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

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.

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

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/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://ca.eonline.com/news/bad_timin...ie_boys/314748

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

"Was Paul’s Boutique Illegal?" -> http://www.slate.com/articles/busine..._boys_did.html

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

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.

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

Trouble Funk - Drop The Bomb (1982)
Trouble Funk - Say what





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...

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

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).

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

http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverhe...copyright-law/