beastie boys' court victory (Xpost)

[britney]

If you have any interest in the legal rules governing digital sampling of music, check this out:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/opinions+by+date?OpenView&Start=1&Count=100&Ex pand=1 (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/opinions+by+date?OpenView&Start=1&Count=100&Exp and=1) .1#1.1

click on "newton v. diamond" under November 2003

(beastie boys were supported by numerous amicus curaie parties including DJ Shadow).

[Plakespear]

Can somebody with some sort of legal knowledge please post a summary of what the fuck that thing means?

[britney]

Originally posted by Plakespear
Can somebody with some sort of legal knowledge please post a summary of what the fuck that thing means?

i'm not claiming any legal knowledge, but...

the court held that beasties' use of 3-note jazz flute sample looped throughout "pass the mic" [on check your head] did NOT infringe the songwriting copyright in the underlying song composition, called "Choir" (beasties licensed the sound recording in Choir, which is a separate copyright).

the analysis is not based on the length of the sample (even though it was only 3 notes), but whether the sampled portion constituted the hook, or other "heart," of the underlying song composition. the court concluded the sample was not sufficiently important to the underlying song Choir, and therefore would not be recognizable as coming from Choir to the listener of "pass the mic".
-brit

[laseranimal]

and this means what??????????:confused: