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.
The
documentary strives very hard to convince us all that copying someone elses work is okay.
I'm not sure that it succeeds for me.
There is the question of "extent" which
is only alluded to in the documentary, and which I think should have been explored
further. One commentator states that if an artist samples a snare drum from a Rolling
Stones record, should the Rolling Stones be entitled to 100% of the remix royalties?
Unfortunately, the documentary does not explore the query any further. That's a shame,
because if there is a justification for sampling without obtaining consent, everything
must come down to the extent of the music being sampled.
It's an interesting
documentary nonetheless, whatever your views on this controversial subject.
What contriversy? The "bling-bling" rappers like burning a lot of money. They clearly make
them somehow. So, clear the samples or rerecord them. Simple as that!
Quote ghellquist: What
contriversy? The "bling-bling" rappers like burning a lot of money. They clearly make them
somehow. So, clear the samples or rerecord them. Simple as that!
Gunnar
Okay, but what do you
think about the documentary. Did it win you over? If not, why not?
total bullshit... if they could write something... we'll actuall i'm not sure that they
would... intellectually dishonest..... is it less plagaristic because it's a snippet???
not for me... just more dumbing down as far as i'm concerned...
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: John Willett]
#500181 - 11/08/07 06:31 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote John Willett: Sampling is
theft - full stop.
If you sample it should be done with credit given and fee
paid.
John, I agree
with you. What did you think of the documentary?
Towards the end, the
documentary seemed to be striving after a change in the law, whereby the "extent" of the
copying is taken into account. Is this an argument that you think has any merit? Is the
sampling of one snare drum hit substantively the same as sampling a melody line? Should
the law be applied in the same way regardless? If so, how could it effectively be policed
(on the basis that you'd probably never know where the snare drum came from anyway)?
Does it make any difference that the hip-hop chaps in the documentary were using
vinyl records only for scratching "textures" and were not at all interested in playing or
recording the actual melodies on the records?
Is there any point whatsoever in
my trying to create a sensible debate on this subject, or is it simply going to turn into
a mono-sylabic, pavolovian-knee-jerk-response "all sampling is theft" tread?
Watch the documentary. It is not, as far as I can tell, about the blind (or bland)
copying of music, rather the reuse of music to add textures to original songs.
Or is it all the same thing?
We all know what the law says. The documentary
pays lip service to the current laws on copyright. Does the law need clarifying in order
to differentiate between different types of sample usage? Or is all use to be considered
illegal?
Quote dementedchord: total
bullshit... if they could write something... we'll actuall i'm not sure that they would...
intellectually dishonest..... is it less plagaristic because it's a snippet??? not for
me... just more dumbing down as far as i'm concerned...
Excellent comment. But what did you
think of the documentary?
Is there merit at all in any of what you
saw/heard?
Is "scratching" the same as simply copying a loop and playing it
back as the main back-bone of a track?
Sampling a single snare drum hit is not just dumb, it's lazy. Even I can hit a snare drum
once, record it, and process it to come up with the desired sound. So why nick say
Charlie Watts doing it?
From that point we move to more than one hit, but
really it's still lazy. I have never seen any musical merit in it because of this (for
me) insuperable objection.
-------------------- Dynamite with a laser beam...
Want a 60's
drum sound that sounds elemental with matching ambience.
Suitable bassline played by
a funked up jazz rock mutant.
Keys from a far out dude called Zeus.
Realisation:
Dang haven't got the skills nor the musicianship
to do dat.
Nor the talent, nor gear, nor the recording techinques.
Result:
*Bling*
I know ... I'll sample.
Hey thats
creativity right ...
I mean I've just gotta find the exact groove and the exact
bassline and the exact keys from hundreds of records.
Man that takes rare skill.
Then I gotta chop it up and glue it all together.
Man so glad
I went to kindergarten to learn how to cut n paste ... with Pritt Stick ...
That
reminds me ... time for a sniff.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: John Willett]
#500215 - 11/08/07 07:44 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
If musicians had the same attitude to chord sequences as a lot of engineers and producers
seem to have to sampling - namely "screw you buddy!" - then no music would ever get
written for fear of infringing copyright. Certainly, whoever came up with the 12 bar
blues sequence would be pretty rich...
Why is using a small fragment of a
recording a cardinal sin, yet ripping off a chord sequence considered fair game? What
makes the intellectual property of an engineer worth more than that of a composer?
In addition, has anyone ever tried clearing copyright for anything? Maybe not
exactly the same, but I recently tried contacting a book publisher to see if I could get
permission to use a quote from a book as a band name. Weeks later and no reply.
The failure to introduce fair use laws for sampling had a hugely negative effect
on hip-hop and other sample based genres, ensuring that the only artists who could
continue to sample legally were those artists on the labels with the clout and finance to
clear each and every sample. To quote Naomi Klein in No Logo:
"When Beck, a
major-label artist, makes an album parked with hundreds of samples, Warner Music clears
the rights to each and every piece of the audio collage and the work is lauded for
capturing the media-saturated, multi-referenced sounds of our age. But when independent
artists do the same thing, trying to cut and paste together art from their branded
lives... it's criminalized - defined as theft, not art."
Copyright laws on
sampling at the moment serve only to create a look-but-don't-touch culture. Regardless of
the morality of 'stealing' samples (steal? does it magically disappear from the original
record or something...), consider the power of music making to bring meaning and purpose
to people's lives, combined with the popularity of sampling in 'urban' music.
Surely it is more beneficial to society as a whole, that sampling is tolerated to some
degree, than to render this form of creativity illegal (or at least prohibitively
expensive) to the vast majority of musicians?
I'm not anti sampling, it's just another art form and theres nothing intrinsically wrong
with this kind of collage - you can't un-ring the bell. I am however for paying and giving
credit to the original artist.
Matt Black sums it up for me, and makes the
strongest case for the against free usage [appropriation] camp. He says, "a good
appropriated sample has those two qualities. It has a good quality of it's own, and it has
a strong reference that evokes cultural resonance aswell."
Thats the whole
problem. These guys arent searching through a load of old never hasbeen disks looking for
a decent sound because they don't have the resources to record the sound themselves. One
could argue all the usual arguments about copyright theft if they did just that, but one
could also be a little bit more forgiving because they would just using whats around to
make something new - that would be to me a true and innocent collage, using things which
have been shown over time to have little value in retrospect, a bit like going through a
skip.
However, they arent just looking through the skip, they are looking
through the french windows and eyeing up the silver.
A good appropriated
sample has those two qualities. It has a good quality of it's own, and it has a
strong reference that evokes cultural resonance aswell.
This means that
they are taking something far more important and valuable than just a sound, they are
looking first for a good sound, one that is well played and recorded and works in
the context of their track. Now i don't know about you, but ive slaved for hours to play
and record something 'just right', yes its just a little flick or the finger that nails it
just so, but it can be a lot of work and blood sweat and tears, and it can be instantly
recognisable on a successful record, which brings the next point....
A
good appropriated sample has those two qualities. It has a good quality of it's own, and
it has a strong reference that evokes cultural resonance aswell.
Thats the real sh!tter afaic. What goes into that? How much work, good will, promotion,
longevity, skill, tears, broken marriages, addictions, life even, goes into giving a sound
a strong cultural reference? It's like peeling off someones face and then shagging their
missus! Slapping their trading name on your record cover and promotional material and
'being them'. To me its the worst kind of theft because they arent just stealing a thing,
they are stealing along with it the things that make the thing great in the first
place.
And as we know, once a sample of any length has been used on a
successful record, its grafted into the public consiousness, and it takes something away
from the original.
I say okay, use it if you must, but get permission and
pay. And, give the original artist[s] the right to withdraw their permission when they
hear your finished piece.
Quote Happyandbored: ... Surely it is more beneficial to society as a whole, that sampling is tolerated to some
degree, than to render this form of creativity illegal (or at least prohibitively
expensive) to the vast majority of musicians?
As far as I know, no one is trying to making the use of samples
illegal. They're simply saying if you DO use them, the original creators deserve to be
compensated for their contribution. If a band sells a record would it be fair that only
some of the musicians get paid? Likewise, if you release a song that could not exist in
that form except for the contribution made by the person whose work you have sampled - you
couldn't have made the song the same way without the existence of the sample you used, in
other words - does that person not have a right to share in the rewards?
It
begs the question, if you're so concerned about your work being misused, why release it to
the public at all?
Sampling doesn't necessarily have to be free, but there does
have to be an easy and above all, affordable way of registering those samples. Otherwise
copyright is no longer protecting the rights of the majority of musicians, but is in fact
censoring them.
You make the point that a good sample has a "cultural
resonance" - of course, that's the point! It's not particularly about making
good-sounding records on the cheap, but more to make the links in the listener's mind
where there were none before. All art builds on past creativity to some degree (Lessig:
Free Culture), surely it's more important in this case to protect an entire form of
creativity, than the rights of a few over-protective musicians?
Interestingly you can't copyright a chord sequence.
Just to add to this
argument, some artists careers have been saved/extended by virtue of being popular sources
of samples - George Clinton for example. They don't mind so long as they get the
credit.
Also sometimes (it is rare I admit) I like a track that has been built
on a loop more than the original - Angie Stone's "Wish I didn't Miss You" uses an O'Jays
songs intro where the original isn't that memorable.
Musicians have always
pinched things in the past - listen to Rod Stewarts "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" then go find a
copy of the best of Bobby Womack (I forget which track) and you will find the main string
line might as well have been sampled.
Personally I'm bored stiff with it, but
I'm just as bored of all programmed drums - I want to hear a drummer again. Being a
musician I really appreciate when the engineer gets a good drum sound - hope you all get
enough practice at micing those drums these days
Is it that easy to wade through records until you find a few samples that will make a
good track? I don't think I would have the patience for it. There is probably an element
of hit and miss I guess.
The main music to suffer from this is soul/funk music
(please don't call it urban). This is because creating those old time grooves isn't easy -
those bands were hot! They could groove in a way no bunch of session musicians ever will,
and to me thats the problem - when was the last time a "band" of this genre got a record
deal? It's too easy to sample and get some teeny bopper to sing on top of it.
So for me I don't think the artist suffers much when their old work is sampled (it can
keep them hip a while longer), rather it is music as a whole suffers as it takes away the
chance for the new grooves to ever get played or developed.
Sampling itself can
be artistic though - well at least as artistic as an Andy Warhol painting.
I was interested in the comments of one of the black hip hop artists featured in the
documentary, who said that he and other poor kids used samples as their instruments. They
couldn't afford to buy all the gear to make the sounds that they wanted to make their
records, so they "borrowed" those sounds from other artists.
Again, the artist
was not interested in copying the melodies, or the catch-lines in any of the songs, but
wanted to use the textures as instruments over which to place his own songs.
The musician
here is using samples, but he is not simply looping those samples, rather he is using them
as textures to create a new song. Even the vocal sample that he uses has been changed, so
that not even the original melody is used. Also, the phrasing of the words is used to
create a completely different vocal phrase.
Is this theft? Is there absolutely
no case to be made out for this type of usage?
And if you are of the opinion
that there is no case, can you, at the very least, admit that this is art? Does it being
art justify the use of the samples?
What's the difference between this type of
sampling (creative use of sounds) and Andy Warhol's exact copying of Campbell's soup tins?
Who is the greater thief?
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Steve House]
#500260 - 11/08/07 08:55 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote Steve House:
Quote Happyandbored: ...
Surely it is more beneficial to society as a whole, that sampling is tolerated to some
degree, than to render this form of creativity illegal (or at least prohibitively
expensive) to the vast majority of musicians?
As far as I know, no one is trying to making the use of samples
illegal. They're simply saying if you DO use them, the original creators deserve to be
compensated for their contribution. If a band sells a record would it be fair that only
some of the musicians get paid? Likewise, if you release a song that could not exist in
that form except for the contribution made by the person whose work you have sampled - you
couldn't have made the song the same way without the existence of the sample you used, in
other words - does that person not have a right to share in the rewards?
I don't think you really read my post
properly. I did not say anywhere that artists shouldn't be paid for samples. Remember, I
pointed out my own problems in trying to get permission to use a quote from a book? There
is no system in place for quickly clearing copyright.
If a whole form of
creativity (maybe one that some people don't like, but a lot of people do) is rendered
inaccessible because it is either too difficult or too expensive to clear copyright, then
that is wrong. However, If the result of an alternative system is lower revenue (not
necessarily none) for the sampled artist, then so be it. That is better than wiping out a
whole artform before it's even got off the ground. As it is at the moment, you'll find it
very difficult to even talk to the right person about clearing the sample anyway. What
about the rights of those musicians to be creative in their chosen way?
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Rob C]
#500267 - 11/08/07 09:06 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote Rob C.:
Quote Happyandbored: Copyright
laws on sampling at the moment serve only to create a look-but-don't-touch culture.
Only for 'artists' who are
unable to make their own art.
Quote
Happyandbored: Surely it is more beneficial to society as a whole, that
sampling is tolerated to some degree...
Whoever wrote this needs to get out more. Sampling is
everywhere...
But
specifically we're talking about sampling of copyrighted sounds and the degree to which
those samples are protected under law. Whether people get away with it in real life is
irrelevant.
Re: Only for 'artists' who are unable to make their own art.
Yes well, Whoever wrote this needs to get out more. Sampling is everywhere...
Quote fletcher: Interestingly you
can't copyright a chord sequence.
And the reason you can't copyright a chord sequence is because
lawmakers realise that to do so would make it near impossible for musicians to make music
- at least legally!
There are two different copyrights here really.
- the song (music and lyrics):
copyright goes to the composer and stays for 75 years after the last composer is dead.
(normally not the problem here)
- the sound (the actual recording): copyright is
generally 50 years after it was first released to the public. (generally what is called
samples)
There are legal details to this, but to keep it very simple - ask
for permission to use the sounds before you release the songs to the public. If you cannot
get permission or the price is wrong, rerecord it. Nothing is hindering any creative
process here, it is only hindering the commercial process. Two different things.
RE: Nothing is hindering any creative process here, it is only hindering the
commercial process. Two different things.
Rubbish! How can a musician earn a
living or even get his/her work to a public audience, if he runs the risk of getting sued?
Of course it is hindering the creative process.
Quote Happyandbored: Rubbish! How
can a musician earn a living or even get his/her work to a public audience, if he runs the
risk of getting sued? Of course it is hindering the creative process.
Rubbish! It's always been thus even before
sampling was introduced to the masses - write a song or a melody that bears too close a
resemblance to another published work and you run the risk of legal action under grounds
of plagiarism (see George Harrison). Sampling other people's music to use as the
foundation for your own is plagiarism writ large.
But it's not unique to the
music world either. If I wrote a book called 'Barry Totter and the magician's cloak', the
tale of a young orphan boy who discovers he has magic powers and has to go in search of a
legendary wizard's cloak, I would get short thrift from Bloomsbury - and rightly so -
especially if I had copied and pasted text from JK Rowling's books and made some changes.
Do you think I'd stand a cat in hell's chance if, in court, my defence was "Well m'lud - I
did have to do a lot of creative work to make the text fit my plotline"! Bollox! I would
be sued big time for plagiarism, use of IP and for capitalising on a well established
'brand' and exploiting it to my commercial advantage and financial gain.
I
simply don't get this application of 'sampling' - sampling someone else music and
wittering over the top of it is, to me, no more creative than me drawing a moustache over
a photocopy of the Mona Lisa or running Hockney's 'Bigger Splash' through some Photoshop
plug in and calling it 'my own'.
I respect the skill of a good turntablist (but
don't understand the appeal given that it all sounds so clichéd now) but that's a
different discipline and very different to sampling whole sections of a well known song
and adding your own bits. That's just a kind of 'urban karaoke' with attitude.
I was listening to some Kanye West recently and it was all primarily samples of other
people's music over which he rabbitted on about motherf'ker nigger ho's and shizzle. I
don't see a lot of 'art' or skill in that - in fact, I see absolutely none.
In
fact, all I see is a fairly talentless individual capitalising on the 'brand' and the
''cultural resonance" of well-known songs and their creators (not to mention the stupidity
of the record companies that release it, the video/radio stations that play it 24/7 and
the gullibility of the people who buy it).
I don't see how you can say that
copyright protection is hindering an artist's creativity when the processes he employs to
make 'music' (ahem) is not creative to begin with.
But if people are going to
do it, they must pay for the use not of a chord sequence or a riff or a melody but for the
use of a copyrighted phonographic recording and composition. And if they can't afford
that.... tuff shizzle.
Quote ghellquist: There are two
different copyrights here really. - the song (music and lyrics): copyright goes to
the composer and stays for 75 years after the last composer is dead. (normally not the
problem here) - the sound (the actual recording): copyright is generally 50 years
after it was first released to the public. (generally what is called samples)
You're missing the point. With
compostion, it is perfectly ok to rip off the chord sequence for a track. Hence why TV
documentary makers can and often do hire musicians to make sound-a-like versions of
well-known tracks, rather going through the long, drawn out and considerably more
expensive process of gaining the rights to the original music. The amount of protection
to the composition given by law is limited, because if it wasn't then the damage both to
musicians and the music industry would be considerable.
Why should the
protection granted to recordings not be similarly restricted in order to preserve other
sections of the industry and other forms of creativity? The fact is that it is not easy
or cheap to clear a sample, let alone a hundred. Often, it is difficult even contacting
the copyright holder, let alone coming to an agreement! Where as this maybe great for the
sampled musician's ego - "only I have created this sound, no one else is allowed to use it
no matter how much I force it into the public arena!") - it is bad for creativity as a
whole, as a human activity for us all to share in.
Ideally, I would like to see
a system where by if you release a track comercially which contains samples you do not
have to ask permission first. However, you are legally obliged to declare all copyrighted
samples and resigster them. A percentage of royalties set by the regulating body, NOT the
copyright holder, is then taken and distributed evenly to the owners of those samples.
That way people are still making many from samples but any money is proportional to
income. Perhaps such a system could be integrated with the MCPS or PPL?
It begs the question, if you're so concerned about your work being misused, why release
it to the public at all?
That's just silly, you also need a release - consent from the existng copyright holder.
You can't just plunder it and say "here's your cheque, I've done you a favour, now go away
and shut up".
Try sampling e.g. some instantly recognisable Beatles hook or
something, and see if any label will touch you with a bargepole. They know the clearance
will never, ever, be forthcoming. And why shouldn't the Beatles be able to veto their
work being use to accompany (say) some brain-dead thug extolling the virtues of using guns
to kill people? Yoko Ono might be expected to have strong views on that subject.
Respecting people's intellectual property is no different to resisting the
temptation to burgle their house.
Quote Happyandbored: Rubbish! How can a musician earn a
living or even get his/her work to a public audience, if he runs the risk of getting sued?
Of course it is hindering the creative process.
This is not about sampling. Copyright infringers have always
been liable to being sued. Do something original and you won't get sued.
If
you can't do something original you are not a musician and not worthy of the name, or the
pay.
It really is that simple.
-------------------- Dynamite with a laser beam...
With respect, Hollowsun, you are looking at a very specific end of the market and IMO the
shite end of the market. Most sampling that goes on, you wouldn't even know that it had
happened, even if the artist had used extremely well-known sounds. That's because the
samples are used as textures.
One of the things that I love about Kontakt or
my VariOS is that I can load up a sample and effectively use it as an oscillator. I can
change its frequencies, its formants, its tempo. I can add filters, lfos and fx. You
wouldn't know what it was that I was using. It's just a sound.
Should that be
illegal? And if you answer "yes" then how are you going to police it? A direct comparison
with the original track and what I produce with it will reveal two completely different
tracks. There has been a form of copying, but its not the type of copying anticipated by
our antique copyright laws.
There are some great artists out there making
some fantasticially original music, using oscillators taken from other artists work. Not
because they particularly want to, or because they are lazy, or because they lack the
talent to create their own music. Quite the contrary, in fact, they have immense talent,
wonderful musical vision, and a great ear for music. The stuff they write is original. The
main (if not the only) reason they use samples is because they can't afford a whole load
of synths, guitars, drums, mixing desks, outboard gear, etc. And they haven't had the
breaks in life to enable them to learn the instruments (which they can't afford, in the
first place). But they can afford a MPC1000 and some second hand records that no one else
will probably ever listen to anyway. But with such simple tools, they create original
works.
They borrow sounds to create their own music.
Where there
is an out and out copying of someone elses work, set up as loops and used as the backbone
of a track, I agree with you, it is usually shoddy. Some of these tracks are little more
than very poor remixes, usually with a catchy bit of the original tune loops and sped up
with stupid mickey-mouse vocals, and a very dubious "rap" line interspersed.
I'm not talking about that type of rape theft. That's the type of sampling you appear to
be criticising, and I don't really think you are going to have many people who will
disagree with you that permission should be sought for clearance of those samples.
But what about where the lines are blurred? What about those many many occasions
where the sampling artist is merely using sounds as textures? Surely the original artist
suffers no damage there! Why should the law seek to compensate him? What is so illegal in
what he does, when Andy Warhol's blatent photocopying of soup tins is deemed art?
See that kind of attitude comes across to me as a little
arrogant and pretty selfish. Not you personally, but that approach in general.
We're not really talking about the plot-lines for books and Harry Potter doesn't strike
me as a particularly orginal piece of fantasy anyway. However, I actually think you're
wrong there - copyright law doesn't protect ideas and I suspect that that extends to
characters and plot-ideas. I may be mistaken here, but it's difficult to imagine the
Tolkien estate giving permission for 'Bored of the Rings' - as far as I'm aware, paradies
are exempt under fair use. The Tolkien Estate did indeed succeed in forcing Gary Gygax,
creator of the Dungeons and Dragons, to change several of the characters names in the game
- "hobbit to halfling, ent to treant, and balrog to Type VI demon (balor)[!]" (wikipedia),
but the descriptions of the creatures themselves were strangely familiar. It was
basically Lord of the Rings the role play game. A total rip-off of Tolkien's work in
roleplay game form, but some people love it... The point is that Gygax ripped off Tolkien
and created something new that means a lot to a small minority of slightly strange people.
If copyright laws affecting literature were as draconian as recording copyright, Gygax
would have got his arse sued and it's likely that a whole creative industry would have got
struck down in it's prime.
Once again, this concept of limited copyright exists
in print as well as in music publishing, why not recording?
You say that you
"don't get sampling", which is fine, but a lot of people do. Why make it more difficult
for them than it already is? Don't they have the right to make music in a meaningful way
too?
Joined: 20/01/05
Posts: 4507
Loc: Cowbridge, South Wales
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: MD_BANNED]
#500332 - 12/08/07 12:48 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote Happyandbored: You're
missing the point. With compostion, it is perfectly ok to rip off the chord sequence for
a track.
There is no copyright or
intellectual rights to a chord progression or a scale or arpeggio or even 'style'.
This, for example, is extremely creative:
This is not (IMO):
That's just blatant, unoriginal bollox designed
to use and exploit a "cultural resonance" to give credence to a piece of sh!t masqueraded
as 'art' created by a marketing charlatan as are (IMO) other such examples ... such as
this:
Quote
Happyandbored: Ideally, I would like to see a system where by if you
release a track comercially which contains samples you do not have to ask permission
first.
Not gonna happen because
as well as wanting to protect their IP, compositional and performance rights, artists will
also want to protect their 'brand image'.
Under your scheme (unapproved usage
with a royalty percentage due by default), someone could (for example) take a section from
the Pet Shop Boys' 'West End Girls' and use it as the foundation for a toxic anti-gay rap
(which wouldn't be the first time!). The PSBs, their record company and publishers would
not sanction that.
Furthermore, how would you fix default percentages and who
would determine 'usage' in any given record? Some sampled snippet may represent just 1% of
a record ... or could be 95% responsible for its worldwide commercial success.
As I see it, you are trying to defend the indefensible. Sampling in this context is
'theft' of IP and copyright and exploitation of brand image, etc.. Be prepared to pay for
the privilege of exploiting someone else's creativity and talent and 'brand' in your music
if you want to but don't protest with some faux concept of a repression of creativity.
It's a lame argument that has no legs morally or legally.
Joined: 20/01/05
Posts: 4507
Loc: Cowbridge, South Wales
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: leslawrenson]
#500333 - 12/08/07 01:08 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote leslawrenson: With respect,
Hollowsun, you are looking at a very specific end of the market and IMO the shite end of
the market.
But a very profitable
one.
Quote leslawrenson: One of the things that I love about Kontakt or my VariOS is that I can load up a sample
and effectively use it as an oscillator. I can change its frequencies, its formants, its
tempo. I can add filters, lfos and fx. You wouldn't know what it was that I was using.
It's just a sound.
Should that be illegal?
That IS a very different argument, Les. And I have no strong opinions
on it to be honest and would even veer towards some degree of acceptance in principle.
But where does one draw the line?
Sampling something, regarding that
as an oscillator waveform and totally transforming and mangling it using modern DSP with
skill and knowledge (or even serendipity) is one thing; routinely shoving it through a
phase shifter, flanger or lowpass filter - or just using it as is looped over which you
witter and claiming it as 'your own work' is another. I am sure you understand the
distinction.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Steve Hill]
#500334 - 12/08/07 01:09 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Re: That's just silly, you also need a release - consent from the existng copyright
holder. You can't just plunder it and say "here's your cheque, I've done you a favour,
now go away and shut up".
Well no you can't. I'm arguing that you should
be able to, that it is actually damaging to music (albeit a genre music you don't
respect), that copyright is enforced to this degree.
Re: Try sampling e.g.
some instantly recognisable Beatles hook or something, and see if any label will touch you
with a bargepole. They know the clearance will never, ever, be forthcoming.
That's exactly my point! You may not like the idea of someone sampling the Beatles, but
it's precisely the result of that, that most of us can't do that in any meaningful way.
Re: your Yoko Ono/animal rights example - The issue of moral rights is
a tricky one, but it needs to be weighed up: How often is anyone likely to do that for any
reason other than comedy value? What does music as a whole stand to gain and lose with
less draconian copyright laws? In fact, the BBC are already allowed to use whatever music
they like in their shows, thanks to blanket license agreement* with the PRS/MCPS. This
resulted in lots of complaints from Cliff Richard when some of his music got used without
his permission in the BBC3 comedy 'Monkeydust'. If you like Monkeydust, you will likely
find this very funny. (* incidentally, this agreement does not extend commercial side of
the BBC, so when the series was released on DVD, the music was replaced.)
I
think it shows a lack of humour on Cliff Richard's part, no one is forcing him to watch it
and I strongly doubt any of his fans are going to bother to watch the show. Personally, I
would love my music to be misused this way, even in support of causes I despise. I would
be happy that my music would be reaching an audience who would otherwise never hear it and
hopeful that whatever message contained in my music would seap into their minds, along
with whatever vile cause it was being used to promote.
However, the point is
why is it deemed okay for the BBC to do this, but not the rest of us?
Re:
Respecting people's intellectual property is no different to resisting the temptation to
burgle their house.
It's pretty different I think. If I 'steal' your chord
pattern you still have your song; If I 'steal' your recording of a snare drum, you still
have your recording; if I steal your snare drum, then unless you're a pretty exceptional
drummer, you're shafted. Also burglary, if my memory serves me right, implies theft with
violence, so you'll also get a good kick in from me...
Re: This is not about sampling. Copyright infringers have always been liable to
being sued.
Erm, yes, it is about sampling. That's what we're talking
about. Just to clarify, I was also talking about *changing the law* so that certain
*copyright infringers* would *cease to be* copyright infringers. I've pointed out many
examples where copyright is restricted in order to protect aspects of creativity, why not
with sampling too?
Re: Do something original and you won't get sued.
Or, rip off the chord pattern from a Stranglers song, as the Manic Street
Preachers did a few years back with 'If you tolerate this...' and don't get sued. It
seems strange how 'theft' is ok for a rock band, but not for a hip-hop artist... This
really is a case of law not keeping up with technology.
Re: If you can't do
something original you are not a musician and not worthy of the name, or the pay.
Of course, it is fine for artists with the label support and money to clear all
their samples - they're heralded as geniuses, they deserve the pay... The rest of us are
thieving scum.
