With online music platforms like SoundCloud, Spotify, and Youtube sweeping the music industry, music law is becoming an increasingly nuanced issue.
This page is designed to be a digestion of the matters of copyright and fair use as it pertains to music sampling, licensing and parody. This website is designed to be a tool one can use to obtain all information regarding the topics previously listed.
We have annotated primary sources, which include case laws and summaries. Additionally, online expert source materials, which have also been annotated, provide analysis and further discussion of various aspects of the cases and concepts of which they involve.
Our team has even created various legal hypotheticals to encourage class discussion on these pertinent issues in communication law. We have augmented the nuts and bolts of our playlist with outside videos, recordings, and interviews with the parties involved.
Overall, we hope that this Playlist serves as an educational tool that will enhance knowledge and provoke further discussion, that will hopefully result in these issues receiving greater attention and awareness.
(Audio Visual Material)
Included is an annotation of the central case we have chosen, Grand Upright v. Warner Brothers Music. Many believe this case was hastily executed, claiming the defendant, rapper Biz Markie, was well within the confines of fair use. Nonetheless, this case set an important precedent in favor of original artists vis-a-vis music sampling.
780 F.Supp. 182 (1991)
GRAND UPRIGHT MUSIC LIMITED, Plaintiff,
WARNER BROTHERS RECORDS, INC., WEA International Inc., Marcel Hall, professionally known as Biz Markie, Biz Markie Productions, Inc., Cool V Productions, Inc., Cold Chillin' Records, Inc., Biz Markie Music, Inc., Cold Chillin' Music Publishing, Inc., Tyrone Williams, and Benny Medina, Defendants.
No. 91 Civ. 7648 (KTD).
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
December 17, 1991.
183*183 Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo, New York City, for plaintiff (Joseph D. Pope, of counsel).
Cinque & Cinque, P.C., New York City, for defendants (Robert W. Cinque, of counsel).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY, District Judge:
Commentary is in bold.
"Thou shalt not steal." has been an admonition followed since the dawn of civilization. Unfortunately, in the modern world of business this admonition is not always followed. Indeed, the defendants in this action for copyright infringement would have this court believe that stealing is rampant in the music business and, for that reason, their conduct here should be excused. The conduct of the defendants herein, however, violates not only the Seventh Commandment, but also the copyright laws of this country.
Above the presiding District Judge, Kevin Thomas Duffy makes clear his stance decision as to whether or not Biz Markie was responsible for violating both moral and United States copyright laws. He cites the Bible to emphasize his attitude.
This proceeding was instituted by Order To Show Cause to obtain a preliminary injunction against the defendants for the improper and unlicensed use of a composition "Alone Again (Naturally)" written and performed on records by Raymond "Gilbert" O'Sullivan. Defendants admit "that the Biz Markie album `I Need A Haircut' embodies the rap recording `Alone Again' which uses three words from `Alone Again (Naturally)' composed by Gilbert O'Sullivan and a portion of the music taken from the O'Sullivan recording." Defendants' Post-Hearing Memorandum at 2. The only issue, therefore, seems to be who owns the copyright to the song "Alone Again (Naturally)" and the master recording thereof made by Gilbert O'Sullivan.
Duffy specifies the central issue in the case: who owns the rights to “Alone Again (Naturally).
Three categories of proof lead me to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the true owner of these copyrights: (1) copies of the original copyrights made out to NAM Music, Inc., along with a deed vesting title to the copyrights in Gilbert O'Sullivan and another deed transferring the copyrights to the plaintiff corporation; and (2) the testimony of Gilbert O'Sullivan the acknowledged 184*184 writer of the composition "Alone Again (Naturally)" and the performer who is featured on the master recording pirated by the defendants; and (3) the defendants' actions both before and after the issuance of the defendant album in contacting Gilbert O'Sullivan and his brother/agent in an attempt to obtain a license to use the copyrighted material.
Duffy states his three main reasons for coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff in the case owns the rights to the song.
Defense counsel objected to the admission of copies of the certificates of copyright because they were not "authenticated." It was apparent that defense counsel was not using this term "authenticated" in the sense that it is normally used in the law, particularly in the law of evidence. Since the original copyright was in the name of NAM Music, Inc., defense counsel seemed to argue that someone authorized by NAM Music, Inc. would have to identify the certificates in order to "authenticate" them.
Of course, the reader should be aware that NAM Music, Inc. had long been dissolved, as defense counsel knew. It was clear to me that the use of the word "authenticate" by defense counsel had nothing whatsoever to do with self-authentication of public records under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nor did counsel believe that the certificate was anything less than a true and complete copy of the public record.
Counsel for the defendants also attempted to keep out evidence of the transfer to the plaintiff of copyrights in the work at issue. Defense counsel did not conduct any discovery in the time between the institution of this lawsuit and the hearing on the preliminary injunction and claimed to be surprised when the plaintiff produced documentation of the transfer. However, that defense counsel did not adequately prepare for this hearing does not give the court cause to reject evidence of the transfer.
Defense counsel also objected to the admission of the transfer documents on the grounds that, since they had not been filed with the Registrar of Copyrights, they were without legal effect. This is not the law and the specific section upon which the defense counsel relied has long been repealed. These documents, taken together, prove valid copyrights vested in the plaintiff.
In addition to the documents offered into evidence by the plaintiff, Gilbert O'Sullivan — who the defendants acknowledge was the composer, lyricist and first performer of the piece at issue — testified that plaintiff is the owner of the copyright. There can be no one more interested in the question of valid copyright than a person in Gilbert O'Sullivan's position and he was a thoroughly credible and believable witness. Defense counsel did not effectively controvert O'Sullivan's testimony in any way. Indeed, the thrust of the cross-examination of O'Sullivan went to the artist's motive for refusing to give the defendants a license to use the song.
Above Duffy notes the holes in Defense counsel, namely their failure to show the legality of their fair use.
However, the most persuasive evidence that the copyrights are valid and owned by the plaintiff comes from the actions and admissions of the defendants. Prior to the time that Biz Markie's album was released, the various defendants apparently discussed among themselves the need to obtain a license. They decided to contact O'Sullivan and wrote to his brother/agent, enclosing a copy of the tape. In this letter, an attorney for the defendant states:
This firm represents a recording artist professionally known as Biz Markie, who has recorded a composition for Cold Chillin' Records entitled "Alone Again" which incorporates portions of the composition entitled "Alone Again Naturally" originally recorded by Gilbert O'Sullivan (the "Original Composition").
Biz Markie would like to obtain your consent to the use of the "Original Composition."
In writing this letter, counsel for Biz Markie admittedly was seeking "terms" for the use of the material. One would not agree to pay to use the material of another unless there was a valid copyright! What more persuasive evidence can there be!
Duffy states that the fact that Biz Markie’s defense attempted to obtain consent to use the “Original Composition” of O’Sullivan’s song. He cites this as the main hole in the defense because they ultimately finished production of the song without consent.
Each defendant who testified knew that it is necessary to obtain a license — sometimes called a "clearance" — from the holder 185*185 of a valid copyright before using the copyrighted work in another piece. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. had a department set up specifically to obtain such clearances. Brown Deposition of 11/19/91 at 30 et seq.; Tillman Deposition of 11/22/91 at 7. WEA International, Inc. knew it had to obtain "consents, permissions or clearances...." Rossi Deposition of 11/22/91 at 10-11. Cold Chillin' Records, Inc. knew that such clearances were necessary. Fitchelberg Deposition of 11/21/91 at 34 et seq.
Clearly, the attorneys representing Biz Markie and acting on his behalf also knew of this obligation. Biz Markie's attorneys sent copies of an August 16 letter, addressed to counsel for Cold Chillin' Records, Inc., to the other defendants. That letter contains the following:
In light of the fact that Cold Chillin' knew that other sample clearance requests were pending at that time, it follows that Cold Chillin' should have known that similar denials of permission by rightsholders of other samples used on the album and single might be forthcoming, for which similar action would have been appropriate. Nevertheless, instead of continuing to communicate with our client and us and otherwise cooperating to ensure that all rights were secured prior to release of the album and single, as it did in the situation involving the Eagles samples, Cold Chillin' unilaterally elected to release the album and single, perhaps with the thought that it would look to Biz for resolution of any problems relating to sampling rights, or the failure to secure such rights, that may arise in the future.
Consequently, if any legal action arises in connection with the samples in question, such action will not arise due to the fact that Biz used the samples in his recorded compositions, but rather, due to the fact that Cold Chillin' released such material prior to the appropriate consents being secured in connection with such samples.
From all of the evidence produced in the hearing, it is clear that the defendants knew that they were violating the plaintiff's rights as well as the rights of others. Their only aim was to sell thousands upon thousands of records. This callous disregard for the law and for the rights of others requires not only the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiff but also sterner measures.
The application for the preliminary injunction is granted. The plaintiff is to submit within five (5) days hereof an appropriate decree. This matter is respectfully referred to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York for consideration of prosecution of these defendants under 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319.
Duffy, in short, grants a preliminary injunction on the grounds that the defendants clearly knew they were in violation of copyright laws.
 Exodus, Chapter 20: Verse 15.
 The argument suggested by the defendants that they should be excused because others in the "rap music" business are also engaged in illegal activity is totally specious. The mere statement of the argument is its own refutation.
 The resolution of any issue left open in this civil matter should have no bearing on the potential criminal liability in the unique circumstances presented here.
Recording artist Mark Ronson is renown for his sampling techniques. This video shows his performance at the TED conference. Including this video is intended to supplement the case law included so anyone viewing this page may have a better idea of what music sampling includes.
Below are links to additional information from experts. Other links include patent documents and news articles.
Linked is a short explainer piece written by nolo.com about when permission is needed to sample:http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/permission-sampled-music-sample-clearance-30165.html
Linked is an argument published in the Atlantic for looser sampling laws:http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/04/how-copyright-law-hurts-music-from-chuck-d-to-girl-talk/236975/
Linked is a patent for improved music sampling techniques:https://www.google.com/patents/US4279185
Linked is a scholarly article that explores whether or not artists are benefitting from music sampling:http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/500683?seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents
This music video for the band Unkle features a sample not from another musician but from the film Jacob's Ladder. It demonstrates the complexity of music sampling and legislation behind fair use.
The very beginning of music licensing began in the 20th century with the creation of ASCAP. In 1914, a group of composers got together and created the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers which was to be used as a joint pool of music that could then be sold to music users. After it’s creation, ASCAP created a blanket license that would allow for users to use any musical composition for anything by just paying one single licensing fee. This blanket license was beneficial because it made sure that artists were actually getting paid at least some money for the use of their songs. Before ASCAP was created, there was no central company that would collect performance rights royalties for the artists, so lots of money was getting left on the table. However, since ASCAP was the only company working on licensing, they had tremendous leverage that began to push fees to an extremely high amount and because of these extremely high demands, the radio broadcasters created BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc). The main difference between the two companies was ASCAP continued to have strict membership rules, while BMI had open enrollment which allowed for more composers and artists to start collecting on their licensing.
The most damaging piece of legislation that would affect music licensing companies were the Consent Decrees that were put into place in 1941. The Consent Decrees were created because of the fear that ASCAP was becoming too similar to trust and needed to have the DOJ step in. In an agreement with the Department of Justice, BMI and ASCAP agreed to a set of rules that included: they were no longer to allowed to have exclusive rights to composers and publishers works, they also could not seek payments for programs that did not contain ASCAP/BMI music, it also required a different set of program and network licenses for broadcasters, and it stated that ASCAP and BMI could not discriminate between users and had to give royalties in a “fair and nondiscriminatory manner.” While these Consent Decrees have been changed some, the underlying rules still stand.
1) Licensing for radio is different than online: satellite radio does not have to pay royalties and is functioning on a “free advertising” model. Radio stations pay fees to licensing bodies for non-exclusive rights to broadcast music. Radio stations and businesses typically pay a flat rate once a year, called a blanket license. This can vary based on the size of the audience, value of the advertising revenues, and amount and nature of music usage. As part of the license contract a radio station may conduct periodic audits of the music being played, with the audit results submitted to the licensing body
2) What this article is saying is that licensing allows you to purchase the right to play and have that music through your radio station or online service, so that you don't have to personally go to the artist you wish to play and pay them individually. You have to make sure that the stations are monitored so that you can ensure that music will not be tampered with, because if this does happen then you and your station are at risk of being fined. Following the companies record keeping and reporting requirements is everything when it comes to being able to play music that isn't yours. Unless you have obtained a waiver you need to follow the specific rules that the company or label has put in place. Most songs are licensed by the three main PROs, which are performance rights organizations. ASCAP and BMI each having more songs in their catalogs than SESAC. When and if an artist is not represented by a PRO, then you must get permission from the artist directly.
There are two different types of licenses that are imperative in the music industry and those are explained as so in the link below, “There are two kinds of music licenses that we're concerned with – recording artist royalties and publisher royalties. When playing songs over the radio, only the authors/composers/writers of the song have to be compensated (the owners of the “musical work” copyright), not the performers/producers of the song (the owners of the “sound recording” copyright, which is usually assigned to record labels).”
When it comes to streaming music online different people have to be compensated in addition to the composers, artist, label, etc. The producers now have to be compensated as well as the performer. The Librarian of Congress deals with Sound Exchange when it comes to handling online streaming. There are different fees that come into play when it comes to online streaming. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC charge a fee for online streaming. This is different from the fee they charge for broadcast radio transmissions. Transmitting music over broadcast radio and also live streaming/simulcasting music online requires two separate licenses from these PROs, in additional to the one from SoundExchange.
Prometheus Radio states in the article below that the license from SoundExchange requires that you abide by the “sound recording performance complement,” which states the following:
“1) No more than 4 tracks by the same featured artist (or from a compilation album) may be streamed to the same listener within a 3 hour period (and no more than 3 of those tracks may be streamed consecutively)”
2) No more than 3 tracks from the same album may be streamed to the same listener within a 3 hour period (and no more than 2 of those tracks may be streamed consecutively."
3) Title 17 of the US Code explains the copyright regulations when it comes to music. The link show below gives a perfect definition of what it means to obtain copyright, it states as follows, "Copyright in a sound recording protects the particular series of sounds “fixed” (embodied in a recording) against unauthorized reproduction and revision, unauthorized distribution of phonorecords containing those sounds, and certain unauthorized performances by means of a digital audio transmission."
Terms that one should know when it comes to understanding copyright and music licensing are:
sound recording: a recording of sounds
the label: what owns and produces the music
the publisher: works on behalf of the composer and songwriter
Examples in the music industry when one has to obtain rights include:
* Public performance rights are needed when a public place or radio station want to play an artists music
*Blanket licenses are obtained so the station can play anything it chooses. PRO's then decide how to divide up the money among all the rights owners.
*Master Use Licenses are used if a particular song is wanted for a commercial or film.
The link below is a video that explains the general idea of copyright in regards to radio and online mediums.
Music and Radio services have to pay a mechanical royalty rate ($.091 per song per copy distributed) to use on their services
Artists have to allow for people to cover your music, whether you like it or not
Non-interactive services (Pandora, Satellite radio): Limited # of skips, playlist restrictions (can't pay more than 4 songs per artist), no advance playlists (can't know what's coming next)
Voluntary negotiations (Copyright Royalty Board) judges who set the rates web radio have to pay
Artist and label = compulsory (if the music has been publically distributed and is available for public consumption in any form, they have to allow for a compulsory license)
Songwriter = voluntary (artists, specifically songwriters, are allowed to have voluntary compulsory licenses if their music has not been licensed to a publishing house or has been distributed publically)
Interactive- anyone can voluntarily say no to having their music on the sites, users can do as many skips as they like and can pick and choose what they listen to (Spotify, Apple Music)
Taylor Swift: didn’t allow her music to be on Spotify, but her publishing (songwriting) still can be on Spotify
Songwriters with a publishing company still have to have a compulsory license and while they can't claim the music aspect of the cover, they can claim royalties from the songs because it is their lyrics
EX: “I Will Always Love You,” written by Dolly Parton, but famously covered by Whitney Houston. Dolly Parton would get all the royalties (about 50%) because she wrote the song.
