Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
In the inumerable Variations on a Theme by Paganini (whether by Brahms or
whoever) the original artist is given credit, and substantial reworking
and additions are added by the "borrowing" artist, shall we call him. Of
course, the sound recording is not used, as sampling was confined to
replaying the notes themselves for most of history. Artists were paid
upon the completion of each work by patrons and some artists were widely
regarded as no-talent plaigarists. Not until the advent of the sound
recording does the situation change much-- the system of publishing the
printed score in a folio to enable people to recreate it at home was how
the artist (or more likely their publishing company, like Boosey and
Hawkes) made money off of his work. Many might claim that the score of a
piece should now be as open-source as people claim the recording should
be, and in this day and age it seems prudent to make online copies
available as an educational aid.
But.
For someone to take anyone else's work and use it TO MAKE MONEY
without compensation going to the original artist has been deemed
infringement of copyright as much to ensure the rights of the artist to
exert control over his work as to insure the bottom line of the
corporation that exploits said artist. (And these are increasingly often
the same!) Samuel Beckett and his estate are well-known for seeking
injunctions, rightly or wrongly, against performances that they find not
true to the spirit of the play. Art is not open-source software that
other programmers add to and delete to create a more functional product.
In the cases where artists blurred the lines (Warhol's Marilyn or
Campbell's soup prints or Paul's Boutique) there was debate about where
the line was in the use or misuse of others' material. (Has anyone else
seen the Vanilla Ice interview where he is trying to explain how the riff
in "Ice Ice Baby" differs from the Bowie/ Queen
source material? A sample (speaking of samples): "Theirs goes 'bing
bing bing da da bing bing,' but ours goes 'bing BING bing bing da da bing
bing," right?")
So now that sampling is endemic in our society, we are supposed to
just throw out copyright protection as antiquated and outdated? There
seems to be no argument that you can do anything in the privacy of your
bedroom studio that you want but that your creation will be under scrutiny
once it is played publicly and especially if it is packaged as a product
to be sold. So clear the sample-- what is the big deal? True, Paul's
Boutique could never be recorded in this day and age and be a marketable
product. But even then there was a copyright both for the piece and the
recorded work which had to be applied to the new world of samples and the
ramifications took years to sort out in court cases. So, as long as there
is no money being made off of the work that the sample is used in, it is
fair use. If you are going to make money off of something, should it not
be your own? And if you use someone else's work to make money, should
they not be
compensated? Just because many people think that works of music should
be free to download as one pleases does not somehow legitimize the use of
samples free of charge in works DESIGNED TO MAKE MONEY. That is the
difference-- if you are using someone else's work TO MAKE MONEY, whether
the work is given away for free to sell concert tickets or merchandise or
whatever, they have the right to demand that you clear that use with them
before you do so. Yes, all great works are built standing on the shoulders
of giants. They aren't built looking over their shoulders at their work,
copying it down and calling it one's own.
time
--- On Thu, 9/3/09, Gareth Whittock <buddhamachine@live.co.uk> wrote:
> From: Gareth Whittock <buddhamachine@live.co.uk>
> Subject: RE: Samples and looping
> To: loopers-delight@loopers-delight.com
> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 12:57 PM
>
>
>
> #yiv1974056895 .hmmessage P
> {
> margin:0px;padding:0px;}
> #yiv1974056895 {
> font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
>
>
>
> 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.
>