I don't understand how using samples automatically makes an
artist's work unoriginal. This is getting away from what we're really talking about, as
obviously copyright isn't an issue here, but most modern keyboards are PCM sample-based.
So if someone uses a keyboard, they're incable of creating original music? Your argument
doesn't really follow.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: John Willett]
#500336 - 12/08/07 01:42 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote John Willett: Sampling is
theft - full stop.
If you sample it should be done with credit given and fee
paid.
Agreed, not a complex
issue. I'm not going to watch the video, but if one hopes to get paid for their creative
efforts while stealing the creative efforts of others, that is the height of hypocracy.
And the courts have agreed, from what I have read.
Joined: 22/02/05
Posts: 1235
Loc: Alloa flat, studio and rural/u...
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: leslawrenson]
#500337 - 12/08/07 02:03 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
I havent viewed the docu, but one thing about the "sampling is theft" argument has always
confused or bewildered me.
As some folk have said, we (the generic "we") can
often find ourselves unwittingly plagiarising things like chord sequences, and yet, taking
a small snapshot from an existing song or some other audio source is considered a bit
dubious - even IF clearance is granted and fee is paid.
But what about synth
patches? Lets say there's a section in a track that features one sound in isolation played
for a short period of time. The samplist thinks "mmm, like that, Im 'avin it", and duly
samples it - but if that sound is a factory preset in isolation (ok im nit-picking a bit
here I know , but it's just an illustration), it would still, I prsume, require clearance.
However, if we were to use the same patch/preset, with, say, the same processing - in our
own music - in other words use the original sound - that is ok.
So it seems to
be partly an issue of context perhaps? I may (yet again) be talking rubbish, but it's a
thought that's hovered around in my head for many years.
Slightly tangential
but - how many of us have created some music, and then left it in mothballs (all of us
lets face it) - only for something eerily similar to crop up as a release sometime later.
Youre then in the position that, if you still like the idea you had, and want to resurrect
it in the future - will you be accused of ripping someone else off?
Just some
more grist - I know not the answers.
Good thread tho.
-------------------- "If I had all the money i'd spent on drink, i'd spend it on drink". Vivian Stanshall
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: hollowsun]
#500339 - 12/08/07 02:12 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Personally, I thought the Beatles track was just as dull as the other two tracks. So you
found two examples of very uncreative sampling, so what? Perhaps it's genius and we're
blind to it. I suspect not, but there are better examples out there.
By the
way, have you ever heard Cassette Boy?
Re: Under your scheme (unapproved
usage with a royalty percentage due by default), someone could (for example) take a
section from the Pet Shop Boys' 'West End Girls' and use it as the foundation for a toxic
anti-gay rap (which wouldn't be the first time!). The PSBs, their record company and
publishers would not sanction that.
So a whole style of music should be
rendered illegal to the masses, because there are idiots out there who abuse their
freedoms? There are supposed to be laws to deal with incitement. Do you really think it
would ever get played on the radio, in light of the outcry last year? It is just as
plausible that the Manic Street Preachers *could* right a song that sounds suspiciously
like a certain Stranglers song, changing the lyrics to: "So if I can shoot rabbits, then I
can shoot faggots". Should we tighten up copyright laws on compositions and chord
sequences on the off chance that someone could abuse that freedom too?
Re:
Furthermore, how would you fix default percentages and who would determine 'usage' in any
given record? Some sampled snippet may represent just 1% of a record ... or could be 95%
responsible for its worldwide commercial success.
Those are questions for
the imaginary organisation which sets up this system... As for percentages, it seems no
more or less cock-eyed than the PRS decreeing that 50% of royalties automatically go to
the composer by default. Why that specifc figure of 50%? It's an irrelevant criticism to
the point I was making, which is that we need a simpler system to deal with copyright
clearance. Of course, you could complicate the system to account for these problems. For
example, you could insist that musicians give accurate details of the length of each
sample used or that musicians not interested in having their music sampled in certain
conditions make that aware to our imaginary agency. This is just an idea of how such a
system could work, not a definitive solution.
Re: As I see it, you are
trying to defend the indefensible. Sampling in this context is 'theft' of IP and copyright
and exploitation of brand image, etc.. Be prepared to pay for the privilege of exploiting
someone else's creativity and talent and 'brand' in your music if you want to but don't
protest with some faux concept of a repression of creativity. It's a lame argument that
has no legs morally or legally.
I'm not trying to defend anything. My
actions are entirely consistent with my morals on this issue and I have nothing to
personally gain from taking this view - I record all of my own samples because I feel that
using other people's work would cheapen mine, but that's just my personal opinion.
However, I believe that a simpler system for clearing copyright needs to be set up to
protect sample-based creativity (no matter how crap you or I think it is). There is a
value in music and art which recycles pre-existing material. There are statements which
can only be made this way. Likewise, there are musicians who were only fortunate enough
to have a deck or computer at their disposal, that didn't receive formal music training
from a really young age - they deserve to be able to make and sell music too, even if it
is in ways that many of us don't enjoy. This does not mean sampling should necessarily be
free! In our imaginary system, perhaps royalties are only due or are charged at a higher
rate if the sample is over a certain length? Too little freedom and copyright law has the
potential to damage creativity, too much freedom and people will take advantage.
I have already given plenty of examples of cases where laws have been relaxed to
ensure creativity is not damaged in a particular way. It is legal for musicians to rip
off a chord sequence, it is legal for the BBC to use copyright music in anyway it sees
fit, even in ways which violate the composer's ethics, it is legal for Gary Gygax to turn
a Balrog into a Type IV demon called Balor that bears a striking resemblance to a Balrog,
etc... There are good reasons for these exceptions, just as there are good reasons to
relax the laws on sampling. I should reitterate that I am not even necessarily arguing
that sampling should be free - if it was made easier to sample and pay some money where it
is due, then it would most likely result in an increase in sampling of copyrighted works,
which in turn will result in more musicians being paid for samples, and therefore more
musicians getting the money they deserve.
Yes, such a system has implications
for the moral rights of composers, in which case I refer you to my previous message and
ask again, why are you putting it out there in the first place? It's common practise in
academic papers to cite a person's comments out of context in order to misrepresent that
person's views - should fair use laws be tightened up in this instance?
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: hollowsun]
#500342 - 12/08/07 03:03 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
I made it quite clear that I'm not interested in or condoning illegal sample use -
instead, I want the laws relaxed. So hopefully won't be seeing any lawyers, unless of
course someone samples me! (joke)
Otherwise, that was excellent!
Reminds me of that other chord sequence, the one from Eno's Big Ship/James' Tomorrow/The
Cure - Letter to Elise and a billion other tracks. It was an ongoing joke in my old band,
to spot songs with that chord sequence. Think the sequence is kind of similar, but it's
only four chords long instead of eight.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Les]
#500344 - 12/08/07 03:14 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote Les: I havent viewed the
docu, but one thing about the "sampling is theft" argument has always confused or
bewildered me.
As some folk have said, we (the generic "we") can often find
ourselves unwittingly plagiarising things like chord sequences, and yet, taking a small
snapshot from an existing song or some other audio source is considered a bit dubious -
even IF clearance is granted and fee is paid.
But what about synth patches?
Lets say there's a section in a track that features one sound in isolation played for a
short period of time. The samplist thinks "mmm, like that, Im 'avin it", and duly samples
it - but if that sound is a factory preset in isolation (ok im nit-picking a bit here I
know , but it's just an illustration), it would still, I prsume, require clearance.
However, if we were to use the same patch/preset, with, say, the same processing - in our
own music - in other words use the original sound - that is ok.
So it seems
to be partly an issue of context perhaps? I may (yet again) be talking rubbish, but it's a
thought that's hovered around in my head for many years.
Slightly tangential
but - how many of us have created some music, and then left it in mothballs (all of us
lets face it) - only for something eerily similar to crop up as a release sometime later.
Youre then in the position that, if you still like the idea you had, and want to resurrect
it in the future - will you be accused of ripping someone else off?
Just some
more grist - I know not the answers.
Good thread tho.
Good points for pondering!
When I was in law school, the professor would give us a rule distinguishing between two
things, and then would come up with a hypothetical carefully placed in the middle of the
grey area between the two things, and we would debate it furiously like dogs fighting over
piece of steak, never realizing (until years later) that there was in fact no clear
answer, and we were simply to be able to understand and apply components of the rules.
Well, it would be false imprisonment to lock someone in a closet. Ditto with a
stadium, what about a country or hemisphere? What if you locked a closet and said they
could go anywhere but there--would that be false imprisonment? Well, why not? You are
limiting their freedom of movement... So, where do you draw the line is theoretically
difficult but usually intuitively obvious for most cases.
Yes, there is a
continuum between creative stealing and not stealing.
So, it is clear that
playing a whole nother song and calling it your own is wrong, what if you played only 5
seconds? How about 1/10,000 of a second? Clearly at some point, it becomes ridiculous to
protect too small a part of a song. But if its too small to protect, its also to small to
be worth stealing, in my mind.
In songwriting, the land of chord
progressions, courts have always had to struggle with this, and they make decisions. For
instance, Harrison's My Sweet Lord, and She's So Fine--similar but not exact--I thought it
was an extremely close case.
So, in my mind, when the sample is recognizable,
one is benefiting from the public memory of the earlier song (or the talent of the
musician)--this is what I am thinking of--like when samples get recorded into an mpc and
played back. When it is sort of used as a wave that gets distorted beyond all recognition,
I personally don't see a problem with it, but on the other hand, if its unrecognizable,
why use something copyrighted if you're going to distort beyond recognition? Maybe to get
some of its mojo?