Plantiff: F.B.T = Eminem’s production company
Defendant: Aftermath = subset of Universal records that was given the right to Eminem’s music
The case has to do with ringtones and iTunes, which were previously not covered in many contracts created in the early 2000's simply because they did not exist. The main issue involved in the lawsuit was the definition of what was considered “records sold” and what was “music licensed”. Aftermath argued that since there was at least the act of buying/downloading the music and paying a set rate, that it would be considered part of the “records sold” definition. F.B.T countered and stated that since the digital version of the songs were sent to a third party distributor (iTunes) and included the licensing of a master. They also argued that Aftermath did not have to through the typical paths of distribution due to not having to pay for manufacturing and distributing of hard copy records. Becuase of these differences, F.B.T. stated that digital downloads should be paid as “music licensed”.
“records sold” = 15-20% of records sold
“Music Licensed” = 50% per licensed
District Court Ruling: no industry custom beforehand, said Aftermath did not need to pay license fee: awarded them $2.4 million in legal fees
Appeal: US Courts of Appeals the Ninth Circut relooked at the case and decided that since purchases of music on iTunes and ringtones are not actually records and the transaction between Aftermath and iTunes was a license and not a sale. F.B.T., and other contracts based on the same legality as Eminem's, would earn the 50% of licensed music.
Plaintiff: Universal Music Group
Facts: Veoh is a video sharing website that allowed for users to upload video content, then the company would reformat and republish the videos all for free. The site had a category called “music videos” with many of the videos using music from Universal Music Group and other labels artists without getting the proper license. UMG filed a lawsuit claiming that Veoh was committing copyright infringement because they did not pay for the license to use the music nor were they paying any royalties.
Decision: Veoh was cleared of all claims because UMG was not able to bring for specific infringement based music videos. Set a precedent for all future cases involving online media and it’s use of music making it the record labels/artists job to track down all the music being used without a license and take it down themselves. Web sites such as Veoh and Youtube are not held accountable.
Plaintiff: Columbia Broadcasting System
Facts: This case was brought about 30 years after the Consent Decrees against ASCAP and BMI were put into place. In the lawsuit, Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) claimed that Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) was still charging unfair prices for music licensing for radio. CBS argued that the fees given to them very illegal because they were based on price fixing between the two licensing agencies (ASCAP and BMI).
Ruling: The issuance by ASCAP and BMI of blanket licenses does not constitute price-fixing per se unlawful under the antitrust laws.
Plaintiff: Marvin Gaye's Heirs
Facts: On March 10, 2015 a federal jury ordered singer and producer Pharrell Williams and singer Robin Thicke to pay $7.4 million dollars, which was later reduced to late singer Marvin Gaye's heirs, who said that their new single, “Blurred Lines,” was copyright infringement of Gaye's 70's hit “Gotta Give It Up.” They said that “Blurred Lines” copied the feel and music of Gaye's song. Pharrell, Robin Thicke and rapper T.I, who also appeared on the song, vowed that they never intentionally used anything deliberate from the song. They did want the 70's feel that Gaye was known for, but feel that they didn't take directly from the song itself. So how did this jury determine whether or not this was a copyright infringement?
Ruling: The judge ruled that the original $7.4 million be reduced to $5.3 million, but that the Gaye family is to also receive fifty percent of the royalties from “Blurred Lines” going forward.
Facts: NMPA claims Spotify did not obtain the proper mechanical licenses for a large portion of songs on their service. Also that they didn’t pay the mechanical royalties needed for the songs (9.1 cents). Spotify needs to pay this in order to use the song, lawsuit claims they did not. Essentially no one is getting paid for the playing of the tracks. The plaintiffs were seeking $200 million. In response to the lawsuit, Spotify claimed they did not have the proper data to tell if the publisher’s were telling the truth or not about a specific song and therefore did not know who to pay. They had no central database to record licenses and send out the appropriate amount to each publisher.
