Stats for nerds
3recommend
8mentions
7people
2018–2025years
38% recommend63% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- Same here. I got into Sly after hearing the Beastie Boys "Paul's Boutique" album, where he was heavily sampled - like this gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_Z7HwDnuNI
Side note: Sampling is/was controversial, but I'll always be grateful to hip hop and sampling for introducing me to so much great music (like Sly) that never would've made its way to the suburbs of Missouri where I grew up. The Beastie Boys "Paul's Boutique" and De La Soul's "Three Feet High" albums triggered me to purchase, probably, 2 dozens other albums because of all the samples - from Sly to The Isley Brothers to The Turtles and so on.
- >> The Beastie Boys were never out to change things
Musically there is pre-Paul's Boutique and post-Paul's Boutique.
They changed things. If you haven't listened to it for some reason, listen to it.
- The mashup "genre" currently is full of amateurs, because copyright law won't allow you to make money off it. Sampling is used to great effect by hip hop artists, but only in very limited ways because they have to negotiate expensive licenses each time. If not for copyright, we'd see amazing innovations.
To get an idea what would be possible, listen to the Beastie Boys album "Paul's Boutique", which has been called "The Sgt. Pepper of Hip Hop". It liberally samples all kinds of sources (including Beatles), and the results are amazing, even with that limited 1989 technology. Unfortunately, shortly after that album was released, legal precedents around music copyright doomed any similar works until copyright law changes.
- Mmm Bop was brought to you by the Dust Brothers, responsible for the Beastie Boys’ Paul’s Boutique.
As I understand, the definition of "the right to produce original works influenced by previous works" has been a slowly moving target in my lifetime. Think about the effects of the album Paul's Boutique by Beastie Boys. They went wild with sampling and paid very little (zero?) to license those samples. Then, there were a bunch of court cases in the US that decided that future samplers needed to license the samples from the original authors. However, the ability to create legal, derivative works is usually carefully defined in copyright law. Can you comment on this matter vis-a-via LLMs?> The point of copyright is to protect an exclusive right to copy, not the right to produce original works influenced by previous works.
I'm pretty sure if an LLM creates Paul's Boutique 2.0 in 2025 using incredible number of samples, then someone cannot sell it (or use it in a YouTube video) without first licensing those samples. I doubt very much someone could just "hide behind" an LLM and claim, "Oh, it is original, but derivative, work, created by an LLM." I doubt courts would allow that.> If an LLM produces original works that are influenced by the training data, that is not a violation of copyright.- When I was younger, I was told that the album from Beastie Boys called Paul's Boutique was the straw that broke the camel's back! I have no idea if this true, but that album has a batshit crazy amount of recognizable samples. I doubt very much that Beastie paid anything for the rights to sample.
