Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
David is correct. Hedewa7@aol.com wrote: > 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