robin hood or troll?

Bridgeport's plethora of sampling lawsuits has earned the company the unpleasant title of the "sample troll" in the music world. Armed with its aging portfolio of copyrights, this sample troll is scouring the music kingdom searching for unnoticeable segments in the backgrounds of popular songs and filing lawsuits claiming excessive financial damages.

But perhaps Bridgeport's actions are simply misunderstood. Perhaps its diligent lawyers are simply taking a stand against all those indulgently wealthy rappers taking advantage of the lesser known artists from whom they are stealing beats?

Is Bridgeport "more Robin Hood than troll, stealing from lazy, rich rappers like Jay-Z to channel money back to deserving artists like George Clinton"?

Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu argues no - he writes that it "would make some sense if making rap music were easy, or if Clinton or other artists were in some way the beneficiary of the lawsuits. But neither is true. Bridgeport and other trolls do take from the rich. But they keep the money."

So maybe Bridgeport isn't much of a benevolent Robin Hood...but let's say that they were. That the millions of dollars in damages from the rulings against Dimension Films and Jay-Z did go to Clinton. Then would such rulings be less controversial? Would that make their actions more right? More justifiable?

What matters more - the future of copyright/fair use law interpretations or paying financial rewards to the rightful music creators?

a slippery slope

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that sampling was in violation of copyright law - "Get a license or do not sample."

If sampling is illegal, what about other comparable uses of copyrighted materials? Does the five words above -in violation of copyright law- without citations constitute copyright infringement? Is the documentary film "Super Size Me" totally illegal since the director did not have McDonald's written permission to feature them in the film?

"Get a license or do not sample" is a dangerous tipping point on a slippery slop. Such a court decision invites a flood of new cases that challenge accepted standards in the fair use clause.

We live in a world infused with copyrighted works. What kind of a society would it be if we were not allowed to take pictures with any copyrighted logos in the background without first getting a license? Should street performers in NYC be required to get licenses before singing in the subways? This could be the death of parodies, too! Where would it end? What are the boundaries?

I leave you with some word from the Chief Judge in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Alex Kozinski:



“Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Culture is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it’s supposed to nurture.”


* Dissenting in the White v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc., 989 F.2d 1512 (9th Cir. 1993) ruling.

Bridgeport Music, Inc. - Who are you?

Tim Wu, a copyright and communications professor at Columbia Law School refers to Bridgeport as the "shady one-man corporation that's destroying hip hop" in his article for Slate, Jay-Z versus the Sample Troll. Wu accuses Bridgeport (or Armen Boladian, its "one man") of using lawsuits "to extort money from successful music artists for routine sampling, no matter how minimal or unnoticeable." Additionally, Bridgeport supposedly owns no other assets except a catalogue of copyrights "accumulated in dubious fashion."

All of these claims aspire to shed some light on Bridgeport's potentially ethically questionable operations. From monetary extortion to copyright fraud, is Bridgeport abusing copyright laws for fat checks from hard working artists?

First, let's look into what Bridgeport Music, Inc. really does - what products and services do they offer? Is Boladian really its sole employee? Who are they really?

Incorporated in 1969 as a profit corporation with the purpose "To engage in the business of publishing music," Bridgeport began with 3 board of directors (the minimum number required to file an Articles of Incorporation document), Armen Boladian, Louise Boladian and Elizabeth Amboian. So it started with more than one person, though at least one of the other two was most likely a family member.

A quick Google search for Bridgeport Music, Inc. pulled up lots of court cases and articles about the company's lawsuits, but 3rd on the list was their corporate site: http://bridgeportmusicinc.com/
Clicking around revealed that every single tab and link from About Us to FAQ leads to the same current page with a list of songs "available for licensing." No news, no additional services, and no more contact info aside from the phone number and email listed at the top of the page. Now this is of concern...what reputable company would have such a webpage in this day and age? And why are there no news or services?

It seems that Bridgeport is indeed nothing more than a catalogue company holding copyrights.

Should such a company have the right to pursue legal actions against other artists actually contributing creative media to the music scene? Copyright laws were enacted to benefit the creator of a original work. Bridgeport did not create and is not creating any original works. Even if sampling is undisputedly copyright infringement, should Bridgeport be the one filing the claims and cashing the checks? Is the intent of the copyright laws being upheld in this court case?