Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples

[Adam]

Source link is at the bottom of this page but I've quoted the whole text as the page runs scripts of sound files and pop ups and is kinda horrible. So either stop scripts and/or turn your sound down if you click the link.

The timing of the suit is somewhat unfortunate but it perplexes me that this sort of thing isn't sorted out within a few years after release although it relates to the profiting of re-releases mainly.

In my opinion, just another copyright troll.

While fans worldwide are mourning the death and celebrating the life of founding Beastie Boys member Adam “MCA” Yauch, the band has now been sued over samples appearing in a total of four songs from their popular Licensed to Ill and Paul’s Boutique albums, according to documents obtained by AllHipHop.

Filed in United States District Court of the Southern District of New York by record label TufAmerica the day before Yauch’s death, the lawsuit alleges that the Beasties’ songs “The New Style” and “Hold It Now Hit It” from Ill and “Shadrach” and “Car Thief” from Boutique all contain unauthorized samples of songs recorded by American Go-Go band Trouble Funk. TufAmerica claims to be the exclusive licensee of the sampled songs — “Say What” from Trouble Funk’s album Straight Up Go-Go Style and “Drop the Bomb” from the album In Times of Trouble — and alleges that the Beasties have infringed their copyrights.

The suit claims that after “a careful audio analysis” TufAmerica was able to determine that the songs in question contain “distinctive” elements of the Trouble Funk recordings and that the Beasties and fellow defendants including Capitol Records continue to profit from the alleged unauthorized samples through several re-releases and digital downloads of the Ill and Boutique albums.

AllHipHop reports that TufAmerica is seeking trial to determine the amount of damages they are owed. A portion of the lawsuit can be viewed here.

Released in 1986, Licensed to Ill is the Beastie Boys’ landmark debut album; 1989′s Paul’s Boutique is the follow-up.

Trouble Funk was a staple in the world of Go-Go, an offshoot of American funk most popular in the band’s hometown of Washington D.C. and surrounding areas, throughout the 80s and continues to be a presence in the genre. On their official website, they dub themselves “the world’s greatest GO-GO band.”

Adam Yauch died May 4 after a long battle with cancer. He was 47.

Source: http://www.soulculture.co.uk/blogs/beastie-boys-sued-over-licensed-to-ill-and-pauls-boutique-samples-music-news/

[cj hood]

f' them

[brooklyndust]

scum.

[MCAadROCKMiKEd7]

Sue this *middlefinger*:mad:

[birdfloatindown]

Oh really, and it took them 25 years to realize this? BTW, wasn't there some sort of court ruling about samples, which wasn't instituted until after the release of Paul's Boutique, and that's what allowed all those samples to remain on the album? Toss this lawsuit out, judge.

[Taco Zip]

Worst timing ever.

[FLO MASTER]

Oh really, and it took them 25 years to realize this? BTW, wasn't there some sort of court ruling about samples, which wasn't instituted until after the release of Paul's Boutique, and that's what allowed all those samples to remain on the album? Toss this lawsuit out, judge.


^this

[Laver1969]

Stupidest thing I've ever heard...

[MarkedCube]

Trouble Funk was a staple in the world of Go-Go, an offshoot of American funk most popular in the band’s hometown of Washington D.C. and surrounding areas, throughout the 80s and continues to be a presence in the genre. On their official website, they dub themselves “the world’s greatest GO-GO band.”

Oh really? Sounds like a great legacy.

Let me know when it reaches Chicago.

[brooklyndust]

Seriously, how could anyone sue at time like this? They waited 25 fucking years but now can't wait a few months?

Way to put more strain on MCA's family and friends.

[abbott]

this is bullshit.

[YoungRemy]

paging Johnny Chavello

[JoLovesMCA]

fuck them.

[FLO MASTER]

well I was speaking to a few artists that are in the music biz and they told me a simalar story. they sampled a song from puerto rico (they thought it was an childhood song that belonged to nobody) and a few months later, a little old lady approached them and said "my husband wrote that song and now you have to pay me". well, the brothers went over to thier record label, which owned the songs and they (the record label) had to pay her. so, I think the beasties will be cleared of this thus making DEF JAM and Capital the ones that have to pay.


here is the sample/lyrics they used:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DU8QCfi-R8

[JohnnyChavello]

paging Johnny Chavello

I agree: fuck 'em.

First of all, it's good that the case is being tried in New York. Other jurisdictions in the US (in and around Nashville, for example) have developed case law on sampling that sucks hard. The Ninth Circuit (NY and surrounding areas) doesn't have the same precedent, so it will be easier for the Beasties, Capitol, etc. to argue that the samples don't amount to actual infringement. With some of the samples (and I haven't listened to all of the original recordings), I think that argument might be pretty strong.

Even if a court were to find infringement, fair use can be raised as a defense. I think most of the samples I've heard should qualify as fair use, although it is a lot more complicated than people realize. Nonetheless, I think it could be a strong argument for at least some of the samples.

Companies don't often like to litigate fair use claims because it takes more time and ends up being a lot more expensive. In a lot of cases, people cut their losses when infringement is found and simply settle for some undisclosed amount. I really hope everyone has the balls to push forward on fair use here because there's actually very little case law on how fair use applies to digital sampling. Imagine if the Beasties' legacy including making it easier for artists to claim fair use for transformative samples? They would be, and the album would be, even more monumental and important than they already are.

Finally, there are definite issues with this case being brought 25 years after the initial "infringement." Certain legal doctrines (apart from the statute of limitations) require copyright owners to act within a reasonable time in order to successfully assert their rights.

It's all really interesting, but still very complicated. I hope they let it play out and clear some new ground for artists who sample. It would be long overdue.

[spacemac9000]

It makes me wonder if they filed on purpose during this time? If it fits into sone sort of shitty strategy ?

Not that they could of planned MCA's passing but maybe they were not going to sue but now it has become more opportunistic for them.
scumbag lawyers

plus doesn't this predate the major copyright rulings?

[silence7]

The legal issues with this are being discussed here as well..

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120508/08044218831/bad-lawsuit-worse-timing-beastie-boys-sued-over-infringing-samples-seminal-albums.shtml

[brooklyndust]

It makes me wonder if they filed on purpose during this time? If it fits into sone sort of shitty strategy ?


I think it could be more of a James Newton type thing. The band was completely unaware that their music was sampled until all the recent publicity.

[CHECKHEAD2004]

Such BS. I hope they don't settle.

[JohnnyChavello]

The legal issues with this are being discussed here as well..

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120508/08044218831/bad-lawsuit-worse-timing-beastie-boys-sued-over-infringing-samples-seminal-albums.shtml

That's a decent introduction to some of the issues, but I have a major bone to pick with them on the law. They write that courts have "more or less entirely [tossed] out the concepts of fair use, transformative work and de minimis copying that should protect samplers in many cases."

This is only true with respect to de minimis copying (and even there, only in one 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.

[MarcusCarab]

That's a decent introduction to some of the issues, but I have a major bone to pick with them on the law. They write that courts have "more or less entirely [tossed] out the concepts of fair use, transformative work and de minimis copying that should protect samplers in many cases."

This is only true with respect to de minimis copying (and even there, only in one 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.


Hi Johnny - I'm the author of that piece. 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:

An especially troubling consequence of the Bridgeport case is that its bright-line rule—“Get a license or do not sample”—comes without any analysis of fair use. Because the lower court applied the de minimis standard and found no infringement, it did not consider whether the fair use defense applied. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit panel declined to decide whether the sample at issue was protected by fair use because it wanted the lower court to consider that issue first upon remand of the case. However, after the Sixth Circuit’s decision, the dispute settled. There was, therefore, never a fair use ruling in the case. It is unfortunate that a seemingly decisive decision by a federal appellate court on the lawfulness of sampling comes without any consideration of whether fair use protects sampling.

Here, a difference between the doctrine of de minimis copying and fair use matters a great deal. The doctrine of de minimis copying is a judge-made rule. In the final analysis, it is the prerogative of courts to tailor the doctrine as they see fit. Fair use, however, is a statutory provision that binds judges. It limits, without exception, all the exclusive rights of copyright owners. Some copying from copyrighted recordings is, necessarily, fair use. Because of the procedural history of Bridgeport, however, we never learn if fair use protects the defendants’ use of the sample from Funkadelic’s tune. The unsurprising result is that copyright owners (and samplers themselves) treat Bridgeport as standing for the proposition that all sampling is infringement. Even though the Copyright Act protects fair use of all species of copyrighted works, a legal decision on the question of de minimis copying enables copyright owners to assert that there is no fair use when it comes to sound recordings.

