quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations Is this a practical solution? There are 6 billion people in the world, even if %.01 were sampling and needed their works [approved] that's still a ridiculous amount of people.

Probably not, but I don't see a better one that will allow for complete artistic freedom. It may be a bummer to those will never see compensation for samples used, but I think it's the way it has to be in order to allow people the creative freedom to move forward with whichever musical endeavors they choose.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations Does out whole system of copyright need to be reworked? Is something like the "Creative Commons" the way of the future? http://creativecommons.org/ (Essentially I agree with you, I'm just trying to move forth the discussion-)

CC looks like a neat site, I need to learn more about it to comment.

Copyright law in general is something I don't have too much knowledge on - So my attempt at additions on the subject would pretty much be futile.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

This thread is a little confusing imo. Is the question if we like sampling or not, or is the question if we think IP is legitimate or not. There is a discussion about opinions and taste regarding sampling but then words like STEAL appear, now that's a totally different thing.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT - So my attempt at additions on the subject would pretty much be futile.

Actually incorrect- if anything you have a much different view on how things should be vs how they are. Copyright was created for artists, and is now used to exploit artists in many ways.

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC This thread is a little confusing imo. Is the question if we like sampling or not, or is the question if we think IP is legitimate or not. There is a discussion about opinions and taste regarding sampling but then words like STEAL appear, now that's a totally different thing.

I am trying to get people to think money and art at the same time- it's very difficult to do and usually unsuccessful, but in my opinion, they are both directly related to each other and can't be separated.

There is no right or wrong answer, I just want ideas.

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations What I'm asking is a remix a work of art that can stand on it's own or is it dependent on the 'original mix'? Essentially it's (usually) never presented with the original- so this could create problems.

I guess the most famous example is Tiesto's version of Adagio For Strings. Even though he gave the track his own sound, it wouldn't exist without the original. In a case like that, the producer shouldn't get full credit as the track was not entirely created by himself.

Legally, there was no issue though, as the harmony was used with the original writer's consent.

___________________

quote:

Originally texted by Jakhira Out with the dog at the moment. Chicks love him, and I love chicks... The world is in harmony

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations Actually incorrect- if anything you have a much different view on how things should be vs how they are. Copyright was created for artists, and is now used to exploit artists in many ways.

I just don't understand really how U.S. or International Copyright Law works. What I do see is a lot of fighting over tunes being used for advertising, a lot of angry people who sold rights to their tunes wanting them back after time (**cough** the beatles **cough cough**), and just a whole lot of negativity regarding artists essentially losing the rights to their works and then being upset over how they're used, which can be due to everything from fundraising to shit initial record contracts.

Again, it's a complicated issue that probably has to be taken on in a subjective context, but in general I think I'm an idealist trapped in a philosophically minded body.

I want all artists to get the compensation they deserve, but I don't want them to abuse the right to compensation by staking claims on samples whose origins are, at best, questionable. If artists can prove they created an intellectual property first, they have every right to be compensated for their work. I am, however, uncertain as to whether I think intellectual property rights should be able to be sold. Essentially, if you created it, I think it should be yours forever; But this of course raises all sorts of other issues.

This is really a great thread Greg, I hope my ramblings are in some way meaningful.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by TOR I guess the most famous example is Tiesto's version of Adagio For Strings. Even though he gave the track his own sound, it wouldn't exist without the original. In a case like that, the producer shouldn't get full credit as the track was not entirely created by himself. Legally, there was no issue though, as the harmony was used with the original writer's consent.

So do you tbhink Tiesto's work stands alone? We could debate about him for ages regarding his actual involvement with the making of it and whether or not it's actually any 'good'...

Also, keep in mind many of the worlds 'greats' like shakespear for example took ideas for their work from all sort of different places...

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations I am trying to get people to think money and art at the same time- it's very difficult to do and usually unsuccessful, but in my opinion, they are both directly related to each other and can't be separated. There is no right or wrong answer, I just want ideas.

Ok. My personal opinion is that i don't mind sampling at all. If it sounds good it's good, if it sounds bad i don't have to listen to it.

My ethical view is that IP is illegitamate. And that doesn't mean that i don't think money and art at the same time, on the contrary it means i say anyone should be free to sell whatever is an output of his (tangible) property and labour.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT I just don't understand really how U.S. or International Copyright Law works.

Who does? It's one of the most problematic things for an artist!

quote:

What I do see is a lot of fighting over tunes being used for advertising, a lot of angry people who sold rights to their tunes wanting them back after time (**cough** the beatles **cough cough**), and just a whole lot of negativity regarding artists essentially losing the rights to their works and then being upset over how they're used, which can be due to everything from fundraising to shit initial record contracts.

I think an artist has a right to do this, at least for the 50 years (I think) that they are entitled to the copyright- it;s the corporations who never die who are able to keep copyrights to things- otherwise everything would be public domain after something like 50 years.

quote:

Again, it's a complicated issue that probably has to be taken on in a subjective context, but in general I think I'm an idealist trapped in a philosophically minded body. I want all artists to get the compensation they deserve, but I don't want them to abuse the right to compensation by staking claims on samples whose origins are, at best, questionable. If artists can prove they created an intellectual property first, they have every right to be compensated for their work. I am, however, uncertain as to whether I think intellectual property rights should be able to be sold. Essentially, if you created it, I think it should be yours forever; But this of course raises all sorts of other issues.

How do you prove they create IP?

quote:

This is really a great thread Greg, I hope my ramblings are in some way meaningful.

Cheers, and yes they are.

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC Ok. My personal opinion is that i don't mind sampling at all. If it sounds good it's good, if it sounds bad i don't have to listen to it. My ethical view is that IP is illegitamate. And that doesn't mean that i don't think money and art at the same time, on the contrary it means i say anyone should be free to sell whatever is an output of his (tangible) property and labour.

Is digital information tangible?

What if a work sampling another work is heralded by the public audience, and completely hated by the owner of the copyright - take Danger Mouse - Grey Album for example- this ia very imprtant work which deals with copyright and sampling issues. Many will agree this is a legitimate work of art, yet the label who owned the a lot of the material (I think it was the beatles stuff and it may have been capitol, i forget) wouldn't fought against it's release- How is this copyright benifiting artists?

He used almost exlusively JayZ and Beatles material to put together the grey album (maybe completely exclusive), yet still made something arguable artistic and exciting-

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations How do you prove they create IP?

Just like Plato's defintion of "knowledge," the ability to prove the creation of an IP, or rather, the debate regarding whether or not this is even possible to prove, will more than likely be a mystery that I'll puzzle over forever.

My gut feeling says that in the strictest sense, it's impossible - Though this raises all sorts of question about the idea of proving "innovation" or "pioneering" something new. I think we can arguably point to people who have clearly done "new" things in our eyes, how do we prove that they were beyond a shadow of a doubt the first to do so?

Gah - So many questions leading to so few answers!

___________________
last minute disco dot net