“Can Daft Punk Play At My House?”

Abstract

This thesis analyses and discusses the tensions between sampling and copyright by posing the question: ‘Can Daft Punk Play At My House?'. It examines one particular case of music sampling - the Soulwax Shibuya Re-remix of LCD Soundsystem’s Daft Punk Is Playing At My House to consider the ways in which copyright views sampling as infringement and to what extent copyright can subsist in a work of sampling. Following Chapter One on methodology, Chapter Two reviews the relevant legal, cultural studies and media studies literature to consider how sampling further challenges the copyright’s assumptions about author. Chapter Two demonstrates how sampling further challenges legal assumptions of what is a work and who is an author, and threshold tests, based on the concepts of originality, the idea-expression dichotomy and substantiality. It finds that the application of these assumptions and tests restrict the creative practice of sampling. Chapter Three presents examines the case study recording through the interpretations of music commentators and brothers Stephen and David Dewaele, two of the four members of Soulwax. It also examines the case study through further interpretations of the case study by four relevant experts in the musical and legal fields, the subjects of primary interview research. Chapter Three finds that with the exception of the Licensing Manager’s view, all other interviewees, commentators and artists recognise the cumulative, creative contribution of Soulwax’s sampling over and above its reproduction of .prior work by LCD Soundsystem, Daft Punk and other artists. It further finds by signing a contract with EMI, Soulwax gains access works for sampling but loses control of the rights in its Re-remixes. Chapter Four discusses the shortcomings of existing music industry licensing and contractual agreements, analyses prospective solutions and identifies future challenges. Chapter Four shows that the application of copyright law, based on the problematic assumptions about the author discussed in Chapters Two and Three, and industry practice of sampling clearance, discussed in Chapter Three, contribute to the tragedy of the anti-commons. It further shows by entering into contracts with copyright owners, who are often not creators or authors, artists make this tragedy perpetual. It argues that a number of prospective solutions, particularly, Creative Commons and recognition of transformative works, under a fair use doctrine or a compulsory licensing system, make some progress to avoiding this tragedy. It identifies extreme sampling that stretches the threshold of recognisability and the sampling of oral cultures as future challenges for sampling and copyright.