body that made iPhone jailbreaking legal? In which case, they do effect legislated law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 10:13pm

Re: Ummm...
2.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."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 10:56pm

irony is the only word missing in the congress library's dictionary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derivative Culture, 8 Apr 2011 @ 12:22am

Under this logic, Johann Sebastian Bach's Goldberg Variations should not have been "preserved" because they are derivative of an earlier work by another composer.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 12:46am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As usual the paytards attempt to derail the actual point of the article using pedantry.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So as long as you agree with "the point" of the article, you don't care if people use misleading statements not grounded in reality to get there?

Sounds alot like the MPAA/RIAA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike wrote the following: "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..."

"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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:37am

Re: Re: Ummm...
Not unreasonable to think that a state gov librariean isn't faimiliar with the DMCA provisions re LoC review/regulations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RadialSkid (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 11:05am

Re: Re: Slow down there!
I do that EVERY TIME I read one of LS's posts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 2:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Define that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prashanth (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:31pm

Re: Re:
Are you sure you're talking about the Library of Congress (the national library), not Congress (the national legislature)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]