On Rolling Stone today: Beastie Boys Seek Dismissal of Sampling Lawsuit

[Gabriely]

Go-go group says rappers used their music on 'License to Ill,' 'Paul's Boutique'

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beastie-boys-seek-dismissal-of-sampling-lawsuit-20121129

[beasties#1fan]

Hmmm..interesting.
The beasties of course have a good point, whats up with the 20+ year gap?

[Randetica]

maybe they ran out of money lately

[Sir SkratchaLot]

This could be really big. I really hope the Beasties win this. The implications could go really far.

[JohnnyChavello]

This could be really big. I really hope the Beasties win this. The implications could go really far.

They need to win on substantial similarity (as opposed to fair use), have it picked up by the Second Circuit, create a circuit split on sampling with Bridgeport, and then take a B-Boys sampling case all the way to the Supreme Court where they reclaim everything that's good about hip hop. Or that's how I see it.

[Sir SkratchaLot]

They need to win on substantial similarity (as opposed to fair use), have it picked up by the Second Circuit, create a circuit split on sampling with Bridgeport, and then take a B-Boys sampling case all the way to the Supreme Court where they reclaim everything that's good about hip hop. Or that's how I see it.

That would be great but I don't see the substantial similarity thing happening unless there's an exception for deminimis use (i.e. we only used 1 or 2 seconds and that's not enought to trigger liability).

When you're looking ath the copyright on the composition the whole question of substantial similarity arises to see if there is any copying at all. That makes sense in that context ("yeah, I played some of the same notes that they did but my song is not subtantially similar"). When you're talking about the copyright on the recording it's usually pretty clear if there has been copying. Sampling, by definition, is copying the original sound recording. If I rember right the court's aren't looking at the whole song to determine substantial similarity. I think they just look at the sampled portion and then compare that to the the original song. The only way I can really see that going in the sampler's favor is if there is a deminimis use exception. I'm pro sampling so I think there should be a diminimis use exception that gets you off the hook early, and if you sample larger segments then it's a question of fair use. I kind of doubt it will shake out that way though.

There needs to be some sort of laches argument where you can't sit on your rights for 5, 10, 20, 30 year. If their argument is that you can't decipher the samples then you'd think that will really cut against them in the fair use context.

[JohnnyChavello]

When you're looking ath the copyright on the composition the whole question of substantial similarity arises to see if there is any copying at all. That makes sense in that context ("yeah, I played some of the same notes that they did but my song is not subtantially similar"). When you're talking about the copyright on the recording it's usually pretty clear if there has been copying. Sampling, by definition, is copying the original sound recording.

Substantial similarity goes to both proof of copying (i.e., probative similarity) and misappropriation (i.e., whether, in a quantitative and qualitative sense, the copying is sufficient for a finding of infringement). De minimis use is purely quantitative, which is why I think the substantial similarity defense here is a big deal: if they win on this, it potentially goes beyond the narrow idea that a certain amount of copying is non-infringing, establishing that the manner in which a work is copied needs to result in something that is substantially similar to the ordinary observer.

[Sir SkratchaLot]

Substantial similarity goes to both proof of copying (i.e., probative similarity) and misappropriation (i.e., whether, in a quantitative and qualitative sense, the copying is sufficient for a finding of infringement). De minimis use is purely quantitative, which is why I think the substantial similarity defense here is a big deal: if they win on this, it potentially goes beyond the narrow idea that a certain amount of copying is non-infringing, establishing that the manner in which a work is copied needs to result in something that is substantially similar to the ordinary observer.

The larger problem is that you still have a situation where someone needs to decide what's substantially similar and it's crazy expensive to decide that in litigation. I guess a win could drive down the licensing fees if owners are concerned about getting nothing if the matter goes to trial. I keep thinking that the solution might be to have the act changed so that licensing is compulsory and reasonable. I don't think anyone has a problem with giving the owner a small cut, it's when you get people like Dr. Dre who want insane loot for a 2 second clip . . .

[abbott]

Fuck this. It should be fair


Just getting credit might be more than fair.

[abbott]

maybe the Beasties counter sue for any revenue they may have generated for the compliantant.

Granted I like the dismissal

[JohnnyChavello]

Fuck this. It should be fair


Just getting credit might be more than fair.

Yeah, I'm 100% in favor of licensing in some situations, but something like this is more like quotation to me. I think credit is more than enough in this case and more artists would be willing to credit if they knew the could transform their samples and not have to pay $10,000 for two seconds of a horn flare that nobody's going to ever recognize.

[MCA4ever]

@johnny c & sir skratch

You two make a great team! And with nothing but their best interest at heart :)