Re: Sampling-dilemma (no solution offered here).

["Thomas W¿hni" <hovard@online.no>]

>I have to say that I don't agree with the above definition of copyright
>infringement. If you were to take "Funky Drummer" and lay death metal 
>guitars,
>an acid line and hindu chanting samples over it you would be creating a 
>piece
>that, hopefully, is greater than the some of it's parts. Therefore it is a
>creative step forward which is what copyright law is supposed to be 
>fostering.

But now "Funky Drummer" is redused to a mere "piece of the puzzle". So why 
don`t we just have a drum-machine play a beat like "funky drummer"? 
Because it can`t. To quote Tony Levin: "Now they can make machines sound 
like real drums , but not like real drummers".

The work of James Brown , and in effect Bernard Purdy , is what is beeing 
protected
by copyright law , not simply the context in which it`s placed. Putting 
death metal guitar on top of "funky drummer" doesn`t change the fact that 
you`re using their stuff. It`s no better than putting on funky E9-chords 
and singin` "hhh!" in a hi voice.

The point , for me , is that Bernard Purdy`s drumming-style and "phatness" 
is his thing. 
And if you sample that and use it as it`s played then you are using HIS 
stuff. Period. 

Yours , Thomas