50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?
from the now-would-be-a-good-time dept
The folks at dajaz1, who know better than anyone how copyright stifles culture and free speech, send in the news that Robert Poindexter of The Persuaders is suing 50 Cent for copyright infringement over a sample on a free album he released in 2009. This is likely to end in settlement, with a payout to Poindexter, because 50 Cent isn't offering any defense beyond the fact that the album was free. Unfortunately, this carries little to no legal weight. The courts have been unkind to sampled music over the years, as detailed in the excerpt we posted (part 1 and part 2) from this month's book club feature, Copyfraud. But, as dajaz1 explains quite clearly, sampling and remixing on free albums and mixtapes has always been an essential part of hip-hop, and is even embraced by labels:This has been happening for many years on mixtapes and it’s quite common so 50′s attitude on this not shocking. Its the same attitude of every artist in urban music and it’s been like that from jump. In fact that’s why mixtapes are given away for free and not sold commercially. To put a bar code on a tape or sell it commercially violates many laws, but to give it away for free under the guise of “promotional use” has been the name of the game for decades and largely considered ok. This type of stuff is why these labels suddenly calling websites like us “rogue” for releasing them or trying to shut people down or put them in jail for making, releasing, or offering them for download has always been ridiculous. The attitude 50 is taking here is the same one every urban artist operates under and the promotional department of the major labels have been looking the other way on for years. Hell the major labels have been active participants. If you can’t clear the song you throw it out on a mixtape, or for free to radio mixshows and the blogs/internet as a freestyle/remix. Every major label artist that has made it in the rap genre has utilized these tactics so a loss in this case could be devastating not only to rap as a genre but the labels as well.
This is just another example of how copyright is totally out of sync with reality. This kind of activity is indispensable to culture, and it doesn't stop no matter what the law says—but it does get stifled, and driven underground, which is the opposite of what copyright is supposed to accomplish. As the chapter we posted from Copyfraud notes, several albums that are widely considered to be classics and important moments in music history (like Paul's Boutique or It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back) would be almost impossible to legally release today. Meanwhile, highly acclaimed mashups like The Grey Album are praised by the musicians whose work has been mashed, but are technically illegal and exist only as bootlegs by the grace (read: fear of bad publicity) of the record labels.
The big question is: can artists like 50 Cent do something about this? Hip-hop is one of the most popular and influential genres of music in the world, and its superstars command huge audiences. Most hip-hop fans don't realize that the genre is a legal minefield that exists because most artists cross their fingers and ignore the law entirely, while a rich few pay obscene royalties and settlement fees. Someone like 50 Cent is in the perfect position to raise more awareness of broken copyright law, and I hope that this attack on the lifeblood of hip-hop culture spurs him to do so.
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: 50 cent, book club, copyfraud, dajaz1, mixtape, sampling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why? Because they profit
My guess is you want them to emulate all of those upper-class folks with tenure and give their music away. Sorry bud. That's not how it works on the street. Those arguments may work when you're hanging out with your fellow tenured shills for Big Search, but I think the hip hop stars are smarter than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why? Because they profit
"My guess is you want them to emulate all of those upper-class folks with tenure and give their music away. Sorry bud. That's not how it works on the street."
No boBBY boy, thats exactly the way it works in the hip-hop world. You think you hear real rappers on the radio?
"That's not how it works on the street." - Blahhhhhh ha ha ha. boB thinks he has street cred now. Go go gangsta boB.
Thanks for the laugh bobbY boY.
Big Search? Whats that Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why? Because they profit
Just for curiosity explain how people having access to a free version of something stop all their spending on it.
Because if it was true that should be universal right, if people can get a free version of something they would never ever buy anything, and it should happen to all kinds of other goods like food, clothes, radio and TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why? Because they profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why? Because they profit
http://connecticutlawreview.org/files/2012/04/3.Joo_.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why? Because they profit
So close...
THEN you went and said "Big Search" and that automatically causes you to lose.
So, thanks for playing, go outside for awhile.
914 failed arguments.
And you tried *SO* hard too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why? Because they profit
Why do guys keep picking on him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can artists like 50 Cent do something about this?
50 Cent: Vitamin Water
50’s best known and most lucrative recent revenue stream is his endorsement deal with Vitamin Water. After signing on to shill for the brand’s Formula 50 beverage, 50 got a stake in parent company, Energy Brands. When Coca-Cola bought Energy in May 2007, 50’s stake netted him $100 million.
Nah, big tough gangster guy has been bought and paid for.
Fitty will just cut a check and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Grey Album
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101119/00342311929/jay-z-explains-he-is-honored-to-have- his-work-remixed-others.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Grey Album
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Grey Album
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Grey Album
I loved the letter I got from a fan in South America who could barely speak English and asked me to write all my lyrics down for him to have someone translate properly.
That was Awesome !!!
http://www.bigmeathammer.com
At least half a dozen physical releases from Art of mine for free and all at 320k bitrate.Lots of demented punk rock tunes spanning the years 1976 to present times.
I have no issues with P2P,Sharing, ETc. I even seed my own Art for free on TPB & other public tracker sites on and off till night time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You need to pay attention: even if the album was "free", it was used to promote the Fiddy brand, and sell his merch and such (you know, the way Techdirt says it is done). So even the theoretical non-commercial use (it's free) has in fact a commercial aspect.
There is no defense.
How hard is this for you to understand? Are you truly this dense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I love Leigh. I too am sick of the lazy and willfully ignorant who can't be bothered to read and even TRY to comprehend the point of the article or argument. They just jump right in so they can get to hit the "submit" button as fast as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, I can read - what doesn't make sense is that you are writing about it as if Fiddy was not guilty of anything.
It doesn't matter if you put one line in, and then spend the rest of the story knocking it down.
God, you are such a tard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"God, you are such a tard!"
Yay playground!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(that's the only explanation for how stupid what you just said is)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really don't catch it, do you? Why make a post about it, if you are going to go against your own logic?
YOu seem to want to take both sides of the story, argue neither, and you still come off as a freetard idiot.
There is no "damn, you caught me", because I READ THE FUCKING STUPID STORY. I was pointing out how you seemed to point something out and then pointedly ignore it, trying to make your standard freetard point.
Stop being a jackass, Marcus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I acknowledge that 50 has no legal argument. And that's why I think the law is wrong, and bad.
Jeeze - it's not that complicated man. You gotta sit your brain down and have a serious talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Duh, yeah, that is what you write - which means you THINK Fiddy should have a legal leg to stand on. Makes you the usual uninformed freetard that you are.
Keep trying Marcus... you keep failing. Mike will figure out your a waste and fire you, like he has done with all of the other space fillers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that I don't like the law doesn't make me "uninformed". I know you are a polite little status quo toady who flips out at the merest suggestion that the all-knowing, always-benevolent government might not be 100% perfect - but not everyone's like that. If you're soooooo sensitive about this stuff, you should probably stop reading my posts.
Go back to bowing down before your unquestionable copyright law gods. They are broken, and most people don't believe in them, but it's nice that you keep the faith and all. Just try not to get too upset when others point out how outdated your religion is, and how naive you are for believing in it so blindly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you guys hate artists when you have to pay them, it's pretty much that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So it looks like you just didn't read the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.bunksplace.com/pers2.jpg
Although they are all Poindexters in the above photo I think it is these guys:
http://my-best-of-dance-disco-funk-soul.blogspot.com/2010/09/persuaders-persuaders-1973.html )
No matter, the first thing I think of when hearing that name now is what a bunch of assholes they must be, and how they lost the opportunity to collaborate with Fitty and take advantage of getting a whole new generation interested in their music.
GET OFF MY LAWN YOU DAMN KIDS!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry you've never heard of The Persuaders. Many like me have.
But if you are worried about their plight, the RIGHT thing for millionaire 'Fitty' to do was send them a check for a few thousand, and ask their permission to use the sample. You see that's the RIGHT thing to do because millionaire 'Fitty' gets to release his song (free or not), he gets to pay back to his musical mentors, and he gets to acknowledge and respect the great black musicians of a previous generation. Clearing the sample would have meant one less meal out for 'Fitty' and his posse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is how culture works.
We remix. We sample. We share. Outlawing that is wrong. If this was 50 Cent suing a small-time artist for remixing him, I'd be against it just as much. I don't care about the quibbles of who is "ripping off" who—that can be dealt with through social pressure without ever setting foot in the court room. This is how culture works and you can't stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nosferatu was almost blatant theft of the Vampire myth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, Bram Stoker's Dracula was almost blatant "theft" of the vampire myth (and clearly equally inspired by contemporary works of the period). Nosferatu was blatant "theft" of Bram Stoker's novel.
Both works have subsequently been "stolen" from repeatedly, to similarly create new work that have then been "stolen" from in works after that.
Why, it's almost as though this is how culture actually works and grows and has done so for centuries...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Roots would like to be able to play 20 seconds of "Johnny B. Goode" on late-night TV when certain guests walk on the set, but they can't, because Chuck Berry won't clear it for less than $2 million. Consequently, you do not hear that song, ever. In fact, the last place I think I heard it was in Back to the Future, in 1985. Like Poindexter, Berry can say it's legally his prerogative to treat his music like a reusable lottery ticket, but it doesn't make him any less of a dick.
You are a fool if you think the asking price for a Persuaders sample would have been less than the cost of a settlement in a copyright infringement lawsuit, especially if it was 50 Cent doing the asking. 50 Cent made a business decision: ask and be charged millions, or don't ask, and either never have to pay anything, or at worst, settle for a few hundred grand? I guarantee you he is not being blindsided by this lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A great example of cooperative sampling was the Blue Note material remixed by Madlib. It benefited the original artists and the label, as well as Madlib. But if one particular songwriter didn't WANT his work included, or if he wanted a very large sum of money that made the deal impossible for that particular tune, then you know what? THAT'S HIS PREROGATIVE. Stop insulting Chuck Berry, the Persuaders and other innovators because you don't think their work is relevant enough for you or because you think their asking price might be too high.
Here's an analogy that even you might understand: When do I get to stop by 50 Cent's mansion for free with a film crew and use all his stuff because it's relevant to a music video I want to create? Ummmm....NEVER. I thought so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shades of Blue - fantastic album!
Of course, Madlib is a notorious cratedigger who pulls thousands of obscure samples from all sorts of sources spanning the entire history of music - do you believe he's cleared every sample he's ever used, including everything on free mixtapes and bootlegs? Ha!
In fact, Madlib has been seen on "who sampled" forums asking people to stop posting the sources of his samples, because he hopes to avoid lawsuits.
Things like Shades of Blue - indeed that whole style of sample-based production - exist because the majority of music is made by artists who are completely ignoring the law and simply following their creative instincts, sampling what they want.
That's my point - copyright is completely at odds with the creative process here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hope he's buying all of those albums 'NEW'! If not, that makes him a double dipping dirty crate digging pirate. He's stealing twice, and making a profit!
Because we all know that if you don't buy it 'new' it's a lost sale.
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A great example of cooperative sampling was the Blue Note material remixed by Madlib. It benefited the original artists and the label, as well as Madlib. But if one particular songwriter didn't WANT his work included, or if he wanted a very large sum of money that made the deal impossible for that particular tune, then you know what? THAT'S HIS PREROGATIVE. Stop insulting Chuck Berry, the Persuaders and other innovators because you don't think their work is relevant enough for you or because you think their asking price might be too high.
Here's an analogy that even you might understand: When do I get to stop by 50 Cent's mansion for free with a film crew and use all his stuff because it's relevant to a music video I want to create? Ummmm....NEVER. I thought so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OMG!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is the whole point you keep trying to make here and now you are admiting that free can bring in financial rewards?
ARE YOU THAT STUPID?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Color me confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO theft is "indispensable to culture", how abut create your own music, not steal others and try to profit from it
The big question is: can artists like 50 Cent do something about this? Hip-hop is one of the most popular and influential genres of music in the world, and its superstars command huge audiences. Most hip-hop fans don't realize that the genre is a legal minefield that exists because most artists cross their fingers and ignore the law entirely, while a rich few pay obscene royalties and settlement fees. Someone like 50 Cent is in the perfect position to raise more awareness of broken copyright law, and I hope that this attack on the lifeblood of hip-hop culture spurs him to do so.
really?? your funny, artist's in all genres have been stealing music, beach boys stole music from black artists, got sued and lost all rights and royalties to those songs,
what was copyright intended to do? not what you think,
Definition of COPYRIGHT
: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work)
so I guess you are cool with theft and want 50 cent and others to get rid of protections of other peoples work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Court decisions haven't gone that way in the past, but it will change eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is when fans of a series (generally an animated series), take clips and scenes from the show in question, and give it a gag dub.
And, just so you know, I'm going to fill you in on a little secret...
It's a gray area of copyright (falls under fair use, but doesn't stop it from getting hit with copyright notices), but, it's fun and it's creative, but it takes from another source.
Should that mean that it shouldn't be allowed?
If you said yes, then you'll have to have Monty Python, Mystery Science Theater 3000, Weird Al, Cletus T. Judd and others get removed from culture for doing the same thing.
And, in which case, screw you and the dinosaur you rode in on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe the culture doesn't consider it "theft"...rendering copyright irrelevant...hence the point of Leigh's post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All art is derivative of other art. Mashups and hiphop are just a little bit more explicit about it. In fact, allow me to quote somebody you may be familiar with in just how widespread this sharing, mixing and borrowing is (because it's not just hiphop that's doing it):
artist's in all genres have been stealing music, beach boys stole music from black artists
Very true words. All artists "steal". Every single last one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What I really want to see you do is try and stop it, come on now dude, you can do it right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha. How about you create your own music yourself, but make sure you first wipe your mind of any song you have ever heard in your lifetime, ever. It will be interesting as to what you could come up with in a complete vacuum.
Culture is about building on what others have done before and always will be.
what was copyright intended to do? not what you think,
Definition of COPYRIGHT
: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work)
Umm, your definition doesn't have the intention of copyright, which is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" as per the Constitution. The intention of copyright is much grander than just "exclusive rights" for the artists so they can get paid.
The "exclusive rights" part is the means to promote the "progress" part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devastating to the rap genre?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devastating to the rap genre?
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devastating to the rap genre?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devastating to the rap genre?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devastating to the rap genre?
You've been listening to the wrong hip-hop, then. There's a lot of socially conscious and positive hip-hop out there, just as there's female singers who don't whore themselves out as sex objects. You just have to go beyond the RIAA's output occasionally...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devastating to the rap genre?
Wow! Well, that must mean something. Because not one person ever said that about rock & roll, or jazz, or the goddamn waltz. Right? Right?
Your comment effectively brands you as somebody not worth listening to. I don't mean to be rude but: pipe down old man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little old but...
They won't because of their contracts. They're 360 deals that effectively tie them into the broken world of copyright. And Young Guru has had a lot to say about this specific problem. His best advice? Don't get into the situation in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All art is derivative of other art. Mashups and hiphop are just a little bit more explicit about it. In fact, allow me to quote somebody you may be familiar with in just how widespread this sharing, mixing and borrowing is (because it's not just hiphop that's doing it):Very true words. All artists "steal". Every single last one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Progression
First they came for the rappers, and I said good riddance.
