This book is at the opposite end of the spectrum, so to speak, from the previously-mentioned source.  In this book, Williamson and the other authors discuss music from an expertise on the art itself.  There is no mention of digital music, sampling, file-sharing, or other similar topics to be found anywhere in the book.  In their places are excerpts from sheet music and examples of lyrics.  They offer their expert commentary on subjects ranging from Chopin to Snoop Dogg, from Dante to the Beatles, and each is approached with the same level of intellect and scholarship.  Multiple chapters cover the creation of music from scratch – as told from the songwriter’s point of view, and it is this unique perspective that offers a new form of insight into the practice of digital sampling.

Another important factor in this work is the chapter entitled “Mimesis, Gesture, and Parody in Musical Word-Setting.”  This chapter not only explores the implications that a parody has on an original work but sets the framework for parody with an historical narrative about its origins.  At first, this seemed to be irrelevant to the topic of digital sampling and copyright law, but after further inspection, it became apparent that this knowledge is very important to the understanding of parody and its stance in copyright law. 

Words and Music discusses at length many different styles and genres of modern music, primarily “gangsta,” or hardcore, rap.  This genre is a unique example because not only is it arguably the heaviest on lyrical content out of all kinds of music, but also because it is notorious for its sampling practices and is quite possibly the realm in which the most copyright infringement cases take place.  Reading a scholarly assessment on such genres is especially helpful for this topic seeing as it provides a critical, but not condemning eye on the subject.  This is all-to-rare in today’s academic and scholarly publications, and to have a source such as this is very useful in the terms of this research paper. 

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994)

The rap group 2 Live Crew used a sample of Roy Orbison and William Dees' "Oh, Pretty Woman" for their track, "Pretty Woman", on their album As Clean As They Wanna Be without Orbison's permission. This led to a copyright infringement case being filed by Orbison and a ruling by the Supreme Court which has great implications for both rap and music as a whole. 2 Live Crew's defense was that their song was a parody, and as such should be seen as fair use since a parody must borrow heavily from the original artwork in order to spoof it.

The court went through the 4 factors that typically determine fair use as outlined by the Copyright Act of 1976. On the first factor (The purpose and character of the use) the court determined that since 2 Live Crew's version of the song was fairly transformative, this outweighed the commercialism that would rule against fair use. As for the second factor (the nature of the copyrighted work), the Supreme Court decided that because the song is a parody, it intrinsically borrows heavily from a public, copyrighted work, and thus does not put too much weight on this factor for determining fair use. The third factor, (the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used), the court decided that as a parody, it was necessary for 2 Live Crew to borrow the "heart" of the work, however they differentiated their song enough from Orbison's by changing the lyrics heavily. For the fourth factor, (the effect of the use upon the market (or potential market) for the original work), they determined that it is unlikely for this work to substitute the original, and thus would not harm Sony's market.

This case is very important to music because it was one of the earliest to set down guidelines as for sampling in music, though it was a parody. Also, at this point, these types of cases were rare for courts to see, so the legislation for ruling on them was ill-defined. It was determined that parodies can not be automatically determined by an aggregate set of laws and must be tried on a case to case basis. Since rap music often samples in ways like 2 Live Crew did, this ruling essentially let the reigns free for other artists to sample music by diminishing their fears of it not being fair use. However, this is a parody and majority of rap songs are not, meaning that they are given less leeway when it comes to fair use.