DOCSLIB.ORG

Digital Sound Sampling: a Re-Evaluation After Grand Upright Music

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Digital Sound Sampling: a Re-Evaluation After Grand Upright Music DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 3 Issue 1 Fall 1992 Article 1 Digital Sound Sampling: A Re-Evaluation after Grand Upright Music David M. Bagdade Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip Recommended Citation David M. Bagdade, Digital Sound Sampling: A Re-Evaluation after Grand Upright Music, 3 DePaul J. Art, Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 1 (1992) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip/vol3/iss1/1 This Lead Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bagdade: Digital Sound Sampling: A Re-Evaluation after Grand Upright Music DIGITAL SOUND SAMPLING: A RE-EVALUATION AFTER GRAND UPRIGHT MUSIC David M. Bagdade' INTRODUCTION in identical or altered form.5 This process is generally performed with the assistance of a sophisticated key- Digital sampling of recorded sounds is an issue board. generated considerable controversy through- that has Sampling is considered to have originated in the out the record industry over the last several years, early 1980s when disc jockeys and mixers in dance raising questions as to the ownership of sounds, of clubs began to mix portions of different records freedom and of ethics. During that time, the creative together to create "new"works.6 With the rise of rap practice has flourished in a system where, in the music later in the decade, the practice spread to the absence of statutory or judicial guidelines, rules gov- recording studio, where producers and rappers would erning the conduct of those involved have been infor- splice prerecorded passages of other works into rap mal at best. In the first judicial expression on the recordings.7 As rap grew in popularity throughout the issue, though, a U.S. District Judge has equated sam- decade, so did the practice of sampling, and it spread pling with stealing, thereby sparking an even greater to other musical genres, most notably pop and rock. a flurry of debate and activi- controversy and spurring Almost from its inception in its present form, digi- ty within the record industry. This decision, Grand tal sampling has been a controversial topic through- prightMusic, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc.,2 has out the record industry. This controversy has certainly sent a strongly worded message to those engaging in been abetted by the differing perspectives of those sampling, and the record industry has unauthorized whose interests are actually involved. Many well- responded by re-evaluating its practices as other suits known recording artists often do not wish to be sam- follow in the wake of the Grand Upright decision. All pled, especially those artists who have developed a of this has contributed to the focusing of new atten- so-called "signature sound" through years of hard sampling issue, calling into question tion on the entire work, only to find that their distinctiveness makes the right of artists to sample as well as the rights of them an attractive source for samplers.8 Also, musi- those being sampled. Now that the issue has been cians who make their living doing recording sessions forced, though, there exists the possibility that those fear losing employment and income to sampled within the record industry will agree upon a more equivalents of their talents.9 In addition, the owners of coherent and workable framework for the licensing of mechanical rights in works being sampled decry the samples and for compensating the owner of sampled loss of income. material. On the other hand, producers and artists who This Article will briefly discuss the history and the sample claim that they are involved in the creation of nature of the controversy. Then it will provide a new works and that their use of passages from older detailed examination of the Grand Upright decision recordings can actually stimulate new interest in the and a view toward the future of digital sampling prac- older works; if they are prohibited from doing so, tices and legal action. they argue, such prohibition will have a chilling effect A BRIEF HISTORY on both the creation of new works and the develop- ment of new technologies. 0 In essence, they claim, technical aspects of digital sampling have As the they are involved in the most current phase in popu- not the pur- been set forth in detail elsewhere, it is lar music's extensive history of recycling source mate- pose of this article to do so here.5 In its most com- rial." monly understood form, though, digital sampling Finally, there are the record companies, who refers to the electronic borrowing of prerecorded 4 often have to view the issue from both sides-that is, sounds for use on new recordings. Generally, the they are aware their catalog items are being sampled the electronic lifting of a live or process will involve while they continue to release new albums containing recorded instrumental or vocal performance from its increasing numbers of samples. As a result of this original context, where it may then be sonically dual perspective, no record company had sued over to suit the needs of the user processed or altered the sampling of its catalog until