Then they came for the pop singers, and I didn't care.
Then they came for the rock singers, and it bothered me, but I didn't say anything.
Then they came for the blues singers, and there was nobody left to care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
mismanagement is an issue, but stealing music was bigger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I doubt it, copying though means they took it and made something that they could sell they did all the real work and some dumb shit wants to get paid out of some sort of entitlement mentality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give me a break.
Sample clearance is so routine now. It doesn't cost much to do and completely avoids one artist stomping on another (often poorer) artist's creativity.
I read a lot of hyperbole on this site about 'millionaire artists' being greedy, and yet you support a millionaire artist who can't even make a deal worth a few thousand dollars before releasing their record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Research?
If you actually posted some actual concrete research I would be more impressed.
In the meantime you're a sampling theorist, whereas I'm a samplist and have been commercially sampled.
There is probably more sampling going on today than there was in the 1980's.
I think the scene has just developed beyond just sampling 4 bars of someone's tune and calling it your own creation. Thnkfully artists now want to be more unique, put their own spin on a sound collage. It's no surprise artists like 50 cent get caught out because they lie at the most money hungry, least creative, lazy end of the sampling scene.
Again, if Techdirt and it's bloggers are happy to back lazy millionaires over more creative musicians like The Persuaders, at least we all know where we stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Research?
Sorry but "hi I'm some totally anonymous guy who, I swear guys, has been sampled, and I totally know all about it" isn't really that convincing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Research?
A law professor schools us on the use of sampling in urban music?
As I said, you are a theorist, relying on the evidence of other theorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Research?
http://connecticutlawreview.org/files/2012/04/3.Joo_.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Eminem did mixtapes and freestyles, 50 Cent did mixtapes and freestyles, Jay-Z has done mixtapes and freestyles, Drake has done mixtapes and freestyles, Nicki Minaj has done mixtapes and freestyles, Biggie has done mixtapes and freestyles, Tupac has done mixtapes and freestyles, Lil Wayne has done mixtapes and freestyles, even Dr. Dre has done mixtapes and freestyles. Each and every one of them has put out song after song after song on someone elses beat with uncleared samples at one point in time in their career. In hip hop this is normal, this is part of the culture, it's part of the genre. People like Cary Sherman and the piracy legal guys at the majors, and all these bought and paid for people in Congress do not get nor understand this. Eminem doesn't sue Drake for putting a verse on one of his beats, or for using a sample and throwing it out for free. Drake doesn't sue Eminem for doing the same thing on one his beats or samples. It's a unwritten agreement between artists and labels. It's been there forever. The line in the sand is you you can't sell it. You can't put a bar code on it. It cannot go on Itunes.
This isn't about the guy in the old band from a different genre who also doesn't get the culture. Sure 50 will throw him a few dollars, the issue is 50 doesn't feel he needs to because that's how deeply this type of stuff is ingrained in the culture and the genre. A culture people like you are trying to destroy through legislation which will ultimately kill the genre and the cash cow that's been sustaining you for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the issue is 50 doesn't feel he needs to because that's how deeply this type of stuff is ingrained in the culture and the genre. A culture people like you are trying to destroy through legislation which will ultimately kill the genre and the cash cow that's been sustaining you for years.
Err..except sample clearance has been the accepted norm since the late 80's and RnB/Rap/Hip-Hop just keeps getting stronger. You wouldn't be crying wolf would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sure there was sampled music back then, when you wanted to put a song out and have people buy it. The degree you're missing the point is everything that is wrong with the whole scenario. How can you speak on something you're attacking from a completely different mindset. Coulda should woulda, the point it is it's NEVER been that way. There are millions of songs that can be pointed to who's very existence under the law is illegal. You are missing this point as if since you don't understand it, it simply does not exist. That couldn't be further from the truth and the AA's and their member labels have made billions and billions of dollars because of it.
I really don't care what the law is in this particular discussion because it's completely irrelevant. The discussion is what is actually occurring in the genre. It's what has always occurred in the genre with the major labels acting as active participants. I will continue to occur in the genre. Nothing you say or do - no matter how many times you sit and wish on every fucking star will you ever prove that fact false. Nor will you change it. I don't care if you pay Congress 94 Trillion dollars in lobby money.
The only thing that may happen is the entire genre is pushed underground, and sadly that means that the artists that are actually bringing money to the major labels will go underground and out of your reach with it. And then what?
Bye Bye you and you're friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the most part samples have been cleared. In many cases artists have moved beyond obvious sampling (The Roots for example, plus many House and Techno artists).
And even if your claims were just a tiny bit true .... there has still been an enormous output of urban music over twenty years with heavy use of sampled material.
So the laws have been in place all this time, and the hip-hop-house hasn't burned down.
Why would it burn down tomorrow, or next year? It wont.
