SIGN THE PETITION!

---

I wanted to address some of the arguments in an article I read about why a compulsory license for digital samples of sound recordings is a bad idea.

*** DISCLAIMER *** 

I am not an attorney and used google for research. Feel free to fact check for accuracy. 

My responses do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization, person, or platform. 

*** DISCLAIMER *** 

Argument 1. "A compulsory license for cover songs is not the same thing as a proposed compulsory license for digital samples." 

Exactly. That's why a compulsory license makes sense for transformative sampling. Cover songs maintain core elements, while transformative sampling creates entirely new artistic expressions. If cover licenses allow wholesale reproduction, transformative sampling deserves protection for smaller, innovative transformations.

Argument 2: "Congress didn’t make a compulsory license for samples — small takings — of sound recordings when it added sound recordings to the list of copyrightable subject matter in 1971."
The 1971 Congress couldn't have anticipated modern digital sampling technology or its artistic possibilities. Just as copyright law evolved to address player pianos in 1909 and cover song licensing in 1976, it must adapt to contemporary creative practices. Transformative sampling represents a fundamentally different use case than what Congress considered in 1971.

Argument 3:  "Such an amendment, which would claw back the protections that fair use and de minimis provide for permissive borrowing, would throw the system of copyright law completely out of whack and end permissive borrowing as we know it."

Fair use is too uncertain and costly to defend in court, making it near impossible for small creators to build sustainable careers when ambiguity stifles creative expression. A licensing framework would offer clarity while preserving fair use for cases like parodies or commentary. 

The de minimis doctrine allows minimal uses of copyrighted material and was applied differently to sound recordings after the Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films case, where the court famously stated "get a license or do not sample."  The district court ruled that the use of the sample was "de minimis" and not actionable. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, finding that the de minimis defense did not apply to digital sampling.

In VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone (2016), the Ninth Circuit explicitly rejected Bridgeport's reasoning and held that the de minimis doctrine does apply to sound recordings, just like it does to all other copyrightable works. The court stated there was no evidence Congress intended to treat sound recordings differently from other works when it comes to de minimis use. This case was the first appellate court ruling to apply the de minimis doctrine to digital sampling.

Different federal courts reaching different conclusions creates uncertainty in the law. The de minimis doctrine itself exists for all copyrightable works - the debate is whether sound recordings should be treated as a special exception. The confusion around this issue is one reason why clear legislation on transformative sampling could be beneficial - it would resolve the uncertainty created by conflicting court decisions.

Argument 4: "You can’t set a compulsory license for every individual sound in a song."
The petition isn’t intended to cover isolated sounds but clearly defined samples that are substantially transformed. The act would create categories based on sample length and usage, setting boundaries for fairness and creativity.

Argument 5: "Copyright law serves public interest by advancing society."
Transformative sampling does serve the public interest. It creates new artistic expressions, democratizes music production, and preserves cultural heritage through reinterpretation. By empowering independent artists, it enriches musical diversity and cultural discourse.

Argument 6: "A compulsory license would benefit bureaucracy more than artists."
A well-designed system would use existing collection and distribution methods, ensuring efficiency. By standardizing licensing rates and reducing transaction costs, both rights holders and sampling artists benefit. Streamlined processes would make licensing more accessible.

The Transformative Sampling Act aims to foster creativity and ensure fair compensation for original creators while providing an affordable, clear alternative for independent artists. This proposal isn’t about replacing traditional sampling—it’s about giving smaller creators the tools to innovate responsibly. If there are concerns or perspectives I haven’t addressed, I welcome your feedback. Constructive criticism can help shape this initiative into a solution that supports both innovation and fairness.