Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
|
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.