very recently," since, musical context before being transplanted into a new by winning such a suit, the company would run the PublishedFall, 1992 by Via Sapientiae, 2016 1 1 DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 3, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 1 risk of contributing to a situation where the ability of copyright owner of his intent to do so, and he must its own producers and artists to sample would be pay royalties to the owner for each copy sold." If the crippled. user gives the required notice, the copyright holder As the practice of sampling developed, it began to cannot refuse to grant her permission to record the take one of several forms. The first and most basic composition.' In the record industry, such a license is involved the taking of a certain sound-for example, known as a "mechanical" license, as the licensee has an often-imitated drummer's snare-and the re-use of obtained the right to fix the new rendition of the that sound where the independent creation or imita- work in a sound recording. The resulting mechanical tion of that sound would be impossible or impracti- royalty is set by statute, although the standard prac- cal. In fact, as computers gained acceptance in tice in the record industry is to pay seventy-five per- recording studios, it became common for producers cent of the statutory rate.? Generally, the record com- to store such distinctive sounds on floppy discs and pany releasing the new rendition of the composition to use them over and over, with varying amounts of will assume the responsibility of both obtaining the electronic processing The earliest well-known sam- compulsory license from and paying the mechanical pling dispute arose from such a use, when a sample royalty to the publisher. of percussionist David Earl Johnson was used in the However, copyright treatment of sound record- theme music for the television show "Miami Vice," ings has often been problematic. Sound recordings composed and performed by keyboardist Jan were not even protected works until 1971, when the Hammer.' Johnson had earlier agreed to let Hammer 1909 Copyright Act24 was amended by the Sound record him performing on a set of rare, old African Recording Amendment of 1971.25 The Amendment, drums which produced a distinctive sound."5 The sam- though, was primarily designed to counter the prob- ple was featured prominently in Hammer's theme lem of record piracy, or the re-recording of complete music, and Johnson did not receive compensation or albums, which was rampant at the time. credit for the sampled performance. 6 Johnson took Although sound recordings are expressly protect- the issue up with the musicians' union, which ed under the terms of the 1976 Act, the extent of that declined to become involved on his behalf since protection is less than that afforded to the underlying Johnson had originally consented to let Hammer 7 compositions. For example, Section 114(b) provides record him.! that the owner's exclusive right under Section 106(2) The second and more controversial type of sam- is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in pling involves the actual electronic lifting of an instru- which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording mental or vocal passage from an existing recording are rearranged, remixed or otherwise altered; the and embodying the passage into a new musical con- owner has no right to keep others from duplicating text. Naturally, the amount of material taken and the the sounds contained in the recording, so long as the manner in which it is used has varied greatly; howev- duplication is entirely the result of the independent er, in many instances, it has been clear to knowledge- fixation of these sounds.26 In other words, one could able listeners that certain records are being sampled, conceivably hire a group of session musicians to per- and that some are being sampled more than others.,8 form an exact sound-alike version without infringing This is the type of sampling complained of by the on the copyright in the sound recording, as long as plaintiff in Grand Uprtgbt, and most of the current the imitation is the result of the independent fixation debate has revolved around this type.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • View Full Article
    ARTICLE ADAPTING COPYRIGHT FOR THE MASHUP GENERATION PETER S. MENELL† Growing out of the rap and hip hop genres as well as advances in digital editing tools, music mashups have emerged as a defining genre for post-Napster generations. Yet the uncertain contours of copyright liability as well as prohibitive transaction costs have pushed this genre underground, stunting its development, limiting remix artists’ commercial channels, depriving sampled artists of fair compensation, and further alienating netizens and new artists from the copyright system. In the real world of transaction costs, subjective legal standards, and market power, no solution to the mashup problem will achieve perfection across all dimensions. The appropriate inquiry is whether an allocation mechanism achieves the best overall resolution of the trade-offs among authors’ rights, cumulative creativity, freedom of expression, and overall functioning of the copyright system. By adapting the long-standing cover license for the mashup genre, Congress can support a charismatic new genre while affording fairer compensation to owners of sampled works, engaging the next generations, and channeling disaffected music fans into authorized markets. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 443 I. MUSIC MASHUPS ..................................................................... 446 A. A Personal Journey ..................................................................... 447 B. The Mashup Genre ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Hip-Hop Copying Paradigm for All of Us
