Those are really egregious examples of sampling, where the sample is almost the entire song. I agree that in those cases the original artist should be compensated, just as the original composer must be compensated when you do a cover.

But most sample-based music is not like this. Other examples raised in this discussion thread, such as the Beastie Boys' album "Paul's Boutique", use samples as a form of sonic collage. Works like these should be regarded by the law as original works, just as a visual collage would be.

Should The Winston's be compensated for the near-ubiquitous "Amen Break'? Or James Brown for "Funky Drummer"? Or the countless others that provided the elements (samples) upon whole genres of modern music are founded? I argue that it is in society's interest to answer "no", simply because the works would not exist were there legal barriers hindering its creation.