Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 07:24 PM 8/27/98 -0400, Sean T Barrett wrote: >kim: >>At 11:27 PM -0700 8/26/98, Stephen P. Goodman wrote: >>>Sounds like a bunch of folks wrapping themselves in the term Fair Use, >as >>>if, once someone else creates an original work, anyone has the right to >use >>>it as they see fit, as if all defaults to the public domain, as a >result of >>>publishing. >> >>well Stephen, you still don't seem to understand what Fair Use is. But >you >>are absolutely right, I am completely wrapping myself in the principle of >>Fair Use, which is a well established legal concept in use all over the >>world. So, I challenge you to unwrap me! >> >>Except this time, try using things like evidence, references, actual >legal >>theories, credible, substantiated arguments, the actual law as written, >>consistent logic, etc. You know - actually research what you are saying >>before you say it. So far, all I've gotten from you boils down to "I >don't >>like it, so it's bad." But there's not been any substance underlying >your >>opinion. I'd love to hear a well-reasoned, non-emotional argument based >in >>actual law and legal theory for why Negativland's (and my) interpretation >>of the copyright laws is incorrect, and proving your point that sampling >is >>theft. Up to it? > >Ok, kim. It's very simple. NOBODY disputes that >Negativland (and these other artists) have directly >sampled (copied) other people's works. > >Thus, the burden of proof is on THEM (and you) to >show why it *IS* fair use, and not a violation of >copyright. Please produce references, citations, >etc. etc. I already did that, and really, I'm just restating Negativland's argument. As I said in the first place, please refer to their web page (www.negativland.com), as I don't think it is necessary to re-write everything they already have. They have extensive documentation on the issue, with references, legal texts, etc., which you are welcome to refute. I think they prove their case well, and I'd like to see it argued in court. My complaint above is directed at people who are willing to rail against Negativland's position, using nothing but their opinion and anecdotes to back it up. Indeed, it's not even clear that people here are reading Negativland's documentation before attacking them on it. So far, you are the first person who's actually attempted to provide any credible information on the issue. So, thanks! It's a refreshing change. I just finished reading all the references you cited, and they pretty much line up with Negativland's position on the whole fair use issue. So if you want more references from me, then the ones you provided serve just fine! Hopefully, others are reading them too. The troubling thing is, there haven't been many cases over audio sampling that have gone to trial, so there aren't many legal opinions specific to this issue. Negativland's point is, they want to take it to court, rather than have the whole issue dealt with through strong-arm legal tactics behind the scenes. More power to 'em! (I'm sure they'll just turn it into another piece of media art, too, which should be fun....) One amusing thing from your second reference (ftp://ftp.aimnet.com/pub/users/carroll/law/copyright/faq/part2)...they listed a set of one publisher's guidelines for when they feel it is necessary to seek permission for reuse of a copyrighted work. The funny one is second to last: " - Music examples of more than 4 measures;" So presumably, less than 4 measures is ok? I think you could get the "funky drummer" groove with that! kim ________________________________________________________ Kim Flint, MTS 408-752-9284 Chromatic Research kflint@chromatic.com http://www.chromatic.com