Quote:
Originally Posted by YoungRemy
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.