> However, in at least a few cases, Boladian assigned the copyrights to Bridgeport by writing a contract and then faking Clinton's signature (as described here).<p>If that is what happened, couldn't Clinton sue Boladian and Bridgeport for signature forgery? Otherwise, what would stop someone from faking Boladian's signature on an agreement to transfer ownership to another entity?
This is touched on in the article, but the problem is that the artists dont benefit from this. It reveals a fundamental problem with the music industry. The creative people are often taken advantage of and have their royalty rights stripped from them when they are "young and naive" about the music business. The top 5-10% of artists usually find a way to renegotiate once they are a proven profit center, but the artists that do just well enough to keep a deal and dont have their publishing rights end up bankrupt and screwed should their work prove to be "classic".
It seems to be becoming the central theme of the early 21st century. How do we keep the institutions that are supposedly created for our benefit from doing the opposite?
It's a shame that albums like "It takes a Nation of Millions..." or "Paul's Boutique" couldn't be made today. I wonder what amazing albums we could have got had copyright law taken another route...
I'm sorry...but are you kidding me? This article is nothing more then some guy whining about how jay-z of someone else's lyrics. Regardless if it's a patent troll or not, he didn't own the rights to it and yet still made a fortune. The music industry spends millions every year prosecuting people in favor of the musicians...but now when the tables are turned, people start crying about it.
This article is rather spectacularly missing the point. It suggests that it's the movie equivalent of prosecuting filmmakers for using the standard idea of an establishing shot, as seen in The Magnificient Seven. That's quite obviously not the same thing - no-one prevents filmmakers using an idea. But sampling is the equivalent of a filmmaker using the ACTUAL FOOTAGE from The Magnificent Seven and putting it in their own movie and selling it as if it were their own. That is quite obviously not going to fly.<p>The article suggests that Jay Z raps over a break from a Madonna song and is then surprised when the bill comes? The reality is that if Madonna released a track with chunks of a Jay Z record in the background, he'd be the first at the door wanting to be paid in full.<p>The fact that record companies want to be paid when their products are sampled is not remotely new, it has been understood and established since the 1980s. For anyone, even in the dim and distant dark ages of 2006, to be surprised by that state of affairs is baffling.
Armen Boladian isn't quite just a "former record producer". He founded and ran Westbound records who put out the majority of George Clinton's music and many other groups.
Interestingly, the Grammy for Best Rap Album of 2013 went to Macklemore and Ryan Lewis' "The Heist," which didn't use any samples expressly to avoid legal issues, but ended up sounding much fresher and original as a result.
Whatever. The continued existence of rap, which reached its peak with the album "Toys in the Attic" is something really mystifying. I <i>suspect</i> it has a lot to do with the ability of completely untrained, possibly even tone-deaf, "musicians" making albums whose appeal seems mostly about attitude. It's obnoxious, it's hyper-masculine, it can't be listened to quietly, etc--and everyone can do it, if they, personally, have those same attitudes. There's appeal in that.<p>So, what? Maybe if sampling was completely illegal, they'd have to start over by renting a clarinet and playing scales. That's a bad thing?<p><a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-rap-song-samples-billie-jean-in-its-entirety-a,4389/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-rap-song-samples-billie...</a>