[Rumori] beasties win sampling suit

Fri Nov 12 23:57:29 PST 2004

Hi peeps
I have to disagree with this. It sounds like the guy must be getting
paid from the mechanicals that are paid to whoever controls the
recordings, being on a beastie's record is going to make those old
masters a great deal of cash.  
I think there also should be some kind of recognition from the sampled
artists, that the people who make music and see themselves as
'crate-diggers' do a fine job in making previously obscure recordings
trade once more(if they ever did in the first place).  I sometimes
wonder why Fender don't try and claim a royalty every-time they hear
Dave Gilmore on a recording, or maybe Ray Charles' Rhodes? Well I guess
that's cos they bought the instrument.  Well some-one bought the
artist's record to sample it so, silly as it sounds, I kinda think that
whoever buys it should be free to do as they wish with it. 
 I don't believe that it is always 'men in suits' who are driving these
issues, most recording artist I have come across act grievously wounded
in these situations and are more than happy with their barristers
requests to go for blood in any kind of negotiations. Although I do see
the current music industry situation as redundant I think its
questionable if the industry is in any kind of terminal decline (mores
the pity) I still think we have a way to go and the next ripe bloated
target is for me the publishers. It's a misconception to have the
writing credits being some way fairer and more lucrative to an artist
than the mechanicals, quite often in my experience it's just another
layer in the fucked-over cake.
Kind regards to y'all,
JbZ
-----Original Message-----
From: rumori-bounces at detritus.net [mailto:rumori-bounces at detritus.net]
On Behalf Of kembrew mcleod
Sent: 11 November 2004 00:14
To: Detritus discussion list.
Subject: Re: [Rumori] beasties win sampling suit

Quoting Samuel Carey <discosammy at yahoo.com>:

> basically, the label gets paid but the artist doesn't?
>  
> seems par for the course.

yes.

> 
> kembrew mcleod <kembrew-mcleod at uiowa.edu> wrote:
> Unfortunately, it doesn't really contradict the NWA case, or at least
not 
> entirely. The thing that makes this case different is that the Beastie
Boys,
> as 
> I understand it, secured a mechanical license for the sound recording
from
> the 
> record company that released James Newton's record, but they didn't
get a 
> publishing license from Newton, the songwriter. The Beasties claimed
that the
> 
> part they took was so insubstantial that it didn't infringe on the
heart of 
> Newton's composition, and Newton and his lawyer, Alan Korn, disagreed,
but 
> lost.
> 
> However, the Beasties most likely would have been nailed if they
hadn't
> gotten 
> that mechanical license for the sound recording, for sampling the
actual 
> record. I haven't looked into this case as much as I'd like to, so I'm
sure 
> someone else might have a better, more nuanced explanation. Still, it
does
> seem 
> to open a little space for appropriation, though not much.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Kembrew
> 
> Quoting stAllio! the original wanksta :
> 
> > this decision would appear to be the exact opposite of the nwa case
> > from a few months ago, but i haven't yet found an article with a
> > detailed enough analysis to be sure...
> > 
> >
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/You-gotta-fight-for-your-right-to-sampl
e/
> 2004/11/10/1100021883656.html
> > 
> > A US appeals court has handed a victory to pioneering punk-rap group
> > the Beastie Boys in a dispute over the growing musical practice of
> > sampling, in which recording artists incorporate snippets of other
> > songs into their own work.
> > 
> > The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals declined today to reconsider its
> > decision last year allowing the group to use a six-second segment of
> > music from jazz flautist James Newton's 1978 composition Choir.
> > 
> > A three-judge panel of the court held in 2003 that the band had
abided
> > by copyright protections by paying a licence fee for a sample of
> > Newton's recording and therefore did not have to pay an additional
fee
> > to license the underlying composition.
> > 
> > That finding upheld a lower-court dismissal of the case in favour of
> > the Beastie Boys, and the 9th Circuit today refused to reconsider
its
> > ruling before a larger 11-judge panel.
> > 
> > "We hold that Beastie Boys' use of a brief segment of that
composition,
> > consisting of three notes separated by a half-step over a background
C
> > note, is not sufficient to sustain a claim for infringement of
Newton's
> > copyright," Chief Judge Mary Schroeder wrote in her opinion.
> > 
> > The Beastie Boys used the sample in their song Pass the Mic on their
> > 1992 album Check Your Head.
> > 
> > Representatives for Newton and the Beastie Boys were not immediately
> > available for comment.
> > 
> > The Beastie Boys helped spark the modern sampling trend in popular
> > music with the 1989 album Paul's Boutique, which incorporated bits
of
> > music from sources as diverse as Johnny Cash, Bob Marley and the
> > Beatles to create new music. Sampling has since become a staple of
many
> > artists, especially in the rap and hip-hop genres.
> > 
> > The Beastie Boys have also emerged as leading advocates of a new
> > approach to licensing known as the Creative Commons, in which
artists
> > record songs that listeners are invited to "rip, sample, mash and
> > share" over file-sharing online networks like Kazaa or borrow to
create
> > their own compositions.
> > 
> > =====
> > "how can we get the rapture if you don't vote for the antichrist?"
> > http://www.animalswithinanimals.com
> > http://badtastesucks.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > __________________________________ 
> > Do you Yahoo!? 
> > Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
> > www.yahoo.com 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rumori mailing list
> > Rumori at detritus.net
> > http://detritus.net/mailman/listinfo/rumori
> > older archives: http://detritus.net/contact/rumori/
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *******************
> kembrew mcleod
> assistant professor
> department of communication studies
> university of iowa
> 
> contact info:
> 1037 e. washington st.
> iowa city, ia 52240
> kembrew-mcleod at uiowa.edu
> 319-341-3583
> 
> Suffering Celebrity Quote of the Month: "I'm not capable of saying to
someone
> 
> words like 'I love you,' because I don't know what they mean anymore."
> --Ethan 
> Hawke
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rumori mailing list
> Rumori at detritus.net
> http://detritus.net/mailman/listinfo/rumori
> older archives: http://detritus.net/contact/rumori/
> 
> 			
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
>  Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Rumori mailing list
> Rumori at detritus.net
> http://detritus.net/mailman/listinfo/rumori
> older archives: http://detritus.net/contact/rumori/
> 

-- 
*******************
kembrew mcleod
assistant professor
department of communication studies
university of iowa

contact info:
1037 e. washington st.
iowa city, ia 52240
kembrew-mcleod at uiowa.edu
319-341-3583

Suffering Celebrity Quote of the Month: "I'm not capable of saying to
someone 
words like 'I love you,' because I don't know what they mean anymore."
--Ethan 
Hawke

_______________________________________________
Rumori mailing list
Rumori at detritus.net
http://detritus.net/mailman/listinfo/rumori
older archives: http://detritus.net/contact/rumori/