Sampling (in music) is not theft

My opponent debates well and clearly we agree upon more things than we disagree about. We both seem to agree that: 1. Sampling is NOT theft if no attempt is made to exploit the results for profit. [or at least that "if a piece of work is used in the privacy of your home without harm to the original composer then there is no moral question."] 2. Sampling IS theft if the artist who samples gains significant financial reward without the creator of the sampled work being rewarded accordingly. I realise now that especially as I was arguing the Pro side in this debate, I needed to make my position more clearly in the first round. Particularly I should of explained that "the way in which it is generally carried out " to which I was referring to meant the typical instances of sampling that are either: a) Carried out in a home or studio environment as part of a creative process but never released as commercial product. Or, b) Cleared for release and commercially exploited, with the artist who has been sampled receiving a share of the profits. I would contend that the vast majority of sampling does fall into either a) or b) and that the rare exceptions qualify as "a few special cases." My opponent points out that I do not have any sources or statistics to back up this claim, but I think it is fairly apparent. Consider the volume of material released that has had samples cleared. Record labels employ staff specifically to deal with sample clearances and artists like George Clinton and James Brown (RIP) extended their careers for decades as a result of renewed interest in their legacy because of sampling. Then consider the fact that for every tune that has been released many more will have been passed over; never finished, just not good enough, judged not financially viable for the label etc. Then consider that for every artist signed to a major label there are literally countless others producing material in a similar style, to hugely varying degrees of quality that will never be released I admit that I have little beyond my own observations and logic to prove that a) and b) constitute the vast majority of sampling but I consider it self-evident and it is up to the voters if they agree with me on this or not. As my opponent and I seem to agree on the basic principle that a) and b) are not theft then I would suggest that I have proven my case, but it is again up to the voters to decide if they are to penalise me for not making my position more clear from the beginning. I agree with my opponent that laws had to be put in place to protect the rights of sampled artists but I wanted to debate the moral issue. I maintain that while laws are good and necessary to keep the peace, they are in no way a substitute for morality. If we lose sight of morality and let laws dictate it to us, that is when society is in trouble and unjust practices such as torture are justified by the law, but that is something for a very different debate. Anyway, sampling is good because: It can be highly creative. While some (and unfortunately often some of the biggest selling) records use obvious samples in a dull and predictable manner, many producers chop into pieces and rearrange samples, filter, process, compress and EQ them in surprising and refreshing ways, often ending up with something completely unrecognisable from the original source. This is an avenue of creativity open to those who may not have other musical opportunities. Playing any instrument to a high standard requires some degree of talent, years of practice, immense dedication AND either expensive tuition, a family background immersed in music from a young age or a dedicated mentor/peer to teach you. Instruments of a high quality are very expensive. A decent upright double bass or full drum kit is likely to set you back a grand or two sterling. By contrast, someone with a bit of talent, a lot of dedication, a good music collection and a sampler or computer worth a couple of hundred pounds can start exercising their musical creativity. Samples can be hugely beneficial to the artists sampled. Gilbert O'Sullivan gained a substantial sum off Biz Markie in compensation. Leon Haywood and George Clinton both benefited financially from Dr Dre's The Chronic as did former Man from U.N.C.L.E star David McCallum when Dre sampled his David Axelrod produced tune The Edge. Axelrod is a perfect example of someone who's career has been resurrected and enhanced hugely as a direct result of being sampled by Jurassic 5, DJ Shadow and others. No one had really heard of Axelrod who produced loads of albums for himself and many other artists in the 60s and 70s (some of the more well-known ones include Lou Rawls and Nat Adderley.) In the last 15 years since hip-hoppers discovered his sublime drums and amazing arrangements, there have been dozens of Axelrod compilations and re-issues of his under-appreciated albums. Axelrod maintains a friendship with Shadow. "www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/david-axelrod-rescued-from-the-record-bins-678311.html -" Some quotes from the (admittedly biased) sampling community: Stetsasonic: ('Talkin all that jazz' 1988) "Tell the truth, James Brown was old Till Eric and Rak came out with 'I got Soul.' Rap brings back old r & b, And if we did not, people would of forgot." DJ Shadow: (sleeve notes to 'Private press' 2002) "all the artists that I sampled to make this record (it is intended as the ultimate musical compliment, no matter what your lawyers tell you)." Big Daddy Kane: ('Young, gifted and black' 1990) "We sample beats, you sue and try to fight us, Maan, you'd still be home with arthritis, If we didn't revive and bring back alive old beats that we appreciated, you wouldn't survive. You'd be another memory to us, ashes to ashes and dust to dust." There are of course a lot of grey areas as to the morality of sampling. The case of Dangermouse is an interesting one. He sampled sections of The Beatles white album without permission and created some amazing music. He then sampled nearly all of the accapellas off the pop-star/rapper Jay-Z's 'The Black Album', (also without permission but no one made any fuss about that, least of all Jay-Z who immediately realised it would heighten his profile) and synced them up with his Beatles beats to create 'The Grey Album.' DM decided to give it away for a limited period as a promotional tool and didn't profit directly from it. Bootleggers however profited from pressing vinyl copies of this album. I would argue that the act of bootlegging was theft. The act of giving it away: perhaps questionable but not theft. The act of SAMPLING itself: definitely NOT theft. Another grey area is compilations, sure someone might make a few bob (or bucks) off a mixtape but how are you gonna compensate 50 + artists who may have been sampled on a mix-CD that might sell 500 copies if your lucky. In contrast there are numerous 'breakbeat' and 'crate-digging' themed albums being released that pay the original artists for their music, music that is popular with a whole new generation because it has been sampled. To return to those pesky definitions again for a moment: "steal: 1. take (something) without permission and without intending to return it." Sampling is not actually TAKING anything because the original piece of music still exists and is in no way "undermined" (damaged or weakened). Similarly the notion of not intending to return something does not make sense here as the original remains unaffected. And as far as "intending to pass off someone else's work as your own", people know when something is a sample, producers aren't pretending they've 'played in' something they've sampled.( No time to discuss plagiarism - a separate issue.) Therefore sampling is not theft. Thankyou.