Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Phreaking? Been there, counted the stuffed deer heads on the Secret Service's walls. But samples and copyrights: I think that it all depends on just how deep you can bury it. The analogy breaks down when one gets down to it. It's not civil disobediance, really. I mean, we are at the point where I can be a groove robber. I can steal a rhythm, maybe tune or replace a drum or four... and ala peanut butter sandwiches, it's a whole new groove. Do not adjust your set, I control the vertical (pitch), I control the horizonal (tempo)... Obviously there are instances where I'd want to clear a sample. If I felt I needed to use a specific, recognizable sample, I would clear it. Of course, if I couldn't get permission,, or afford it (and the money really isn't going to the artist, it's going to lawers and record companies -- I will not argue this point) if there is a situation like that, I would re-create the sound, much like the Bloodhound Gang did on their first album when they couldn't get permission from the Cure. (Oh course, there are instances where an artist should NOT use a sample -- like Fatboy Slim using Jim Morrison to abysmal effect.) But it IS a lifestyle! I'm living on, raised on, this mass of culture. I'm an Omega male, I'm living at the end of history (we are always at the end of history, *wink wink*) and there is currently a solid century of recorded media that I can draw from. (Not just recorded music!) Just like someone who validly uses clippings from a magazine to create art, I will use samples to get across a sonic representation of my emotional existance. I will recontextualize my experience as a human in this century, by way of the products of my surroundings, the products of my culture, the media I am inundated with. (And I swear I didn't get this philosophy while wanking off to DJ Spooky liner notes.) Of course an artist desrves credit, of course SOME samples need to be cleared! But were are currently entering into the period that the record companies feared 20 years ago. Nowadays anyone with a home computer could record a hit album using sliced up (and yea, even unrecognizable) bits of pre-recorded music. They feared it then, and that's partly why we currently have an unfair and unrealistic system in place today. Far, far too much grey. In my understanding of it, Fair Use is not applied to sound the way it is to other mediums. I welcome anyone to correct me if I am wrong. Can we at least agree that the laws need to be re-examined? Catblack -----Original Message----- From: Stephen P. Goodman [mailto:spgoodman@earthlight.net] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 12:52 AM To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com Subject: Re: (OT) Copyright in a Sampled World... I'm a bit reminded of something that happened at a Bulletin Board party back in 1982. The couple that ran Aphrodite East - not just a dating board, but more or less a social one in the way we enjoy - had a party for all who were on it. This couple had just stopped being in the Swinging scene so that they could have kids. There were all types of people there, and some of them were in the bad habit of copping telephone credit card numbers. Coming into a room after hearing a heated bit of discussion, I heard the Sysop saying this to one of these fellows: "John, PHONE PHREAKING is NOT an ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE!" So it goes for copyright infringement. Sampling without giving due credit (or either getting permission to use free, or paying the poor guy who created the sample) IS NOT "civil disobediance", nor even bloody close to the Boston Tea Party, even in spirit. "Caliban Tiresias Darklock" <caliban@darklock.com> wrote: > <kmulvihill@mediaone.net> wrote: > > >Caliban, I was with you in your message below until the very > >end. There, you talk about how "absolutely essential" you believe the > >concept of copyright law is, but you yourself consciously do not, in > >practice, adhere to it. I can see from your posts that you are very > >intelligent, so let me ask you: does this seem like a double standard to > >you, or is there some way to reconcile the two conflicting positions? > > Concept and current statute are very different things. I think the > existing laws are wrong, but I don't think copyright should be abolished > altogether. Artists need to be protected from corporate predators, but > the current laws effectively make artistic production secondary to > monetary return. That needs to change, but someone who wants to change > it has to end up in a federal court first. > > >In your long message below, when it comes to the question of the artist > >doing what they want to with another's artistic work, you're suggestion, > >apparently, is to do what you wish, claim 'fair use' - and hope no one sues > >you. > > Actually, it's "honestly try to be fair, hope the artist agrees with > your idea of 'fair', and hope the law agrees if the artist doesn't". > >From a copyright law perspective, no amount of sampling is acceptable, > period. It's all in a big grey area. If you're in that grey area, hoping > no one sues you is all you *can* do. > > >So, Caliban, I'm just wondering: assuming that you do want to earn some > >buckolas from your music, how do you legally and morally justify your >use of > >samples (meaning music created by others and used without permission or > >compensation) under the fair use doctrine? > > Morally? Civil disobedience. Our country was founded on it. Remember the > Boston tea party? Same thing. I'm chucking other people's tea into my > harbor and refusing to pay the taxes. ;) > > Legally? Ahh, now we're talking. I don't care about that USC 17 > paragraph 107 "fair use" crap. That's just icing. What *I'm* on about is > nothing less than the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: > "[The Congress shall have power...] To promote the progress of science > and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors > the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" > > Now, you see, *that* is the CONCEPT of copyright. The part that's > "absolutely essential". There's also a valid fair use defense, but I > intend to challenge the whole damn system on constitutional grounds if > anyone's ever dumb enough to take me to court. > > Dumb enough? Am I that arrogant? You betcha. No matter *how* it comes > out, I win. Oh, I may be held responsible for infringement and told to > pay millions of dollars, sure -- but between the media blitz, the > subculture rabble-rousing, and the marketing synergy, I guarantee you > I'll manage to get rich off it. And if I tear down the whole damn thing > and manage to start something that at least PRETENDS to protect the > artist, I just *might* become the single most important figure in the > history of sampling. > > "And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to > take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its > success, then to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of > things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done > well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may > do well under the new." -- "The Prince", Niccolo Machiavelli Note: mp3.com now officially supports the Music Online Competition Act of 2001, which allows for people to use and make money off your work without telling or paying you. RIAA has officially sort of said that they don't support it, despite having had a hand in designing it, from all indicators and reports. In conjunction with their stripping of ID Tags containing copyright information this could be quite telling. Coverage at http://www.earthlight.net/Thoughts002.html Stephen Goodman http://www.earthlight.net/Gallery_Front.html - Cartoons & Illustrations http://www.earthlight.net/Studios * The free Loop of the Week! http://www.live365.com/stations/218194 * EarthLight Online / Live!