Caught, can I get a witness?

#music#sampling#synth#copyright

Once upon a time, people had to gather around to play music for dance, school plays, bars and theaters. However, this changed since the introduction of Canned Music. In fact, whereas before many different musicians were needed to record music; nowadays, thanks to the introduction of software to both produce and use samples, even the full set of orchestra’s instruments can be squeezed in a computer used by a single person. The consequent change in the world of music production doesn’t go unnoticed. Even though digital music and sampling is not something new, in the last decades it has become a new major trend in music production. The phenomenon is one of the examples of the use of advanced technology in art production, where evidence is showing that for non-expert users computer-generated arts are becoming hardly differentiable from proper human creations.

The Artistic Side

The issue calls for the analysis of different implications. First of all, from an artistic point of view, whether  the use of sampling is considerable as a form of artistic expression or just  as an imitation  of old existing things, is still a debated topic. It is quite remarkable how one man can replicate the whole orchestra or a music band by using sample library. All the articulation, dynamism and possible expression that is achieved by playing a live instrument can be imitated using a sampler. Thus, if we analyze the dynamism a solo composer puts on a track with the use of samples and samplers, we cannot deny the fact that it takes certain amount of artistic mindset to achieve a final product.“Opera Riparata”, one of the last releases of the Italian turntablist Okapi, may be an example of the complexity lying behind the realisation of such products and of the high artistic quality they can achieve, acclaimed by the critic (i.e WIRED, INTERESTING BLENDS and many others).

Economic Perspective

Furthermore, from an economic perspective, the music industry has progressively become a technological sector against Baumol’s hypothesis of cost disease. As mentioned before, the possibility of reproducing recorded music was the first major increase in “productivity” in the musical industry. Let us consider, for example, a restaurant that wanted to reproduce music to set a romantic atmosphere: live music (labour) could be easily replaced with an audio player (capital).

Nowadays, another “technological revolution” is occurring in the musical industry. With the diffusion of digital music and sampling, a whole musical band -including experts for each instrument- can be easily replaced with only one person empower with a synthesizer and recorded sounds. Although the access to empirical evidence is unpleasantly limited, in recent years piano sales have dropped by more than one third and, on the other hand, synthesizers have increased in sales by almost 30 percent in the same period. Thus, it is not an overstatement to compare the situations of musicians with those of workers replaced by automation in other industries.

Moreover, a central unresolved issue is if we can replace even this “One Man Band” with automated creation of music by machines on their own. Although it seems questionableyet, it would not be madness to bet on it.

Legal Aspect

Last but not least come the legal aspects, that can’t be ignored. From the 70s onwards, the rise of popularity and, consequently, of profits related to the music containing samples caused an important increase in sampled artists’ claims for copyright infringement. This opened a debate on copyright law governing music sampling characterised by two opposite interests facing each other. On one hand, the sampled artists’ interest to a reasonable compensation for the re-use of their original work and, on the other, the sampling artists’ interest to a reasonable degree of freedom in rework fragments of recordings at a reasonable cost (flat fees/royalty arrangements in licences).

Given the original copyright law’s purpose of stimulating creativity (i.e. US Constitution; copyright clause), and assumed that sampling may result in creative work (transformative use); an efficient system should balance the interests mentioned above and reduce the degree of uncertainty on whether or not  a sample infringes a copyright (de-minimis; fair use). Nevertheless, the current state of law seems to discourage sampling artists by giving the possibility of owning not only a record but also every sound frame composing it, no matter how big it is (Bridgeport Music Inc v. Dimension Films).

Any potential solution to this problem should aim to achieve 5 goals (De la Torre, C.R; 2005): (i) set clear predictable infringement boundaries for sampling artists; (ii) keep costs reasonable for sampling artists; (iii) minimize the use of litigation to settle the infringement question; (iv) minimize the difficulties involved in negotiating licences; (v) provide adequate economic benefits for copyright owner. Some authors(J. Norek; 2004)(E.C. Maier; 2003); suggest that compulsory licences schemes may be a solution. These are best suited to reach, or at least get close, to all this goals (De la Torre, C.R; 2005).

Finally, beyond all the debate the hard work in the supply chain is put to target the final consumer and get a feedback. Sampling or no sampling, it all comes down to one question, is the music worth listening to?

"Caught, now in court ’cause I stole a beat , This is a sampling sport But I’m giving it a new name What you hear is mine P.E. you know the time"