[Rumori] re: Songwriters Say Piracy Eats Into Their Pay

[stAllio! the original wanksta]

--- David meme <david at locarecords.com> wrote:
> If I lost money it doesn't matter how much I lost - I have still lost
> some. And he still has to pay the mortgage and feed the kids.

so there's no difference between losing $50 and losing $50,000? 
ridiculous.

> The problem with this statement is the 'then have an opportunity'. 
> Buying music requires you find the music - it is unlikely to find
> you.

that's right.  because i listen to some pretty obscure music, and
actually finding a way to buy it can be quite difficult sometimes
(especially if it's out of print).

> > one of the most significant things about this article (which i was
> > surprised nobody else had mentioned, though i see now that m.
> simons
> > has) is that it's ostensibly about *songwriters*, but strouse is
> > griping about lost royalties for a song he technically *did not
> write*.
> >  he wrote his song 25+ years ago, which jay-z then sampled.
> 
> Look I am sorry but no-one has the god-given right to sample anyone. 
> Rights are construed through law and the law is clear. You use 
> someone's music you pay them and if they don't mind then that's fair 
> enough. You wouldn't like it if someone sampled your house to
> entertain 
> for a few days and earned millions in the process. He wrote the
> track, 
> it was sampled, Jay-Z earned tons, he should pay. I am sure he would
> be 
> on others backs if they sampled him.

whether creators deserve financial compensation for appropriation of
their work is a totally different debate... a debate that, if you read
my original post, you'll notice i did not state my opinion on.  i
merely pointed out an important distinction between songwriter
royalties and sample clearance royalties, one that the original article
glossed over.  surely you acknowledge the difference between writing a
song and having someone else sample your song?

> As I have said previously if musicians want to share music then that
> is 
> cool, but if they do not then they should be respected. To take from 
> someone without asking is disrespectful and learning to share music 
> means respecting both parties are cool with the idea. I think this is
> crucial to an ethic of musicianship and not performing violence on 
> others (ie by just appropriating others music)  is crucial to that.

if you really think all uncleared sampling is unethical, you'll find
that to be a very unpopular opinion on this forum.  particularly
because much of the art discussed on this list involves appropriation
of some form, & a lot of that would be totally unfeasible if each
sample costs thousands of dollars.

> I know it looks like David vs Goliath Multi-nationals but it isn't 
> *just* that. Musicians earn money to continue writing music. We need
> to 
> be a bit more sophisticated in our understanding of sampling and 
> songwriting.
> 
> I am sorry but I totally disagree with your simplistic idea that by 
> sampling you create a new song in entirety. That is stupid. Samples 
> built on previous work, whether a bass-line, drumloop or whatever. Is
> it too much to ask to respect that?

my simplistic idea?  once again, i did not state my opinion on that
subject.  but thanks for putting words in my mouth!  it's
mmm...mmm...good!

i believe it was j.r. "bob" dobbs who said, "you'll PAY to find out
what you really think!"

=====
"More publicity = more amazing!! I've been saying that for years, d00d!!!"
http://www.animalswithinanimals.com
http://badtastesucks.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus