Why sampling is not so controversial a matter

[Louigi Verona]

All the controversies with sampling (and with using someone else's art in general) fall into two categories - ethical and economical issues. Both are highly important.
In this article, let us first explore the ethical issues and then discuss the economical side of things.

There are three basic ways to use samples.
One way is to take bits and pieces of other compositions and very creatively blend them into something new - something that does not at all sound like any of the original compositions. We know that there are artists who work that way and it is considered perfectly fine ethically, as it is incredible how these people work, regarding samples as instruments and delivering truly original material.
Second way is the remix way, that is to create a composition that is pretty much based on the original one, but sort of looks at it from a different perspective, a different take on a similar idea. Remixing is a very well known and recognized method of creativity. Sometimes the remix is better than the original, sometimes as good, sometimes much worse, but the activity itself is considered to be ethically fine as long as the original artist is credited and the creation is clearly presented as a remix.
Third way is less creative and involves minor changes to the previously recorded material, like switching some parts here and there, shortening the composition - in other words, simply editing a recording. Even this way of doing things can be absolutely ethical - depends on the way it is presented. Usually such edits are done for practical purposes, like using samples for a movie or a performance.
So ethically all of the sampling techniques are fine by themselves and can only become unethical if the material is wrongly presented. Plagiarism here would be when a person takes a part of another musician's work and claims it to be his work. But that approach is not specific to digital music, it exists anywhere. With digital technologies it is just easier to take someone's music, as you don't even have to perform it - all you have to do is cut it out of a file. But it is equally easy to trace acts of plagiarism with information so readily available to everyone and with sharing so convenient. Human society is a self regulating mechanism in this regard - plagiarism is strongly condemned and in general acts of plagiarism are pretty rare. Those cases that do exist sooner or later get exposed.
But anyway, most people are decent good people anyway and such behavior is rare, since we tend to prefer to be as creative as possible. In general, ethically sampling is not wrong in itself and as in any human activity it depends on how it is being handled - with the majority of cases being good ethical handling.

Now the economical issues.
When sampling occurs in a non-commercial context there is hardly any controversy. The artist does not get any money from his work and in fact even if he does not credit the original artist it is pretty much ok. It is better to credit on the grounds of common ethics as we've discussed above, but sometimes you can't find who the original author is and because you are not earning any money anyway economically there is no problem at all.
When the work that uses someone else's samples is sold or is part of a performance for which people pay money, in other words when sampling occurs in a commercial context, I believe that controversy of this matter is way overblown by the record companies. In fact, most artists wouldn't mind as long as they are properly and clearly credited. It is like with remixing - at first remixers got sued, but then artists realized that remixing is a great advertising mechanism that exposes their music to audiences which otherwise would have not been exposed at all. Nowadays, djays are invited to make remixes and such activities are strongly encouraged.
Same with sampling. Even in itself being sampled is very positive publicity for the original tune - if someone sampled your track that means they found it to be an interesting creation. It might not be the case for every situation but the general impression is this nonetheless and it makes many people check out the original. This is a much better advertisement mechanism than paying large money to annoy people with ads in the Internet or on the street.
So simply creating a requirement of crediting all the samples used in a commercial work is absolutely enough to be economically fair for everyone. Even in a public performance there is no problem for the band to clearly and properly credit all the samples they've used which can be done either by saying this or writing it down on flyers. If the source of the sample is unknown, it cannot be used in a commercial work. As simple as that.
Record companies (not the artists themselves) have pressed the laws to be taken that require "clearing" samples - that is, paying for them, usually very substantial fees. This clearly is an overkill and creates unnecessary controversial situations at the same time making lots of good creative projects impossible to be legally distributed. It also limits sampling and thus limits potential publicity for artists being sampled.
So in this regard a requirement to pay for sample usage is clearly not a good decision and is only useful to several major corporations, while giving nothing positive neither to the musicians nor to the audience.

We can see through all the above analysis that sampling is not as difficult a question as it seems and most controversies come from the fact that record companies have overkilled requirements for legal sampling. Most cases of sampling are good creative uses and economically the situation is also easily solved by mere crediting, thus providing a good publicity mechanism for artists whose music is being sampled. Ethically the situation with sampling does not differ from any other human activity and is pretty much self regulating.

[Sam_Zen]

It's pretty much self regulating indeed, as long as the big companies and the copywrong institutions are not involved.
In the beginning people who sampled were called 'thieves' and sued by those money freaks.

There's also a technical aspect about sampling which will make a difference.
The quality, so how much effort is done by the author to make it exactly the sample he needs.

Lazy copycats just take a snapshot from a track, and let the program do the work to make it a bit loopable.
Most of the time this results in crappy samples. They can be found in many oldskool tracker modules.
And I'm not talking about the resolution here. Also a 8 kHz sample can have a certain quality.
Properly normalized, no distortion, and a zero value at the start and end, at least.

Samples could be divided into some categories.
1- The single sound. One note by some instrument, one hit on a drum, one single waveform, etc.
2- The multiple parallel sound. Two or more instruments playing a note at the same time.
3- The multiple serial sound. One instrument playing several notes in a phrase.
4- The pattern sound. Several instruments playing a whole bar, like a drum section plus bass line.

All these categories need specific skills to derive a proper sample.
If I want to have a certain cello sound from a track by the Electric Light Orchestra, it can be quite a job to find a clean sample without any other instrument interfering.
If I want to use two patterns from the same song, I must be sure that both samples have exactly the same length bytewise.
My point is, that when sampling is used, the creative process doesn't stop there. A well-made sample could be seen as a small composition on its own.

Another aspect is recognition of the original. I could use a James Brown bar-sample, but code a note in the tracker in octave 7. It would become some short highfreq ticks or noise, to be used as a percussion sound.
Or play it at octave 0. It could be used as some low freq ambient noise.

[Louigi Verona]

Well, I was speaking about sampling when the original sample is not heavily modified. When the sample is not recognizable noone should care at all.

[Sam_Zen]

You're right, but I don't agree..
I like to keep it civilized, so I don't care about recognizability or not.
If I still know, I will mention the source of the raw material I used.

And where is the threshold of recognition ?
Even without modification (in this matter I often prefer the term modulation) of the sound.
The chance with a sample of 0.4 secs, that someone recognizes a song by the Grateful Dead is quite small.
From the beginning of sampling, those big commercial institutions only asked for advice by lawyers and accountants, not technicians.

[Rxn]

Sorry Lougi,

I had to make a pdf out of your article in order not to break my eyes while reading off the forum board

[Louigi Verona]

Rnx: Wow! Thanks a lot man, such good indentation and all. Can I use this on my site?

Sam: Yep, I hear you.
Well, I wouldn't mention a sample if it is used more like a source sound - in many of my ambient tracks I use random sounds and samples as a modulator of pads and stuff. Also, in most cases I do not know who the authors of the samples are. And I also tried doing a tune and then interchanging the source sound - to be honest, the changes in the result were very small - the tunes I do are more defined by the combination of effects rather than the samples used.

[Rxn]

Sure trackers have no problems with other using their work

[Sam_Zen]

Normally not, but to me there are borders..