In this instance, Mac didn't chop or re-imagine a track, he borrowed it wholesale and rapped over it. To me that's the issue here, that he used the whole track and didn't even bother to mention Finesse or credit him etc. Any track like this to me should start with "Big respect to ______, a hip hop legend" or something like that where everyone who listens to it hears the name being dropped and is made aware that it isn't an original composition, and to go check out the original.
On the subject of sampling and getting everything cleared, if you are making lots of money off of songs with uncleared samples, that's one thing, but for a lot of underground artists or people who do this for fun/hobby, its impossible to clear anything let alone everything. Really, the law in this area needs to be re-evaluated as the copyright law was last updated in 1976, as hip hop was just being formed and far from being the commercial music juggernaut it is today. There should be some sort of barrier to cross that after a certain number of copies, a small % of royalties is paid to each of the sampled artists at a flat rate percentage that won't bankrupt the hip hop artist or leave the sampled artist eating bread crumbs. One sampled artist shouldn't be able to demand a figure so high that it keeps the hip hop artist from making any money just to put it out and have it cleared at the same time.
The type of production that the P does has a very particular sound to it and it is in large part thanks to it being sample based. I don't see how they get everything cleared or anything close to 100% cleared without bankrupting their efforts before copy #1 is sold.
As I have started making music like this, I've started to believe that there is no way to really do this legally (like Thes said). A credit in the liner notes is a way to show respect but would also be a list of samples for lawyers to go after you with, so I don't know what the fair and balanced approach would be really. People like Kanye can afford to (at this level in their career) pay and get every sample cleared, but artists much lower on the totem pole financially can't possibly afford to......
The only solution that I can see fixing the situation and allowing artists to make music like the P does without fear and without being bankrupted by going the legal route is for the law to change. But artists and copyright holders with their influence in the industry would never allow this type of common sense "everybody wins" approach as they are driven by greed largely, and they would use their influence to get the law updated to benefit themselves and not drive the creation of creative music, whether it be sample based or otherwise. I'm not a fan of Mac but he seems to have a level head at least (in public). Unseemly though how he apparently has done this before (video above) and didn't give credit there either until he was approached publicly to do so.
For the time being, I think its smartest for producers to try to dig obscurely, pitch change/process/filter to mask, and chop and play back in with samplers to avoid being the subject of a lawsuit. Certainly makes you think twice about sampling 2 bars of something or longer. The shorter the sample (like single notes) the better. Certainly limiting for sure though.....I don't see lawyers being able to discern pitch changed single notes of their artists' composition that have been played back in with a sampler making something completely new.........-greg
*rant over*
