|
it could be one note. the record company owns the "sound recording"
if they line up the two sounds and it phases out... ya ass is grass. thats what that bridgeport vs nwa decision said
edit - you are correct... you CANT argue the "de minimis" argument though (thats what i knew)
from the WIKI on the aforementioned case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision and ruled that the sampling was in violation of copyright law. Their argument was that with a sound recording, an owner of the copyright on a work had exclusive right to duplicate the work. Under this interpretation of the copyright law, usage of any section of a work, regardless of length, would be in violation of copyright unless the copyright owner gave permission. In its decision, the court wrote: "Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way." This decision effectively eliminates the de minimis doctrine for digitally sampling recorded music in the Sixth Circuit, and has affected industry practice. However, the court expressly noted that the decision did not preclude the availability of other defenses, such as fair use, even in the context of "sampling." Thus, in the Sixth Circuit, defendants who digitally sampled may not rely on the de minimis doctrine to say that they copied such a small amount that they are not liable for copyright infringement. However, they may still argue that their use of the sample is still a fair use--that is, that the use is transformative, for noncommercial purpose, copied only a small amount, the original had a thin copyright, or the copying did not harm the market for the original work or its derivatives http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
The Lesson
