One is a 2003 sampling lawsuit brought against the Beasties in which they triumphed: the Ninth Circuit ruled that a flute sample they took from a James Newton song was protected by the de minimis doctrine. Basically the court found the brief sample to be too insubstantial to qualify as copyright infringement. What the video mentions briefly (but doesn't go into in detail) is the fact that, two years later, the infamous Bridgeport ruling in the Sixth Circuit stated that samples are never protected by de minimis and must always be licensed no matter how short or simple they are. In the beginning, some major labels actually opposed that ruling, because they had already released lots of albums with samples on them and were worried about a storm of litigation. But since then, the industry has come to essentially treat Bridgeport as gospel, even though it's only binding in the Sixth Circuit and other rulings (like the Beastie Boys flute sample) have gone the other way. There are some key differences between the rulings, though: the Newton decision was about compositional rights (the Beastie Boys had licensed the sample of the recording) whereas Bridgeport was about sound recording rights.

The video also highlights a quote from Yauch in a 2004 interview with Wired Magazine, when he was asked about unlicensed samples coming back to haunt them. His response? "I think there's a statute of limitations on that stuff." This is a point a few people have brought up (because it seems so completely insane to face a lawsuit over an album that has been hugely popular for over 20 years), but the legal details are a bit more complex. The countdown clock for the statute of limitations on copyright infringement doesn't start ticking until all infringement has ceased—but Paul's Boutique has been selling continuously all these years, and was re-issued for its anniversary in 2009. If this new lawsuit goes to trial (which doesn't seem likely given the way sampling lawsuits normally go these days, but the Beastie Boys have yet to make a statement) then the statute of limitations would likely be used to argue that the Beasties are no longer liable for earlier album sales, but it wouldn't get them off the hook entirely.

Instead, we get the opposite. AllHipHop reports that, in a bout of incredibly unlucky timing, music label Tuf America filed a copyright lawsuit against the Beastie Boys the day before Yauch's passing. At issue are samples from Licensed to Ill and Paul's Boutique, which Tuf America claims were taken from a handful of their songs.

Tuf America said they did a thorough sound analysis of the tracks in question and concluded that the Beastie Boys illegally incorporated elements of the songs without permission.

To complicate the matter, Tuf America claims The Beasties and Capitol Records continue to profit off the album, by way of anniversary and commemorative releases of Licensed To Ill and Paul’s Boutique, which was released in 1989.

Tuf America is seeking a trial to determine the amount of punitive and exemplary damages, if any.

One would think that the simple fact that a "thorough sound analysis" was necessary means this is clearly a case of transformative work, but unfortunately, as mentioned, the courts have pretty much completely eliminated that defense when it comes to sampling. Moreover, where has Tuf America been this whole time? The Beastie Boys albums came out in 1986 and 1989, and now, a quarter-century later, Tuf America is claiming they deserve a payout? Their legal argument will, by necessity, rely on significant rulings that came out after the albums, which were released under the common sense assumption of the time: that sampling was creative and transformative art that didn't require a license.

The timing here is almost certainly just bad luck, and Tuf America must be rather worried about the PR nightmare this will surely incite. However I can't say I feel that bad for them: even setting aside Yauch's death, I find their actions despicable. They are attacking a piece of classic art just to cash in on someone else's success. If the Tuf samples were really so integral to the success of the Beastie Boys albums, then they would have had plenty of opportunities to capitalize on that over the last two decades. Instead they chose a legalistic get-rich-quick scheme. Shameful.

Last month, when 50 Cent was sued over a sample on a free mixtape he released, I asked when hip-hop's biggest stars will start speaking up about copyright and educating their fans about the fact that the music they love and respect is, in the eyes of the courts, illegal. This new incident might just kick off that process—nobody is going to be happy about what Tuf America is doing, and a lot of people who had no idea that sampling is illegal are going to see the coverage of this lawsuit (which is sure to be far greater than for your average sampling lawsuit) and discover just how broken the law is.

I truly hope this confluence of events can kick-start the necessary momentum to start fixing copyright law and getting the courts to recognize the validity (and fair use/transformative aspects) of sampling. This is not about capitalizing on Yauch's death—he and the Beastie Boys helped open the world's eyes to a rich and unique new approach to music that informed everything that came after, with samples finding their way into countless genres beyond hip-hop and becoming, essentially, an exciting new instrument that musicians everywhere started teaching themselves to play. The introduction of sampling was as important as that of distorted guitars or electric keyboards, and changed music just as much—but since day one, legal respect for sampling has been in steady decline and is now virtually zilch. It would be a wonderful thing if, amidst the tragedy of Yauch's death, we were able to help him give the world one more gift: a new attitude about sampling that will allow the next generation's Beastie Boys to pursue their artistic ideas without fear of being randomly sued 20 years later.

We think it’s pretty clear that the samples the Beastie Boys used in Paul’s Boutique and that Girl Talk now uses in his records are classic examples of fair use. Unfortunately, many artists these days are nonetheless under pressure to pay licensing fees for similar uses. Despite the fact that most cases rightfully find that sampling is not copyright infringement, the mere threat of a lawsuit (and the specter of statutory damages) is enough to intimidate musicians and labels alike. This cottage market of sample licensing stands in the way of creating the next Paul's Boutique – a sad comment on MCA's legacy.

The time to come up with a new, effective licensing scheme is long overdue. Young artists should be encouraged to remix and create in all the exciting new ways that technology allows, not sidelined by expensive licensing battles. Solving this problem would go a long way in that direction and be a fitting tribute to MCA, the Beastie Boys, and the fantastic remix culture they helped foster.