The 6th Court of Appeals just issued a ruling on audio sampling, but I don't care about that. What I care about are the quotation marks around 'riff'.

quote:

---

[G]et a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way. It must be remembered that if an artist wants to incorporate a 'riff' from another work in his or her recording, he is free to duplicate the sound of that 'riff' in the studio.

---

I just used quotation marks because I was talking about the word spelled r-i-f-f, but the Court seems to use them because they are uncomfortable with the word, like riff isn't a real word, or that learned individuals normally do not say words like riff and need to point this out somehow. And why 'riff' and not 'sample'? Is there any obscure legal reason that riff is quoted?

I don't know why the quotation marks were used, but I don't think it was because they were "uncomfortable" with the word. Rather, I think they were used to emphasize the word for some reason, or perhaps they used them to show they were using the same word that was used in the original complaint, much the same way I enclosed uncomfortable in quotes to show that was the word you had used and that I was quoting you.

Some other sections of the decision (Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films) that include words or phrases in quotes:

Specifically, a two-second sample from the guitar solo was copied, the pitch was lowered, and the copied piece was “looped” and extended to 16 beats. ... By the district court’s estimation, each looped segment lasted approximately 7 seconds.

No Limit Films moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) that the sample was not protected by copyright law because it was not “original”; ...

4. This case involves “digital sampling” which is a term of art well understood by the parties to this litigation and the music industry in general. Accordingly, we adopt the definition commonly accepted within the industry.

Not necessarily a “one size fits all” test, ...

For the sound recording copyright holder, it is not the “song” but the sounds that are fixed in the medium of his choice.

The incidence of “live and let live” has been relatively high, which explains why so many instances of sampling go unprotested and why so many sampling controversies have been settled.

Fourth, we realize we are announcing a new rule and because it is new, it should not play any role in the assessment of concepts such as “willful” or “intentional” in cases that are currently before the courts or had their genesis before this decision was announced.

On April 15, 2002, plaintiffs’ counsel received a “cue sheet” for Hook Up that apparently alerted Bridgeport to the presence of another song in which it held a copyright interest.

None the least of them certainly were advances in technology which made the “pirating” of sound recordings an easy task.

That leads us directly to the issue in this case. If you cannot pirate the whole sound recording, can you “lift” or “sample” something less than the whole. Our answer to that question is in the negative.

Tinman

With respect, I don't think you have given Neveu a satisfactory answer. The word Neveu has singled out, 'riff', appears in the text bracketed in single quotes. All of your examples are bracketed in quotation marks.

I think Neveu is correct in surmising that the Court emphasized the word 'riff' in this way to indicate that it is using the word with the specialized meaning associated with the word in the trade [i.e. in the music industry] rather than in the broader sense of the word in everyday parlance.

Interesting question, neveu. I looked up "riff" in Onelook, and I don't see that it means "sample." Am I missing something? It seems to mean "a jazz ostinato" or "a Berber living in northern Morocco," as a noun.

Another question I have (and this is probably in some style manual) is: When do you use one quotation mark, instead of the two? Now, of course I know the rule of a single quotation mark within a quotation, but often I see single quotation marks, instead of one, for single words, though not for quotations. Which is correct?

I also noticed that Neveu used single rather than quote marks, straightarrow. I made a search for his statement and came up the actual decision as posted by FindLaw (same link as in my last post). Riff appears in the decision in double quote marks. When quoting a quote within a quote, the quotation is set off by double quote marks and the interior quote marks are changed to single quote marks. I think Neveu's source for his posting was probably a website that had changed the double quotes to single quotes for this reason. I believe it's exactly the opposite in British English.

I don't think the use of single quotes is significant to his question. I posted the examples to show that quote marks were used liberally in this decision and not just for riff.

Confusing, isn't it? Wikipedia explains it much better than I can.

A riff is a jazz ostinato, but what's an ostinato? OneLook defines it as "a musical phrase repeated over and over during a composition." Essentials of Music defines it as, "a short melodic, rhythmic, or harmonic pattern that is repeated throughout a work or a section of one", and then gives an example of one.

See the Wikipedia reference about quotes, Kalleh. You're familiar with the quote within a quote rule. If someone uses that rule correctly, the entire quote will be set off in double quotes and the inner quote in single quotes (just the opposite in British English-I think). If that's printed on a website and someone else copies a portion of that quote and posts it on another site, such as this one, the outer double quotes may be cut off while the interior single quotes remain. I think that probably happens quite a lot.