Ruling: Publishers and Spotify settled out of court for $20 million
“Blurred Lines” by Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke and T.I.
Marvin Gaye's “Gotta Give It Up”
This case set an important legal precedent for what courts consider fair use in relation to musical parody.
In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. filed a lawsuit against rap group 2 Live Crew and their record company, Skyywalker Records, claiming that 2 Live Crew's song “Pretty Woman” infringed on Acuff-Rose's copyright of Roy Orbison's “Oh, Pretty Woman.”
Below are two YouTube videos of Orbison performing his original song live and audio of 2 Live Crew's parody:
A United States District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song. However, a Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed this decision, holding that the commercial nature of 2 Live Crew’s parody made the song's use presumptively unfair. This case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which had to determine whether or not 2 Live Crew’s commercial parody was a fair use within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1976.
According to an article on Oyez.org about the case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that a parody's commercial character is only one element to be considered in a fair use enquiry. The Supreme Court also held that not enough consideration was given to the nature of 2 Live Crew’s parody in weighing the extent to which it copied Orbison’s original song.
That same Oyez.org article also says the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals “erred in applying the presumption that the commercial nature of the parody rendered the song presumptively unfair.” This was due to a lack of evidence regarding the character and purpose of the use and the market harm to Orbison’s original song.
Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music – Annotated Supreme Court Case Law
This is a link to an Oyez.org web page with an audio recording and transcript of the oral arguments in Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music. This case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 9, 1993.
Here is a YouTube video of 2 Live Crew, the petitioners in Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, discussing this case on CSPAN.
This web page includes hyperlinks and short summaries of three law journal articles related to the Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music legal case.
This is a scholarly article from the Fall 1994 volume of Harvard University’s Journal of Law and Technology (JOLT). In the article, Lisa M. Babiskin chronicles the historical background of fair use and parody and analyzes the case law prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. Babiskin concludes by analyzing the Supreme Court’s decision and what it holds for the future.
This 1996 scholarly article from Duke University’s Law School discusses the importance of Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music in relation to analysis of parodies in trademark legal cases. The author of this article, Gary Myers, concludes by suggesting that the “likelihood of confusion test” that is instrumental in evaluating trademark cases should also be used in evaluating trademark parodies.
This scholarly article written by Kathryn D. Piele first appeared in 1997 in the Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review. In her article, Piele discusses the fair use clause of the U.S. Copyright Act and how parodies are protected by it. She also discusses how courts applied the fair use doctrine to parody cases prior to Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music.
Piele then delves into the Supreme Court ruling for Campbell and how it changed the way the fair use doctrine was applied to parody cases. She then concludes by describing the problems regarding the treatment of parodies by copyright law before finally recommending how courts should change current copyright law.
Yo Yo Money Singh releases a song called “Money, Money, Money,” which samples The O’Jays’ original song, “For The Love Of Money”. Tuff Gong, the O’Jays’ recording label which owns the copyright to the original song, sues Yo Yo Money Singh for copyright infringement. Yo Yo Money Singh argues that his song was a parody of the O’Jays’ original and because of this, it qualifies for fair use under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976.
The case eventually reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, which is tasked with deciding whether or not Yo Yo Money Singh’s song is a parody and whether or not it has done market harm to the O’Jays original release.
Based on Code 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, as well as the oral arguments of the petitioners and respondents, a group of nine Supreme Court Justices need to reach a ruling. Three petitioners and three respondents will argue the case on either side. The rest of the class will take notes, comment on what they saw, and analyze the justices’ final verdict.
Appendix A: Lyrics to Yo Yo Money Singh's Parody
I got, Money, Money, Money, Money,
You don't, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha
I need, Money, Money, Money, Money
For weed, Money, Money, Money, Money
And speed, Money, Money, Money, Money
My creed, Is Money, Money, Money, Money
Appendix B: Lyrics to The O'Jays' Original Song
Money, money, money, money, money [6x]
Some people got to have it
Some people really need it
Listen to me y'all, do things
Do things, do bad things with it
You wanna do things, do things
Do things, good things with it
Talk about cash money, money
Talk about cash money
Dollar bills, y'all