You persist in the error that a chord sequence's repetition is similar to sampling. They are poles apart.

If you take the opening solo guitar chord of say "A Hard Days Night" it is instantly recognisable. What you are "buying" (or stealing) there is a zeitgeist, a moment in time, that is to do with a room sound, a posh mic, sh1t hot engineers and producers, and one of the most creative bands of all time... all in a 2 second wrapper.

If you use it, you are using it for one reason only. You hope the magic will rub off. Because you are not that good, and never will be.

Nobody is stopping you playing the same chord yourself and recording it. So why do you want to sample it? Because you are, personally, incapable of delivering the rest of the package. There can be no other reason.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Did you miss the part about the difficulty of clearing each and every sample in a track containing hundreds of samples under the current system of clearance and licensing? Did you miss the part about the prohibitive cost of those licenses or that fact that major-label signed artists have the power of the label behind them to clear all of those samples, because often it is in fact that label or a subsidiarary who owns them?

---

It's difficult because the owners of the works have a say. That's the law. Long may it remain so. When Renault wanted to use Bowie's "Space Oddity" for a car ad, he said no. They recorded a (good) cover version and paid their royalties like they should. What's so hard?

Quote Bertyjnr:

---

Just noticed the ad at the top of the page. If SoS think it's okay, who are we to argue?

---

The ads rotate so this is hard to answer, but AFAIK SOS only advertise legal sample disks/libraries which are cleared for further use.

I have no problem with sampling.

I have a huge problem with people who think it's a free for all, irrespective of what the law says.




--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Edited by Steve Hill (12/08/07 04:00 PM)

Quote :

---

Creating a piece of music can take a lot of creativity, work, time, stress, and money. Sampling it takes seconds. It's cheap and easy and free. Of course it's attractive to want to do it.

---

That is bad faith. You are assuming that people who sample only do so out laziness. I know from talking to many sample-based musicians that that is not their motivation at all. Where is your proof to back up your accusations?

It is not easy to use a sampler well anymore than it is to play any other instrument well. Standards of what is considered good usually develop over time depending on many factors including how easy a particular instrument is to play. Sample-based musicians starting today face stiff competition from the masters: Amon Tobin, DJ Shadow, Squarepusher, etc... Perhaps it's easier to make a music on a sampler, I don't see why that is a bad thing, but it sure as hell is difficult to make some which competes with those guys.

Some other thoughts: A difficult melody played on a theremin is perhaps easier to play on a keyboard, for example. Does this mean that someone who plays on Ondes Martinet somehow deserves our scorn for 'devaluing' the sound of the much more difficult to play theremin?

Think about what a sampler actually is for a second - it's not really an instrument in the traditional sense at all, although of course it can be hooked up to a keyboard via MIDI. In reality, a sampler is more of a hybrid compositional and recording tool, where as a regular instrument can only really a performance tool. Where then is the logic in comparing a sample based *composition* on the same terms of a rock band with live, *performing* musicians? It's not that one is better than the other - is an entirely subjective opinion. They are conceptually completely different things!

Re: You persist in the error that a chord sequence's repetition is similar to sampling. They are poles apart.

Trying to debate without analogy on any subject is impossible. There are very definite parallels between the two - if there weren't then why are they both considered intellectual property by law? Try rereading my posts.

Re: If you take the opening solo guitar chord of say "A Hard Days Night" it is instantly recognisable. What you are "buying" (or stealing) there is a zeitgeist, a moment in time, that is to do with a room sound, a posh mic, sh1t hot engineers and producers, and one of the most creative bands of all time... all in a 2 second wrapper.

No, you just value the work of engineers and producers more than composers. The chord sequence to Tomorrow by James is similarly instantly recognisable as The Big Ship by Brian Eno, so much so it's quite fun trying to sing Tomorrow over the top. What about the composer's time and hard work, isn't there a parallel there? Once again though, you are assuming that less protection means less income from royalties for the sampled artist. Please reread earlier posts.

If you use it, you are using it for one reason only. You hope the magic will rub off. Because you are not that good, and never will be.

Ditto bad faith. You have no evidence that that is the motivation. Reread previous post.

Re: Nobody is stopping you playing the same chord yourself and recording it. So why do you want to sample it? Because you are, personally, incapable of delivering the rest of the package. There can be no other reason.

I've given other reasons, but you've chosen to overlook them.

