Courthouse news

[b-grrrlie]

I don't quite understand the lingo here (http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/09/11/61052.htm)...

[Micodin]

I dunno either, but I love the fact they used the lyric "And we love the hot butter, 'say what,' the popcorn." as an example.

[Sir SkratchaLot]

There are two main parts to a suit like this. (1) was there copyright infringment and (2) if so, is there a fair use defense that would make the infringment okay.

Basically the Court was trying to decide whether there is any case to move forward on copyright infringment. From reading the article it sounds like the judge has said, "yes" as to two of the samples and "no" to the rest.

This ruling is interesting because Courts in other circuits have previously held that ANY sample, no matter how small, is automatically infringment. It seems like this court is taking another approach and saying that if you only sample an "insignificant" part of a song, then there is no infringment. This is also sometimes referred to as a "de minimis" use. For example, if you only sample one snare from a song, the Court might say that the sample is so small and insignificat to the original song that there is no infringement at all. Since different Courts are applying different rules in these cases we may see a Supreme Court case in the future deciding which lower court is right.

At this stage in the case, the Court hasn't ruled that there is an infringment, only that the case is close enough so that there should be a trial on whether or not there was infringment when the Beasties sampled "Yo Leroy" and "Say What". If the Court finds infringment, then the Beasties can come back and argue that even though there was infringment, there is a "fair use" exception becuase their use of the sample is creative/transformative enough to excuse the infringment.

The other thing that the Judge decided is that the time clock ("statute of limitations") that Tuff City had to file suit started in 2009. I'm interested to see the logic behind that.

[Sir SkratchaLot]

Thanks for posting this update. I'm going to read the case soon and see if the article is accurate and if there is anything else interesting in there.

[YoungRemy]

nothing Johnny Chavello can't talk us through...

[JohnnyChavello]

Thought about writing out a big explanation, but I'd be the only one interested in it. Long story short, I think this is actually good for the Beasties and copyright in this area more generally. A couple of points: 1) the court is not adopting the Sixth Circuit's Bridgeport analysis, which they wouldn't do as a district court anyway, but it means they're taking a much closer look at whether the samples are short enough or insignificant enough to be non-infringing; 2) a handful of the samples (including a drumbreak) were found to be either short enough or insignificant enough to be non-infringing; 3) this is a ruling on a motion to dismiss, which is very early in the case, and so the remaining samples might ultimately be found to be non-infringing if this goes to trial; 4) this is all pre-fair use and, given the Second Circuit's ruling in an earlier fair use case this summer, I think all of these would be transformative fair uses of the original work.

I hope the defendants are stupid enough to pursue this further and we get a ruling in the circuit court and (fingers crossed) maybe a supreme court ruling on sampling and infringement/fair use. That would take a long time to happen, though. Either way, it would further develop a body of precedent that would maybe provide incentives for producers and artists to use samples in transformative ways. That would be a very good thing.

[Brother McDuff]

you gotta fight,
for your right,
to saaaaaaaaaaample!

[3stooges]

I find it pretty hilarious that some judge who spent his whole life in school studying law and in his legal career is sitting off somewhere with his headphones turned up, Trouble Funk and Beastie Boys songs on repeat, breaking it all down.

Hopefully he's got people for interpretation (which I would guess would be the lawyers' responsibilities), cause there's no way he's going to be able to get the whole meaning of the lyrics. He'll probably be on urbandictionary.com all day.

[JohnnyChavello]

I find it pretty hilarious that some judge who spent his whole life in school studying law and in his legal career is sitting off somewhere with his headphones turned up, Trouble Funk and Beastie Boys songs on repeat, breaking it all down.

Hopefully he's got people for interpretation (which I would guess would be the lawyers' responsibilities), cause there's no way he's going to be able to get the whole meaning of the lyrics. He'll probably be on urbandictionary.com all day.

They should have done more research. The opinion puts Car Thief on Licensed to Ill and The New Style on Paul's Boutique.