Walter McDonough General Counsel, FMC (moderator)
David Carson General Counsel, US Copyright Office
Christian Castle Senior Counsel, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Barton Herbison Executive Director, Nashville Songwriters Association International
Siva Vaidhyanathan Assistant Professor, Department of Culture and Communication, New York University
Suzanne Vega ASCAP songwriter, performer

Suzanne
Tom's Diner.  An accapella song.  Three years later, I was told these three guys "stole my song", put it to rhythm and released it.  We should sue.  Instead , I listened and loved it.  We released the tune and got a top ten tune.  I think I might be well-versed in this area.

David
The copyright issue.  Can someone take your work, include it one of their own, without your permission.  The copyright law is clear.  Is there anything to get them off the hook - fair use.

Christian
When we created the sample policy at (record label x), we tried to setup rules for samples.  What surprised me was the objection to the restriction requiring artist consent.  It seemed surprising that artists would object the having to get permission from another artists regarding the right to use their work.

Moderator.
Is this an anti-colorization issue?  Does copyright law inhibit culture?

Siva
It would because now with P2P, it is not so clear that "underground" will remain underground.  Martin Luther did not expect his thesis to become public - it was posted in Latin.  His words were translated into German, put on the P2P of the time - the printing press - and before you knew it, Calvin was writing about the misgivings of the catholic church.  Once you place anything on a medium, if it is powerful, it will get spread around.  If such a practice is so culturally powerful, but so clearly illegal in the courts, are the set of laws designed to disseminate info in the public.. are we now ignoring cultural opinion.  The DangerMouse may be a transformative work, which is unique from a derivative work- not likely to replace a purchase of the primary release.

Suzanne
I dont think the copyright stands in the way.  The Beatles have the right to say no.  That is more important than DangerMouse's ability to re-create it.

Siva
What about Bernstein remixing Shalespear for West Side Story

Suzanne
Several centuries separate the two.

David
At the core of copyright, is some moral right.  Moral rights is that I , the author, I am its father.  I have control over its destiny.  You cannot pass this work off as your own, or you cannot take my work and butcher it - even if the butchered work is better

Suzanne
But it also works both ways.  I really have only said no when some porn channel requested the use of one of my songs.  This is a much wider market for use than we are admitting.

Christian
In my experience, it was very very very rare that an artist ever said no.

Example

Christian
People turned it down when they had strongly held views about "social' issues.  A female artist would not want to be interpolated into a mysogenous rapper track.  Or a religious writer, not wanting their work used otherwise.

Siva
The state has admitted minimal intervention within political realms.  As much as I might object, I think Bush has the rights to use any work he wants for his campaign.  Birth of a Nation is now a public work and we can now redo these works and challenge them.  DJSpooky takes this piece and exposes it.  Gone with the Wind was revised into the Wind Done Gone - but only survived by claiming it was a parody.

David
The courts use the word parody when they want you to be able to do it.

Moderator: what about bad taste.  Should taste/quality of the derivative work be a part of the equation.

Siva
The law should not be making cultural decisions.

Suzanne
I don't make a judgment on taste.  I do object to parody often, even though it is legal.  I like the lemonheads version of Luka.  My manager thought it was trashy.

Moderator: What is your criteria?

Suzanne
It is visceral.  Can I identify with it?  Does it make me laugh, cry.  Its intuition.

Moderator: JayZ comes from a culture of sampling, the Beatles do not.  Is this a cultural divide.

Chris
The open use of samples is of value to HipHop aritsts, so it makes sense they want these laws to weaken.  The Beatles do not share this ideology.  The artist should be allowed to decide upon their opinion.

Siva
They did sample in Revolution #9.  They did do a unauthorized cover of Twist and Shout.

Chris
It was authorized.

Siva
Because the law made it authorized

Chris
No.

Moderator: So I want to do a ska version of Yesterday?  Where do you draw the line.

David
If you materially change the work, you are in trouble.

Moderator: is there a precedent in the license of lyrics and music.

Chris
The difference between the compulsory on pre-release of songs and a compulsory sample license is that songwriters made a bargain.  Another release increases the value of a work, as long as you don't change it radically.  With a sound recording, the persona of the artist, the sound of their voice, the grit of their work, the fame of the track is being associated with the new work.  People don't ask because they think the artist will say no.

Moderator:  What if the work is non-commercial?  or capped under a certain number of releases.

David
I think we could have a reasonable discussion on this.  Copyright is a question of control.

Siva
Unless your goal in copyright is the work of the next artist.

Chris
Why don't you just do something new.

Chris
There is a de facto license that is out there.  The so-called "fine art" license.  If you create a derivative work on the fly, real-time for a club and press some discs for a DJ club.  I don't think anybody is going to say "yes that is fine", but they also are unlikely to do anything about it.  But to say that is acceptable to make these recordings over and above the rights of the original copyright owner.

Bowie has offered up his masters with mash ups as a contest. - mashing up old bowie with new.  But they are all the same bowie.  He is allowing people to sample in a controlled way.

Siva
That sounds really boring

Chris
You don't have to do it.

Suzanne
Its boring because it is not illicit.  It would be more dynamic with works from other artists.

Questions: