"To the legal point, though, I return to the fact that this has been going on for decades and should have been stamped on by the industry itself in the early stages. Coming in at this time is going to have a considerable effect on the music industry."
Well, in truth, am suprised it got to this stage. We aren't talking about something that was similar, we are talking about a sample that was then used as the basis for the song. They *could* have programmed their own beat here, and it would never even be raised. Generating similar sounds on a synth can't even be taken as copywriteable, you may as well state two standard Telecasters played through a Marshall stack are in the same arena. But if you then start to produce something that is, and here is the case, 'obviously' someone elses tune then you will get into difficult territory. Note here, Tune. Meaning the entire track. Not a similar three chord progression.
"It can't be an automatic, "It's there, therefore you're liable." It HAS to be based on the judgement of a contribution that it makes to the portion of the work itself. And that opens up a whole can of worms"
But sample someones three chord progression, that is recognisable as that persons three chord progression, then make that run throughout the entire track? The offending track distinctively has their sampled piece of tune which is used over and over and over again. Whether or not the track sounds like the original, it is still built out of the original.
Plenty of works work on samples. Usually the artists in question will ask, if the license requires it. Tracks where they are not asked, generally are not commericial or make it big. If they did, then it would become a legal issue.
What Kraftwerk are doing is asserting their right to have some say on how their work is used significantly.
"what about works which are entirely made from samples of other people's works, as happened in that YouTube video (actually, I think there's a few of them now) which were made from samples of others videos - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoHxoz_0ykI - where do you draw the line?"
Because this happens does this make it necessarily right? Parody I get. Works of art that sample other works of art, i get. People performing other peoples work, I get. There are and have been perfectly workable laws that exist and allowed this to go on with no real trouble, except when dealing with sampled works of sampled works of sampled works...
But we are not talking about a fair use. We are talking about a piece of work, two seconds of which is recognisable, which means it is recognisable for the entire length of the offending track. That is crossing a line.
I think.
" What about the people that have used samples throughout their Tracker and Amiga music, etc., etc.?"
Ha - great days. Amigas rock. Anyway, in most cases Amiga tracker based tunes are not commercial. Kudos for getting in Moog, Fairlight and Amigas in the same paragraph. Just a few of my favourite things.
i think a fitting closing comment is to mention one of the most sampled pieces of all time: The Amen Break. This is a good video: https://youtu.be/5SaFTm2bcac