You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.

Daily Archive for Friday, April 15th, 2005

slashdot => lawyers with out license => artists without lawyers

You know the dispute about sampling, in which Judge Ralph Guy and a Sixth Circuit panel reason that there is a difference that still makes a difference between sampling a composition and sampling a performance, and that sampling just 3 notes of a performance, no matter what they are, in this case a guitar arpeggio, or how fast they go by, in this case 1.5 seconds, exposes you to suit for copyright violation, even though the artist, in the this case George Clinton, is pleased by the homage paid, and even though the plaintiff in the case is a copyright predator who buys up copy claims for 3 cents on the dollar and litigates them — I mean can you imagine a worse case in which to allow the plaintiff to win, I mean talk about Grokster being in the business of (contributorily) infringing , this company is in the business of threatening and litigating! Hello Ralph, do you really want the courts filled up with their claims?

— well, listen to the elegant argument made by Michael Bell-Smith at Signal or Noise. 3 notes, 3 songs.

I wrote back to Cary, who seems intrigued with my Grokster approach. I suggested that he try it out on the sampling issue as framed by Judge Guy in the 3-note case. I told Cary of my thought of filing an amicus brief on behalf of Musicians Without Lawyers, and suggested that Cary and RIAA join. What do you say, Cary: Join in helping to make sense of the law of intellectual property in cyberspace.

Off to Jamaica this morning with Wayne, to shoot a video of Boston Jerk and to bring my team together at Digicel. Can we succeed in inviting Jamaica to contribute content to our DME?