It’s just so extraordinary that a court would say: “Get
a license
or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in
any significant way.”  The first sentence has the benefit of clarity; there’s something
wonderful about clarity in the law, about bright-line rules.  But set that aside, and set
also aside whether the court is right on the copyright law related to
sound recordings.  Given what we’re learning about creativity in the digital music zone, how can a federal appellate court say this second sentence with such conviction?