Personally I think it's a bit naive to think that so-called theft of music started with sampling, or even that sampling is the end all be all of nicking other people's musical ideas. Even bach wrote much of his music in forms (fugue, etc) which were thought up by people who came before him. Mozart was considered cocophonous during his own time by many people because he did not adhere to the currently accepted, and rather strict, rules governing what was considered nice compositions. I mean, sampling is really just the next logical step in a process which has been doing on since the dawn of music. I think it is impossible for anyone who decides to compose something to not have been effected by, or even to get ideas from, arrangements they have heard before. Sometimes they are, like Mozart, forced to make compositions which are very similar to their contemporaries because of popular demand. I think it is also silly to assume that by sampling something you are essentially stealing their music or ideas. I mean, this is not to say it is impossible to do so. I have heard many bootleg songs which basically straight up rip off a song, change it a little, and then repackage it. But most people who use samples often manipulate them sonically, sometimes even to the point where they are not recognizable. Even when they are still obviously a sample, they are often used in a montage of many other elements, making it pointless to accuse them of theft.

 

Is anyone else aware of the copyright situation between the US and Europe right now? The U.K. for instance has copyright laws which have a much shorter duration than the ones in the united states. There are a whole ton of recordings from the 1950's which are going to enter the public domain in England and record companies over here are running scared. Already representatives of the RIAA are forcasting massive "bootlegging" and "theft" of "their" recordings. This points out, to me, the sillyness of trying to copyright something as ephemoral as a piece of music or an idea. You will never get any two countries, let alone all countries to agree on when to allow a particular copyright to expire. Does this mean that small record labels are breaking the law by making cds in the U.K. of these recordings? Maybe from the U.S. standpoint... The argument is always "But once we lose our copyright we wont be able to make money off of it." But this has been disproven by many works which are already in the public domain but still make money. Writings of early philosophers, the bible (still the highest selling book of all time!), etc. Sure it opens you up to competition and allows people to make cheap knockoffs, but some people will still want higher quality, original company made products which will compete with the cheaper ones. I dunno, this is all just my opinion hehehe.

 

I can't wait to see what happens in 20 years when all these recordings from the 1970's go into the public domain across the pond. Motown and BMI are going to have coniptions.