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2011 No Bitin’ Allowed: A Hip-Hop Copying Paradigm for All of Us Horace E. Anderson Jr. Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Horace E. Anderson, Jr., No Bitin’ Allowed: A Hip-Hop Copying Paradigm for All of Us, 20 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 115 (2011), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/818/. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. No Bitin' Allowed: A Hip-Hop Copying Paradigm for All of Us Horace E. Anderson, Jr: I. History and Purpose of Copyright Act's Regulation of Copying ..................................................................................... 119 II. Impact of Technology ................................................................... 126 A. The Act of Copying and Attitudes Toward Copying ........... 126 B. Suggestions from the Literature for Bridging the Gap ......... 127 III. Potential Influence of Norms-Based Approaches to Regulation of Copying ................................................................. 129 IV. The Hip-Hop Imitation Paradigm ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Thou Shalt Not Steal: Grand Upright Music Ltd. V. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and the Future of Digital Sound Sampling in Popular Music, 45 Hastings L.J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 45 | Issue 2 Article 4 1-1994 Thou hS alt Not Steal: Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and the Future of Digital Sound Sampling in Popular Music Carl A. Falstrom Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Carl A. Falstrom, Thou Shalt Not Steal: Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and the Future of Digital Sound Sampling in Popular Music, 45 Hastings L.J. 359 (1994). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol45/iss2/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thou Shalt Not Steal: Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and the Future of Digital Sound Sampling in Popular Music by CARL A. FALSTROM* Introduction Digital sound sampling,1 the borrowing2 of parts of sound record- ings and the subsequent incorporations of those parts into a new re- cording,3 continues to be a source of controversy in the law.4 Part of * J.D. Candidate, 1994; B.A. University of Chicago, 1990. The people whom I wish to thank may be divided into four groups: (1) My family, for reasons that go unstated; (2) My friends and cohorts at WHPK-FM, Chicago, from 1986 to 1990, with whom I had more fun and learned more things about music and life than a person has a right to; (3) Those who edited and shaped this Note, without whom it would have looked a whole lot worse in print; and (4) Especially special persons-Robert Adam Smith, who, among other things, introduced me to rap music and inspired and nurtured my appreciation of it; and Leah Goldberg, who not only put up with a whole ton of stuff for my three years of law school, but who also managed to radiate love, understanding, and support during that trying time.
    [Show full text]
  • Does a Song by Any Other Name Still Sound As Sweet?: Digital Sampling and Its Copyright Implications
    DOES A SONG BY ANY OTHER NAME STILL SOUND AS SWEET?: DIGITAL SAMPLING AND ITS COPYRIGHT IMPLICATIONS RANDY S. KRAviS "So sampling is theft, right?"1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................... 232 I. Digital Sampling .............................. 237 II. Copyright Law . .............................. 239 A. What Qualifies for Copyright Protection? ........ 240 B. Rights of the Copyright Owner ............... 241 C. Infringement .............................. 243 1. Ownership ............................. 244 2. Copying ............................... 244 a. Access . ............................ 245 b. Substantial similarity .................. 245 3. The defense of fair use ................... 246 D. Remedies . ............................... 248 III. The Controversy Surrounding Digital Sampling ...... 250 A. The Debate Over Substantial Similarity .......... 250 B. The Debate Over Originality ................. 255 C. The Debate Over the Effect of Sampling on a Song's Market ............................. 258 D. The Copyright Act's Ambiguous Legislative History. 260 IV. The Case: Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. ............................. 262 A. The Factual Background .................... 263 1. J.D. Considine, LarcenousArt, ROLLING STONE,June 14, 1990, at 107, 107-09 (discussing controversy of whether sampling is "simple theft" or "appropriate artistic response to expanding technology"). THE AMERICAN UNivERSriY LAW REvIEW [Vol. 43:231 B. The Opinion .............................. 263 V.
    [Show full text]
  • Music Sampling and Copyright Law
    CACPS UNDERGRADUATE THESIS #1, SPRING 1999 MUSIC SAMPLING AND COPYRIGHT LAW by John Lindenbaum April 8, 1999 A Senior Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My parents and grandparents for their support. My advisor Stan Katz for all the help. My research team: Tyler Doggett, Andy Goldman, Tom Pilla, Arthur Purvis, Abe Crystal, Max Abrams, Saran Chari, Will Jeffrion, Mike Wendschuh, Will DeVries, Mike Akins, Carole Lee, Chuck Monroe, Tommy Carr. Clockwork Orange and my carrelmates for not missing me too much. Don Joyce and Bob Boster for their suggestions. The Woodrow Wilson School Undergraduate Office for everything. All the people I’ve made music with: Yamato Spear, Kesu, CNU, Scott, Russian Smack, Marcus, the Setbacks, Scavacados, Web, Duchamp’s Fountain, and of course, Muffcake. David Lefkowitz and Figurehead Management in San Francisco. Edmund White, Tom Keenan, Bill Little, and Glenn Gass for getting me started. My friends, for being my friends. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.....................................................................................……………………...1 History of Musical Appropriation........................................................…………………6 History of Music Copyright in the United States..................................………………17 Case Studies....................................................................................……………………..32 New Media......................................................................................……………………..50
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Texas the University of Texas School of Law
    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW SECTION OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW STRENGTH OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION AS A PATENT VENUE ChristopherA. Cotropia ENDING DILUTION DOUBLESPEAK: REVIVING THE CONCEPT OF ECONOMIC HARM IN THE DILUTION ACTION Alexander Dworkowitz MODERNIZING COPYRIGHT LAW Miriam Bitton NO BITIN' ALLOWED: A HIP-HOP COPYING PARADIGM FOR ALL OF US Horace E. Anderson, Jr. STATE BAR SECTION NEWS TEXAS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW JOURNAL The University of Texas School of Law Volume 20 Fall 2011 Number 1 ARTICLES STRENGTH OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION AS A PATENT 1 VENUE Christopher A. Cotropia ENDING DILUTION DOUBLESPEAK: REVIVING THE CONCEPT OF 25 ECONOMIC HARM IN THE DILUTION ACTION Alexander Dworkowitz MODERNIZING COPYRIGHT LAW 65 Miriam Bitton No BITIN' ALLOWED: A HIP-HOP COPYING PARADIGM FOR ALL OF US 115 Horace E. Anderson, Jr. STATE BAR SECTION NEWS 179 Preparedat the University of Texas School of Law (U.S. ISSN #1068-1000) Copyright 2011 State Bar of Texas, Intellectual Property Law Section 1 TEXAS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW JOURNAL The University of Texas School of Law Volume 20 Fall 2011 Number 1 The State Bar of Texas Intellectual Property Law Section Editor JAMES M. SELLERS The University of Texas School of Law Editor-in-Chief JESSICA ACHTSAM Executive Articles Editor Managing Editor Executive Submissions Editor BRIAN TALBOT CUMINGS SHANNON M. KIDD MICHELLE FRIEDMAN MURRAY Publications Editor Administrative Editor Technology Editor COURTNEY JONES JAMES WANG JOSEPH FINDLEY Chief Articles Editors Symposium Editors Associate Editors JENNIFER GEORG BAILEY HARRIS MICHAEL DENNY CONRAD Hsu JEFF SOFFER LEEANN GAO BENJAMIN PEI ROBERT HOPKINS XIAOXIAO XUE ANDREA KELLEY BRUCE PINEGAR ZACHARY POPOVICH LINDSEY POWERS JEFF WEIDEMEYER Staff Editors JESSE ADLAND CHELSEA YOUNG GRATE THOMAS SCHIANO ERIC BACUS SEAN M.
