Re: (OT) Copyright in a Sampled World...

[Mark <sine@zerocrossing.net>]

David is correct.

Hedewa7@aol.com wrote:

> please forgive selective snippage, here.
>
> catblack@catblack.com writes:
> >I agree with Caliban, that new laws are needed to keep up with 
>technology.
> >My opinion is that when sampling first arrived, the technology made it
> >pretty easy to spot a sample. Additionally, big, bloated music interests
> >(boo-hiss) made sample litagation a new industry. From what I've read,
> >the threat of suing an artist is generally enough to make them pay or 
>not use
> >the sample.
> .....'from what (you've) read'..... 'big bloated music interests'.....
> hmmm.
> i sample other folks' stuff. i clear the samples' useage, in advance: we 
>call
> it 'licensing', in my corner of the world.
> i do not consider myself particularly big (nor bloated, though that could
> certainly be e-argued), but my perception tells me that i'm currently
> protected by (united states) copyright law.
> this is not a remote, intellectual (ie, 'ivory tower') issue, for me:
> my recordings have been regularly sampled and used by other folks, in 
>*their*
> 'work';
> in some cases, my 'work' has clearly been presented as if it were *their*
> 'work'..... which rankles me enough to a) seek an apology, and b) 
>invoking
> copyright law, seek legal recourse.
> i have settled out-of-court, in these onerous cases.
> why did the cases *not* go to court?
> it was -obviously- *not* due to the fear inspired by the depth of my
> financial resources, it was because the 'artists' understood that they 
>were
> culpable:
> culpable for the responsibility of public mis-representation of 'their' 
>work,
> potentially to the point of theft..... as they were getting paid for 
>'work'
> that materially included my unknowing & material involvement.
>
> (one of the cases involved a composer, who used a 90-second sample of me 
>---
> solo, and unaltered --- at the emotional peak of his film-score. that 
>sample
> was from one of my sample-discs, which he had *not* bought.....)
>
> as an aside:
> my first response to this kinda thing, many years ago, was to 
>manufacture &
> *sell* sample-discs containing loops of similar quality to what was 
>already
> being sampled;
> interestingly --- as in the situation, noted above --- this has yielded 
>even
> more illegal (ie, unpaid-for) copying of even *more* material.
>
> >I can imagine how it was presented to the courts, in the early days. The
> >Judge has a set of good headphones on. They play him "Ice, Ice baby", 
>and
> >precedences are set. And while sampling and samplers are everywhere, the
> >artists using them get branded as lazy... and some of them are, but the
> >essential thing is that is re-enforced is that to use a sample, you have
> >to pay.
> i have no problem w/that, esp. when the sampling is 'de maximus'.
>
> >(Mind you, you could Onanastically sample yourself, like in the new
> >Beta Band album. I perfer to think of sampling one's self as a 
>production
> >method, but the key point is that sampling has taken a bad rap.)
> not from me! sample away: i will.
> however, sampling brings ethical 'direction' to the forefront.
>
> >But technology has changed. These days, I know I could sample pretty 
>much
> >anything and not even give a glimmer as to how it originally sounded.
> that might be described as 'de minimus'-sampling, & may not be a material
> issue, at all.
>
> >I have
> >done it. The barriers are down. Now, to me, anything I hear is fodder 
>for
> >the mill. If I hear a nice drum break, I can slot it in, slice it up,
> >replace the drum sounds and have a new break with the same rhythm.
> the more one alters the sample (ie, makes it dissimilar to the 
>original), the
> further one travels from current definitions of copyright 'theft'.
>
> >If I
> >hear
> >someone's voice that strikes me a certian way, i can bring it in, slice
> >it around, mess with the pitch, panning, effects... the palette is 
>endless.
> >And if you put the headphones on the judge, I doubt he'd hear the 
>original
> >shining through.
> well. there ya go, then;
> make yer own ethical decisions, & live w/them.
>
> >[Sidenote: I confess that I'm a raving fanatic for DJ Shadow's
> >"Endtroducing..." album. I've heard it at least 200 times and I'm still
> >hearing small sonic details. It's 99 and 44/99ths percent samples. (The
> >'beautiful girl' and 'came to america, saw xanadu' vocals aren't taken
> >from
> >something else.) I truthfully feel it is a defining moment in the 
>history
> >of
> >sampled music, and a classic.]
> i dig it, too, but i'd say it was more of a defining moment in the 
>history of
> *popularising* sampled music.
> after all, should historical events be defined by what is 'popular', eg 
>'what
> people like & know most', eg what is best-distributed & best-selling?
>
> >There need to be clear fair-use guideline for samples.
> the history of 'justice' seems to show that clarity & rigidity will 
>probably
> *not* prove 100%-functionality, as regards an ethical issue..... *any*
> ethical issue.
> law is fluid; there's the beauty (& horror) of individual cases being 
>decided
> individually.
>
> >If I took a magazine
> >ad and used it in a collage, I'm granted protection according to US law.
> >If
> >I did the same with a Beatles track (assume that you couldn't tell it 
>was
> >the Beatles, that I would have to tell you) I would be open to 
>litigation
> >under our current laws.
> unless you clear the sample, before the work's release:
> like using another author's arrangement-of-thoughts-in-words in *my* new
> book, in which case that author's words are quoted 'by kind permission of
> mssr. le mot', etc.....
>
> >Never one to drone endlessly about an agrument, I offer you this
> >http://www.catblack.com/example1.mp3
> >and
> >http://www.catblack.com/example2.mp3
>
> >You can hear the Beatles (or at least Paul) in the second example, but
> >not
> >the 1st. (Note in the 1st, I'm using it twice, an octave up and an 
>octive
> >down!) Still, from all I've read about copyright law, I could get sued
> >for both useages.
> (well, sure, but: in america, one can be sued by fish for breathing too 
>much
> air.)
> so. is the sample-use 'material', and is your work 'for sale'?
>
> >I'll gladly slurp up any links anyone has about copyright law and what
> >one can reasonably 'get away with' or not. But honestly, it's time to 
>put the
> >headphones on a judge again.
> the judge is deaf, as are most.
> best,
> dt / s-c