That just strikes me as profoundly stupid. Maybe not without legal merit, but stupid.
Who holds the licence for a D chord strummed on a Fender Strat? Because how can you tell between musician A strumming it in 1996 and musician B strumming in 2006? How can that be different between just using one chord recorded in 1996 and sampling it now? The article implies that whether it's just a chord or a whole lick, a license is required.
ffft. *wanders off before indulging the damned judges don't know no music, no how rant*
One of the interesting things was that they brought up that the musicians ADMITTED to taking a sample. And if you admit to doing something that you KNOW you're not supposed to, you're in a lot more serious legal situation than if you don't admit it, or if you don't know you're not supposed to. (Though, in both of the last cases you can still end up in trouble.)
Comments 5
That just strikes me as profoundly stupid. Maybe not without legal merit, but stupid.
Who holds the licence for a D chord strummed on a Fender Strat? Because how can you tell between musician A strumming it in 1996 and musician B strumming in 2006? How can that be different between just using one chord recorded in 1996 and sampling it now? The article implies that whether it's just a chord or a whole lick, a license is required.
ffft. *wanders off before indulging the damned judges don't know no music, no how rant*
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment