The Flute Case That Fell Apart Ruling on Sampling Has Composers Rattled
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47321-2002Aug21.html
I know, 2 days in a row. But I promise I'm not a music industry freak, just a curious bystander.
The issue here is that the Beasie Boys whom I've listened to a little but not much sampled (took 6 notes and looped it) from a jazz flutist James Newton.
Newton sued and lost. BB got permission from the record label if I understand properly, but not from Newton. He says that he would never have said yes.
The judge made a distinction between a recording and a composition saying that for the recording BB had already compensated. Since this little sample didn't count as a composition there was nothing further to discuss.
Yesterday, I promoted the idea that the record industry needed to flex and innovate with MP3 CD-R technology and subsequent phonomenon. Today, I have the opportunity to side with Newton and say that yes he should have control over his creation. Call me a hypocrite if you want to. Here's the difference that I see. The record industry is a business out to make money. It doesn't necessarily have to stick with one medium. (See the switch from LP to cassette to CD to MP3.) On the other hand, Newton and all other creative artists are laying themselves on the line. Sometimes they are truly only interested in the bottom line too. However, they have the status of creators and not marketer/producers. One principle that I think is foundational to the America I know is that you give credit where credit is due and creators get a large amount of control over what they created. [I realize this isn't the most coherent argument, but I'll stew on it a little longer.]
Finally, the following quote from the article bugs me:
"It sounds racist to me," Taylor said. "Pure English. Here's a [judge] who's saying if it's not written in the old European form that I may have heard about from someone who studied Mozart," it's not a legitimate composition.
I don't know exactly what the judge said, but there really isn't anything in the article that would make me draw this conclusion. I see it as an seriously inflammatory remark. I hope that wasn't flippantly spoken. I also wish that the Post would have bothered to flesh that out or toss it.
8:00:58 AM
|