Re: Fwd: FNV-RIAA IS CRACKING DOWN

["trevor bajus, digital surgeon" <nyfac2@nyfac.com>]

Kim Flint wrote:

> Provisions are made in the law to allow others to reuse portions of
> that work for a variety of puposes, freely, and without requireing any
> permission from you, the owner. That's in the law, and has been for a 
>very
> long time, and is a principle called Fair Use....  The point of it is to
> encourage ongoing
> discourse and development of ideas and the creation of new works based on
> those ideas.
>
> An example of fair use is right in front of you. Stephen used a portion 
>of a
> published work of Motley's, verbatim, for the purpose of commenting on 
>it.
> Motley had used another's published work before that, in his post, also
> verbatim. I'm now "sampling" both of you and reusing your work in this 
>piece
> that I am about to publish....

Back to the Puff Daddy v. Negitivland thing, if I may.

Negitivland uses the samples as commentary, critizing the sources of those
samples.  Puff take a song, changes a word or two in the lyrics, and rakes 
in the
loot.  He does not do it to, say, critize or comment on David Bowie 
(although he
certainly could: there's always that James Brown song [I forget the name] 
the he
lifted music wholesale from for his song 'Fame')

This also differs from Terminator X's useage of sampling in PE.  He and 
the Bomb
Squad layered their sample beds so densely, that the song owed little to 
the
original source.  Their work reminds me (and maybe you) of how our music 
chops
developed.  There's an amalgamation of a thousand riffs, textures, and 
grooves
that when fused together is something wholely new.  Like Ben Johnston said 
(more
or less): there is nothing new under the sun, only that which is old, 
written
anew.


tdb