Comment Sampling vs. Re-Recording (Score 1) 871
Sampling is a big deal, because you are using a chunk of the master recording, which is the end-product of many, many dollars of recording, mixing, mastering, promotion, artist development, etc. I worked for a while in New York with the guy who produced Rump Shaker and he had an attorney that dealt with all of his sample clearances. Moreover, there is no standard licensing charge for samples. The owner of the master recordings can charge you whatever they want, or not let you use it at all, because it's their product, and using their product to make your own product is not "fair use", it's profiteering.
On the other hand, re-recording a piece of a song is a lot cheaper and is subject to compulsory mechanical licensing, meaning that you pay 8 cents per re-recorded song for every CD you sell. Nobody can stop you from doing that. Dre did that with many P-Funk tunes on The Chronic.
It's one thing to re-interpret someone's idea. It's another thing to appropriate their implementation - the creator has every right to control that as they see fit.
On the other hand, re-recording a piece of a song is a lot cheaper and is subject to compulsory mechanical licensing, meaning that you pay 8 cents per re-recorded song for every CD you sell. Nobody can stop you from doing that. Dre did that with many P-Funk tunes on The Chronic.
It's one thing to re-interpret someone's idea. It's another thing to appropriate their implementation - the creator has every right to control that as they see fit.
