Blog Post 5

The film that was viewed in class today (Monday, September 24) had more impact on my learning than any of the other lessons.  It was clear that the filmmakers wanted to show all ranges personal experiences and opinions of those who are involved in music sampling genre.  The film had extensive interviews with Clyde Stubblefield, a drummer who created some of the most interesting beats in percussion history.  While working with James Brown in the late 60's, Stubblefield created a unique sound that has been utilized by modern day sample artists and DJ's.  Stubblefield explained in the film that he would rather have his name on the album than any monetary compensation (which he has never received).

One of the biggest issues regarding copyright and music sampling is the amount of media that is used, which can be as small as one or two beats and the amount of tinkering the artists do with it.  All of the copyright law that has been written previously had never set precedence for such small clips of media that no longer sound like the original.  This confusion is similar to the situation Lessig describes on page 101 of "Free Culture".  He explains, "The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim to royalties for the reuse of that film. But CDROMs had not been specified in the contracts for the actors, so there was no clear way to know just what Starwave was to do."  Since James Brown himself owned the rights to a number of Stubblefield’s drum clips, even if music samplers wouldn’t have any legal obligation to pay Stubblefield.  It comes down to the impact that small sound clip has on the final product and how much it infringes on the original.  In the case of Stubblefield’s beats, they certainly made an impact on the success of the music they were added to however it does not appear to detract from Stubblefield’s original piece. 

In addition to the clip itself, the performance must also be considered.  If a music sampler has a sound in his library that he can access at anytime then he has already taken the first step into the gray area of copyright law.  Does the performance of a single sound that has been digitally altered fall under copyright law?  If it isn't being recorded, the sound should not fall under copyright infringement.  Although the performer of the sound can claim it, if it is changed beyond recognition then it has been transformed into a new piece of art.