    [Show full text]
  • No Bitin' Allowed a Hip-Hop Copying Paradigm for All Of
    20 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 115 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Fall, 2011 Article NO BITIN’ ALLOWED: A HIP-HOP COPYING PARADIGM FOR ALL OF US Horace E. Anderson, Jr.a1 Copyright (c) 2011 Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Texas; Horace E. Anderson, Jr. I. History and Purpose of Copyright Act’s Regulation of Copying 119 II. Impact of Technology 126 A. The Act of Copying and Attitudes Toward Copying 126 B. Suggestions from the Literature for Bridging the Gap 127 III. Potential Influence of Norms-Based Approaches to Regulation of Copying 129 IV. The Hip-Hop Imitation Paradigm 131 A. Structure 131 1. Biting 131 2. Beat Jacking 133 3. Ghosting 135 4. Quoting 136 5. Sampling 139 B. The Trademark Connection 140 C. The Authors’ Rights Connection 142 D. The New Style - What the Future of Copyright Could Look Like 143 V. Conclusion 143 VI. Appendix A 145 VII. Appendix B 157 VIII. Appendix C 163 *116 Introduction I’m not a biter, I’m a writer for myself and others. I say a B.I.G. verse, I’m only biggin’ up my brother1 It is long past time to reform the Copyright Act. The law of copyright in the United States is at one of its periodic inflection points. In the past, major technological change and major shifts in the way copyrightable works were used have rightly led to major changes in the law. The invention of the printing press prompted the first codification of copyright. The popularity of the player piano contributed to a reevaluation of how musical works should be protected.2 The dawn of the computer age led to an explicit expansion of copyrightable subject matter to include computer programs.3 These are but a few examples of past inflection points; the current one demands a similar level of change.
    [Show full text]
  • The Downhill Battle to Copyright Sonic Ideas in Bridgeport Music
    Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law Volume 7 Issue 3 Issue 3 - Summer 2005 Article 7 2005 The Downhill Battle to Copyright Sonic Ideas in Bridgeport Music Matthew S. Garnett Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew S. Garnett, The Downhill Battle to Copyright Sonic Ideas in Bridgeport Music, 7 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 509 (2020) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw/vol7/iss3/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. [B~yMrndepotic [By Matthew S. Garnett*]I he digital sampling controversy is right?6 "the student author's favorite The Bridgeport Music court responded dead horse."' Over the past de- with an iron gavel: "Get a license or do not cade, more than 100 legal articles, sample." 7 The court interpreted §114(b) of commentaries and student notes the Copyright Act of 1976 ("Copyright Act") have dealt with digital sampling to prohibit any unauthorized sampling where 2 and its relation to copyright law. "the actual sounds [in the original] recording In addition, the various constituencies in are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered the music industry, such as artists, compos- in sequence or quality."8 Consequently, the de- ers, producers, and recording executives, have fensive tools of copyright infringement, such "..
    [Show full text]
  • Licensing Digital Samples Sharon Colchamiro
    Hofstra Property Law Journal Volume 5 | Issue 1 Article 8 9-1-1992 To Clear or Not to Clear: Licensing Digital Samples Sharon Colchamiro Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hplj Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Colchamiro, Sharon (1992) "To Clear or Not to Clear: Licensing Digital Samples," Hofstra Property Law Journal: Vol. 5 : Iss. 1 , Article 8. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hplj/vol5/iss1/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Property Law Journal by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE TO CLEAR OR NOT TO CLEAR: LICENSING DIGITAL SAMPLES I. INTRODUCTION 1 Much of today's most exciting music incorporates samples. A sample is a piece of another sound recording and/or musical compo- sition.2 When a new vocal part is overlaid on a musical foundation of samples, the resulting work may simultaneously evoke in the listener new reactions and old memories. Until quite recently, the practice of licensing a sample use (also known as "sample clearance") has been haphazard, at best. 3 How- ever, as a result of the recent surge of popularity of sample use in the music industry, copyright owners of samples are being increas- ingly educated about the potential for lucrative contractual arrange- ments with record companies. Along similar lines, in an effort to avoid litigation over copyright infringement claims, record compa- nies are becoming more cautious in their use of unlicensed samples." Due to a recent tederal court's decision in Grand Upright Music Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • UNOFFICIAL Hip-Hop Sticker Book FREE! I Am Only Looking for Your Email