Anyway, lets just salute again the class of a guy who can spend $100,000 on diamond encrusted toilet roll holders, but can't toss a dime towards his musical forefather.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me ask you something. Do you think that Drake or Lloyd Banks who are both smaller artists than Eminem have any intention whatsoever in suing over the fact that Eminem released for free on the internet the song I've linked above?
The song I've linked above you see would be impossible to clear, and it's on a blend of Drake's hit single Over and Lloyd Banks hit single Beamer Benz and Bentley.
You think a dime was exchanged? It wasn't. If you don't know the culture please feel free to not speak on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJOsjP33nF4
Ya'll don't get hip hop at all. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transformative, anyone...?
When you listen to Paul's Boutique, do you laugh when you hear a particular sample? Well, then, why don't you laugh when you hear the full-length song featuring that snippet? Because it's DIFFERENT in the new context, that's why: it's been TRANSFORMED. If you're playing someone else's music just to play it, that's not transformative. If you're sampling, that's transformative. If you can't come up with your own hook and need someone else's to make your track any good, that's not transformative. If you're creating a collage with your work and the work of others, that's transformative. And what do we need now?
People who are skilled in the art to pass on whether a use qualifies. You know: just like in patent law, where we allow people who at least theoretically know what they're talking about to make determinations? What a concept--actually pinning this stuff down and allowing allowable use so that the Constitution's justification for these laws is upheld.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transformative, anyone...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Transformative, anyone...?
And I'm sorry you hate the idea of having people who know what they're doing pass on a given topic for the benefit of the Constitution--it seemed like a reasonable suggestion to me.
I know, I know: I got trolled. But it was worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transformative, anyone...?
Hailed as one of the great albums of the 20th century, this album would have NEVER came out if all the samples had to be cleared first.
There will never be another album like it because of issues and expense in clearing samples.
Paul's Boutique Sampled
http://www.paulsboutique.info/songs.php
Go down the list of songs, and see what songs it sampled.
Awards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul%27s_Boutique#Awards_and_accolades
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Transformative, anyone...?
Except, thankfully, plenty of producers just ignore the law. Clams Casino is kicking ass with his sampling skills, and I doubt even half of them are properly cleared.
(No - I'm not quite ready to put CC in the league of Paul's Boutique, but damn, the kid's got chops)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Transformative, anyone...?
No....credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Transformative, anyone...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Transformative, anyone...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so yes, for 30 years artists have been able to sample commercially and all stakeholders are better for it.
any wrong doing should be addressed, by the riaa, the mpaa, and anyone else who illegally exploits an artists work without consent and compensation, and for profit.
it's really simple, this also extends to google, the pirate bay and 50 cent. no one is above the law. a healthy ecosystem is one that empowers artists and protects their rights. I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot 50 Cent would be singing a different tune.
sloppy work on behalf of the artist and his label is not an excuse to deny another artist the respect and compensation they are due.
I say everyone should get paid, you say no one should get paid. That's why I'm for artists rights, and you are against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The shoe is constantly on the other foot. There is no shortage of 50 Cent mashup and remix mixtapes out there (i personally recommend 50 Cent Golden Oldies) and they aren't all funnelling cash to 50, nor is he sending his lawyers after them. Because, and I can't stress this enough, that's how hip-hop works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's really quite gobsmacking the hypocrisy of Techdirt railing against 'greedy millionaire' musicians when it comes to illegal downloading, then taking the side of a millionaire pop star against a regular musician who had a modicum of success in the 1970's.
This is a 'David' cast aside by the major labels versus a major label 'Goliath, and you're all taking the side of Goliath.
Incredible!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are full shit, that is why people are siding with Goliath :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only people I've seen attacking musicians on a regular basis are those who attack the musicians who use "alternative" business models as per several threads in the last few weeks. Most of the other criticisms in discussions of "piracy" attack either corporations or those who have stopped working as musicians (but still want to get paid for it), not actual working musicians.
[ 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:
OMG where are all these dumb people come from, who let those people reproduce?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you may believe that they should not be compensated or not have the right of consent over how their work is exploited, but you are wrong. you can dislike the law. you can move to change centuries of copyright law, but it is the law, and for good reason.
culture is not an anything goes, every man for himself, stab you in the back affair (and it should not be), but if you want it to be, one only needs to look at Nigeria, Ethiopia and Somalia to see how well lawlessness and a fundamental lack of human rights works as a baseline for society.
I believe in a fair and ethical policy for all stakeholders to participate in creative works. If you'd like to see sampling statutes take the same form as a compulsory mechanical license, that's fine, but that's not the law and after 30 years of innovative new works (especially in hip-hop) you'd have a hard time making that argument as a whole.
no one is above the law, not 50 Cent, not anyone else. just because he makes different choices about his rights, he does not have the right to make those choices for other artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am not paying you for the same thing multiple times just because you want to, I am not paying you because you stand there and look cool you got to do something to deserve that and writing songs is just not enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hahahaha. Centuries? Short samples were protected by the de minimis doctrine in the U.S. until the Bridgeport ruling in 2005. So sorry, no, I am not trying to change centuries of copyright law - I am trying to change certain extremely recent changes to copyright law that have had a disastrous effect on culture.
You talk about the great music from 30 years of sampling. Well guess what: much of that music was made when the laws were way less onerous. Clearing the samples for an album like Paul's Boutique would cost millions of dollars today. Why haven't you responded to that example? Or to the example of The Grey Album?
Yes, thankfully, the laws have not stamped out all sample-based music. But you can't just point to the stuff that has survived and claim everything's fine and dandy - you're just ignoring all the very obvious evidence that it's not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not surprised at the extent of the legal ignorance on Techdirt. But sampling infringement lawsuits go back to the mid-1970s. Thanks for playing though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sigh. Yes, but until Bridgeport de minimis still held some weight - that was the ruling that put a bullet in it. That's part of why there were so many sample-based albums in the 90s that could never be released today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for playing though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not really, the best crap from rap is actually from before 2000, before all those rullings that in a matter of fact extinguished the "de minimis" requirement for anything and now nobody really sample others because to do is expensive, so in part less people get paid and less attractive music is made and so it sells less and idiots blame piracy when they are the ones harming themselves.
Culture actually is something that totally depends on sharing, without it, stories and tastes don't take hold, the best stories ever told become myths and like some scholars like to say mythology is the study of evolution of stories, if people can't tell those stories they don't get passed along, if only a part of society can afford to pay to listen to something others will create their own cultural thing which some dumbass will try to monetize and claim a monopoly on it and get smacked in the face by a society unwilling to let some douche dictate to them how they should treat their own cultural assets and who should benefit from it.
It is not happening, and if people want their culture back it is time to say no to copyrights, the granted monopolies that threaten not only culture, but democracy itself since it is a censor tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What right do other artists have to charge people for every use they make of music for the reminder of their sorry lifes plus 95 years?
What give other artists the right to get paid for things they don't do just because somebody used something that was created last year when everybody else has to earn their living every month, nobody can charge companies for work they did last year let alone life plus 95 years.
And when people see through that BS and refuse to pay more than once they are criminals?
The real criminals are the supporters of monopolies, that keep ripping of the public and are full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really? Like when? You mean 1991? That's 21 years of legal sampling. And again, if you don't think there's been any professionally creative innovation since 1991 that is just insanely laughable. Truly it is.
Funny how music didn't stop and innovation didn't stop despite the protection of artists rights to consent and compensation. Guess what, people are going to create and innovate, you can't stop them if you tried. Isn't that your line?
I guess you just don't like it when artists can actually get paid for their work, and you wonder why TechDirt is seen as being anti-artist. Wow, just wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once again, you have not responded to ANY of my examples. Care to explain why Paul's Boutique would cost orders of magnitude more to release today than when it came out? I'm waiting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
stand by for creativity being stifled by consent and compensation... POW!
http://www.whosampled.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
21 years of receding quality music output you mean right because according to Rolling Stone chart of the 500 best musics ever after this copyright nonsense started the level of hits fell dramatically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
also you have interesting logic... so the 500 best musics were made BEFORE sampling was even invented? doesn't that show then that sampling reduced creativity (by your judgement, not mine). Seemingly then sampling has had little positive effect on music, but you seem to be arguing the converse, or not.
pick a lie and stick to it, you're just contradicting yourself now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Michael Jackson died and he literally DDoS'ed the internet, what other artist from the last decade will do that kind of thing?
Production of music has been increasing, but audiences keep getting bored with each passing year, which also shows up in the sales of that crap.
I am not paying you morons for every fart I let out just because you say so and I want to see you dumb people try and make me.
I am not paying for work done a decade ago, I am not paying your retirement or welfare of your children that is your responsibility not mine.
I am not accepting levies because you worked once last century and think you deserve to get paid, I work everyday and if I stop I get nothing why should you be different?
I am not putting up with you dumbshit trying to pass laws that undermine my rights and democracy.
If artists want to get paid work like everybody else without a monopoly if you are not able to do so screw you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why a stopped all my spending in music for more than a decade?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1940s 2 0.4%
1950s 69 13.8%
1960s 195 39%
1970s 131 26.2%
1980s 55 11%
1990s 22 4.4%
2000s 26 5.2%
After the sixties apparently it has been all downhill for the music industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The most creative era in music appears to be the days where people could just do what they wanted and steal from each others works and it showed they created more music that is considered great than any of the subsequent decades combined, that should tell you all you need to know about the permission culture and copyright BS today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the record, I'm a fan of sampling, and I'm a fan of urban music that often uses samples.
It's pretty easy though to clear samples these days. And the bigger artists (like 50 Cent, Kanye West) would actually be paying back to the people who broke ground for them. The black artists who never had the opportunity to earn enough income to install diamond encrusted toilet seats in their Beverly Hills mansion.
So this is it? We hate copyright so much we happily stomp on the poorly paid innovators from our past?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think most music critics and experts would argue that well over 75% of all music is entirely derivative, borrowing someone else's "cool" whether consciously or otherwise. I don't really see what that has to do with anything. And if you're a fan of sample-based music, you obviously know that a lot of it (I hesitate to choose a percent) is also extremely original and awesome and completely transforms the samples into a new and valuable artistic work.
