>>would it be bullshit if the original rights holders brought
>>suit against people who didn't clear samples?
>>
>>or are people just mad because this guy came around and is
>>doing it?
>
>I am mad because it's not like clyde stubblefield isn't
>getting (publishing) money.. He never was.. he created famous
>breaks as a "work for hire" and then the label gets the
>publishing.... THEN someone who has nothing to do with the
>original song gets paid years later? That's bullshit..

kind of sounds like you're arguing that rights to art shouldn't be transferable or sold.

as a random example, it's like saying a broke michael jackson shouldn't be able to sell the rights to his catalog to someone who "has nothing to do with original song."

of course the issue in this arena is that most of the clyde stubblefields didn't get their just due in their day, and its more likely that some label or publishing house owns "their" rights. i agree it sucks, but its mostly water under the bridge. the fact of the matter is that, under current law, whoever owns those rights is entitled to come at people who use their property without clearance.

>I agree... but capitalism can also just be simply poaching...
>I "get" what he's doing but I don't have to respect it or
>condone it.

this is a fair point of view.
but i think it's a matter of you being close to the subject matter (music and sample clearance). if you exported the exact same practice into a different arena, i doubt people would be so up in arms about it. maybe, maybe not.
from his point of view, dude is basically protecting his investment. *shrug*


>I think there is an overall issue with copyright law...

yeah, there're lots of them. I agree with that.