    Download the UNOFFICIAL Hip-Hop Join the Readers Group and get the UNOFFICIAL Hip-Hop Sticker Book FREE! I am only looking for your email. You will receive emails with updates on new releases, exclusive images, original audio, and be eligible for free advance copies of se- ries books. You can opt out at any time. http://eepurl.com/cku-12 i Praise for Harris Rosen “This guy! I plead the fifth. This guy is nuts.” - Eminem “Dope questions, man. Very insightful, very thoughtful.” Guru (Gang Starr) “You like a Psychiatrist or some shit? This shit is just coming out but go ahead.” - Mary J. Blige “Definitely a real interview! Digging deep up in there, man. Not afraid to ask questions!” - K-CI Hailey (Jodeci) “The Wizard asked me for a copy of your magazine.” - Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo (Daft Punk) “You didn’t wear your glasses and you haven’t carried your hearing aid. What else is wrong with you?” - Bushwick Bill “Peace and blessing, Brother Harris. Thank you for inspiring my words. Keep ‘yo balance.” - Erykah Badu “Can I see that pen?” - Bobby Brown “What else do you want to know? Talk to me.” - Aaliyah 2 My Archives are Deep! There are hundreds of exclusive interviews and images with dozens of books to follow. The Behind the Music Tales series has al- lowed me to share my extensive archive of exclu- sive interviews with you in much greater depth. Original Chef Raekwon Only Built For Buban Linx... die-cut promotional sticker Some of the upcoming series books are: Daft Punk: Behind the Robots The Reasonings of Buju Banton, Bounty Killer & Sizzla
    [Show full text]
  • Was Foucault a Plagiarist? Hip-Hop Sampling and Academic Citation Mickey Hess
    Computers and Composition 23 (2006) 280–295 Was Foucault a plagiarist? Hip-hop sampling and academic citation Mickey Hess Department of English, Rider University, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, United States Abstract This article argues that comparing academic citation and hip-hop sampling can help students become better users of sourcework. I contend that sampling and academic writing share a goal of building new work in response to existing sources and that this goal is obscured by lawsuits that reduce sampling to theft by applying to sound a copyright regulation system designed for print. Both sampling and citing seek to build new compositions by working from sources, yet academic citation systems preserve textual ownership through attribution while sampling often guards or disguises its sources. These different stances in regard to authorship and ownership belie the values shared by the two systems. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Sampling; Hip-hop; Intellectual property; Citation; Plagiarism Sometimes I quote someone without using quotation marks or a footnote to give the name of the source. It seems like I’m just supposed to prove I’ve read this famous scholar, and I say why should I have to put quotes around it if you can’t even recognize who it comes from? The passage above seems to undermine so much of what we teach about academic writing. It is paraphrased, not from a conversation with a student, but from an interview with Michel Foucault (1980) where he described his citation practices in regard to Marx and Marxism: I often quote concepts, texts and phrases from Marx, but without feeling obliged to add the authenticating label of a footnote with a laudatory phrase to accompany the quotation.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Sampling, Intermediate Copying, Fair Use*
    Audio Pastiche: Digital Sampling, Intermediate Copying, Fair Use* Robert M. Szymanski** I. INTRODUCTION .......................... 273 II. WHAT IS DIGITAL SOUND SAMPLING? . 275 A. Sampling as a Technological Process.......... 275 B. The History of Sampling ................ 277 C. Recognizable and Transformed Samples in Contemporary Music ................... 278 D. Sampling as a Postmodern Art Form .......... 280 III. THE MUSIC INDUSTRY'S CURRENT APPROACH TO LICENSING SAMPLES ...................... 289 A. Licensing Musical Compositions.............. 292 B. Licensing Sound Recordings ................ 293 C. The Limitations of Enacting a Compulsory Licensing Scheme .................... 294 IV. FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAW AND SAMPLING .......... 298 A Protection of Musical Compositions ........... 299 B. Protection of Sound Recordings ............. 303 C. Transformed Samples and the Problem of Intermediate Copying .................. 306 IV. FAIR USE DEFENSE ....................... 312 A. Substantially Similar Samples ............... 313 An earlier version of this Article was awarded First Prize at Harvard Law School in the 57th Annual Nathan Burkan Memorial Competition sponsored by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP). The UCLA EntertainmentLaw Review would like to thank ASCAP for granting the rights to edit and publish this piece. Mr. Szymanski, who received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1995 and his B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley in 1991, is currently an associate with Weissmann, Wolff, Bergman, Coleman & Silverman in Beverly Hills, California. He would like to give special thanks to his parents and mentors for their encouragement. He would also like to thank the UCLA Entertainment Law Review Editorial Board for their work on this Article. 272 UCLA ENTERTAINMENT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 3:271 1. Purpose and Character of the Use .............313 2.
    [Show full text]