It's pretty easy though to clear samples these days
Why do people keep saying this and ignoring the multiple examples I've presented to the contrary? Both older albums that would be impossibly expensive to release today, and modern albums that exist only as bootlegs because the artists cannot clear them. Besides, go look at any discussion about sampling on any producer forum or blog and the theme is clear: it's a pain in the ass. Sorry, the assertion that it's "pretty easy" just doesn't hold any water.
And the bigger artists (like 50 Cent, Kanye West) would actually be paying back to the people who broke ground for them. The black artists who never had the opportunity to earn enough income to install diamond encrusted toilet seats in their Beverly Hills mansion.
So this is it? We hate copyright so much we happily stomp on the poorly paid innovators from our past?
Look, I know some artists have been screwed over in the history of music. And I want to see them rewarded. But I don't think we should have prohibitive laws that stifle culture just to make up for one era of particularly egregious behaviour in the music industry the past. Besides, copyright should not last as long as it does anyway - so whether they are got screwed or not, it is well past the point where they still deserve monopolies on their work. If such monopolies were absolute, this renewed economic and cultural usage of their work through a new artist would never have happened - and they still wouldn't be making any money. So what good would that do?
Copyright has to be designed to accomodate the cultural possibilities of the present and future, not to correct the cultural mistakes of the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I think most music critics and experts would argue that well over 75% of all music is entirely derivative, borrowing someone else's "cool" whether consciously or otherwise. I don't really see what that has to do with anything."
Well first up, I was first sampled myself way back in 1988 by Young MC. I think I know the scene. There is a reason obscure soul and funk records are sampled by hip-hop artists, and not Neil Sedaka or The Partridge Family. It has a sheen of cool. The audience reacts to the cool playing and the cool sounds, neither actually created by the artist, in this case 50 cent.
quote
"Why do people keep saying this and ignoring the multiple examples I've presented to the contrary?"
Maybe because you're wrong, or seek to represent the scene in a way that backs your argument and doesn't reflect reality? I've been sampled, I've sold samples, I've used samples. Yes, it is tricky and expensive for a small independent or debut artist to clear a bunch of samples. It is INSANELY easy for artists such as 50 Cent and Kanye West, with major label backing and a veritable army of support staff, management, accountants, assorted assistants. To suggest otherwise is pure bolony.
quote
"Copyright has to be designed to accomodate the cultural possibilities of the present and future, not to correct the cultural mistakes of the past."
A millionaire, major label artist NOT playing by the same rules as the rest of us, and by doing so ducking out of paying an old soul musician a couple of grand is a major cultural mistake of the PRESENT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you crap in public and someone pick up that shit and turn into gold you think you deserve a piece of it because it came out of your ass?
The way I see it, if 50 cent made money out of it, good for him, what did you made using the same resources as him?
If he sampled you and did all the performing and made into a success where you failed why should he or anybody else pay you anything?
You did none of the real work and you want a piece of it for the reminder of your sorry life plus 95 years?
You feel powerful and in control when you force others to ask permission to pick up your shit and make use of it and get mad because they do better than you did?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If you crap in public and someone pick up that shit and turn into gold you think you deserve a piece of it because it came out of your ass?
It ISN'T crap. Jeez.
You all seem to love 50 Cent. Do you think he looks for "crap" coming out of someone's "ass" to inspire a new work. I would laugh if it wasn't such a sad misrepresentation of the creative process.
Obviously no one here has an artistic bone in their body, because you seem to misunderstand the role of inspiration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sampling has existed in COMMERCIAL releases just fine. We're not talking about commercial releases. We're talking about the 30+ tracks and mixtapes released EVERY SINGLE DAY by rap artists, both signed and unsigned building off of other peoples work without paying for it. Songs and mixtapes/EP's/LP's that will never be offered for commercial release, that were never intended to be offered for commercial release. We're talking about the practice of that which has occurred since the day the genre was born.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Now that it's a multiple billion dollar a year industry you old white guys in suits who wouldn't know a hot 16 if it bit them in the ass because they have no idea what the hell it even is want to try and control and apply your rules to it.
Last time I looked Pointdexter was black, not white, and I guess he begs to differ with you because he's suing Kanye West over a 'mixtape' too:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/kanye-west-sued-over-another-sample-20120401
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I know you just made crap because if you were to make gold you wouldn't be complaining about it.
I may or may not have an artist bone, but I do have a very good understanding of how things develop. Transforming shit into gold takes knowledge and hard work something you probably never done in your sorry life.
Even more hardwork when you get just piece of the shit and manage to make that a success and some crap master believes he is all deserving of the benefits of the work of others, he wants to share the glory but wasn't able to do it himself so what does he do? he tells everybody that the dude that worked hard stole from him, when in fact the only the crap master can do is turn everything he touches into shit.
And that explains why you are so sad about people taking your crap that you dumped in public.
You took a dump was not able to make it something that would bring you your own money and now is trying to leech from others that are more capable than you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except where they 'borrow' some cool sounds from an older, poorer artist. Then the least they could do is cancel that order for 24 carat gold taps and toss the soul legend a couple of thou.
Anyway, good to see Techdirt supports RIAA endorsed millionaires when they screw the little guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
wow. just wow. tech dirt DOES hate musicians...
you just hate artists getting paid and you wonder why they have a problem with techdirt... well techdirt is earning it's anti-artist reputation one post at a time from it's own people! nice. carry on, this is priceless...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, what? You don't think I'm entitled to it? Why do you hate me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
just sounds like your jealous that you've never created anything anyone would want to pay for, sour grapes makes for bitter wine
so yes, it appears you hate musicians at worst and have no respect for them at the least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you're all members of an Anonymous Coward choir whose only performance is to whine when someone posts here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they can't who's fault is that?
The guy that found some shit laying around and made it into gold or the guy who just dumped it in public and was never able to make it into something else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
if it was so worthless why did 50 Cent need it in the first place? there's nothing quite like TD logic, LOL.
It's worthless that why he MUST need it? Really? Why does TechDirt hate musicians so much? Why shouldn't they get paid for their work?
[ 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:
I by no means think the original work was shit. But I also don't think that is at all relevant to the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and this is what you said:
"Sorry, but I just don't think that old soul musician deserves a few grand"
you just don't get it, and that's why people think you hate artists and musicians. so your solution to one injustice is to support and promote an even greater injustice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why do you assume another person using the same exact ID as you works for Techdirt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that's not what you said. I'll quote you again since you don't grasp the English language so well:
"Why does TechDirt hate musicians so much?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the question is not limited to one post, in one thread, it's the attack on any musician who doesn't feel the need to agree with techdirt opinions. if you feel I'm getting that wrong why don't you just state the techdirt opinion on artists rights?
clearly you don't believe musicians have the right to have their work protected from illegal exploitation, so I wouldn't say that is an artist friendly position.
also how do you determine which AC's are TD's and which are not? curious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you won't accept that you've just repeatedly attacked Techdirt based on a post that has nothing to do with them, you just want to continue the attacks? OK then...
"it's the attack on any musician who doesn't feel the need to agree with techdirt opinions."
Would you care to show where any musician has been "attacked" over a difference of opinion? I've seen criticisms (not attacks) of musicians who hide behind copyright to make profit without having to do any actual work, criticisms (not attacks) on those who abuse copyright law to block the work of others, or to destroy the rights of others for profit, and criticisms (not attacks) on the outdated business models they sometimes depend on that don't address the modern marketplace.
Disagreeing with somebody is not an attack on them, so perhaps you can show where an artist has actually been attacked, preferably by someone who actually writes for Techdirt and not an anonymous commenter?
"clearly you don't believe musicians have the right to have their work protected from illegal exploitation,
Well, you can make up whatever bullshit you want about me. You'd be better served with my actual opinions, though, clearly stated and archived in over 4,000 easily searchable posts, since I don't feel the need to hide my opinion behind a shield of generic anonymity.
Hint: I don't oppose fighting piracy per se, I just don't think that an artist's right to profit trumps the free speech and other rights of society, and I believe there's far better ways to fight it than we've seen used so far by the legacy players.
"also how do you determine which AC's are TD's and which are not? curious..."
You can't. Som, why did you pretend that one has to work for them since they happen to agree. Hell, for all I know, it was you posting that comment so that you had something to attach TD for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.copyhype.com/2012/04/remix-without-romance-what-free-culture-gets-wrong/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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:
of course they can have an opinion about it, and they can also be held accountable for breaking it (napster, grokster, kazaa, limewire, etc, etc). buckle up.
the wild west wasn't wild forever and neither will the internet be. the internet is not required to be lawless, and unethical to exist, although I understand how those who profit from it being so would promote that point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't make it any more factual - or legally binding - than anything on this site. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The most shitty copyright blog out there LoL
OMG, I will die laughing now LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/05/viacom-wins-appeal-against-youtube/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/03/21/viacom-v-youtube-google-a-piracy-case-in-their-own-words/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sampling without permission is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sampling without permission is stealing
Please do! There are already a few websites that copy all of Techdirt's posts wholesale and repost them, and we have no problem with it. You are free to sample, copy, remix, repost - do whatever you like, with or without attribution. It has no impact on my work nor do I feel that I have any right to stop you (I know that legally I in fact do have such a right, but I don't want it or deserve it, and I don't think anyone else deserves it or should want it either). If I think you're being a jerk about it, I'll say so - but I sure as hell won't try to force you to stop with copyright threats, or ask for money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sampling without permission is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sampling without permission is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sampling without permission is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the artist mind state as much as the labels mind state. If there was ever an intention to use the song for commercial purposes it would have been cleared by either 50 Cent or Interscope. It wasn't by either.
Is that fair to the guy who is suing? He's not part of the genre or that culture so it's expected that he doesn't get it and doesn't see it that way. That's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, it's indispensible to hip-hop culture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it's indispensible to hip-hop culture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paid Sampling is Cool - Free Sampling is Uncool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hello
upload music for free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
samples
http://www.lucidsamples.com
or others. Dont know what is the ruckus about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]