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

[David meme]

> now we've changed topics..
>

Is that Illegal?
>

> fair use sampling may not be a god-given right, but it is still a 
> right.  and the law certainly isn't clear about what sampling falls 
> under fair use.  in the 2 live crew case the supreme court stated that 
> fair use would have to be decided on a case by case basis. lawyers 
> have told me that different scenarios could go either way depending on 
> the judge's interpretation.
>

A right IN LAW. Rights do not exist floating in a continuum they are 
instantiated in national legal systems. Fair use doesn't even exist in 
the UK.

> you also seem to be implying that wherever the law stands.. that must 
> be good and right.  i respectfully disagree.  in many cases sampling 
> is civil disobedience to the corporate control of culture.  i feel 
> that that is somehow good.  maybe not as noble as rosa parks, but 
> still in the good vs. evil equation..
>

No I did not say that the law was good. I said it was the law and the 
law is both to protect the weak and the strong. Ripping off a 
multi-national is one thing and ripping off a guy (or girl) writing 
self-released music is another. I was trying to emphasise that having a 
crusade against the multinational record labels is one thing but 
ripping people's music with no credit is unethical and disrespectful 
IMHO.

>
> but that is not what sampling is.  the equivalent w/ houses would be 
> to borrow the blue print (which could be considered IP, right?) and 
> incorporate part of it into a new house that i built.  people always 
> mix these things up to make sampling look more harmful than it is. IP 
> is not the same as physical property.
>

Fair enough we should be careful about conflating the two. But I was 
trying (perhaps badly) to show that having your privacy invaded  is 
similar to being sampled without credit (ie an unethical and 
disrespectful invasion of your art). It wasn't a property argument at 
all.

>
> i also disagree with the simplistic notion that just because someone 
> doesn't sample that their work is new and original.  sampling is 
> merely doing digitally what music has always done.. building new 
> musical ideas on old ones.
>

NO! I did not say it was not music! Nor did I say it was not creative, 
new or original - I sample stuff all the time (mostly fellow musicians) 
so I could hardly agree with that! (See http://www.locarecords.com ) I 
said that it was important to credit the original songwriter and if 
they do not like you using their work (a value claim not a monetary 
one) then you should respect that wish.

Cheers

David


> philo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rumori mailing list
> Rumori at detritus.net
> http://detritus.net/mailman/listinfo/rumori
> older archives: http://detritus.net/contact/rumori/
>
>
>



--------THE OPEN SOURCE RECORD LABEL--------

L O C A   R E C O R D S
Stick to What You Don't Know™

	http://www.locarecords.com