The Null Device

Information wants to be paid

A US federal appeals court has ruled that all samples must be paid for, regardless whether or not they're recognisable, thus cementing the basis of the permission culture, where everything is intellectual property which must be licensed. Welcome to the Digital Millennium; make sure you've paid your way
The ruling says artists must pay for not only large samples of another artist's work, but also snippets -- smaller notes, chords and beats that are not the artist's original composition -- which had previously been legal, according to The Associated Press
"If you cannot pirate the whole sound recording, can you 'lift' or 'sample' something less than the whole? Our answer to that question is in the negative."

Thank God they're protecting valuable intellectual property from lawless piracy, otherwise capitalism as we know it would collapse and we'd enter a new dark age.

There are 7 comments on "Information wants to be paid":

Posted by: Ed Thu Sep 9 14:04:05 2004

This is the reason why in less than twenty years some state governor will try to declare independence and then the USA will colapse like the USSR did, when China does to them - economically and culturally - what they did to the Soviets.

I honestly can't wait. These people are no longer even defending capitalism as any economist can tell you (China is), they are just defending State-controlled (in a sense the RIAA is State) Stalinism.

Posted by: dj Fri Sep 10 01:54:09 2004

Discharge, here we come!

Posted by: gjw Fri Sep 10 04:20:04 2004

This is, of course, unpolicable - if an artist uses a sample so highly modified as to be unrecognisable, how in all reality is anyone going to know? Are musicians going to be required to keep work records detailing the precice construction of every song?

What's going to happen next? Fender charging you a licence fee for each note you play on one of their guitars?

What if I'm using some "found sounds" I recorded on the street and someone's Nokia is ringing way off in the distant background?

What if I sample a "beat" from a recording, and that "beat" is simply the kick-drum sound from a Roland 808? Do I owe money to the artist I sampled, or to Roland?

Posted by: El Bizarro Sat Sep 11 01:52:18 2004

Of course, Disney is finding that intellectual property can cut both ways in South Africa. Of course, they're upset, intellectual property is about what _they_ own not what they might have stolen off somebody else.

Posted by: Tory Ben http:// Sun Sep 12 14:38:51 2004

This ruling is pretty screwy. How the hell do you claim ownership over a few bars of music? Surely every possible short musical notes has cropped up at sometime in something else. If I sampled a few beats on a track, will there be dozens of artists and labels who can identify the same beats somewhere in their discographies who should sue me? And shouldn't they then start suing each other?

Posted by: dj Mon Sep 13 04:04:00 2004

Well we can now claim this as evidence that God doesn't exist. Otherwise, the various religions would be now taking out actions for using God's creations for commercial purposes.

Posted by: Mario Fri Sep 17 11:34:39 2004

God can't claim copyright.