Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
please forgive selective snippage, here. catblack@catblack.com writes: >I agree with Caliban, that new laws are needed to keep up with technology. >My opinion is that when sampling first arrived, the technology made it >pretty easy to spot a sample. Additionally, big, bloated music interests >(boo-hiss) made sample litagation a new industry. From what I've read, >the threat of suing an artist is generally enough to make them pay or not >use >the sample. .....'from what (you've) read'..... 'big bloated music interests'..... hmmm. i sample other folks' stuff. i clear the samples' useage, in advance: we call it 'licensing', in my corner of the world. i do not consider myself particularly big (nor bloated, though that could certainly be e-argued), but my perception tells me that i'm currently protected by (united states) copyright law. this is not a remote, intellectual (ie, 'ivory tower') issue, for me: my recordings have been regularly sampled and used by other folks, in *their* 'work'; in some cases, my 'work' has clearly been presented as if it were *their* 'work'..... which rankles me enough to a) seek an apology, and b) invoking copyright law, seek legal recourse. i have settled out-of-court, in these onerous cases. why did the cases *not* go to court? it was -obviously- *not* due to the fear inspired by the depth of my financial resources, it was because the 'artists' understood that they were culpable: culpable for the responsibility of public mis-representation of 'their' work, potentially to the point of theft..... as they were getting paid for 'work' that materially included my unknowing & material involvement. (one of the cases involved a composer, who used a 90-second sample of me --- solo, and unaltered --- at the emotional peak of his film-score. that sample was from one of my sample-discs, which he had *not* bought.....) as an aside: my first response to this kinda thing, many years ago, was to manufacture & *sell* sample-discs containing loops of similar quality to what was already being sampled; interestingly --- as in the situation, noted above --- this has yielded even more illegal (ie, unpaid-for) copying of even *more* material. >I can imagine how it was presented to the courts, in the early days. The >Judge has a set of good headphones on. They play him "Ice, Ice baby", and >precedences are set. And while sampling and samplers are everywhere, the >artists using them get branded as lazy... and some of them are, but the >essential thing is that is re-enforced is that to use a sample, you have >to pay. i have no problem w/that, esp. when the sampling is 'de maximus'. >(Mind you, you could Onanastically sample yourself, like in the new >Beta Band album. I perfer to think of sampling one's self as a production >method, but the key point is that sampling has taken a bad rap.) not from me! sample away: i will. however, sampling brings ethical 'direction' to the forefront. >But technology has changed. These days, I know I could sample pretty much >anything and not even give a glimmer as to how it originally sounded. that might be described as 'de minimus'-sampling, & may not be a material issue, at all. >I have >done it. The barriers are down. Now, to me, anything I hear is fodder for >the mill. If I hear a nice drum break, I can slot it in, slice it up, >replace the drum sounds and have a new break with the same rhythm. the more one alters the sample (ie, makes it dissimilar to the original), the further one travels from current definitions of copyright 'theft'. >If I >hear >someone's voice that strikes me a certian way, i can bring it in, slice >it around, mess with the pitch, panning, effects... the palette is >endless. >And if you put the headphones on the judge, I doubt he'd hear the original >shining through. well. there ya go, then; make yer own ethical decisions, & live w/them. >[Sidenote: I confess that I'm a raving fanatic for DJ Shadow's >"Endtroducing..." album. I've heard it at least 200 times and I'm still >hearing small sonic details. It's 99 and 44/99ths percent samples. (The >'beautiful girl' and 'came to america, saw xanadu' vocals aren't taken >from >something else.) I truthfully feel it is a defining moment in the history >of >sampled music, and a classic.] i dig it, too, but i'd say it was more of a defining moment in the history of *popularising* sampled music. after all, should historical events be defined by what is 'popular', eg 'what people like & know most', eg what is best-distributed & best-selling? >There need to be clear fair-use guideline for samples. the history of 'justice' seems to show that clarity & rigidity will probably *not* prove 100%-functionality, as regards an ethical issue..... *any* ethical issue. law is fluid; there's the beauty (& horror) of individual cases being decided individually. >If I took a magazine >ad and used it in a collage, I'm granted protection according to US law. >If >I did the same with a Beatles track (assume that you couldn't tell it was >the Beatles, that I would have to tell you) I would be open to litigation >under our current laws. unless you clear the sample, before the work's release: like using another author's arrangement-of-thoughts-in-words in *my* new book, in which case that author's words are quoted 'by kind permission of mssr. le mot', etc..... >Never one to drone endlessly about an agrument, I offer you this >http://www.catblack.com/example1.mp3 >and >http://www.catblack.com/example2.mp3 >You can hear the Beatles (or at least Paul) in the second example, but >not >the 1st. (Note in the 1st, I'm using it twice, an octave up and an octive >down!) Still, from all I've read about copyright law, I could get sued >for both useages. (well, sure, but: in america, one can be sued by fish for breathing too much air.) so. is the sample-use 'material', and is your work 'for sale'? >I'll gladly slurp up any links anyone has about copyright law and what >one can reasonably 'get away with' or not. But honestly, it's time to put >the >headphones on a judge again. the judge is deaf, as are most. best, dt / s-c