RE: Samples and looping

[Gareth Whittock <buddhamachine@live.co.uk>]

I don't see it as theft. If I have a loaf of bread and someone takes it, I can no longer eat it - that's theft.
An idea arrives in the mind of the artist. It's a gift. Why should people attempt to begrudge others the opportunity to listen/see that idea? How mean and egotistical is that?
Applying marketplace ideologies to art is a mistake in my opinion.
Everything should NOT have a price. It's an age old Socialist/individualist, Left wing/right wing, European/American dualogue.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that commercialism doesn't have it's place but music and money mix like oil and water.

peace

g

> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:04:32 -0400
> From: Daniel.Ash@Verizon.net
> To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
> Subject: Re: Samples and looping
>
> 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?
> >
>

---

Add other email accounts to Hotmail in 3 easy steps. Find out how.