Sampling (in music) is not theft

My opponent and I do not agree on the points he has stated. Specifically, point number 2 is where we are in disagreement: "Sampling IS theft if the artist who samples gains significant financial reward without the creator of the sampled work being rewarded accordingly" We disagree in that I believe that if the PURPOSE of the sampler is financial gain, popularity, or to otherwise achieve some benefit he is not offering the owner of the work, then it is theft. I already gave the example of where an artist might release a promo track for free. This artist does not waive his/her rights to this music, nor do any of the work's other owners. If an amateur DJ or producer makes so much as a penny by using this track in his favor without permission or legal right, then it is theft. My opponent's assumption is that the artist is not harmed, but the fact of the matter is that not recognizing the work of an artist while exploiting it does harm the artist. Even so much as a perceived association can harm an artist. I have witnessed occasions where an artist who is disliked samples a more popular artist, and many in the popular artists fan base assume there is a real association. Un-official remixes cause these types of problems all the time, and this form of sampling can be considered to some degree ID theft. Now, my opponent brings up in Round 3 a line of reasoning that would make it seem he has won this debate, and that there actually IS nothing to debate. If we assume from his Round 3 argument that he was referring to sampling done in proper cases, then there is no debate. The question should have never even been brought up. Again, it's like my analogy of going to the store for a candybar and not having enough money to buy it. If you leave the candybar, you didn't steal it. If you ate it in the store, or took it without paying- that is stealing. There is no logical debate for something that doesn't occur. Sampling in and of itself is not theft because there are methods for legally acquiring the rights to the sample. There is no logical counter-argument to this past statement. If you have the legal right to use a sample, then you are not stealing. If you do not have the legal right to a sample and you pass it off as your own original, complete work regardless of how much money you do or don't make from it, it is stealing. If you don't try to sell the product, have no commercial gain from it, no popularity is won from gaining fans, etc., then it's as if you never left the store, and as if you never sampled the piece in the first place. My opponent says there are a "few special cases" and "rare exceptions". My argument is that these cases are neither rare, nor few, nor special. In fact, the public has become aware of sampling, copyright issues, etc. BECAUSE of the quantity of cases involving sampling. Many cases have arisen from sampling of artists like the Beatles, George Clinton, Roger and Zapp, etc. etc. etc. It is the process of clearing the sample that makes the act of sampling moral. If a sample is not cleared and used, it is obviously not for a moral end. Again, if the sample is used and not presented to, say, Myspace listeners (in the very least), and the recording or production is never made public, then it is as if it never existed. It's like the question about the tree falling in the woods and nothing there to hear a sound... does it make a sound? Sound is not the waves created by the falling tree, rather it is the interpretation by a receptor of those waves... in our case the ear drums. If there is nothing to receive those waves and transfer them as audible energy, then there is no sound. Whether or not you agree with this, the point I am making is that if no one knows of the recording to question it's legitimacy, then no one really cares about the morality. No one was harmed. Is it stealing? I would say no, in the case that the sampled piece was legally acquired in the first place. My opponent continues to bring up different instances in which a sampling may have been done, but not used. I say, again, it is as if those don't exist. It's like counting money that the Federal Reserve has destroyed and saying it is part of our GDP. If the sampling does not exist outside the studio, then it doesn't exist as a product, and cannot be considered in the moral question of doing harm to the owner of the original. Of the songs that have been released with samples, MANY have experienced legal issues. MANY samplers have suffered the consequences of not recognizing the original authors. Most? Maybe not. A "few rare exceptions"? Not at all. My opponent brings up a and b again and says we agree, and because of this he has proven his point. This is not true. The question of sampling and his a and b can be looked at as saying driving is legal. Driving is actually NOT legal in the United States. What makes free travel in an automobile on a manufactured road legal is our license to do so. Driving is illegal, but your license allows you to drive vehicles of the class you are licensed to drive on roadways open to the general public. Sampling is theft. What makes sampling "not" theft is the process of CLEARING. If a sample is not cleared, then it cannot be legally used for commercial purposes- the purpose of the "vast majority" of musical recordings. http://emusician.com... My opponent says that he wanted to, again, discuss the moral issue of sampling. He acknowledges that laws had to be made to protect the sampled artist. He says we cannot let the law dictate our morality because we might lose sight of it, and let the laws dictate it to us. In this case my opponent appears to be contradicting himself. He does not recognize the immorality of sampling, and wishes to ignore the legal issues. Because this is an issue framed in law, ie. before copyright laws, the immoral act of rampant stealing from other artists was widely practiced, it is necessary for us to examine the legal issues, as it is the newer legal issues that separate us from the older moral issues of sampling. If we ignore the law then we must also ignore the results of the law. The results of the law are that the artist and other owners of the sampled work are paid and recognized. Remove the law, and what we have is the immoral act of taking from those who have worked hard and passing this work off as your own. So absent the law, sampling is immoral. Within the law, sampling is only moral in so far as clearance is obtained. My opponent's assessment of several instances of copyright infringement is misconstrued, at best. Take for instance the case of Dangermouse. Though DM had claims he originally had no intention of mass release of the grey album, he was experiencing monetary gain from the album in that it was released via internet distributors. The album gained so much attention that it caught the eye of EMI, the copyright holding company for the Beatles. The Grey Album was named the Best Album of 2004 by Entertainment Weekly. This was hardly a case of "not stealing" in that DM went on to sponsor Grey Tuesday which advocates sampling as "fair use". Though I agree with DM in that a simpler process should be implemented to clear samples, as an artist I benefit from the protections as well. Are samples good? Sure, when they are used properly by a creative producer. That doesn't mean it's moral to sample outside the clearing process. Painting is "good". Art is "good". Graffiti is "nice" to look at. But destruction of public property is "bad". I once lived in a brand new community in Las Vegas and within weeks of the walls going up our high-end neighborhood looked like the hood. Sampling should be done within the scope of what the law currently dictates. Operating outside that law, and sampling without recognizing the original author and giving them their dues, is theft. Thank you.