Re: Samples and looping

[Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@gmail.com>]

I see your point. It is a good point. However, I would say that an artist has to understand that by releasing his work to the public he not only gains positive moments, but also theoretically negative. Because, while in the world of pure ideas it can be at least argued that an artist should be able to control what is being done with his work, in real world this cannot be accomplished. With the internet it is virtually impossible to control that at all. So I think that artists should stop chasing people who use their work without permission - they should change their business models and stop focusing on selling copies of their work.

Also, and I've always believed it to be an interesting point - why would you get money for work done once? You record music - yes, that was hard work. You get some money - either from a person who contracted you to do the recording or from shows to which people came after listening to your records. If someone uses your recording in their work and sold it - why should you get money? Here we are not speaking about plagiarism - this is a completely different story. Let's speak about a case like when you use a vocal from a movie in your song. Is the movie producer "working" each time someone listens to this recording? If not - why should he be paid?

Of course, what's also true for the real world, is that until you are not a super star, noone really cares about samples in your music. If you are just a musician who is making a living, I strongly doubt you will have any serious problems with sampling, especially if the samples are not too recognizable.

Here's an example. This album has several voice samples from Star Trek Voyager - almost in every tune there are several voice samples that add to the atmosphere. I may be wrong, but I do not think I morally owe something to the movie company or the actors.
http://www.disc-shelf.com/?album=39

Guys, I may be wrong on this. I do not consider my views to be written in stone. I am constantly evaluating my views, thinking them over. But as fas as I can see it now, today, an artist should not be a person who elevates above the rest of the public, demanding everyone to run to them and ask permission. What if he denies? Many good works may cease to exist.

L.V.

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Mech <mech@m3ch.net> wrote:

At 2:36 PM +0400 8/27/09, Louigi Verona wrote:

I really do not enjoy a position of a semi-god who has to be asked every time someone makes a creative (or a non-creative) decision. In the faq section of the site I explicitly state this.

But you see: that is your choice, and you are absolutely free to make it.  However, would you deny another person that same right to choose how/where/when their music is used.  This is especially the case if someone is using somebody else's work to make money.

My wife, for instance, is a photographer.  Unfortunately, she spends an inordinate amount of time chasing down people who believe that "just because it's on the Internet, it's free to steal".  It's one thing when somebody snarfs someone else's photos (without permission) to use on their own website or blog -- that's merely rude.  But there are actual commercial publications and/or agencies who have taken other people's work and make money off of them.

That's one reason why I really like the Creative Commons idea. Because it allows the creator to set the desired access level from "free for all to take and use" to "don't you dare touch this under any circumstances".

The point is, IMNSHO, that this should be the choice of the original creator, not someone who merely discovers the work at a later time.

       --m.
--
_____
"when you think your dreams are shattered, it's time to dream new dreams"