Bad Lawsuit, Worse Timing: Beastie Boys Sued Over Infringing Samples On Seminal Albums
from the well-that's-just-goddamn-lovely,-isn't-it? dept
Well, this is just sad. When we reported the unfortunate news of Adam "MCA" Yauch's death, we pointed to the EFF's call for an appropriate tribute to the beloved artist: an end to the legal war on sampling. The Beastie Boys produced some of the earliest sample-based music—including their seminal Paul's Boutique, widely seen as one of the best and most influential albums ever—just before the courts started coming down hard on sampling, more or less entirely tossing out the concepts of fair use, transformative work and de minimis copying that should protect samplers in many cases. Most experts agree that, today, an album like Paul's Boutique could never be officially released, since licensing the hundreds of samples used would cost exorbitant amounts—but that hasn't diminished the album's importance, nor has it stopped countless producers from continuing to work with unlicensed samples and release their work as bootlegs. In other words, the law does not match reality: sampling is a valid and vital form of creativity that can and will continue, even though nowadays it's either impossibly pricey or just illegal. What better tribute could there be to one of the fathers of sample-based music than to finally officially legitimize it as the important (and amazing) art form that it is?
Instead, we get the opposite. AllHipHop reports that, in a bout of incredibly unlucky timing, music label Tuf America filed a copyright lawsuit against the Beastie Boys the day before Yauch's passing. At issue are samples from Licensed to Ill and Paul's Boutique, which Tuf America claims were taken from a handful of their songs.
Tuf America said they did a thorough sound analysis of the tracks in question and concluded that the Beastie Boys illegally incorporated elements of the songs without permission.
To complicate the matter, Tuf America claims The Beasties and Capitol Records continue to profit off the album, by way of anniversary and commemorative releases of Licensed To Ill and Paul’s Boutique, which was released in 1989.
Tuf America is seeking a trial to determine the amount of punitive and exemplary damages, if any.
One would think that the simple fact that a "thorough sound analysis" was necessary means this is clearly a case of transformative work, but unfortunately, as mentioned, the courts have pretty much completely eliminated that defense when it comes to sampling. Moreover, where has Tuf America been this whole time? The Beastie Boys albums came out in 1986 and 1989, and now, a quarter-century later, Tuf America is claiming they deserve a payout? Their legal argument will, by necessity, rely on significant rulings that came out after the albums, which were released under the common sense assumption of the time: that sampling was creative and transformative art that didn't require a license.
The timing here is almost certainly just bad luck, and Tuf America must be rather worried about the PR nightmare this will surely incite. However I can't say I feel that bad for them: even setting aside Yauch's death, I find their actions despicable. They are attacking a piece of classic art just to cash in on someone else's success. If the Tuf samples were really so integral to the success of the Beastie Boys albums, then they would have had plenty of opportunities to capitalize on that over the last two decades. Instead they chose a legalistic get-rich-quick scheme. Shameful.
Last month, when 50 Cent was sued over a sample on a free mixtape he released, I asked when hip-hop's biggest stars will start speaking up about copyright and educating their fans about the fact that the music they love and respect is, in the eyes of the courts, illegal. This new incident might just kick off that process—nobody is going to be happy about what Tuf America is doing, and a lot of people who had no idea that sampling is illegal are going to see the coverage of this lawsuit (which is sure to be far greater than for your average sampling lawsuit) and discover just how broken the law is.
I truly hope this confluence of events can kick-start the necessary momentum to start fixing copyright law and getting the courts to recognize the validity (and fair use/transformative aspects) of sampling. This is not about capitalizing on Yauch's death—he and the Beastie Boys helped open the world's eyes to a rich and unique new approach to music that informed everything that came after, with samples finding their way into countless genres beyond hip-hop and becoming, essentially, an exciting new instrument that musicians everywhere started teaching themselves to play. The introduction of sampling was as important as that of distorted guitars or electric keyboards, and changed music just as much—but since day one, legal respect for sampling has been in steady decline and is now virtually zilch. It would be a wonderful thing if, amidst the tragedy of Yauch's death, we were able to help him give the world one more gift: a new attitude about sampling that will allow the next generation's Beastie Boys to pursue their artistic ideas without fear of being randomly sued 20 years later.
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: adam yauch, beastie boys, fair use, mca, paul's boutique, sampling
Companies: capitol records, tuf america
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Most criminal laws have statues of limitations shorter then 25 years, so surely the same should be true here, with civil law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Arguments could (and I suspect, will) be made that the lack of a lawsuit for all this time was tacit acceptance and a failure to minimize the "harm." Either way, I'd imagine they may only be able to go after recent infringement, but with massive statutory damages, that may not matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> that the lack of a lawsuit for all this time
> was tacit acceptance and a failure to minimize
> the "harm."
Too bad those arguments weren't available to Men At Work down under. Or if they were, they weren't successful.
[ 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 ]
Statue Of Limitations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My best advice is to go INDIE and never Buy anything from a shyster.Support those Artists who support being Open-Minded , DIY , and Non-Corporate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
if anybody is corporate in this story its the beasties and capitol records.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LTI, not my favorite Beastie Boys album but sold a gazillion copies. Paul's Boutique, the album that's on everyone's list to bring with them to the deserted island! How could they have gone this long on this earth and not realized that there were samples of their artist(s) on the album.
Tuf, do the good, honorable, thing here and just let it go. We know you didn't know Yauch was going to die. While it was stupid to bring the lawsuit in the first place, it happened. So now, to protect yourself from artists' leaving you over this, fans around the world being extremely pissed off at you, and you having to go to court and testify that you Juuuust found these samples. Just drop it. Seriously, let it go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We R Thug 4 Life
Tuf!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate to say I told you so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let them know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let them know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let them know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let them know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let them know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let them know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let them know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let them know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let them know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extensive sound analysis of any song will reveal a similarity with other songs. The only way to prevent this is to invent new notes and new instruments to play them on for each new song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Damn straight. The hip-hop scene has been having Paul's Boutique's babies for over 20 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> because yes, it does refer back to semen.
No, it doesn't. The two words just share the same Latin root. One does not 'refer back' to the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think he's right actually. Etymonline has it originally defined as "of seed or semen" in the 14th century...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=seminal&allowed_in_frame=0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Semen is the latin root for seed. We also use seed as an idea, not just in terms of semen, but also plant seeds, the seed of an idea, etc.
Seminar also has the same root word, and has it's origins as the definition of a nursery or breeding ground.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=seminar
Both meanings have morphed, like many words. A seed becomes an idea, and a nursery becomes a place where the seeds (ideas) are planted and nurtured (seminar, seminary, etc).
Seminal now can be used, perfectly correctly and acceptably, as "Highly influential in an original way; constituting or providing a basis for further development: a seminal idea in the creation of a new theory".
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/seminal
Short version: You are both correct. Both meanings are applicable. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> because yes, it does refer back to semen.
No, it doesn't. The two words just share the same Latin root. One does not 'refer back' to the other.
Umm, actually it does:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seminal
adjective
1. pertaining to, containing, or consisting of semen.
2. Botany . of or pertaining to seed.
3. having possibilities of future development.
4. highly original and influencing the development of future events: a seminal artist; seminal ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it doesn't. Your own dictionary quote shows that the word has an entirely independent definition when used in this particular context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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: Please stop using the term 'seminal'... because yes, it does refer back to semen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the difference
Exemplary, to make an example of. Make the damages so big that everyone will be afraid of ever considering doing the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notable: lack of trolls on this post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
early sampling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Timing...
OK I know this isn't good on how I'm explaining and I know this is coming at a very bad time, but I do like to dig around and try to find something positive out of this. With me reading all about the RIAA's cases lately and getting my anger up, I think this is kinda a change of pace for me that I noticed that there might be a silver lining to this war between the artists, consumers and corporations. Again, if the Beastie Boys were to win this lawsuit, there is that chance that reform will come out of this case. Of course it's likely (I won't say highly since I don't have that much knowledge about court cases) that Tuf America will lose this case, but there's always a chance that they will come out of this with a win and there will be stronger regulation on current, or even new, sampling laws. Hopefully we won't be seeing that anytime soon.
I'll be keeping my eye on this subject. I can't recall if I heard a sample from them (or anyone for that matter), so this has gotten my interest and I'll be supporting the Beastie Boys until the bitter end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope they win
Maybe if Capitol Records has to pay $100 million + for the total amount of records they sold that were infringing, they would begin to understand the insanity of copyright law. They've OBVIOUSLY cost Tuf America at least $100 million in lost sales.
Who are Tuf America????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mad Men
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use and sampling
This is only true with respect to de minimis copying (and even there, only in the sixth circuit), but not at all true with respect to fair use. Fair use's roots in the common law are as old as copyright law itself. There is no particular type of work (music or otherwise) that is outside of the scope of fair use in and of itself and I don't know of a single copyright case that would even suggest it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair use and sampling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair use and sampling
---
You definitely have a point here. I was a little annoyed when I read the news and wrote the post, so I was quite forceful in my language - but I still do mean something when I say the courts wiped out fair use in sampling
I'm referring to the bright-line "get a license or don't sample" ruling from Bridgeport, which clearly struck down de minimis, but was also issued without any analysis of the fair use issue (mainly for procedural reasons). To quote from Jason Mazzone's book Copyfraud:
The industry seems to have shaped itself around Bridgeport, and though most sampling on free mixtapes goes ignored (though 50 Cent was recently sued over one) all commercial stuff gets licensed. Thankfully, as you say, and as Mazzone says, there are still plenty of ways that fair use could be re-asserted in the courts - but at the moment, thanks to the far-reaching implications of Bridgeport, it is effectively toothless when it comes to sampling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair use and sampling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fair use and sampling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmmmmm, that's probably what the samplee thinks of the sampler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Every musical artist stands on the shoulders of giants, or diminutive giants...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is yet another example...
I get that "Ice Ice Baby" & "Can't Touch This" rely on complete melody lines (Queen & Rick James), but smaller samples should be fair use without a question based on the changing of the context of the sample.
I'm showing my age when I admit that it took me years after hearing "Licensed To Ill" & "Paul's Boutique" before I found even a handful of the original songs. It's been like an Easter egg hunt- "Oh, that's from War!" and "Tower Of Power, of COURSE!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2) ""The Beastie Boys produced some of the earliest sample-based music—including their seminal Paul's Boutique, widely seen as one of the best and most influential albums ever""
ok -so, before the Great White Pioneering Rappers came along, there was no such Marley Mark, Erik B, Red Alert, and no one had considered stealing the bassline from "Good Times"... Really! And even though Ton Loc and Young M.C. were topping the charts already with sampled music that very year... And the Beasties? Must have been the creative force there... well, because they *hired the same producer* as Ton Loc and Young MC (bold and innovative idea)... because, I mean, there's no reason to give the DUST BROTHERS any credit... I mean, they only have produced 10X more platinum records that the Beasties... and man, Paul's Boutique? WIDELY RECOGNIZED. It only took 10 years for people to start buying it.
!#($*)@ that sentence has got to be one of the most ignorant "White Man's Revisionist History of HipHop" things I've ever read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]