*Drops two cents into the 'opinion' jar
Alot of the examples I've read in this thread were 'legitimately' sampled, ie, the 'artist' asked for permission to use said guitar line/bassline/hook/whatev. Just because they can't do anything interesting with it, shouldn't disqualify the art of sampling entirely.
Negativland's No Business cd came with an interesting pamphlet arguing for the revamping of copyright law. The argument goes as this: songs started out as a solely folk-art phenomenon, passed down from person to person the way that stories or family recipes are. Their was no real ownership of a series of notes, it instead accepted that it became part of the cultural ether as soon as it was played, something that people should learn and re-perform. It was only until the invention of the musical record within the last century or so when musical appropriation became a liability and publishers became much more guarded over their 'property' and protecting their financial interests that copyright law really took off to cover re-performances of songs, licks, riffs, what have you.
Is it shitty that no-talent stooges can sample someone's work and make a profit? Yeah. But no matter how many times 'All Summer Long' is played on the radio, I still prefer 'Werewolves in London.' The era of music as a commercial enterprise has entered it's twilight, and I think Billboard and music charts will be having increasingly diminished importance as time goes on: it'll all be about the live performance here pretty soon, with any luck.
I agree that the majority of good music these days is not on the radio. I also believe that the mass accessibility of music these days is good - anyone can acquire the proper instruments and recording equipment to share their music with the world. Whether or not the majority of that music is good is another question, I just believe that it's high time that music become a cultural aspect again as oppose to a business venture.