[shanebellone]

"Wow, that's horrible. I didn't know that sampling and mashups required an explicit license."

The conclusion essentially boils down to "remixing is not fair use". Today's hip-hop is a direct result of that decision because sampling became prohibitively expensive.

[williamcotton]

It’s not legally fair use but no musicians consider it stealing.

Remember, the session players who wrote those hooks and grooves were not given a copyright. They got paid a flat fee. They could not care less if their drum beat, bass line or horn part was reused in a creative new way. The lawyers of the copyright holders sure do care, though!

[alwayslikethis]

Copyright infringement is not stealing, full stop. It is just that, an infringement on a commercial interest that the government grants.

[shanebellone]

"Copyright infringement is not stealing, full stop. It is just that, an infringement on a commercial interest that the government grants."

This perspective is incredibly obtuse. You use the law (that you fundamentally reject) as a justification for a semantic debate that no one is having.

Whether you label it as infringement or theft, the impacts are identical. Regardless of the terminology, you are withholding a payment that is owed for something you've unlawfully taken.

Check your footing, your moral high ground is located in the Mariana Trench, alongside debtors and fraudsters.

[mrtranscendence]

Session players having been paid a flat fee were not the only ones whose music would get sampled and remixed, though.

[lexandstuff]

The verdict was reached in December 1991. A lot of sampling has gone on since then.

[shanebellone]

Correct, but this case shaped the sound and economics of hip-hop. Regardless, sampling now carries a cost; or legal repercussions.