Because it's tedious semantic quibbling, and it's not even correct. One samples a record, by doing this one creates a sample in ones sampler. One then plays this sample in a record of ones own, just like you would any other instrument or sound. You will likely manipulate the sample, like in the video, and then you will have created a new sample.
This isn't very clear in the video, because the editing process in modern software is very non destructive, so you never actually "make" a new sample. In the more primitive hardware of the past, the process is much more explicit.
If you have some other point to make about creative/artistic legitimacy, you should just make it.
So by your description, if it was really about how Daft Punk 'created' that sample, the article would just be a description of how they plugged a record player into a sampler and pressed the record button.
I guess it sounds like you're pretending not to understand what is a fairly simple linguistic ambiguity, in order to start and then win a boring argument.
No one, and I mean absolutely no one, is confused about what it means to sample a song, or to create a sample, or to take a sample from a song. That would be a tedious semantic argument of no value.
So most people interpret would instead interpret it as snide commentary on the illegitimacy of sampling as an art.
Even if you didn't read that, you must at some point come to the conclusion the word "sample" is a bit ambiguous and might have many contexts and uses wouldn't you?
Trying to make yourself feel smart by making a witty one liner, which in all fairness was unjustified, won't win you any awards.
