The "Amen Break", money and whats considered "fair".

On my first post, I left a link to a mini-documentary on a six second drum loop from a little known R&B group from the late 60's. The group is called the Winstons. Interestingly, the group still exists today, and still plays from their own catalog.
This six second loop is from a song, appropriately titled "Amen, Brother". It was the B-side to their most famous song "Color Me Father". Although, it was the A-side that won the group a gold record from the RIAA, it was the B-side that changed hip-hop and rap beats for the past 20 years.
Now at this point, I'd like to ask the reader to think about what's fair in the taking of an original song, in whole or part? Most would say something like its the essence of the song that, when taken, constitutes a copyright infringement. I think this summarizes the legal opinions we can find in Thomas G. Schumachers piece, "This Is a Sampling Sport", although Schumacher breaks this idea down into its elements to make his case.
When we look at the break in "Amen, Brother", we hear a series of beats that when strung together, give us a signature Winstons sound from their drummer G.C. Colemen. Who do we consider the audience to be for this sound? I think we would come up with different people then who we say listen to rap or hip-hop. So is the fact that rap or hip hop use this break merely a question of different interpretations by the different artist? Does this make it OK to take the original work of another artist. I'd argue that it wouldn't make it an ethical act on the perpetrating artist. The reason is that it constitutes a "significant infringement" on the Winstons intellectual property. Consider if the Winstons were paid only a couple thousand dollars every time the song was sampled by a major recording artist, or if they were paid a penny for every time their break was played? The Winstons would have made more money off that break then they've made throughout their entire musical career. Is it fair to deny them their dues?
As defined by 17 USC, s.107 of the Copyright Act this issue falls under "The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work".
But in the end, was it fair that their work was ripped off? Well, it seems that in the eyes of the law something else trumped our original conclusion about protecting the essence of the song. The original band member that owned the rights to the song went on to receive his PhD.in political science. He never even brought up the issue because his priorities have changed, or, more importantly he understood that it might be more hassle than it was worth. Here's a link to the "...worlds most important 6 sec drum break."