Music Sampling Rough Draft

Nicholas Jaramillo
English 113 B
Professor Klepper
23 September, 2013

                                                Music Sampling Rough Draft

          Over the years, music artists have taken the work of former artists and used it as

their own. It varies on what usage of the work the new artists took, but if used without

permission it’s considered illegal under the copyright infringement law. The only way to

make this process legal is not only have permission but pay the original artist as well.

Although this sounds like a fair and easy process, only famous artists can realistically

afford to pay for sampling. There should be a new music sampling system where both

famous artists and up-and-coming artists can get sampling because it would make it fair

game for both sides. It would make way for more artists to take older music and evolve it

into their own, and not just let the rich artists get richer.

          Walt Disney’s famous short film Steamboat Willie was actually copied from a film

that came out earlier that year called Steamboat Bill, Jr. Disney was allowed to do this

because their was no copyright law back then, but after his work was made, the copyright

law came in effect. In Lawrence Lessigs’ book Free Culture, he states “Early cartoons are

filled with knockoffs—slight variations on winning themes; retellings of ancient

stories. The key to success was the brilliance of the differences.” (Lessig 23) Just like

music artists today, they want to build up upon what former artists created and be noticed

for their input of brilliance and difference.  Disney took an old idea and developed his

own, coming out with a much better product than the original. The goal of the new artist

is to come up with something better, but they are stopped by the copyright law, excluding

them from what only famous artists can afford.

          I constantly make music, it has been a passion of mine for some time. If I was able

to take sampling from other songs and make it into my own, making music would be

much easier, it would even benefit the former artists as well. In Lessigs’ book Free

Culture, Lessig explains “By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their

creative work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.”(Lessig 58) Lessig says this

because by making the music free, the music becomes a type of advertisement for people

to come to enjoy. Once the people are hooked by the music, they become fans that want

to purchase merchandise or concert tickets to that artist. It’s the same for sampling as

well. By taking the original and making it your own, the new generation of society will

hear my music, and if I give credit to the original artist the new generation will see this.

Then people would start looking up the original song, making the original artist more

money. Basically  what the new artist is doing is not just making money himself, but free

advertising for the former artist as well.

          There’s a saying that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, this statement in

our current sampling program is true. In order to use sampling legally, artists pay large

sums of money so they can use it to evolve the sound. Now if an regular guy off the street

tried sampling without paying, he would be sued large amounts of money he doesn’t

have. So it is basically impossible for normal guy to ever use sampling, for he can’t afford

to use sampling and if he does illegally, he would be sued for millions of dollars. The

famous artists however, can easily pay for the sampling coverage. Then they get their

money back plus lots more of it once their song or album is released. The current system

today is not fair and both groups need a fair hand involved with the sampling mix.
         
          The Hip-Hop Industry is well known for sampling music. Not until the 80’s did

sampling come up in full launch scale. In Tonya M. Evans article, “Sampling,

Looping, and Mashing…. Oh My!: How Hip Hop Music is Scratching More Than the

Surface of Copyright Law” she says, “ … copyright law must be remixed to achieve

optimal balance between a copyright holder’s exclusive rights and the legal space a

second generation innovator needs to build upon existing works in order to create new

ones in cumulative creative genres like music.” She is agreeing with the statement to have

an equal terms between the original artists and the new artists so that the new artists can

create new music with old material. Making a system like this would benefit both

persons for they are both making profit by A: both promoting each other with their styles

of music. B: having people who wouldn’t know about your music become aware of your

sound, and C: once fans hear your music, they will want to see the artists in concert or

buy merchandise off them.

          Music industry today is stuck in the Lou. There must be a system where both ends

of the Hip Hop game can have fair chance at sampling, otherwise the poor fall and the

rich keep getting higher to the top. Both artists benefit from the system, lowering the

costs for each of them, and the original artist gets free advertisement from the two artists.

Its is three way win streak, and if it was fair in the past (Walt Disney copying Steamboat

Bill, Jr. for the make of Steamboat Willie) then it should be fair now in the present. Once

the system is created, lots of new music will be developed making a great change in

music. Today’s fix up, can be tomorrow’s new gift of change.




                                                           Work Cited

Lessig, Lawrence: Free Culture; The Penguin Press 2004; pg. (23-58)

Tonya M. Evans. “Sampling, Looping, and Mashing…. Oh My!: How Hip Hop Music is Scratching More Than the Surface of Copyright Law” Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 21 (2011): 843