Re[2]: Fwd: FNV-RIAA IS CRACKING DOWN

[Mike.Biffle@wj.com (Mike Biffle)]

     Dear Stephen...
     
     I can hear your attachment to your work speaking loudly and 
clearly... 
     Unfortunately, there is precedent in the worlds of literature and 
     visual art which precedes this musical argument about "referencing" 
     other people's work. Legal issues aside for the moment...
     
     The practice of a "dialog with your peers" in the art community is a 
     well established practice. The more successful an original work is 
     only makes it a more fitting target for cultural reference, 
     modification and satire.
     
     The Deconstructionists entire motive was the linguistic-semiotic 
     recontextualizing of literature and by extension, cultural icons. The 
     new perspective was sometimes hilarious, and in many cases rendered 
     the original opinion, thesis, art and sound impotent in light of the 
     new updated context. This is *meaningful*... The growth or decline of 
     any particular idea is subject to it's validity and various 
     perspective *now*.
     
     The act of recontextualizing ideas, images, text and *music/sound* 
has 
     been practiced for centuries by artists referencing other's work to 
     create a meaningful dialog. A speech analogy: 
     
                A conversation would have stepwise linear flow with        
 
                meaningful reference to previous statements...
     
     With your approach you deny us reference to any cultural icons. You 
     restrict us from quoting our sources and want to inflict "commerce" 
     upon us by liscencing or charging us just as the big corporations do 
     to tie smaller entities hands legally by suing to isolate the 
original 
     thesis or work... despite the truth that other viewpoints and 
     references might possibly be of any benefit or broaden our horizons 
or 
     even give us a good laugh! This impedes our ability to deliver 
     meaningful contributions/statements with reference to our culture and 
     it's icons... to have meaningful open discussion in the art 
community. 
     We're all reduced to walking on eggshells in a litigious society. 
     Another speech analogy...
     
                There would be no conversation, only random statements!
     
     I'm sure you can guess which universe I'd rather live in... Oh! If 
     only commerce, art and ego could all get along!
     
     Yours truly,
     -Miko
     
     


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: RE: Fwd: FNV-RIAA IS CRACKING DOWN
Author:  "Stephen P. Goodman" <sgoodman@earthlight.net> at INTERNET
Date:    8/26/98 11:27 PM


Sounds like a bunch of folks wrapping themselves in the term Fair Use, as
if, once someone else creates an original work, anyone has the right to use
it as they see fit, as if all defaults to the public domain, as a result of
publishing.

If this newsletter is mainly populated by people who sample for the content
of their material, it'd be a surprise, as I've seen enough informed 
opinions
on the nature of performance to count this newsletter second to Elephant
Talk.  How anyone can pretend that gratis use of material someone else
created (and this is a keyword) is justifiable is beyond me, completely.  
If
the source is public domain, that's fine.  Otherwise, it's just a softening
of that word noone likes to hear, Theft.  Oh, excuse me, "borrowing without
checking".

Putting notices on ones products, when they contain samples, modified from
the source or not, of someone elses work, is just theft with excuses.  How
is that supposed to protect anyone from prosecution for copyright
infringement?

> And anyway, copyright is not necessarily about money.

It is when someone makes money using your material without permission.

> So long as they don't take the
> whole thing, put
> their name at the top in place of yours, and reproduce it
> somewhere else, we
> are fine with this.

How can it be possible that using a section of as opposed to an entire work
exempts one from copyright law?  It's still an unsupportable argument, and
the noise made by the sampling community-at-large still smacks of an airy
justification for being caught with their hands in the jar, as if "the jar
was open!  I smelled the cookies!" is an excuse.

> It's the balancing part of the law, there to prevent some
> entity from stifling further creative developments by
> refusing to allow
> reuse of a particular published work or making it
> unreasonably expensive.
> (That's what Negativland is arguing that the RIAA is doing.)

Like I said.

This is beginning to smell like the PC vs Mac argument, a highly-developed
(though only sporadically active) form of intellectual masturbation.  So
that's all for now, and I'm not Lowell Thomas.

Stephen Goodman  -  It's... The Loop Of The Week!
EarthLight Studios  -  http://www.earthlight.net/Studios