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

[Virago]

> I don't care whether it is unpopular or not. Appropriating someone 
> else's art if they
> 
> 1. Do not know
> 2. Have no attribution
> 3. Expressly ask you not to do it
>
> Is not acceptable ethically because you are taking something personal 
> and ripping it from them. Note this is not about property rights it is 
> about respect for other musicians work. If they express that it is open 
> to sample (ie like the new Creative Commons sampling licenses) then 
> that is fine, or if they state that they don't have a problem generally 
> then fine. But how can you possibly defend the notion of invading and 
> using something that may be very personal to someone without any 
> ethical issues being raised.

There exists a philosophy prevalent in this artform that once a song, photo, tv commercial, etc., is released to the public and becomes part of the media din around us all every day, it becomes part of the collective unconsciousness and is, in a curious way, part of the public domain immediately.  This is especially agreed upon if the work in question is omnipresent and known to all (though to many it makes no difference).  It no longer belongs and is personal merely to the creator, but to all the people who have experienced it (and perhaps been subjected to it against their will, over and over), who have formed their own memories and associations around the work and to whom it is now a small part of them.  Some say that they reserve the right to comment on the media that invades their homes and cities, with or without permission (permission can be a sticky subject if the sampling is unflattering... but if art is not allowed to critique culture then something is probably very wrong).  You may not feel this way, but it is an opinion that a lot of people (especially here) hold and defend very eloquently.  There are some great examples at http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html.

As far as having to attribute, I know from personal experience that sometimes that's just impossible to do, depending on how your samples are collected; sometimes you literally have no way of finding out what it is you're using, and I don't think that this simple fact should disqualify it as a source.  If everyone you sample has to *know* you're doing it, the style of music I love best (and the music of many of my musician friends) is pretty much dead.  And sometimes not attributing your sources is part of the artistic approach... attribution can be distracting and make the listener focus more on the individual sources than the total effect (it certainly can do that to me).  This is, of course, generally referring to things that aren't very well-known or are randomly collected/self-recorded.  I have no problem with attribution, but I certainly don't think it's always necessary.

I feel that this is just as ethical a way to look at the issue.  No doubt I haven't convinced you of anything... I'm afraid it's kind of like eating meat, pretty hard to say one side is "right" or "wrong" since it comes down to personal ethics which are just that, personal (as in opinion).  But, really, if anything should be in the public domain it's those infernal songs from the "Annie" soundtrack...

Connie

___________________
Mundus vult decipi.