One method for long quotes is to use opening quote marks at the beginning of each paragraph, but closing quote marks only at the end of the last paragraph.

Another method is to indent the passage. Then you don't have to add any quote marks. I don't know if that's possible on this board, but if it is I would certainly like to know how. Can anyone help me?

That would be a useful feature. Without indenting or using quote marks, the reader doesn't really know where the quote ends.

Another method that probably isn't used much anymore is to use the phrases, "Begin quote" and "End of quote". Maybe I'll start doing that if I can't figure out how to indent.

As you can see, my quotes are not always done properly. The quotes in my last post should have either been indented (which would be my preference) or each quote enclosed in double quote marks and the interior double quotes changed to single quotes. If I had done that, then "riff" would have been 'riff'.

The American rule about quotation marks and punctuation is that the punctuation marks always appear inside the quote marks (there may be exceptions, so don't quote me). In British English the punctuation appears outside the quote marks, unless the punctuation is part of the quote. That makes more sense to me and I often find I use that method. A problem occurs when I use that method in a letter for publication, such as in a letter to a newspaper editorial board. That's not a big problem for me but it can be for someone who continually has to write for publication in, say, a medical journal. Do you know anyone like that, Kalleh?

One last thing about quotation marks, then I'll shut up. Often people begin to quote something and use an opening quote mark, but forget to use a closing quote mark. Then the reader has to guess where the quote ends. That can be aggravating. Sometimes it's pretty obvious, but not always. I've seen that done on this board, but I hope I don't anymore.

Tinman

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman,

'Looping' has a common meaning, and a special technical meaning, so I can understand why it was set off in quotes; same with 'lift' and 'sample'. And perhaps 'piracy' has another specific legal meaning, and maybe copyright piracy is a slang term, so perhaps that's why it was set off in quotes.

But a riff is a short pattern or sequence of notes, like a guitar riff. That's all it means. It's a real word; it's been around for ages and has no other common meaning (apologies to the Berbers) or broader sense.

So why set it off in quotes? I really think whoever wrote this was just uncomfortable with the word. I picture Jack Webb from Dragnet imagining that anyone who talks about guitar 'riffs' also smokes 'marihuana' and listens to 'boogie-woogie' music until all hours of the morning. Call it punctuational synaesthesia.

The 15th Edition of The Chicago Manual of Style was published in 2003. I just found this on their website:
------------------------------------------------
Q. Apparently Americans enclose periods commas inside quotation marks, but do the British do it that way too???

A. In what is sometimes called the British style (see paragraph 6.10), only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks. This system works best with single quotation marks. (The British tend to use double quotation marks only for quotations within quotations.)
------------------------------------------------
And I found this on another site:
------------------------------------------------
In referring to the Bible (the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition), I found the following buried in para 6.8 (p. 242):

"... In computer related writing, in which a file name or other character string enclosed in quotation marks might be rendered inaccurate or ambiguous by the addition of punctuation within the quotation marks, the alternative system may be used, or the character string may be set in a different font, without quotation marks (see 7.79)."
The "alternative system" in question here is described in para 6.10 (p. 243):

"Alternative system. According to what is sometimes called the British style (set forth in The Oxford Guide to Style [the successor to Hart's Rules; see bibliog. 1.1]), a style also followed in other English-speaking countries, only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks. This system, which requires extreme authorial precision and occasional decisions by the editor or typesetter, works best with single quotation marks. (The British tend to use double quotation marks only for quotations within quotations.)"
------------------------------------------------
The times, they are achanging. The Manual is more of a guide than a rigid rule book:
------------------------------------------------
Still, from its outset, the Manual has generally been more about suggestion than direction -- at least, more so than many cowed authors and editors imagine. The 1906 preface said: "Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity. Exceptions will constantly occur, and ample room is left for individual initiative and discretion."

Detecting a tendency for the editors of later editions to present the Manual's rules as "the only sensible way," Ms. Seybold and her colleagues decided to re-emphasize that "we make no claim to being the final authority from which there must be no deviation whatever," she wrote in her 1983 essay.

Now, Ms. Halvorson reiterates, "Users should break or bend rules that don't fit their needs, as we often do ourselves."
------------------------------------------------
You can also search for the answers to questions or submit your own on their Q & A section.

