Re: Samples and looping

[Dan Ash <Daniel.Ash@Verizon.net>]

I figured someone would address Louigi's remarks a little more strongly, 
so I though I'd make an attempt.

I'm really glad to see Milo's post because it is a well reasoned 
rebuttal to some serious flaws I see in the position Louigi takes.  I am 
disturbed that there are people that truly feel that they are entitled 
to use someone else's art for commercial gain without compensating it's 
author.  It is IMO a colossal rationalization for theft of intellectual 
property.

I had never seen the tenets of this view laid out before - that art is 
information, and that because society benefits even from art that 
'builds on' the work of others, it should not be subject to the most 
basic rules of commerce.

The digital age has made the theft of intellectual property ridiculously 
easy.  Behemoths like Microsoft, Sony, et al and the government that 
support their business models are desperately trying to shore up their 
leaking revenue streams.  But I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone 
suggest that an author is not somehow entitled to control the sale of 
works they produce, or more specifically, to give away their work while 
reserving certain rights.

Many musicians have recognized that the traditional music business model 
doesn't work for them. So they're experimenting with making downloadable 
versions of  their music available for free.  This might even mean that 
the work is free for use by others in their own commercial ventures.  
But I'm not sure that I've ever seen someone suggest that the author 
shouldn't be able to give away their work with certain restrictions on 
its use - restrictions that may be clearly stated and acknowledged when 
the consumer downloads it, in an easily implemented Creative Commons 
license.

Anyway, perhaps it just reflects a cultural shift away from the view I 
grew up with: that art and music have integral value; that they're 
important somehow.  I think artists are the eyes and even the conscience 
of a society, and have the same right to restrict the use of their 
art/work as any entrepreneur.  They just may not be able to enforce 
those rights in a society that condones theft and exploitation. 

Dan Ash
White Plains, NY



> Subject:
> Re: Samples and looping
> From:
> Milo <milo.vuc@gmail.com>
> Date:
> Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:06:37 +0300
>
> To:
> Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
>
>
> On 9/2/09, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> > This sounds reasonable, but in real life turns out to be a disaster.
>>     
>
> This is just your point of view, your experience, your expectations.
> Not reality.
>
> Thousands of art workers around the world disagree with you. If you
> think they will just sit back and wait until every internet company
> has a few more million dollars in their accounts, you are mistaken.
> People have given their lifes for the right to work, people have
> fought for the right to have a future, long before the internet.
>
> Do you want to hear about real disasters? Check out how many people
> lost their jobs in the last five years because of piracy. Those are
> real people, not forum avatars. They have real families. Real dreams.
> Yes, that is the truth: people lose their job when a studio has to
> close down, when a band can't afford to tour anymore, when a record
> label can't even pay the rent.
>
> 99% of the music industry is hard working people, small studios, indie
> bands, small labels. Those are who are taking 100% of the risk, 100%
> of the damage. Not the superstars.
>
>   
>> > In
>> > order to control what everybody does with your music, you would 
>require
>> > draconian measures and you will have to literally spy on every person 
>in the
>> > world in order to actually see it through.
>>     
>
> You don't understand how the law works, no one is spying on anyone. If
> you use a sample from a movie and you release the album without a
> license, the director is not going to spy on you. He has better things
> to do, like make original films, for example. But you are liable for
> damages from the first day of release. Do you want to risk a lawsuit
> that will force you to pay money for all the years that the album was
> available? Do you want to spend the rest of your life waiting for a
> publisher somewhere to notice your music playing on the radio? Do you
> want to risk your unlicensed material being tracked from the automatic
> log systems of the royalties societies?
>
>   
>> > Also, what if 10000 people use
>> > it?
>>     
>
> If 10,000 use a sample without a license, then 10,000 lawyers are
> going to make some extra money sooner or later. It is not about if you
> are going to get caught, it is about when you are going to get caught.
>
>   
>> >Is it necessary to receive so much money for one piece of music?
>>     
>
> How can you possibly know how much money an artist has invested in his
> profession?
>
>   
>> > Clearly, this business model is flawed and seems reasonable only at 
>the
>> > first glance.
>>     
>
> The only business model that is flawed is the model of stealing the
> indie artists to build internet corporations.
>
>   
>> > But
>> > who said that making good music should result in gaining money?
>>     
>
> Good music is used by many industries and companies to make money. Why
> shouldn't the artist earn a fair share?
>
> I have never heard a music supervisor/director say "hey, have you
> heard any bad music lately? I have to find some really awful tracks
> for a new documentary".
>
>   
>> > People do
>> > lots of good things and do not gain money.
>>     
>
> Do they do those good things for 8 hours every day, 360 days a year?
>
>   
>> > In fact, people who do gain money
>> > in many cases fail to deliver an inspired piece of music.
>>     
>
> Most artists who make a living from their art are delivering inspired
> pieces of music, otherwise they would not make money at all.
>
> Your assumption presents the music listeners as stupid consumers, as a
> whole, worldwide.
>
>   
>> > A person can decide for himself when it concerns only him. The 
>question of
>> > information control, however, concerns the whole society and in fact 
>it
>> > would influence the society more than the artist, since society would 
>have
>> > to abide by the license and the artist would only wait for the 
>bonuses.
>> > By trying to control the flow of information, one unwillingly would 
>control
>> > much more than that - personal freedom. That's the nature of 
>information. So
>> > licenses are a matter of freedom - everybody's freedom.
>> >
>> > This is my view on the subject.
>> >
>> > Louigi.
>>     
>
> Music is an art, it is not information. The only information related
> to music that exists is album notes, press releases, bios and
> interviews. All this information is free for the public and no one is
> interested in controlling its flow.
>
> Calling music as information is the favorite game of the various
> internet companies. Of course they want to present music as
> information, how else are they going to sell bigger hard drives,
> easily exploited social networks and traffic statistics to their
> customers?
>