The reason I don't think paying performance rights on
samples from copyrighted works is burdensome is that one can easily make one's own notes.
Why sample the power chord from a who song when you can plug an sg into a marshall and
make your own? Is it because you could not get it to sound exactly like the original?
That's why its protected.
I think if you had a drummer do his own 'amen'
break, it would be ok--we don't protect a sequence of drum hits, but the whole reason
folks use the original is because it is recognizable, or they can't play drums very well,
or don't want to hire a drummer.
I am not against sampling or expressing an
opinion on its value as an art form, I am simply saying that it falls within the realm of
expression that needs to be paid when you use it in your own work.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: hollowsun]
#500346 - 12/08/07 03:35 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Hollowsun: Ha!Ha!
That really just proves what we all know, that there is nothing new under
the sun.
The video clip examples you provide further above are exactly the sort
of clip that we can all agree are simply a rip off of the original tracks. They fall very
clearly on this side of the "copyright vs right to sample" line. I have to express my own
particular distaste for that type of music (and, therefore, I accept that I am biased and
perhaps blind to its merits, if it has any), but it is clear that these songs have simply
taken the "meat" or core of another track, traded off its cultural and emotional context,
and cheapened it. The songs are (as I have already argued above) nothing more than poor
remixes of the original song.
But what about the use of samples that fall on
the other side of the line? What about the use of samples purely as textures within the
body of an original work of art?
I think copyright laws need to change to keep
up with the times. I think there should be a test based on the concept of recognition. If
the new track can be recognised, to a specied degree (or, indeed, to any degree) as the
original track, then the samples used require pre-clearance/permission prior to use, and
in the absence of such cannot be used. I cannot see why an artist or his record company
should want to (or be able to) prevent the sale and distribution of original tracks where
there is nothing tangibly recognisable of the original track.
And no one has,
as yet, given a reply as to why a hip hop artist should be considered a thief and a
charleton for using a copy of someone elses music in his own music, and Andy Warhol should
be considered an artist for blatantly glueing photocopies of a famous brand soup tin to a
piece of card and sticking it in a frame? Or by simply replicating the iconic image of an
actress. It does demonstrate, however, that English law is prepared to make distinctions
between art and "the theft of ideas" when it wants to.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: leslawrenson]
#500350 - 12/08/07 05:42 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
As a practical matter, how would a copyright holder know it was time to sue someone for an
unrecognizable sample? How could they prove it?
From an aesthetic standpoint, I
would never suggest that Andy Warhol did less derivative work than your average hip-hop
artist. But, then, I am a bit of a philistine when it comes to appreciating the subtle
genius of modern, ready-made, art.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Mark Knutson]
#500352 - 12/08/07 06:09 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
So, a person spends (over time) $7,000 on equipment, $10,000 on lessons, education, and
training, 20,000 hours in 10 years of work - and some nose-picker should be able to nick
even one note from that player? No, not without permission, and paying. People are cheap
and without conscience, but there have always been such jerks. It's just that now there
are other jerks trying to condone it.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Sir George Martian]
#500357 - 12/08/07 07:21 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote Sir George Martian: So, a
person spends (over time) $7,000 on equipment, $10,000 on lessons, education, and
training, 20,000 hours in 10 years of work - and some nose-picker should be able to nick
even one note from that player? No, not without permission, and paying. People are cheap
and without conscience, but there have always been such jerks. It's just that now there
are other jerks trying to condone it.
That post encapsulates the whole argument.
Changing the law will not happen, nor should it, if doing so would condemn Yoko, widowed
by mindless gun crime, to sit back and watch her late husband's work be abused to lend
spurious credibility to some worthless piece of sh1t who calls himself a gagsta and thinks
guns are glamorous.
Nobody in the mainstream music business advocates any
such change in the law. Only the talentless losers who want something for nothing.
And chicks for free, I expect.
-------------------- Dynamite with a laser beam...
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: leslawrenson]
#500358 - 12/08/07 07:33 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Hollowsun: Kanye West is always ripping people off for his own gain. Here's another
example of 'his' 'music'! What a load of bollox! I absolutely despise this sort of
thing:
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: leslawrenson]
#500366 - 12/08/07 08:34 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
I have no problem whatsoever with sampling, or "samplists" What I do have a problem with
is when people just don't ask for permission, it is up to the owner of the original work
to decide if they want their work used in a new context, after all, it may conflict with
their own moral, ethical and political beliefs. And also, if you don't get permission
you are effectively stealing their royalties. They created the original idea, so show some
respect and ask for permission. My experience is that most people are more than willing to
cooperate, all you have to do is ask.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: leslawrenson]
#500371 - 12/08/07 08:46 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote leslawrenson: [why]...Andy
Warhol should be considered an artist for blatantly glueing photocopies of a famous brand
soup tin to a piece of card and sticking it in a frame? Or by simply replicating the
iconic image of an actress....
Graphical artists paint things. They paint apples and bananas and landscapes and
churches and faces and animals and furniture.
In fact before the
impressionists and surrealists, artists tried very hard to represent their subjects
exactly as they appeared, as in a photograph...
...And photography is yet
another artform that takes a real subject and presents it in an artistic and creative
way.
What Warhol did not do was take the wrappers off 32 tins of
Campbells soup and stick them on a canvas and frame them, he painted (albeit after using a
bit of silk screening [skething is yo like]) the soup cans, as one would perhaps paint a
bowl of fruit.
I'm sure if he had painted a tin of Campbell's soup and
represented it as the body of a surreal poisoner sh!tting down the neck of a saint then
Campbell's may not have been so happy to get the advert.
But essentially all
he did was paint a still life and present it in a way that punctuated the scale he saw in
the moves towards the mass consumerism of his time.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: MD_BANNED]
#500385 - 12/08/07 09:44 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote Happyandbored:
Quote ow:
... Sampling doesn't necessarily have to be free, but there does have to be an easy and
above all, affordable way of registering those samples. Otherwise copyright is no longer
protecting the rights of the majority of musicians, but is in fact censoring them.
...
Copyright was
never intended to protect the rights of the collective. Quite the contrary, it was
designed to protect the rights of the individual creator against the abuses of the
collective, giving him absolute authority and control over the disposition and uses of the
product of his efforts and the exclusive right to derive economic benefit from them for a
certain period of time. The rights of the individual who created the music being sampled
trumps any wishes of all other musicians taken as a group with regard to his work.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: leslawrenson]
#500412 - 12/08/07 10:39 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
The video only convinces me further that sample based music is a credible art form. Harry
Allen from Public Enemy sums it up
"Sampling is like the colour red. It's
like asking, is the colour red creative? Well it is when it's used creatively."
And I've heard it used creatively many times.
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.
Sampling in hip-hop essentially reflects the practice of extending
the instrumental part or breaks from records by DJs spinning two identical copies at once
and crossfading between the two copies. The first uses of sampling in hip-hop was to
create a continuous drum break against which MCs could rap. Point being what some call
"theft" was actually born out of necessity. Sampling provided creative opportunities and
fulfilled cultural and communal expectations where no other means were available.
I think sample based hip-hop is actually one of the very best examples of a
genuinely spontaneous, democratic and creative human art form. That the technology
involved creates arguably identical copies of originals involves the legal system is a
product of our modern times not the concept or motivation itself.
In that
vein, it is also important to consider the inevitable political aspect of sampling. It is
the white Harvard educated lawyers of corporate America that want to jump all over the
likes of Public Enemy for lifting a James Brown break. The same white corporate America
that kept James Brown down in the first place.
At the end of the day what did
the likes of Elvis or the Stones really do? They legitimised and sanitised an essentially
Afro-Caribbean musical form for white audiences; namely blues and rock'n'roll.
Yes, any artist should be suitably renumerated for any significant use of their recorded
material. But equally any artist should be allowed to pull from the entire narrative of
their art form in the pursuit of it's development. Furthermore in understanding a process
such as sampling you cannot remove it from it's political and social context. And the
context in which sampling finds itself in hip-hop is way more important than, and way more
interesting than, a rather niave and abstract notion that sampling is theft, theft is bad,
therefore sampling is bad.
-------------------- Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Steve House]
#500422 - 12/08/07 11:09 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote Steve House:
Quote Happyandbored:
Quote ow:
...
Sampling doesn't necessarily have to be free, but there does have to be an easy and
above all, affordable way of registering those samples. Otherwise copyright is no longer
protecting the rights of the majority of musicians, but is in fact censoring them.
...
Copyright was
never intended to protect the rights of the collective. Quite the contrary, it was
designed to protect the rights of the individual creator against the abuses of the
collective, giving him absolute authority and control over the disposition and uses of the
product of his efforts and the exclusive right to derive economic benefit from them for a
certain period of time. The rights of the individual who created the music being sampled
trumps any wishes of all other musicians taken as a group with regard to his work.
But as I've repeatedly pointed
out - but somehow people seem to keep missing in my posts - there are plenty of exceptions
in other areas of copyright which don't give absolute control. In my opinion, the rights
of the individual should not trump the rights of the group, when that musician's work
achieves exposure in the public domain.
There are hundreds of different
versions of the song Stagger Lee, with varying degrees of plagairism, yet each unique in
their own way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagger_Lee. If copyright in composition
and lyrics had been enforced to the same degree as copyright in recording is today, there
would have only been one song. Likewise, 12 bar blues would have never existed as a
genre. The cost to music and musicians generally would have been far too great, so in
this instance copyright does not give absolute control to the original composer.
Would you seriously consider campaigning for the rights of composers to have
their chord sequences protected? The video posted earlier was hilarious, but obviously
each of those songs sounds completely different when heard in the original context. Try
listening to The Big Ship by Brian Eno and Tomorrow by James - yes, the chord sequence is
still recognisable, but they still sound like totally different pieces of music.
Regarding everyone's sudden grave concern for Yoko Ono - what would happen if
some talentless rock band were to rip off the chord sequence from John Lennon and call it
something like "I laughed when Lennon got shot"? The defense of enforcing copyright on
the basis of moral rights is a non-sequitur. There are idiots out there doing things
which are far more offensive to far greater numbers of people. Most people with any sense
realise that they can turn the television or radio off if something offends them.
Regarding the point made about the cost of creating that original copyrighted
work - I've stated time and time again that I am not necessarily arguing that sampling
should be free. However, the reality is that clearing a sample or any form of copyright
is an arduous process. If you had to clear the copyright for every copied chord sequence
or bit melody you were influenced by (ripped off), you would be rightly pissed off.
I suspect that all this over-protectiveness over sampling has far more to do with
a bias in musical tastes and a lack of understanding of sample based music, than high
moral standards and a concern protecting the original creator's work. Otherwise, why are
the majority not campaigning as vigorously for the protection of chord sequences?
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: leslawrenson]
#500428 - 12/08/07 11:25 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
I didn't watch the clip but I feel that while sampling (in my mind) shows a lack of
creativity or "do it your selfedness" and I can't reallly stand to listen to it as long as
the proper people are credited and paid for the sample then I don't have a problem with
it. That said you'll never get ME to spend MY hard earned money on such collages.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Mark557]
#500433 - 12/08/07 11:37 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Mark557, oh well, since I stopped caring I listen to anything ! the best thing I ever
done. Proper people ? serious music ? who cares ? Just throw it all in and see what comes
out. Music is a dead art form, has been for years, so just sit back and mess around, what
have you got to loose, nothing what-so-ever ! And I'm not joking pop-pickers. Its when you
think it's all over and you let go that things start to happen again, believe me. Their
are NO RULES ! not one, not a single paltry sossidge of a rule, work from the bottom up,
not from the top down,and take no prisoners.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: jellyjim]
#500434 - 12/08/07 11:37 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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.
Sampling provided creative opportunities and
fulfilled cultural and communal expectations where no other means were available.
... Public Enemy ...
MOFO respect to Public Enemy, Ganstarr, NWA, Tribe Called Quest, later Wu Tang
Clan
for keeping the culture alive, bringing it to a new generation of listeners in
a new form
and having a message, trying to make a difference.
They are
sadly an exception.
Very sad to say many of the current generation of
hip-hoppers have hopped on the hip bandwagon.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Mark557]
#500439 - 12/08/07 11:43 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Yes it's a pretty childish bit of humour, but it makes some people laugh...
It
would have taken a lot of time and effort to create that montage and there is no way you
could have created the same effect by rerecording the samples - it just wouldn't have been
funny.
Point is, none of the Cassette Boy samples were cleared or paid for.
There are hundreds of samples in that small clip alone. Since their music is only
available on the internet and at small independent music stores, they're unlikely to get
any hassle. The reason I've heard of it: it can be and has been, played on BBC radio
thanks to that blanket PRS/MCPS license. However, if a system like the one I suggested
were implemented, then the artists could be rightfully paid *and* Cassette Boy could
release their work on a wider commercial basis. In other words, more musicians, including
Cassette Boy and their victims, would receive payment for their work than under the system
which currently exists.
Regardless of the law, I don't see Cassette Boy giving
up their 'art' any time soon.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: leslawrenson]
#500444 - 12/08/07 11:53 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
@Mark557
Why roll eyes at "collage"? All creativity is collage. It's only in
the 20th century and later that we had the means to duplicate (sampling, photography,
printing press) rather than merely imitate that the process has become conspicuous. It's
that old cliche, if Beethoven were alive today he'd be using the full gamut of tools at
his disposal, samplers and sampling included. A friend of mine is a painter in the
traditional sense. He paints people in cities, he uses oil on canvass. He loves people
like Edward Hopper and Jack Vetrianno. He is in part in his own work trying to emulate or
refer to or invoke those masters as well as contribute is own meaning and context. Is that
not collage? Is he not in a sense "sampling" the ideas, aspirations and techniques of
those before him?
@Arpangel
There's a lot of truth in what you say
Tony. I think there's a lot of prejudice towards hip-hop (and I DONT mean RACIAL prejudice
I mean musical) I worry that many people simply close their ears to it. There's actually a
few debates going on in this thread. The issue of copyright infringement is the least
interesting and the least important. The importance of creative processes contributing to
the sum total of human culture through the eons is vastly more important than transients
such as the prevailing legal climate. Tho again I stress, lift a significant amount of
another artists song and they should enjoy any sucesses you might have with it.
@table for two
sadly all genres dilute, commercialise and so on. Hip-hop
certainly isn't a grassroots thing anymore. Nonetheless the "bad" hip-hop doesn't devalue
the "good" hip-hop. Not that I think you were saying that but some might.
-------------------- Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: leslawrenson]
#500446 - 12/08/07 11:56 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Bottom line is if you use something that makes you money you should pay for it and credit
the sources. Hell you should credit the sources even if it's not for money.
Re: The issue of copyright infringement is the least interesting and the least important.
The importance of creative processes contributing to the sum total of human culture
through the eons is vastly more important than transients such as the prevailing legal
climate.
Yes, the technicalities of copyright are boring, but I disagree they
are the least important factor. It is precisely because there is no fair use sampling
provision or easy system for paying royalties for sample use that sampling is defined as
theft in the first place. Otherwise, I agree.
Good to see another Trap Door
fan - did you ask permission to use that avatar?!
The PRS/MCPS have been living in the dark ages for years about sampling, and the computer
revolution as whole, I think they should radically re-think the way that they run their
organisation, and sort this out once and for all. The only time I had any dealings with
those people they gave me no reason at all to think that they were on the side of the
musician. Just a bunch of grey haired old jazzers who should try living in the present,
not the past.
Quote Happyandbored: Re: The
issue of copyright infringement is the least interesting and the least important. The
importance of creative processes contributing to the sum total of human culture through
the eons is vastly more important than transients such as the prevailing legal climate.
Yes, the technicalities of copyright are boring, but I disagree they are the least
important factor. It is precisely because there is no fair use sampling provision or easy
system for paying royalties for sample use that sampling is defined as theft in the first
place. Otherwise, I agree.
Good to see another Trap Door fan - did you ask
permission to use that avatar?!
yeah good point, interesting (the
first bit not the trap door bit )
-------------------- Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com
I think it's more they're on the side of certain types of music,
musicians and certain ways of doing business at the expense of others. Which is a shame,
because they are exactly the institutions which have the power to create a way out of this
mess that allows everyone to get a piece of the pie.
I think it's more they're on the side of certain types of music,
musicians and certain ways of doing business at the expense of others. Which is a shame,
because they are exactly the institutions which have the power to create a way out of this
mess that allows everyone to get a piece of the pie.
Leaving to one side PPL who are equally involved and in some
cases (beats) far more involved....
There is already a "way out of this
mess"... it's called licensing.
The system operated by PPL and MCPS to allow
as much re-use of recordings as anybody could possibly want is called clearance.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Rob C]
#500483 - 12/08/07 01:32 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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...
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?
No.
Quote Happyandbored: Did you miss the part about the
prohibitive cost of those licenses or that fact that signed artists have the power of a
label behind them to clear all of those samples, because often it is in fact that label or
a subsidiarary who owns them?
No.
Quote Happyandbored: 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?
You don't need to
clear it. It's perfectly OK to quote from books... even for a band name.
Quote Happyandbored: 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.
Have you looked at the clearance system on
MCPS/PRS? No legal team required.
Quote Happyandbored: Likewise, there is no good reason why
sampling royalties should not be charged proportionally to the amount of money a sampled
track actually makes.
Why?
That would prevent people licensing their stuff as they like. I might want to offer free
licenses... why should I have to charge a specified rate? That's the kind of government
sponsored rip-off they favour in the USA (compulsory licensing).
Quote Happyandbored: 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.
There are problems with copyright and licensing, but you seem fixated by one or two
imaginery "injustices" you've read about. Copyright is much more diverse and interesting
than that.
I can't understand why you are so desperate to copy other people's
stuff. Haven't you got any imagination?
Would anyone find any 'art' in the Cassette Boy stuff if none of the samples was
recognizable ? I think not...
The trouble with sample-based music is that the
art/enjoyment/whatever we're supposed to get out of it depends entirely on the fact that
the listener is supposed to hear/see the joke/point/whatever etc due to their a priori
knowledge of the samples involved. It therefore depends entirely on the already accrued
status of the music that has been sampled, and therefore the creative energy of the
original artist.
I've heard an awful lot of very 'clever' music created this
way, but none of it has the sheer emotional punch and straightforward musical quality of
truly original music made my people who can play music without having to use material
sourced from elsewhere. Even when they're copying other styles or using well-known chord
sequences, the way they do it, if they're any good, makes it 'their own' and opens up new
territories for others to follow.
I'm sure many people will feel that samplist
music is basically doing the same thing, and that there is equivalent originality and
musical depth involved in collaging a bunch of recordings, and therefore it should be made
easier to do it without difficult licensing procedures. I have to say I'm not one of
them... if you really want to make Good Original Music, make your own, from scratch.
That there are good arguments for and against really shows there is no definitive cut 'n'
dried answer.
My moo beef is, too often sampling is done not for artistic
reasons but for fashion's sake and to be 'trendy' or a trendsetter (let alone for
commercial purposes!). One may think the use of a sample at a particular point in time is
cool (I certainly have), perhaps because the sample is old and gives credentials to the
sample manipulator's taste and knowledge of music. But give the song a couple of years and
it just sounds plain unoriginal. Which is hardly a surprise. Perhaps this itself means
sampling is very much a disposable art form, like a sand sculpture near the tide.
Daft Punk's secrets...
Quote Sir George Martian: So, a person spends (over time)
$7,000 on equipment, $10,000 on lessons, education, and training, 20,000 hours in 10 years
of work - and some nose-picker should be able to nick even one note from that player?
[...]
I agree in some respects
(like I said, not cut 'n' dried!) but your argument would hold more weight if you didn't
give the impression the financial outlay is what makes someone's work important. After all
- and I'm surprised the discussion hasn't gone down this route already - we don't pay
royalties to Adolphe Sax. Or Clavia.
"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.
A few of
us in this thread have draw a (very clear) distinction between, on the one hand, those
samplists who take the meat/core of a track, loop it, and place a (IMO usually very
dubious) rap over the top of it, and, on the other hand, those samplists who use samples
as textures, or as an adjunct to their own original and higly creative works. This thread
has already thrown up some interesting examples of both types of samplist.
I
think you are being a little bit argumentative to accuse the poster of being talentless,
simply because he might choose, as part of his own creative process to sample someone
else's work.
And JellyJim, I loved your argument that focussed on the white
exploitation of black afro-american culture. First, it stole their music. Then, it
licenced it. Now, it makes them pay to re-use it.
But the great thing about
genuine creativity is that it absolutel will find a way of making itself felt. We can, all
of us, point to those who abuse any system. Those are whom the law has set out to catch.
But, unfortunately, the law is a blunt tool, and in bludgeoning those who deserve to be
bludgeoned, it also kills the true innovators.
Thank God for white people the
world over that there was no copyright on the blues of black american slaves. Otherwise,
Elvis would not have been able to so easily rape their music, and from him, the likes of
the Stones and the Beatles would not have been able to hand down to use the very material
that the nay-sayers are so jealously trying to protect.
God bless white
corporate America! (and the UK, too!)
So black people are more entitled to sample than white
people because of the contributions individual black musicians have made to music? No one
race owns music more than any other; it is down to individual contributions. Like most of
life, music is based on the evolution of that which has taken place before it.
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.
So black people are more entitled to sample than white people because of
the contributions individual black musicians have made to music? No one race owns music
more than any other; it is down to individual contributions. Like most of life, music is
based on the evolution of that which has taken place before it.
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.
Fantastic - from sampling to racism!
Indeed- the blues would have been a very different music if the
original purveyors of the form hadn't been exposed to 'white, western' church music...
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Rob C]
#500527 - 12/08/07 02:49 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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? Why are The Doors not called The Doors of Perception? 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. I'm not quite
sure if my musical venture is going to extend much further than a Myspace page at present
though, so for the moment I've decided to 'steal' it. The writer is dead with no
dependants and the publisher didn't get back to me, so not sure my crime is that big a
deal. I'm not too bothered about it, I just wanted to cover my ass, but I would have been
happy to pay a *small* fee for the privelege.
Re: the MCPS' clearance
service.
They only help you find the copyright holders contact details,
it is then up to you to negotiate. Let's say for the sake of argument, it takes a couple
of days to clear a sample - even if the license fees are fair, that's going to take a
ridiculous amount of time for a piece of collage music which may contain well over a
hundred samples. A musician working on their own without a label to support them is not
going to be able to do this. This seems wrong in an age where lowering costs of
technology are finally allowing musicians to work independently of record label
control.
That would prevent people licensing their stuff as they like. I
might want to offer free licenses... why should I have to charge a specified rate? That's
the kind of government sponsored rip-off they favour in the USA (compulsory licensing).
Because doing so will result in more musicians getting paid for their work, and
therefore able to continue with their art in a world where average working hours per week
are going up not down. The system at present sets up so many boundaries that many
musicians who genuinely want to pay their dues for the samples used cannot, because the
prevalent attitude in music has changed from one of sharing and collaboration to one of
'screw you buddy!' and property rights above all else. If you don't want your work in the
public domain, don't release it commercially. I think it is wrong for The Beatles to
foist their music into the public arena to such an extreme that it is unavoidable, even if
you never watch TV or listen to the radio, and then expect everyone to respect that, to
look but not touch. I believe part of the crisis in music today is down to the fact that
artists are not just competing with a million Myspace users, but also with yesterday's
heroes. It is easier for a record company to promote and rerelease a tried and tested
classic than develop a new artist. Likewise, I believe it is more important to preserve
the social role of music than protect Yoko Ono's feelings.
Regarding free
licenses - You already can (Creative Commons) and there's no reason why such a system
could not factor that in. I'm not on about forcing people to *not* enforce their rights.
I do however, take issue with people that feel they can release something into the public
domain and expect the public to treat it like it's an object in a museum. If a piece of
music is truly great it will earn that respect from the majority anyway and any imitations
will be dismissed.
Re: imaginary injustices. No, all the
examples I've used in my postings are entirely real. I just happen to think that we
should be looking to reduce boundaries to music making of all types, that is all. With a
few exceptions, I'm no great fan of hip-hop, but I recognise that the point at which it
really started to suck was when lawyers started getting involved.
Re: I
can't understand why you are so desperate to copy other people's stuff. Haven't you got
any imagination?
I actually stated quite clearly in an earlier post that
I don't sample other peoples' work. You are making assumptions about my own music making
based on my views. However, does this view extend to it's logical conclusion of expecting
all musicians to use entirely new, never heard before, chord progressions?
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?
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Mark Knutson]
#500531 - 12/08/07 03:01 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Like I said, as long as permission is received, money paid and people credited, sample all
you want. It is a matter of my personal tastes that you won't find any of it in my
collection. It simply doesn't appeal to me. I AM pretty old though...
Quote Happyandbored: They only
help you find the copyright holders contact details, it is then up to you to negotiate.
Let's say for the sake of argument, it takes a couple of days to clear a sample - even if
the license fees are fair, that's going to take a ridiculous amount of time for a piece of
collage music which may contain well over a hundred samples. A musician working on their
own without a label to support them is not going to be able to do this. This seems wrong
in an age where lowering costs of technology are finally allowing musicians to work
independently of record label control.
So... new technology makes it easier to
1. use
samples of other people's music
2. work independently of record companies
well that's helpful already- and I really don't see why it therefore makes it
'wrong' that's it's still difficult to get clearance to use 100 samples in one tune.
If you want to use 100 samples, that's your choice, and you should have to take on
the hard job of getting them cleared. Just because technology makes other aspects about
the process easier, it doesn't therefore make it the copright holder's duty to make the
rest of it easier for you as well.
BTW- the Beatles didn't foist their music on
anyone- people loved it, and they bought it, in huge quantities. This doesn't in any way
affect the copyright status of the music, and nor should it.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: John Willett]
#500533 - 12/08/07 03:04 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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.
They may take any
photos off the camera and pass them off as their own. Bummer. [ ****** ] happens. But
still, it will not stop me from continued use of those photos which are still mine. I can
still generate income from those photos myself.
Yes, it is annoying when you
experience someone benefiting from work that was entirely done by you. It happens all the
time in many different ways.
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.
They may take any
photos off the camera and pass them off as their own. Bummer. [ ****** ] happens. But
still, it will not stop me from continued use of those photos which are still mine. I can
still generate income from those photos myself.
Yes, it is annoying when you
experience someone benefiting from work that was entirely done by you. It happens all the
time in many different ways.
But to call it theft I think is incorrect.
Hmmm... try heading on
down to the bakers and asking for a free loaf of bread or even a free bucket of dough, to
make your own. I think they might tell you to f off !
The only reason people
nick music (either from p2p for listening use, or sampling for 'creative' use) is because
the technology allows them to. This has therefore led to the perception that there is
'nothing wrong' in doing it, and that it's a victimless crime. I reckon the jury is still
out, on both counts, but there's no doubt that there's something just a bit iffy about the
argument that because technology allows you to do something, doing it is therefore
'right', every time.
BTW- can I have one of your cloned cameras, please ?
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**
People rip off music, movies, and software, because they can. If they could, they
would rip off their electricity, rent, heat, taxes, etc. etc., and spend their spare time
justifying it. [Bank Robbery: A New Way of Sharing Money.]
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.
The trouble
with sample-based music is that the art/enjoyment/whatever we're supposed to get out of it
depends entirely on the fact that the listener is supposed to hear/see the
joke/point/whatever etc due to their a priori knowledge of the samples involved. It
therefore depends entirely on the already accrued status of the music that has been
sampled, and therefore the creative energy of the original artist.
I've heard
an awful lot of very 'clever' music created this way, but none of it has the sheer
emotional punch and straightforward musical quality of truly original music made my people
who can play music without having to use material sourced from elsewhere. Even when
they're copying other styles or using well-known chord sequences, the way they do it, if
they're any good, makes it 'their own' and opens up new territories for others to
follow.
I don't
know, maybe you're just not the type of person for who this sort of music is going to gel
with, but seriously try some Third Eye Foundation - packs a pretty damn intense emotional
punch and is original in the ways you suggest, yet is sample-based. 'Little Lost Soul' is
probably the best place to start.