Tinman

quote:

---

Another method is to indent the passage. Then you don't have to add any quote marks. I don't know if that's possible on this board, but if it is I would certainly like to know how. Can anyone help me?

---

Like this?

Brief points regarding quotation marks (I apologise if they've been covered already, I only have time this morning to skim the longer threads.)

1. re single and double quotes.

The use of one or the other is entirely a matter of style (as opposed to grammar). The question of whether inner quotes are single and outer ones double or vice versa isn't, in my view a British/American thing it depends more on personal preference. I use outer double and inner single which is referred to as American usage above but was certainly the system preferred by my teacher in England in the 60s and 70s.

2. re the use of quotes around riff. As " or ' is style it makes no difference which is used. It is I believe marked this way for one of two reasons. Either it is a word unfamiliar to the court or believed by the court to be sufficiently obscure as to merit special attention, or - and I believe this to be much more likely - simply to indicate that this is the exact word used in a previous document rather than a synonym.

3. re punctuation inside quotes

Even in Britain the traditional rule is that all terminating punctuation goes inside the marks. There is, in all varieties of English, a modern body of opinion that only punctuation that logically belongs there should be included.

My personal, somewhat heretical view is that punctuation should be completely logically consistant and that there should be one mark inside and one mark outside if that makes the logic correct. Here is an example of what I mean.

Did you say "The cat is dead."?

Full stop to end the idea in the brackets, question mark to end the question. I confess that this is an extremely minority view but it's mine.

4. re indentation

quote:

---

What's wrong with using the board's quote function like this?

---

5. re quotes at the start of every line of quoted material.

I know of no modern authority that considers this to still be good practice. It is now considered obsolete.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tinman:
I also noticed that Neveu used single rather than quote marks, straightarrow. I made a search for his statement and came up the actual decision as posted by http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/04a0297p.html#ft11 (same link as in my last post). _Riff_ appears in the decision in double quote marks.

---

Clever of you to go to the source, Tinman. This is the work of a legally-trained mind.

Also your deduction that there is nothing special to read into the quotes around "riff" inasmuch as the Court's decision contains many other quotes. In law, this rule of construction is known as the sui generis rule.

Still, I invite you to consider that a single quote bracketing a single word might have a wider usage than the common usage you have identified as a quote within a quote.

When one is being very precise about the meaning of words, as a Court of law certainly is in construing a contract or trade customs in a civil dispute, then is it not useful to bracket an industry term, such as 'riff', in single quotes as a short-hand method of indicating that you are using the word in its narrowest, technical sense within the context of the matter in dispute?

:...When one is being very precise about the meaning of words, as a Court of law certainly is [should be]in construing a contract or trade customs in a civil dispute, then is it not useful to bracket an industry term, such as 'riff', in single quotes as a short-hand method of indicating that you are using the word in its narrowest, technical sense within the context of the matter in dispute?"

Exactly, straightarrow, disdain is expressed otherwise in our American courts.

(Please excuse my earlier deletions, I just now at this moment learned how to delete.)

The use of one or the other is entirely a matter of style (as opposed to grammar).

So, you can use a single quotation mark anytime? Really? Even if you are quoting someone (without an internal quote?) Or, do you mean that you can use a single quote for a word, for example, but not for quoting someone? For example, I don't think you can use a single quotation mark here:

Kalleh said, 'Go suck an egg!'

I agree, though, Bob, with the difficulty of putting all punctuation marks inside the quotes. That situation comes up more times than I would like.

Tinman, as far as medical publishing, we usually rely on the editors. Usually they are good, though I have seen some awful ones! They, like Word, tend to be sticklers on 'which' and 'that.'

Quote "...Full stop to end the idea in the brackets, question mark to end the question. I confess that this is an extremely minority view but it's mine..."

And mine. And I use a similar rules as regards parenthesis.

The question I ask myself is "...Is the sentence inside the quotation, or it the quotation inside the sentence...? That will tell you where the punctuation should go.

Insofar as inverted commas are concerned, Oxford prefers singles to start and end the sentence and doubles for quotes within. I prefer it the other way around. But it is just a matter of style. And, just so long as the style is consistent, then I can't see it matters.

Quote "...They, like Word, tend to be sticklers on 'which' and 'that.'..."

Probably because they use Word themselves and have retained the default spelling and grammar checking settings! I turned most of mine off; if I want to split an infinitve, end a sentence with a preposition or start one with a conjunction - that's my business - not Bill Gates's business.