Subsequent case law has also not dealt squarely with the fair use issue. Although the Sixth Circuit has decided a slew of additional disputes involving litigation by Bridgeport Music, it has never decided whether sampling is protected by fair use. Another federal court could disagree with the Sixth Circuit and find that the de minimis doctrine applies to sampling. A different court could also find that sampling is protected by fair use. But Bridgeport has cast a wide shadow, and rather than go before a (different) court to test the legality of sampling, producers have instead opted to obtain sampling licenses. While courts have held that fair use applies to compositions, courts have provided no guidance on when sampling from an existing sound recording constitutes fair use. Says Philo T. Farnsworth, the owner of a label that releases sampled recordings, “We’d love to see a court case or legislation recognize transformative sampling as fair use. As of this moment it seems to exist in a very gray area.”

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.

[JohnnyChavello]

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.

I hear you on Bridgeport. I spent a couple of years of my life a while back writing and publishing an article on that case and sampling generally. Still, although Bridgeport's impact on de minimis copying and substantial similarity definitely sets the stage for what kinds of samples record companies think need to be licensed, that has more to do with the risk averse nature of record companies than it does with the law. You can see that in cases of unsigned groups that sample: most institutional copyright owners don't go after them because they really don't want a precedent setting case on fair use in sampling. They know the logic of Bridgeport wouldn't apply. That's not to say that courts aren't also conservative in evaluating what is and isn't fair use, but the defense stands as it applies to samples.

[MarcusCarab]

Yeah, fair enough - but I think the fact that part of the problem is companies avoiding risk is still an important point. Copyright law being as fluid and as confusing as it is, very little of it is set in stone - but a lot of it is threatening enough that it creates far-spread chilling effects on culture and business. It's good that fair use has weight in the law, but in practice at the moment it seems to carry very little weight and have very little influence on the industry - apart, as you say, making labels nervous about suing over samples sometimes. But that's a mixed blessing since it means we don't get the ruling that would make it a /firm/ rule, and instead are stuck with it as a weak deterrent.

But that's where Tuf America may have stepped in it here. It might finally be time for a sampling defence that asserts fair use... I hope so.

[spacemac9000]

I think it could be more of a James Newton type thing. The band was completely unaware that their music was sampled until all the recent publicity.

okay actually seems suit was filed day before he passed ...

so i stand corrected ... i do know lawyers are human beings and people do have the right to use them. but the timing really pissed me off initially, but if that is just coincidence and not strategy then it is a different issue.

[beasties#1fan]

i saw this and couldnt believe it...they must have really felt like assholes when they heard about the news the next day...(n)

[Sir SkratchaLot]

The statute of limitations defense should, hopefully, end this quickly. I don't see how the plaintiff can claim they just discovered the use of the samples recently. They've slept on their claim for way too long.

I also agree that fair use proponents have got to get some balls and step in the realm of fair use. I mean, I can actually see the logic of Bridgeport saying de minimus use doesn't make sense in the context of the copyright on the recording. I wish there was a de minimus exception, but there are some pretty clear differences between de minimus use on the compositional side of copyright vs de minimus use on the recording copyright. With a composition there's the initial question of, is it even copying at all when you're using such small pieces, but with the recording it's clearly copying, even if it's small. But fair use is wide open! That needs to be pushed. It would really be great if it could be pushed legislatively, but my concern is that the powers that be have way too much influence. A big Supreme Court win on fair use could see a "legislative fix" making things even worse. At the very least I'd like to see a system where people can't stop you from sampling as long as you pay a REASONABLE fee. Frankly, I think it should be free as long is you flip the sample hard enough but that's just me.

But here's my thing, LEAVE THE BEASTIES ALONE FOR ONCE!!!! Why is it that they are constant targets for this shit? I mean, sue Dr. Dre or or Jay Z or something.

[benchillin]

Beastie Boys - On Music Sampling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE0_wJ2ml9g&feature=relmfu
:eek:

[FLO MASTER]

like i said, the beasties wont pay anything, the label does.

[JoLovesMCA]

http://www.pressparty.com/pg/newsdesk/londonnewsdesk/view/46422/?isworld=y

They are apologizing but it's too late. They took focus off of Adam. pisses me off.

[GrapeApe]

Paul's Boutique was created before the copyright laws changed.

I'm not sure how they can sue for something that was created legally under the laws of the time.

Trolls.

[JohnnyChavello]

Paul's Boutique was created before the copyright laws changed.

I'm not sure how they can sue for something that was created legally under the laws of the time.

Trolls.

You're talking about a different kind of law. The Copyright Act hasn't changed since 1976, with some minor additions to the statute itself. The changes you're talking about are common law changes in the interpretation of the Copyright Act, and those interpretations aren't only prospective.

[unixguy]

F them .. I wrote their sorry a$$'s an email.

Now I wasn't mean but I wanted to ..

We can at least crash their site :)

http://www.tuffcity.com/contact-us/

[kindness09]

F them .. I wrote their sorry a$$'s an email.

Now I wasn't mean but I wanted to ..

We can at least crash their site :)

http://www.tuffcity.com/contact-us/


:D:D:D I wrote an email to the sinister asses at viacom ... your post just reminded me of that.

[Devconn88]

To throw this at them right after MCA's death is in poor taste.

[DocPeterZ]

Money hungry, lawsuit happy, hood rats... FUCK THEM!
Isnt there a statute of limitations on this shit?

[Frenchbgirl]

http://ca.eonline.com/news/bad_timing_alert_grieving_beastie_boys/314748

Well, this is awkward.


The Beastie Boys—the surviving two of whom are mourning the death of Adam "MCA" Yauch—were sued the day before Yauch's death last week from cancer by a hip-hop label that claims the group wrongfully sampled a couple of songs from its catalog.


But at least the plaintiff, TufAmerica, is aware of its rather inauspicious timing.

"I was very sorry to hear of Adam Yauch's untimely passing, and can assure you that the unfortunate timing of the filing of TufAmerica's complaint had nothing to do with his health," the label's attorney, Kelly Talcott, told E! News today. "On behalf of myself and TufAmerica, I offer our condolences to Adam's family, friends, and fans."


As for the label's beef, TufAmerica is accusing the Beastie Boys and Universal Music Group of wrongfully sampling tunes by the group Trouble Funk on the songs "Shadrach" and "Car Thief," from Paul's Boutique in 1989. The album was then remastered and rereleased in a deluxe edition in 2009 to mark its 20th anniversary.

TufAmerica claims that "Shadrach" contains a "distinctive vocal sequence" from the Trouble Funk tune "Say What"—and that it was integrated into the song enough to become identified with "Shadrach."
The suit also alleges that "Car Thief" samples Trouble Funk's "Drop the Bomb" "in such a way as to integrate it with the original and other sampled recordings that, together, make up the whole of the piece."

Portions of "Drop the Bomb" also show up, according to the complaint, on "Hold It, Now Hit It " and "The New Style" from the Beastie Boys' 1986 debut, Licensed to Ill.
TufAmerica is seeking unspecified damages, to be determined at trial, for alleged copyright infringement, unjust enrichment and misappropriation.


—Reporting by Baker Machado

[cltaylor12]

You're talking about a different kind of law. The Copyright Act hasn't changed since 1976, with some minor additions to the statute itself. The changes you're talking about are common law changes in the interpretation of the Copyright Act, and those interpretations aren't only prospective.

Sorry but you're mistaken. The laws specific to sampling were put in place after LTI and P'sB, and at the time it was VERY clear that all work by all artists (including those two LPs) would be "Grandfathered" in (exempt) from the new rules. You have to ask permission and credit the origin. The updates ARE the interpretation as it relates to samples. Whoever put this 'suit' out there is a douche and it will be dismissed almost immediately if it even gets to a courtroom. Everyone knows LTI and P'sB were grandfathered in (legal and exempt). I just don't have the year and date from what point forward everyone had to start following the updated guidelines. I lived through it and used to know all the details. Bottom Line: Beasties don't own anyone a dime.

[JohnnyChavello]

Sorry but you're mistaken. The laws specific to sampling were put in place after LTI and P'sB, and at the time it was VERY clear that all work by all artists (including those two LPs) would be "Grandfathered" in (exempt) from the new rules. You have to ask permission and credit the origin. The updates ARE the interpretation as it relates to samples. Whoever put this 'suit' out there is a douche and it will be dismissed almost immediately if it even gets to a courtroom. Everyone knows LTI and P'sB were grandfathered in (legal and exempt). I just don't have the year and date from what point forward everyone had to start following the updated guidelines. I lived through it and used to know all the details. Bottom Line: Beasties don't own anyone a dime.

The law specific to sampling is US copyright law. The decisions you're talking about, Grand Upright, Bridgeport, are interpretations of copyright law. Trust me, I practice law in this area and have published in the field.

There is no "grandfathering" in. That's just completely incorrect as a matter of law.

That's not to say that they don't have a strong case. As I've said in other threads, I think they do. But it would be better to talk about the real reasons why than to imagine some fictional "grandfathering" exception to US copyright law. There is no such thing and I don't care where you heard it.

[GrapeApe]

That's why I was confused.

How can changes to the law, even common law, that took place after the albums were produced be used against them?

[SpacemanSpliff]

"Was Paul’s Boutique Illegal?" -> http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/adam_yauch_and_paul_s_boutique_how_dumb_court_deci sions_have_made_it_nearly_impossible_for_artists_t o_sample_the_way_the_beastie_boys_did.html

[Sir SkratchaLot]

That's why I was confused.

How can changes to the law, even common law, that took place after the albums were produced be used against them?

We're talking about how the law (that's been in place sinc e the 76 if I remember right) is interpreted. With any law there are grey areas, and this type of de minimus/fair use sampling is one of them.

When there is a grey area, you're at risk doing anything that could even be interpreted as violative of the law later down the road. So, if a you're doing something that's in a grey area and then a Court later decides that what you're doing is a actually violation (i.e. what was once grey is now black), then you're on the hook. It's fundamentally different than having a clear law that is later changed. That's not what copyright law has done. It was a law with lots of grey area that's being slowly fleshed out in the interpretation.

But for those that don't know, the statute of limitations is likely to be 3 years from when Tuff City discoverd the infringement, or reasonably SHOULD have discovered it. Tuff City was a fairly well known player in the hip hop game in the 80s. I have a hard time believing they just discovered the sample use in the last 3 years, and in any event, they SHOULD have discovered it by now.

It still bothers me that the Beasties have been such a target for these suits. I'm sure it has affected their choices as artists. We really don't want that sort of "chilling" affect in this area of the law because the entire core reason for the act is to PROMOTE new and creative art. When the act starts stifling art (and Paul's Boutique was one the most creative albums in the last 30 years) there is a serious problem with the way it's being interpreted.

[Space]

"Was Paul’s Boutique Illegal?" -> http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/adam_yauch_and_paul_s_boutique_how_dumb_court_deci sions_have_made_it_nearly_impossible_for_artists_t o_sample_the_way_the_beastie_boys_did.html


Trouble Funk - Drop The Bomb (1982) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buXt-yyZEss&feature=related)
Trouble Funk - Say what (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPDQL5dCqgU)





It drives me crazy to know that Yauch found this records in the trash outside a record company and that even spoonie gee is on this label...

[GrapeApe]

Well I'm no lawyer but that makes no fucking sense at all.

How can interpretations of the law go back in time and punish works that were made before said interpretations were even considered?

It was my understanding that Paul's Boutique was the impetus for changing the interpretation of the law in the first place, again, after the fact.

The copyright suits there Beasties have been involved in all were based off of post-Paul's Boutique material (i.e. Pass the Mic 2003).

[Billy Corbitt]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2012/05/22/the-beastie-boys-sampling-and-copyright-law/

However, if the federal court in this case properly follows the Supreme Court’s ruling, it will apply the injury rule, and not the discovery rule, effectively limiting any potential recovery to new formats/releases of the recordings over the last three years. And TufAmerica would face a significant uphill battle to successfully claim fraudulent concealment since the Beastie Boys’ sampling of Trouble Funk’s recordings has been widely recognized on websites such as whosampled.com (http://www.whosampled.com/artist/Beastie%20Boys).