My appreciation for this album has nothing to do with recognising where any of
the samples come from - and in fact I don't recognise any of them, I don't really care
either. However, it would not have worked, the record would not have had the same feel,
if the artist had faked the samples. Faking it is always going to sound different and end
up being stamped by the tonal qualities introduced by the artist's own equipment and
engineering habits. Part of the actual sound and style prevalent in much sample-based
music is this idea of multi-referenced sounds.
There is no possible
compromise here, anymore than there would have been if Andy Warhol had painted an original
tin of soup with a made up brand -name. It would have communicated an entirely different
message. More importantly, it would have felt like a cop out to the actual artist.
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...
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Sir George Martian]
#500573 - 12/08/07 03:57 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Steve Hill]
#500580 - 12/08/07 04:16 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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.
"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.
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.
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!
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.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Sir George Martian]
#500621 - 12/08/07 05:28 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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 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.
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.
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
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.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Rob C]
#500655 - 12/08/07 06:08 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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!
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Steve Hill]
#500665 - 12/08/07 06:15 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Rob C]
#500701 - 12/08/07 07:06 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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 )
"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?
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.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Steve Hill]
#500727 - 12/08/07 07:35 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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?
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: John Willett]
#500734 - 12/08/07 07:42 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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?
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.
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.
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: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Steve Hill]
#500917 - 13/08/07 01:16 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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:
"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'.... )
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: MD_BANNED]
#500956 - 13/08/07 08:26 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Steve House]
#501008 - 13/08/07 10:10 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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.
"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."
"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."
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Steve House]
#501047 - 13/08/07 11:30 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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.
Joined: 20/01/05
Posts: 4507
Loc: Cowbridge, South Wales
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: MD_BANNED]
#501051 - 13/08/07 11:44 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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.
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.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Rob C]
#501083 - 13/08/07 12:20 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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: 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.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Rob C]
#501102 - 13/08/07 12:48 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Rob C]
#501108 - 13/08/07 12:50 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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?
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.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Rob C]
#501116 - 13/08/07 12:58 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Rob C]
#501117 - 13/08/07 12:58 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
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?
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: 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 !
I've sampled stuff before ( mostly voice samples from movies etc ), but I don't / haven't
sampled anything for many years. I've also never used my synths' preset patches or any
drum loops / prefabricated groove libraries. I do this because it's a lot more challenging
this way, and when I go to bed at night, at least I am content in knowing that what I've
created is mine and that I alone conceived all creative aspects of its being, which, at
the end of the day, should be an infinitely more satisfying process and result for any
self respecting musician.
At least it is that way for me. Each to his own, I
suppose.
Why would you want to use other people's work / parts thereof anyway
?
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Neil C]
#501223 - 13/08/07 03:16 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote Neil C: 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).
There is now a specific exception for this
kind of copy.
Quote Neil C: 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).
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Rob C]
#501239 - 13/08/07 03:28 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote Neil C: 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).
Although illegal, most people would see this as fair use if you
already own the CD and I don't know anyone prosecuted for doing this.
On the
other hand sampling is copying for commercial gain.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: John Willett]
#501307 - 13/08/07 04:38 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote John Willett:
Quote Neil C: 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).
Although illegal, most people would see this as fair use if you
already own the CD and I don't know anyone prosecuted for doing this.
On the
other hand sampling is copying for commercial gain.
Playing devil's advocate for a second here...
Some
particulary narrow minded people will argue though, that you are depriving the artist of
the right to profit from selling casette copies (or whatever other format it is being
copied to). Sure, there is a difference in that making a cassette or minidisk copy is not
for profit when compared with sampling, but it is still depriving the artist of
income.
A twat could even make the case for the moral rights of the artist:
what if they don't want their music to be heard on a sonically inferior format? Perhaps
they only want to release their records on vinyl - shouldn't that individual right be
protected too?!
This is a perfect example of where the copyright interests of
individuals have been restricted to protect the wider public interest, at least in the US.
Over here, as you point out, the fact that it's illegal to make cassette copies is
thankfully ignored.
Some
particulary narrow minded people will argue though, that you are depriving the artist of
the right to profit from selling casette copies (or whatever other format it is being
copied to). Sure, there is a difference in that making a cassette or minidisk copy is not
for profit when compared with sampling, but it is still depriving the artist of income.
A twat could even make the case for the moral rights of the artist: what if they
don't want their music to be heard on a sonically inferior format? Perhaps they only want
to release their records on vinyl - shouldn't that individual right be protected too?!
This is a perfect example of where the copyright interests of individuals have
been restricted to protect the wider public interest, at least in the US. Over here, as
you point out, the fact that it's illegal to make cassette copies is thankfully
ignored.
Most of those
issues are between the artist and any record company they're dealing with- and I know
quite a few artists (including me on one occasion) who had to fight quite hard just to be
able to buy their own CDs off the company, at distributor price, to be able to sell them
at full retail at gigs, etc. This is because the record company owns the masters, and once
you've signed that deal, they own the recordings and therefore can do what they like with
them, unless you and your lawyer get the right clauses in... I also had to fight pretty
hard just to make sure that I do actually get the final veto on whether a tune gets used,
or not, to advertise products or services i find objectionable. Same thing for the
sampling issue- I'd rather not have my music used on tunes with rampantly misogynistic or
homophobic lyrics, thank you, but it took a fair amount of arm twisting before they'd
agree to let me have the final word.
As far as I know, most artists with
'standard' deals are not allowed to make cassette (or any format) copies of their own
recordings if the mechanical rights in the original recording have been assigned to the
record company, and there's no clause in the deal that specifically allows the artist to
do it.
Same thing with the format the music is released on- if the artist only
wants it released on vinyl, they'll have to get the record company to agree to that before
release- and only the smallest and most laid-back record company is likely to agree to
that !
Easiest way round all this, of course, is be the record company
yourself- it's easy enough to find a bigger company to licence the tunes, should good
things happen and you find you can't cope with demand- and in that situation you end up
with all the best cards and can usually broker a deal that works well for you.
Quote Happyandbored: Playing
devil's advocate for a second here...
Some particularly narrow minded people
will argue though, that you are depriving the artist of the right to profit from selling
cassette copies (or whatever other format it is being copied to). Sure, there is a
difference in that making a cassette or minidisk copy is not for profit when compared with
sampling, but it is still depriving the artist of income.
Yes and no - and only in the same way as
you deprive a software company of income by making a safety backup of the software CD.
If the cassette copy for the car law was enforced, people would not buy two
copies, they would either buy a cassette to play in the car and home or get a CD player
for the car - either case they would only buy one copy. No revenue lost at all.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Rob C]
#501326 - 13/08/07 05:00 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
AFAIK, both here in Canada and in the US, it is legal to personally make a copy for your
own private use of a copyrightable work that you own. You're allowed to copy a CD from
disk onto your mp3 player, for example, or make a copy of a CD that you own so you don't
have to risk loss or damage of your expensive original when you want to play it in your
car on your next road trip. But that's a different thing altogether from making a copy to
incorporate into another work that you're then going to publish publically.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Steve House]
#501329 - 13/08/07 05:03 PM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote Steve House: AFAIK, both
here in Canada and in the US, it is legal to personally make a copy for your own private
use of a copyrightable work that you own. You're allowed to copy a CD from disk onto your
mp3 player, for example, or make a copy of a CD that you own so you don't have to risk
loss or damage of your expensive original when you want to play it in your car on your
next road trip. But that's a different thing altogether from making a copy to incorporate
into another work that you're then going to publish publicly.
IMO, theft only comes into it when the money changes
hands. Mashing or remixing for fun... I see no harm in it. Messing with Ableton and
the like to create party/club mixes never hurt anyone.
As an artist I use
sampling. I sample my grooves, my grooves. I also sample machines and stuff. Sampling
liberates! I'm a player and as a player I can not bring myself to EVER sample someone
elces recorded work. It would seem disrespectful to the artist and bound to bring shame
and bad karma to myself. I'm not odd. I imagine most players would feel the same.
Haven't read the whole thread (got a life you know) but thought I'd share a incident which
demonstrates that the legal and appropriate use of samples (which I support) can have its
downsides.
I was scheduled to perform in a school in front of two hundred kids
when the teacher came up to me and said the kids had all learned the song I had recorded
on the latest 'Kiwi Kids Song Series' (a CD resource given to schools in New Zealand to
help kids learn new songs). I said I hadn't recorded anything for the Kiwi Kids Song
Series, but the teacher insisted I had.
It turned out that the engineer who had
sampled my uilleann pipes (with permission) had used them on a song and credited me for
use of the samples. The teacher had assumed I'd recorded the song in person and would know
it!
Anyway I had a listen and gave it a bash....wasn't too bad
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Steve Hill]
#501539 - 14/08/07 12:02 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Why have you accredited this quote to me?
That's a very good question.
I think the answer is that I haven't figured out how to get the quotes mechanism right
yet. I was aiming at the other chap. I don't even know who you are.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
[Re: Sir George Martian]
#501744 - 14/08/07 11:47 AM
Edit
Reply
Quote
Quote Sir George Martian: Why
have you accredited this quote to me?
That's a very good question. I
think the answer is that I haven't figured out how to get the quotes mechanism right yet.
I was aiming at the other chap. I don't even know who you are.
Who are you?
[happyandbored pops up from bunker...]
More evidence that some people
haven't been reading the thread before posting!
Previous
Topics
Next
Threaded
Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
:
)
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
