I'll stick with my earlier example: the opening chord (combined with its production treatment) of say "Hard Day's Night" is so recognisable, even if it is just one strum of one guitar, that it comes freighted with a load of baggage that basically says quality. To use it is to seek to import someone elses quality into your own work.

Some may call that creative; some "cheating" in some way.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

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.

---

You assume musicians only want another source of income. Some value their work enough to say "this is how I made it and that is how I want it to be". They should have the final say (and do).

Quote Happyandbored:

---

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.

---

Copyright law has been around 100 years longer than sampling. It seems to me it's up the samplers to fit in with the world as it is (possibly imperfect - what isn't?) rather than demand that everybody uproots the existing system to indulge their foibles. The system has stood the test of time with very few fundamental changes. I see no case for fundamental change now.

The difficulty of clearing samples is recognised, but is a product of there being many copyright holders with different representatives in different countries. And faced with the decision, original artists need to think about whether to say yes or no. You seem to want to deprive them of that right. Nobody said it should be easy.

I have already made the point that real-world, professional musicians quite often find it much easier to re-record rather than sample. I don't have a problem with that.

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

Quote leslawrenson:

---

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?

---

But if you do all this, why not create your own samples from scratch.

It is taking someone else's work to make your own easier.

No, it's not enforceable as far as I know; but probably still immoral.

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

It's probably enforceable by watermarking.

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

Quote Rob C.:

---

It's probably enforceable by watermarking.

---

But the watermark would likely be lost if it was chopped enough.

But then why not do your own from scratch.

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

Try rereading my posts.

Try reading the ones from my posts mine earler. (sic)



Thanks, but once was plenty.

These analogies aren't very useful. The more interesting (and far away from the original subject) an analogy is, the increasing pointlessness there is of comparing it. Different mediums need to be considered individually.

And to those who feel it's wrong to sample when the original sample is not recognisable: apart from the irrelevance of your view, in the sense the sample-manipulator won't get found out, you've now strayed into the territory of agreeing royalties should be paid to the inventors of musical instruments, etc.

Re: You assume musicians only want another source of income. Some value their work enough to say "this is how I made it and that is how I want it to be".

No, I assume that musicians who release their music commercially are in the main, unlikely to turn down an additional source of income.

Re: They should have the final say (and do).

Actually, they don't always have the final say. (see below)

Re: Copyright law has been around 100 years longer than sampling. It seems to me it's up the samplers to fit in with the world as it is (possibly imperfect - what isn't?) rather than demand that everybody uproots the existing system to indulge their foibles. The system has stood the test of time with very few fundamental changes. I see no case for fundamental change now.

The idea that many things are imperfect therefore we should stop trying to improve things is a little odd. On the contrary, much of copyright law as it stands today was largely introduced because of the invention of the printing press. Technological change has always prompted legal change. The system, as many have pointed out, is not always fit for purpose and needs to be overhauled.

But regardless, the changes I'm calling for are hardly radical enough to be defined as "fundamental changes" - A quick to use , easily affordable system of sample clearance based on ability to pay? Quick, kill the commie scum!!!

Re: The difficulty of clearing samples is recognised, but is a product of there being many copyright holders with different representatives in different countries. And faced with the decision, original artists need to think about whether to say yes or no. You seem to want to deprive them of that right. Nobody said it should be easy.

Erm... a lot of people have said that it should be easier. In addition, I'm saying right now, it should be easier.

The difficulty of clearing samples is the result of too much copyright protection and the absence of any form of centralised clearance system. It should be as easy for a small time musician to use a copyrighted sample as it is for the BBC.

To repeat an earlier point you've obviously missed: the BBC are allowed to use copyrighted works without the artist's permission. This is part of the reason why their documentaries are often of such high quality (*). The BBC don't have to waste huge amounts of time and money tracking down rights holders for every piece of music no matter how small, so they can direct more resources into making high quality programmes (well they used to at least...). In other words, the copyright protection provided to individual musicians has been restricted because it benefits the common good. This sometimes allows things that might never have been done: using Cliff Richard in an episode of the critically acclaimed Monkeydust for example. More to the point though, it even extends to the *samples* used in their radio jingles. Why should there be one law for the BBC and another for independent musicians? Why should sampling in hip-hop be rendered prohibitively time consuming and expensive for small-time independent musicians, yet absolutely fine-and-dandy for a massive corporation like the BBC?

Regardless, it is extremely unlikely anyone is going to chose your music to sample or use anyway given the amount of music out there, let alone use it in a way which is offensive. Personally, I like the idea of Cliff Richard being offended. However, in extreme cases - ie, the earlier example of using the music of openly gay musicians in an anti-gay rap record - other laws exist and such a record is hardly likely to garner air-play anyway. You would likely never hear of it to be offended in the first place. What then are you afraid of? Or do you just not want people to sample your records because you hate hip-hop? Should we stop blues and jazz musicians from playing on the basis that their chord sequences are unoriginal?

I understand the issue about moral rights, I really do. In fact, I once held the opposing view! On reflection however, I think, to quote Mr Spock in Star Trek II, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If you do not want your music used comercially, then you should not release it commercially. However, even if we were to continue to protect moral rights under our imaginary new system (giving an option for artists to prevent use in sampling) the fact still remains, that the system for sample clearance as it stands at the moment is too slow and too expensive for many musicians.

Re: I have already made the point that real-world, professional musicians quite often find it much easier to re-record rather than sample. I don't have a problem with that.

And I made the point that for many musicians this is fundamentally a different thing - it sounds different. Compare the most recent Amon Tobin album (created using his own recorded samples) to one of his earlier albums such as 'Permutation' or 'Bricolage', which both took samples from all over the place. These earlier records have a distinctive style in common, which sounds drastically different to the most recent record. Amon Tobin is fortunate to be signed to a well known and relatively large record label that can provide the support necessary to clear those samples. However, this does not mean that copyright laws have not negitively affected him:

From http://www.inthemix.com.au/features/29832/Amon_Tobin_Enter_the_Foley_Room:

"I guess it was a nice recording of that show. Unfortunately a lot of the tracks that I played could not make it onto the final mix because they could not get clearance for them. That’s why there are some weird edits on that CD. Unfortunately a lot of my favourite parts were edited out."

Just because you don't value this form of creativity doesn't mean that everyone feels the same way. It angers me that one musician has the power to say to another "I'm not going to allow you to make the kind of music you want to", whilst being allowed to rip off a favourite chord sequence and claim credit for a whole new song. It annoys me that one form of plagarism his heralded as creativity, and another theft.

--------

(* = not counting Panorama, which is usually utter toss... I wonder how long until that guy ranting on the Scientology episode gets used in a 'choon'.... )

[Edited for structure]

Personally, I like the idea of Cliff Richard being offended.


That says more than the several thousand other words you have written on this thread.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

...the BBC are allowed to use copyrighted works without the artist's permission.

---

Rubbish. The same law applies to the BBC.

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

Hmmm... four pages in and we're no further on.

I knew I should have read the sweep picking thread instead.

I suspected I shouldn't have bothered with either... and I was right.

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

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? Did you actually bother to read my own experience of trying to clear copyright (albeit for permission to use a book quotation as a band name) which was met with stoney silence?

There is no reason why a simpler system of clearance should not be introduced - spefically one which does not demand a legal team behind you to implement. Likewise, there is no good reason why sampling royalties should not be charged proportionally to the amount of money a sampled track actually makes. The system as it stands at the moment is nothing more a protection racket for big media, keeping meaningful creative freedom out of the hands of the masses by imposing excessive economic and legal constraints.

Point taken about the PPL though - all these acronyms have kind of turned into one big blur since finishing university a few years back... PPRCPSML or whatever...

---

You seem to be under the impression that you have some right to use works produced by others for purposes of your own choosing - that your creative desires trump their property rights - and that the system is somehow obligated to make it easy and affordable for you to do so. If it doesn't, that justifies just going ahead and using it anyway. In fact you do not have any rights to another's work other than those they choose to grant you and only under whatever terms and conditions they demand. It's their property and they can do with it what they will -you have no right to any claim to it. On the other hand, they have every right to make it as cheap or as dear as they see fit, to make it easy for you or to make you go to ridiculous lengths, or to deny you any use of it whatsoever. Their intransigence, perhaps even their unreasonablness, does not justify using their work without permission.

Mornington Crescent.

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

Quote Sir George Martian:

---

Try rereading my posts.

Try reading the ones from my posts mine earler. (sic)



Thanks, but once was plenty.

---

An excellent and thoroughly constructive comment.

Thank you immensely for your valued contribution.

Quote Sir George Martian:

---

Personally, I like the idea of Cliff Richard being offended.


That says more than the several thousand other words you have written on this thread.

---

Why have you accredited this quote to me? I never said anything of the sort. That particular statement was made by Happyandbored.

If you are intent on hurling pointless and unconstructive insults, at least please do try to get the right man!

Quote Rob C.:

---

I suspected I shouldn't have bothered with either... and I was right.

---

Then don't. It's very simply, really.

Quote Steve House:

---

You seem to be under the impression that you have some right to use works produced by others for purposes of your own choosing - that your creative desires trump their property rights - and that the system is somehow obligated to make it easy and affordable for you to do so. If it doesn't, that justifies just going ahead and using it anyway. In fact you do not have any rights to another's work other than those they choose to grant you and only under whatever terms and conditions they demand. It's their property and they can do with it what they will -you have no right to any claim to it. On the other hand, they have every right to make it as cheap or as dear as they see fit, to make it easy for you or to make you go to ridiculous lengths, or to deny you any use of it whatsoever. Their intransigence, perhaps even their unreasonablness, does not justify using their work without permission.

---

Exactly.

Too many Les's in this lol. Getting confused as which one was being referred to most of the time. I could change my name to Sel perhaps? or Lez?

Sorry, please continue while I continue at the cutting edge of broadcoast news (my desk is next to the office guillotine - sorry )

--------------------
"If I had all the money i'd spent on drink, i'd spend it on drink". Vivian Stanshall

Edited by Les (13/08/07 10:30 AM)

Quote Rob C.:

---

Quote Happyandbored:

---

...the BBC are allowed to use copyrighted works without the artist's permission.

---

Rubbish. The same law applies to the BBC.

---

Not rubbish. Although perhaps we are getting a little mixed up between copyright law and the workings of the MCPS/PRS.

Anyway, from:

http://www.musiclawupdates.com/news/previousnewsupdates.htm

"RADIOHEAD OBJECT TO USE OF MUSIC IN ADVERT 31/07/03
Radiohead have threatened legal action against the BBC after the broadcaster used the track 'There There' as the soundbed for a campaign to get UK veiwers to pay their television licence fees by direct debit or bank standing orders.

The BBC have now removed the track from the advertisement. Radiohead's management have said that the group do not permit or licence their music for commercial uses. Usually specific consent is asked from both the songwriter (or music publisher) and the artist (and their label) before music is used In any advertisement. The BBC use a number of 'blanket' licences with trade associations and collection societies such as the MCPS, PRS and PPL (representing music publishers and record labels) and has said it felt that it had acted in accordance with record industry rules."

And from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Dust

"On 8 November 2004, the first series of Monkey Dust was released in the UK on DVD. Several musical substitutions had to be made from the television airing (where the BBC is allowed to play any commercial release without permission), as artists such as Cliff Richard and David Gray would not allow their work to be used on the DVD. Cover versions of the original songs were used instead."

And the MCPS-PRS website: http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/membership/MCPSroyalties/mcpspaymentsch edule/Pages/MCPSpaymentschedule.aspx

"BBC Broadcasting - Monies paid by the BBC for a blanket agreement with MCPS, covering the recording of music into programmes."

Quote Steve House:

---

You seem to be under the impression that you have some right to use works produced by others for purposes of your own choosing - that your creative desires trump their property rights - and that the system is somehow obligated to make it easy and affordable for you to do so. If it doesn't, that justifies just going ahead and using it anyway. In fact you do not have any rights to another's work other than those they choose to grant you and only under whatever terms and conditions they demand. It's their property and they can do with it what they will -you have no right to any claim to it. On the other hand, they have every right to make it as cheap or as dear as they see fit, to make it easy for you or to make you go to ridiculous lengths, or to deny you any use of it whatsoever. Their intransigence, perhaps even their unreasonablness, does not justify using their work without permission.

---

That's right - I believe music stands to lose far more by protecting the rights of the few naysayers. It is a choice whether to release one's music comercially and there are many other aspects of licensing that artists don't have any control over. I happen to think that one creator shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of someone else's creativity, by placing something into the public sphere and then having a hissy fit when someone wants to pay homage to it or parody it - just because they don't understand or are predjudiced against that person's form of creativity. That attitude is arrogant in the extreme and damaging to music.

However, even if we were to include provisions to account for moral rights in a revised system, the fact remains that the licensing system as it stands at the moment is inadequate for today's music making needs.

I've given strong examples of other aspects of music/IP that are not protected from misuse and even illustrated the case of the BBC who are allowed to violate just those rights you are so concerned. If it can be made easy for a large corporation like the BBC, then it should also be so for small-time independent musicians.

You are repeating criticisms which I have already countered, suggesting that you haven't been reading my original posts. Likewise, you seem intent on repeating how the law currently stands, when we are actually debating how those rights and our licensing systems should be improved. Telling me how the law currently stands is not addressing the debate.

Regardless, your statement "it's their property" is very telling. Consider this qoute from Woodie Guthrie from the 1930s:

"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do."

(Notice also that the copyright period is only 28 years... But that is another story and shall be told another time.)

What a sad time for music, that all it is now regarded as is property.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

"RADIOHEAD OBJECT TO USE OF MUSIC IN ADVERT"

---

Which is why your 'standard', off-the-shelf, use-anything-you-please-for nominal fee scheme won't work and I can see the headlines now:

"RADIOHEAD OBJECT TO HAPPYANDBORED'S USE OF SAMPLES OF THEIR MUSIC IN HIS SONG"

You cannot assume that every musician, writer, publisher, composer is happy to allow their work to be exploited as that usage can tarnish the copyright holder's 'brand' or reputation. For example, if I had written something and some happy-clappy God-squad hip-hopster used it as a vehicle to peddle their 'God is good' evangelism, I would be uncomfortable - I don't want my work associated with that ideology even if I get a few quid from it ... in much the same way as I would be opposed to having my work (and name and brand) associated with some "kill the mofo pig scumbag fuzz bastards and slap yo nigger bitch up" brigade, whatever.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote Happyandbored:

---

"BBC Broadcasting - Monies paid by the BBC for a blanket agreement with MCPS, covering the recording of music into programmes."

---

These are standard blanket licenses, in no way unique to the BBC.

Are you seriously suggesting that by breaking its licensing conditions the BBC "is allowed" to do so?

Your facts speak for themselves. The BBC are not a special case.

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

I've already countered that argument from several different angles - please read my previous posts.

If you don't want something misused, don't put it out in the public domain. Due to expiring copyright, there is absolutely nothing to now stop the BNP from using a Woodie Guthrie track in a party political broadcast. So what?

Quote Happyandbored:

---

I've already countered that argument from several different angles

---

Yes.... but not in the slightest bit convincingly.

This thread has become somewhat circular - YOU think that anybody's work is fair game to be used and abused for some token payment by absolutely anyone; others do not.

And YOU consider exploiting someone else's work to be 'creative'; others do not.

And round and round it goes.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote Rob C.:

---

Quote Happyandbored:

---

"BBC Broadcasting - Monies paid by the BBC for a blanket agreement with MCPS, covering the recording of music into programmes."

---

These are standard blanket licenses, in no way unique to the BBC.

Are you seriously suggesting that by breaking its licensing conditions the BBC "is allowed" to do so?

Your facts speak for themselves. The BBC are not a special case.

---

Where did I accuse the BBC of breaking licensing conditions? I was making the point that they can under their licenses, use material with little or no regard to the artist's wishes. In Radiohead's example they chose to pull the music - they weren't forced to at all. In the case of the Cliff Richard example, it had every right to use that music when it was broadcast on television because of the blanket license. It didn't, it had to ask permission, when it was released on DVD. That is because BBC Video is a commercial company and the MCPS/PRS blanket licenses do not apply.

Whether other organisations now have the same or similar licenses is irrelevant.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Where did I accuse the BBC of breaking licensing conditions?

---

You didn't. You said they were allowed to do so.

I am coming to the conclusion that you aren't serious.

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

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote Happyandbored:

---

I've already countered that argument from several different angles

---

Yes.... but not in the slightest bit convincingly.

This thread has become somewhat circular - YOU think that anybody's work is fair game to be used and abused for some token payment by absolutely anyone; others do not.

And YOU consider exploiting someone else's work to be 'creative'; others do not.

And round and round it goes.

---

That's right, I do. Clap, Clap, well done.

How exactly is reminding me that people disagree in anyway advancing the debate?

What is it exactly about each of the numerous examples I've given that you don't find convincing?

It would be fine if posters were actually addressing my counter-examples. However, all that is happening is that the same criticisms are being repeated over and over. I'm getting a little tired of discussing this with people who seem incapable of reading.

You and others are responsible for making this thread circular by not engaging with the actual arguments.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

What is it exactly about each of the numerous examples I've given that you don't find convincing?

---

Well, being wrong so often doesn't help.

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

Quote Rob C.:

---

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Where did I accuse the BBC of breaking licensing conditions?

---

You didn't.

---

Really? Then why did you ask:

Are you seriously suggesting that by *****breaking its licensing conditions***** the BBC "is allowed" to do so?

I'm coming to the conclusion that you are incapable of rational debate or accepting obvious facts when evidence is presented to you.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Quote Rob C.:

---

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Where did I accuse the BBC of breaking licensing conditions?

---

You didn't.

---

Really? Then why did you ask:

Are you seriously suggesting that by *****breaking its licensing conditions***** the BBC "is allowed" to do so?

---

It's the "allowed to do so" bit that is wrong.

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

Quote Rob C.:

---

Quote Happyandbored:

---

What is it exactly about each of the numerous examples I've given that you don't find convincing?

---

Well, being wrong so often doesn't help.

---

Now you seem more interested in making smug comments, than actually debating rationally. And you accuse me of not being serious?

If we want to stop this being a circular debate then we need to proceed as follows:

Can everyone please make sure they've read the whole thread carefully, the whole way through and make sure your criticisms have not already been raised by another poster. If a concern has been raised but you don't find the counter-argument convincing, then point out what it is specifically with the counter-argument that you don't find convincing and provide examples and evidence to back up your argument. Make sure someone else hasn't done the same first.

Avoid smug comments. They make you look like a twat.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

...
That's right - I believe music stands to lose far more by protecting the rights of the few naysayers. ... I happen to think that one creator shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of someone else's creativity, by placing something into the public sphere and then having a hissy fit when someone wants to pay homage to it ...

---

That's sort of like saying your car is your private property while you keep it in the garage but once you park it on the street in public view it's fair game for anyone to take and use. In fact they haven't placed their work in the public sphere, they have sold a license to listen to a performance in the marketplace. Quite a different thing.

Quote:

---

However, even if we were to include provisions to account for moral rights in a revised system, the fact remains that the licensing system as it stands at the moment is inadequate for today's music making needs.

---

Not inadequate for music making needs, only inconvenient for those who choose to "borrow" other's creativity.

Quote:

---

...
You are repeating criticisms which I have already countered, suggesting that you haven't been reading my original posts. Likewise, you seem intent on repeating how the law currently stands, when we are actually debating how those rights and our licensing systems should be improved.

---

What is "improved" is very subjective. There are musicians and publishers who would say "improved" would mean plugging what loopholes currently exist that allow for any free usage at all.

Quote:

---

Regardless, your statement "it's their property" is very telling. Consider this qoute from Woodie Guthrie from the 1930s:

"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do."

---

And I applaud Guthrie's attitude and commend other artists in any medium to follow his example. But the fact remains that since he wrote the song, it is the child of his labours and as such it is his right and his alone to choose its disposition, to either make it free to everyone or to charge outlandish fees even to whistle it while walking down the street. His property, his call and no one else has a right to a say in the matter. Mere public performance does not make it public property.

When private property rights become subordinate to public desires, we all become slaves.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

If you don't want something misused, don't put it out in the public domain.

---

Well, none of us are going to make any cash that way, are we ? And if we applied that to every single product and patent out there, the whole business of designing something good and making a buck out of it rather falls apart, if everyone is then free to rip off your design.The only reason people do it with other people's music is because it's easy to do so.

I'd agree that it would be a good thing if the whole licensing process was made easier, but I do object to the idea that the whole world of music is basically up for grabs for anyone to sample, and that they have an a priori right to do so which pre-empts the rightsholders right not to have their work used in contexts they object to.

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk

Quote Rob C.:

---

I suspected I shouldn't have bothered with either... and I was right.

---

To be clear... there is a lot of interesting stuff in this thread, and some well-argued points. Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio is deteriorating.

To be constructive, might I suggest some of the loud voices (including myself) butt out at this point and let others contribute without bickering?

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

Re: It's the "allowed to do so" bit that is wrong. (and the stuff preceeding it).

What you're saying just doesn't make any sense.

Of course, they're allowed to do so. I've given two examples where they were allowed to do so.

Do you see the elephant in the room?

[added in quote for clarity]

Quote tomafd:

---

Quote Happyandbored:

---

If you don't want something misused, don't put it out in the public domain.

---

The only reason people do it with other people's music is because it's easy to do so.

As I pointed out in a previous posting, that is bad faith. It's also, in my experiences from talking to samplists, completely and utterly wrong. Go back and reread the earlier posts.

I'd agree that it would be a good thing if the whole licensing process was made easier

Hallelujah!!!

The moral rights issue is debatable and I'm not totally against the idea of factoring that into a revised system anyway, as I've pointed out several times.

Quote Rob C.:

---

Quote Rob C.:

---

I suspected I shouldn't have bothered with either... and I was right.

---

To be clear... there is a lot of interesting stuff in this thread, and some well-argued points. Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio is deteriorating.

To be constructive, might I suggest some of the loud voices (including myself) butt out at this point and let others contribute without bickering?

---

Rob, many thanks for clarifying your earlier comment. I'm sorry if I flew off at an adjacent angle. It;s been known to happen on occasion.

I agree that some of us have been arguing a little too ardently in this thread, myself being a top offender. Like you, I'm going to step out of the debate, as I've said just about all I can say without repeating myself.

But I do hope that the subject can continue to be argued in a calm, peaceful and constructive manner. This has, by and large, been one of the more constructive threads on this very controversial issue, and I am grateful to the moderators for having the courage to let it run its course.

Quote Rob C.:

---

Quote Rob C.:

---

I suspected I shouldn't have bothered with either... and I was right.

---

To be clear... there is a lot of interesting stuff in this thread, and some well-argued points. Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio is deteriorating.

To be constructive, might I suggest some of the loud voices (including myself) butt out at this point and let others contribute without bickering?

---

Fine, I'll shut it if you shut it!



Been praying for an end to this anyway - wasted far, far, far too much time!!! However, It's been a real pleasure debating it with you all.




Lastly, regarding Steve's comments regarding Woodie Guthrie - I quoted him to make a point about changing atttitudes in how musicians view their work, how we've moved to a culture of 'screw you buddy'. All I want is to improve copyright law and the licensing system to encourage a more open and sharing musical culture.

Maybe there is also a way to keep moral rights in such a system, but how do we prevent it becoming the norm to say 'screw you' so that everyone can have their cake?

Quote leslawrenson:

---

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

---

Indeed so.
To the extent that it's a breach of copyright to play a CD from your computer drive. Because the data gets copied into a buffer - it breaches the no copying part of the law (at least this was the case a couple of years ago, I don't think it's changed).
It's also in the UK, against copyright law to tape a CD you have bought so you can play it in your car for your own personal listening. I believe the USA has an ammendment to allow this (again from what I was told a couple of years ago).

Copyright law, according to the little I have heard about, is a huge mess.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Quote tomafd:

---

Quote Happyandbored:

---

If you don't want something misused, don't put it out in the public domain.

---

The only reason people do it with other people's music is because it's easy to do so.

As I pointed out in a previous posting, that is bad faith. It's also, in my experiences from talking to samplists, completely and utterly wrong. Go back and reread the earlier posts.

I'd agree that it would be a good thing if the whole licensing process was made easier

Hallelujah!!!

The moral rights issue is debatable and I'm not totally against the idea of factoring that into a revised system anyway, as I've pointed out several times.

---

I'd be very interested to find samplists who only used analog tape and traditional edit techniques to do what they do, without computers. That is why I say it is 'easy to do' and few would do it without the use of digital sampling- and no doubt, if bread and cars could be 'sampled' and reproduced as easily as music, everyone would do so. Would that make it 'right' ?

The first 'sample' I ever heard used on a commercial recording was some Persian singer taken off the radio and stitched (beautifully), via analog tape techniques, into a tune called "Persian Love" by Holger Czukay (ex-Can), in 1981 (though it could have been 1980) Some time before Eno got out the razor blades and did the same thing on "My Life in the Bush of Ghosts", and long before the Detroit crew starting mucking about extending breaks. People didn't generally do it because it was pretty difficult to do it effectively- and I can still remember working in a music shop when the first cheap samplers came out, and people going 'that's cheating !' when I showed them how easy it was to get a drum break up and loop it.

We have a 'sampling culture' because the technology allows it, not because there was any great demand for it, in the days of analog techniques. Regardless of your previous posts, I still don't see how the existence of the technology 'therefore' makes it ok, or even your right, to sample other people's music, and that that right pre-empts the rights of the original artists.

As a muso whose only income comes from music, I'd be more than happy to get any extra income from licensing chunks to others who are willing to pay for it. But they have to ask me first !

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk