U.S. Court Upholds Beastie Boys' Musical Sampling

[rachel]

Aside from the fact that they're intelligent black guys...

Check your head...

I think Cannonball was referring to "Dead Prez" as being intelligent black guys who are politically conscious...

[Big Wheel]

Cannonball Addict, the Beastie Boys are so much different from Dead Prez I don't even know where to start.

Aside from the fact that they're intelligent black guys and their rap is socially conscious, what's the difference.

They still sample and the point of posting that link was to show a well-articulated argument on a very similar issue.

That TNR article has absolutely nothing to do with the issues we're discussing here. Nobody is talking about the content of the Beastie Boys' lyrics.

[kdd]

I don't know about the Beastie Boys vs Newton thing, but equating sampling to a jazz player quoting another tune strikes me as total bullshit.  Sampling is using the actual performance of another artist.  This is NOT the same thing as using the same notes, using the same words, using the same colors, etc.  I mean, Steely Dan didn't actually just clip out the bass riff from Song for My Father, the bass player picked up his instrument and played the damned thing, right?  No way in hell this is the same thing.

Thank you!

And by the way, I have nothing against sampling, I've heard some great things done with it but if you are going to use other peoples recordings you should pay for the priviledge. In a way you are using the sample instead of using musicians so there should be a budget for it as there are no musicians to pay

As the article notes, they did pay the record label to use the tapes. They did not have to pay Newton for the use of the composition, but later offered to pay him anyway when he threatened to sue. Then Newton rejected their offer.

I think some people are crying foul for reasons that don't have anything to do with the musical or legal realities here. If jazz were the genre selling like hotcakes and hip-hop the domain of a few fringe artists struggling to make a living, would we still be mad at the Beastie Boys if Newton threatened to sue for the use of his sample? Or would we be calling Newton the greedy bastard here?

Read my first post. The record company owns that particular performance of that tune and you have to get permission from the record company to use that performance of the tune. James Newton owns the copyright to the tune and you have to get permission from him to use his tune. They didn't so Newton is well within his rights to sue. If the Beasties made an offer to James and he didn't think it was enough money, that's his right. Perhaps that makes him a bit of an asshole but it's his tune. He owns it. He decides what is done with it.

One thing is unclear to me: is the sample from the head of the tune or from improvising on the tune? It might not matter in this case, but what about sampling a cover version? If I sampled a one second fragment from Nicholas Payton's solo on Cantaloupe Island, from a part of his improvised solo--a part that Herbie Hancock never wrote into the music, do I still have to pay Herbie for the use of his composition?

Doesn't matter if it's the solo or head being sampled, just whose tune it is. I believe that you would have to get clearance to use the performance from Payton's label and permission to use the tune from Hancock. I agree that this is where it gets a little weird but stuff like this has happened. Talk to Idris Muhammed about how other people got rich from his drum breaks being sampled but it was someone else's compostion (like Lou Donaldson).

[brownie]

From AP:

COURT WON'T REVIEW BEASTIE BOYS LAWSUIT

The Beastie Boys might have to fight for their right to party, but they won't have to defend themselves against claims they stole part of a jazz flutist's recording.

Without comment Monday, the Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling against jazz artist James W. Newton. Newton contended that the punk rappers' 1992 song "Pass the Mic" included a sample from his musical composition "Choir" without his full permission.

The Beastie Boys paid a licensing fee for the six-second, three-note segment of Newton's work but failed to pay an additional fee to license the underlying composition.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to dismiss Newton's lawsuit alleging copyright infringement. The appeals court reasoned that the short segment in "Pass the Mic" was not distinctive enough to be considered Newton's work.

Several members and representatives of the jazz and independent artists community — including the American Composers Forum, the Electronic Music Foundation and Meet the Composer — had filed a joint friend-of-the-court brief in support of Newton.

They urged the Supreme Court to clarify the scope of copyright law, given the growing practice of digital sampling, or recording a portion of a previously existing song, they say increasingly infringes on their ownership rights.

The Beastie Boys burst onto the national music scene in 1986 with their No. 1 album "License to Ill," which featured the party anthem "Fight for Your Right (to Party)."

The case is Newton v. Diamond, 04-1219.