Likewise, I've said several times, I don't personally like sampling other people's music in my music. The worst I can be accused of based on my postings, is not coming up with an original band name. I could if I wanted to, but I want to use the quote instead, as that particular author has had a big influence on my music and outlook in life. I would hope that it would inspire listeners to then check out that author, in much the same way as film samples on the Manics' 'Holy Bible' got me reading Orwell and Ballard. Call it a lack of imagination if you will, but I'm pretty sure I have a better idea of my motivations than you do.

I don't understand why you are making accusations and judgements about my music (which you haven't heard), based on my opinions on sampling and copyright.


110 IF CLUE=0 GOTO 10.

"I find your post as patronising as the idea a white politician who was in nappies during apartheid should apologise for an abhorrent system his ancestors were responsible for." Bertyjnr

Eh?! You got all that from my post?

Just pointing out some home truths. I'm sorry that that offends your middle white class over-sensitivities.


"er Les, when did this become a black/white thing? White people sample too and black people make original compositions. How far back will we have to go to settle this particular new branch of the discussion?" ow

er... it hasn't become a white/black thing. I merely make these points as part of a (largely interesting) long thread. Go back and read my earlier comments, and you will find that I have attempted to place the whole argument into the widest possible perspective. The particular comment you are commenting on was in direct reply to JellyJim's argument, and was not intended (neither can it possibly be taken to be) my only view.

I do so hope that this thread will not polarize itself into the usual slanging match between those who say "sampling can be good, it's not all black and white" and those who retort simply by saying "oh yes it is!" Surely that particular pantomime has been played to death?

And no one has come back to me on my suggestion that the copyright laws should be amended to allow for the concept of extent, or a simple test of "recognition." I won't repeat it, as the argument is set out clearly enough above.

"Surely that particular pantomime has been played to death?" leslawrenson


Oh not it hasn't!!


[PS I got in before someone else did].

The "is sampling theft" argument seems to get side tracked by artistic factors. The real issue is that practically all commercially released music will have a statement to the effect of:

"All rights of the producer and the owner of the recorded work reserved. Unauthorised copying, hiring, renting, public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited."

If you don't have permission sampling is unauthorised copying. And it is prohibited.

It doesn't become theft when you use the sample, it becomes theft when you take the sample.

Im not against sampling culture, but i do believe in a culture where peoples rights are upheld.

Its not about how long a sample is, or how creative you are with it. You buy a product with certain rights granted to you and others denied.

Unauthorised copying (sampling) is prohibited. It is theft.

I totally acknowledge the impracticality of gaining clearance for audio before it has even entered the sampler for experimentation, and I'm sure every publisher and other owner of rights is happy to extend that courtesy. But putting a piece of someone else's audio into your sampler doesn't make it yours.

You should expect that at some point down the line you should pay your dues.

It's the bit about sampling: "it's not all black and white", which amuses me.

I don't think the race aspect is particularly important today, but I can see the point. Then again, it's not really an issue which is relevant to me, so perhaps it is still important...

Certainly, there were instances during the rise of rock & roll, where the law was used in dubious ways that just so happened to punish afro-carribeans more than whites. The whole payola dispute is worth reading up on, although it's been a while, so I'll leave that for someone else to argue.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Re: You don't need to clear it. It's perfectly OK to quote from books... even for a band name.

If that was really true then why are Marillion not called Silmarillion?

---

That's not a quote from a book, it's the title of a book. Titles aren't copyright... they cannot be used because they represent the work owned by a publisher and use of them could be considered passing off.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Why are The Doors not called The Doors of Perception?

---

That's not a quote from a book, it's another title of a book.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

There are fair use laws for using quotations in academic work yes, but from my reading, these do not extend to using these names effectively as a trade mark in a commercial venture.

---

This is nothing to do with copyright exceptions (we don't have "fair use" that's America).

If your band is named after a quotation from a book it's most unlikely to be copyright. When a book is copyright, it is the book and substantial parts of the book that are covered. It would be extremely unusual for any individual phrase in the book to be copyright.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

slammer, I hear what you say. It sums up what most of the nay-sayers say.

But how can you police it? Easy enough when the sample is recognisable. But what about when it isn't? Would you recognise a single snare drum hit off any particular record?

Or what about a sample of strings (not the melody) that is used, effectively, as an oscillator to create a completely new track, without any reference, at all, to the melody or lyrical (words and music) content of the work from which the sample was taken? How are you going to know that there has been a breach of the law?

Surely, a law that looks at the extent of the sampling or, better still, one that has a simple test of recognition, would be not only a fairer way of adjudicating on such matters, but will also be a fairer reflection on the "evil" that copyright is (in reality) trying to prevent - namely the mere gross reproduction of someone else's ideas!

Is this propostion so totally absurd?

Quote leslawrenson:

---

"I can't understand why you are so desperate to copy other people's stuff. Haven't you got any imagination?" Rob C

With respect, Rob, that displays an incredible ignorance of some of the highly creative work undertaken by samplists.

---

Not really Les... unless Happy is one of them... and he claims not to be.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Re: the MCPS' clearance service.

They only help you find the copyright holders contact details...

---

Look again. That is not correct.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

Quote slammer:

---

The "is sampling theft" argument seems to get side tracked by artistic factors. The real issue is that practically all commercially released music will have a statement to the effect of:

"All rights of the producer and the owner of the recorded work reserved. Unauthorised copying, hiring, renting, public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited."

If you don't have permission sampling is unauthorised copying. And it is prohibited.

It doesn't become theft when you use the sample, it becomes theft when you take the sample.

Im not against sampling culture, but i do believe in a culture where peoples rights are upheld.

Its not about how long a sample is, or how creative you are with it. You buy a product with certain rights granted to you and others denied.

Unauthorised copying (sampling) is prohibited. It is theft.

I totally acknowledge the impracticality of gaining clearance for audio before it has even entered the sampler for experimentation, and I'm sure every publisher and other owner of rights is happy to extend that courtesy. But putting a piece of someone else's audio into your sampler doesn't make it yours.

You should expect that at some point down the line you should pay your dues.

---

Repeating what the law already says ad nauseum is not really engaging with the argument. Neither do I recall anyone saying sampling should be free.

If you acknowledge the impracticality of clearance, then how would you make the system better?

Re: Its not about how long a sample is, or how creative you are with it. You buy a product with certain rights granted to you and others denied.

Under the system as it stands at present, yes I agree. However, laws are not set in stone. There *could* be a system in place which gives composers propertorial rights to chord sequences. Thankfully, there isn't. Those laws can be changed, and under them different forms of creativity will live and sometimes die.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

It's the bit about sampling: "it's not all black and white", which amuses me.

---

Well... I thought things were becoming a little heated! Nothing like humour to cool the temperature.

To quote:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/jun97/sampleclearance.html

Although they won't negotiate a deal between you and one of the majors, they will find out who owns the copyright of any song ever registered, what their phone number is, probably give you a name to contact, and advise you on what you're getting into.

Perhaps the MCPS have changed over the last ten years, but my brief Google search could find nothing to indicate this.

Re: This is nothing to do with copyright exceptions (we don't have "fair use" that's America).
Fair point - ok, so replace "fair use" with those bits of a work that aren't copied by copyright, which you seem to think include the titles of books. This despite several notable examples of band names with variations on various book titles. Why did they change them? Could I really set up a band called 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'? If so, why couldn't Gary Gygax call halflings Hobbits, in Dungeon and Dragons? There is nothing in my copy of the Hobbit to suggest that the name is trademarked and you seem to think it isn't covered by copyright. Perhaps it would be now, but back then? Perhaps the confusion here is all down to differences in UK and US law, who knows?

Regardless, my point for even mentioning the band name problem was to illustrate how difficult it actually is to get an answer from these people, not to get into discussion of the intricacies of copyright in literature.

Quote Sir George Martian:

---

Quote jellyjim:

---

There is another important issue here that shouldn't be overlooked. Hip-hop is a musical form largely born of the Afro-Caribbean diaspora of the continental United States. Said diaspora has historically endured significant social and economic deprivation compared to white communities. In the absence of educational, financial and artistic opportunities a "make do" spirit prevails.

---

Years ago, when blacks were far more disadvantaged than today, they managed to create and dominate the genres of Blues, Jazz, and R&B, using real instruments and analogue tape. Suddenly, they can't play and can't afford instruments? **snort**

---

That's an interesting point actually because the instruments that originated Blues, Jazz and R&B were the instruments of the poor. The piano or organ (pipe or hammond) would have been owned by the local church, ie the community not individuals. Guitars have always been cheap as chips and in one genre at least, jazz, still fight to be considered a "real instrument" at all. Yup many jazzers still regard the guitar as not belonging to jazz. And speaking of jazz it has been observed that the at it's origins, ie ragtime trad/new orleans, it was predominated by brass instruments. Brass instruments were cheap as chips in the decades that followed the American Civi War because of the disbanding of so many military and marching bands.

Quote Sir George Martian:

---

Creating a piece of music can take a lot of creativity, work, time, stress, and money. Sampling it takes seconds. It's cheap and easy and free. Of course it's attractive to want to do it.

---

Of course there are lazy uses of samples just like there are lazy uses of the 12 bar blues. To paraphrase Harry Allen, red is just red. Look how Van Gough used yellow for his sunflowers compared to how my mate's 5 year old used yellow to paint a "dog" at school. Be it "yellow" or samples, it's all just tools.

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

Quote Sir George Martian:

---

using real instruments and analogue tape

---

On the contrary, the recording of black American music invariably involved the financial assistance of often more prosperous white businessman.

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

Quote jimdrake:

---

Quote John Willett:

---

Sampling is theft - full stop.

---

If someone takes my camera, that is theft. I no longer have the ability to use it. I will also lose any income that is generated directly through using it.

If someone clones my camera, and uses it for whatever reason, that is not theft. I still posses my copy, my life is not directly affected by someone else also having it.

---

That's not quite correct.

It's more like the Chinese copying products and selling cheap fakes.

It deprives the legitimate manufacturer of income and tarnishes their reputation if people think the fake is genuine.

Illegal and immoral.



--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Quote Bertyjnr:

---

No one race owns music more than any other; it is down to individual contributions.

---

How about all those guys playing the blues, in the Southern States, sitting in rented rooms, not getting a penny for their music, and dieing young.

(Cue music: Eric Clapton, Peter Green, Keith Richards, and a host of other enterprising young men who took the opportunity to indulge a bit of "plunderphonics" themselves.

Tony.

Quote arpangel:

---

Quote Bertyjnr:

---

No one race owns music more than any other; it is down to individual contributions.

---

How about all those guys playing the blues, in the Southern States, sitting in rented rooms, not getting a penny for their music, and dieing young.

(Cue music: Eric Clapton, Peter Green, Keith Richards, and a host of other enterprising young men who took the opportunity to indulge a bit of "plunderphonics" themselves.

Tony.

---

Blues rock is a great example. Those boys nicked those riffs wholesale and will happily admit to it! But ...

... they added something. Yes the music of the Stones is rooted in the black blues idiom but it'd be foolish to acknowledge they didn't add something of their own to it. What a brilliant idea. Cross the blues with the arrogant pretty boy swagger of swinging London. It sounds fantastic doesn't it?

Now that's a creative use of sampling. And to be frank knowing Keith if he could have dropped in those licks from a sampler rather than have to learn them (not like their hard anyway!) he probably would have. It would have given him more time to do junk and chase girls

It feeds both ways too. It's not just James Brown that gets sampled. Aerosmith/Led Zep/The Shadows being three famous examples.

Anybody recognise the drum break on Bjork's Army of Me? It's Led Zep.

What about musique concrete? The lazy cheats!

Judge music as a whole not by a single aspect of the process by which it is created.

I bet you there's a song in your record collection right now that you listen to and enjoy with a bit of somebody elses song forming it's backbone and you don't even realise.

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Repeating what the law already says ad nauseum is not really engaging with the argument. Neither do I recall anyone saying sampling should be free.

If you acknowledge the impracticality of clearance, then how would you make the system better?

---

I am engaging with the argument, the fact that I share the same view as what the law already says doesn't make my input less valid. As i am someone who is more likely to have my work sampled than sample somebody else's (and I know people to whom it has happened) I am simply responding to what was asked for in the original post.
OP: "It's a one-sided argument for the pro-samplers. I would like to have seen the argument put for those who have had their work copied, and especially from those who have sued"


I acknowledged the impracticality of clearing before sampling.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Re: This is nothing to do with copyright exceptions (we don't have "fair use" that's America).
Fair point - ok, so replace "fair use" with those bits of a work that aren't copied by copyright, which you seem to think include the titles of books. This despite several notable examples of band names with variations on various book titles. Why did they change them?

---

Why they changed them is explained fully in my post.

Copyright is not the only kind of IP that is protected by law.

Quote:

---

...bits of a work that aren't copied by copyright, which you seem to think include the titles of books.

---

It's not what I "seem to think", it's the way it is.

See page 4 of this pdf.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

We all seem to be agreed on what the law is.

I have not yet seen a good argument for changing it.

So where does that leave us all? Where we started.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote arpangel:

---

How about all those guys playing the blues, in the Southern States, sitting in rented rooms, not getting a penny for their music, and dieing young.


Tony.

---

Hey ! on reflection sounds a bit like me (apart from the dieing bit) now how about that for a romantic vision ? !

Tony.

Ah right, I see what I've done now - I misread this line:

That's not a quote from a book, it's the title of a book. Titles aren't copyright... they cannot be used because they represent the work owned by a publisher and use of them could be considered passing off.

specifically the bit where you claim titles aren't copyright, I guess implying that they're trademarked?



Thanks, by the way, for clarifying the copyright law on the book quotation. That had been bugging me.

Obviously, the book titles are poor examples, but this doesn't invalidate my point regarding the difficulty of contacting copyright holders in the first place!

Quote Steve Hill:

---

We all seem to be agreed on what the law is.

I have not yet seen a good argument for changing it.

So where does that leave us all? Where we started.

---

Try reading the ones from my posts mine earler. Specifically, the argument that if it was made easier to clear and pay copyright fees, more musicians will earn more royalties as more people will declare their samples and pay for the right to use them. Alternatively, we could carry on with the current system, where musicians either have to risk using the samples illegally, because they have neither the time or money to clear them alone under the present system, or compromise their preferred form of creativity.

Maybe you look down on sampling, but many people don't. How would you like it if you're prefered style of music was threatened in a similar way? Perhaps because certain institutions deemed certain creative processes as being wrong. What if copyright stifled your creativity to such a degree that you were not allowed to use a favourite chord sequence or rip off a certain melody?

I know, through talking to artists affected by these issues, that it is a very real concern. One artist will not attempt to sell a lot of the music he has recorded. The stuff he has worked on for commercial release does not contain copyrighted samples and as a result, the whole style of that music is different. Another artist takes the risk and so far has not been caught. He would like to credit those he's sampled, but can't for obvious reasons. Under a system like the one I was proposing, he would be able to pay a fair price for those samples and give credit where it is due. As it stands at the moment, he feels the law is restricting his creativity, so he ignores it.

You could take the moral high-ground I suppose, but it seems to me much better to enforce a law which ensures more musicians get a slice of the pie (including those whose work is sampled), than one which results in many musicians simply breaking the law.

Quote Steve Hill:

---

I have not yet seen a good argument for changing it.

So where does that leave us all? Where we started.

---

I agree... although the law and regulation is a moving target, especially in relation to Gowers. This is a BMR summary of what they're doing.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

From the link:

It is an age where the key question remains: How do we ensure creative individuals are paid for their work and that the investors in their talent continue to receive a return on their investment.

It is this part about "investors in their talent" which concerns me. Why is there any need today for a musician to be reliant on an investor, ie, record company? Given that the technology is there to make it possible, why is the focus not on creating a media environment which allows creative individuals to act autonomously? (With the exception of the MCPS of course )

That isn't just about external record companies... it covers all the interests who invest in various works, including the artists themselves.

If my record company is me I am just as interested in my assets, maybe more so.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

"It's more like the Chinese copying products and selling cheap fakes.

It deprives the legitimate manufacturer of income and tarnishes their reputation if people think the fake is genuine.

Illegal and immoral." John Willet



I'd certainly agree with that, where the Chinese manufacturer makes a copy of, say a Fender Strat.

But what about the case where the same chaps takes an actual Fender Strat, dismantles it, and uses some of the components (not all of them), adds them to his own components, and makes a completely different guitar, nothing that looks or sounds like a Strat?

Is there a difference?

Has it got a humbucker in the bridge position?

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

Quote leslawrenson:

---

"It's more like the Chinese copying products and selling cheap fakes.

It deprives the legitimate manufacturer of income and tarnishes their reputation if people think the fake is genuine.

Illegal and immoral." John Willet



I'd certainly agree with that, where the Chinese manufacturer makes a copy of, say a Fender Strat.

But what about the case where the same chaps takes an actual Fender Strat, dismantles it, and uses some of the components (not all of them), adds them to his own components, and makes a completely different guitar, nothing that looks or sounds like a Strat?

Is there a difference?

---

Yes, in your example the person owns the Fender Strat and can do what he likes with it.

OK another analogy.....

You buy a painting from an artist - it is yours, you can put it on the wall, hide it in a bank vault, even destroy it.

What you *can't* do (without permission) is to take a photo of it and use it on a CD cover (for example).

The artist still owns the intellectual property unless specifically transferred to you.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Quote Rob C.:

---

Has it got a humbucker in the bridge position?

---

Only if it's a false analogy.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Quote Steve Hill:

---

We all seem to be agreed on what the law is.

I have not yet seen a good argument for changing it.

---

Let me give you one.

Copyright prevents the copying of someone elses work. There is an argument with the written word as to how many words need to be copied before there is a breach. It is generally accepted that copyright cannot attach to one word (although a single word can be the subject of a trade mark application).

Now, there is nothing to stop you or me from taking a book, pulping it, and using the pulp to make cardboard, which we then, say, turn into packaging for our own commercial purposes.

Let's look at music. Copyright, rightly IMO, prevents the copying (without consent) of someone elses music, and in the context of sampling, that would mean preventing the use of the samplist from copying and using that work in his own work.

But unlike with the book example, the law still applies to my taking a sample and using it in my work in such a way that you would never know from I took it. Notwithstanding that no one knows the law of copyright has been breached, nonetheless it has.

Do you not share with me the sense of the absurdity in this?

The reason for this absurd state of affairs is due to the fact that the law is outdated, and does not take sufficient heed of modern technology, or the way in which some samplists work. To use my earlier example, these samplists want to pulp the book and make something completely different, they are not interested in wholesale copying of anything of substance that might have been written in the book.

Even if you remain of the view that there is no difference in this type of usage, can you at least not see the sense in changing the law so that it does not make a mockery of itself?

The rights in the text are not in the paper (medium) though. They are in the content, the words.

Although you're theoretically correct, I don't know any case where the audio has been mangled beyond recognition and still found out.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

Edited by Rob C. (12/08/07 07:42 PM)

Quote John Willett:

---

OK another analogy.....

You buy a painting from an artist - it is yours, you can put it on the wall, hide it in a bank vault, even destroy it.

What you *can't* do (without permission) is to take a photo of it and use it on a CD cover (for example).

The artist still owns the intellectual property unless specifically transferred to you.

---

I can accept your analogy. But let me change the facts slightly.

I take a photocopy of the painting, cut the copy up into very small pieces, so that no one, even the artist, can tell that any one piece is from a copy of his painting, and I take some (not all) of those pieces, paste them onto a piece of card, against in such a way that neither you nor the original artist can recognise the work from which they have been copied, and I then proceed to lay my own work or art on the result, interweaving my work with the textures I have created from copying the painting.

Should I now be held liable for breach of copyright?

And if you answer "yes" how on earth are you going to enforce the law in this particular case?

Quote Rob C.:

---

The rights in the text are not in the paper (medium) though. They are in the content, the words.

Although you're theoretically correct, I don't know any case where the audio has been mangled beyond recognition and still found out.

---

Correct. There is no easy corollary between copyright in the written word and in recorded music. And yet, the same law is applied to each.

Quote Rob C.:

---

Has it got a humbucker in the bridge position?

---

It could well have, Rob.

I can see where you're coming from... but all the different copyrights have different provisions. Some media you can do certain things... others you can't. The world of copyright isn't a set of uniform conditions applied to all media.

Choreography is copyright for example... but not in the same way that a published layout is.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

Quote leslawrenson:

---

Quote Rob C.:

---

The rights in the text are not in the paper (medium) though. They are in the content, the words.

Although you're theoretically correct, I don't know any case where the audio has been mangled beyond recognition and still found out.

---

Correct. There is no easy corollary between copyright in the written word and in recorded music. And yet, the same law is applied to each.

---

It's the same headline law, but the clauses of the act do differ between types of copyright.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

Quote Rob C.:

---

It's the same headline law, but the clauses of the act do differ between types of copyright.

---

I totally agree. And the law is there for all to read.

However, the law does not easily take account of the matters that I have outlined. I think it could be clarified to the benefit of all.