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

[stAllio! the original wanksta]

--- David meme <david at locarecords.com> wrote:
> > surely you acknowledge the difference between
> writing a
> > song and having someone else sample your song?
> >
> 
> Well this is the question, I see no difference. Songwriter royalties 
> are use of the song - sample clearance is use of a part of a song.
> Your 
> distinction is false.

it's not false; you tacitly acknowledge the distinction even in your
own definition: the song itself versus a part or fragment of the song. 
you may not see an ethical difference between the two in this case, but
don't tell me the whole is the same as just one of its parts.

> I don't care whether it is unpopular or not.

good.

> 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.

but what if your work is unflattering to the original artist, or in a
style they just don't like?  what about parody?  what if i want to cut
up samples of george bush speeches or toby keith songs to make a
political statement?  am i supposed to get their endorsement first?  or
is that type of art simply not valid?

> Note that again I am trying to understand how ethics can be 
> incorporated to combat what seems like a very libertarian view that 
> sampling should be a free-for-all just cause you *can* do it.
> 
> For me, maybe, attribution is the key to this. Perhaps the most 
> important.

attribution can be a beautiful thing.  but it's not without its flaws. 
the major flaw i see with requiring attribution, as i mentioned
earlier, is that some highly transformative collage art, using large
numbers of small fragments, becomes infeasible (even moreso if you add
in licensing and fees).  in extreme cases, the mere act of documenting
the art is far more difficult than creating the artwork itself (for a
good example see wobbly's "wild why"; i believe the sample list is
still under construction, almost two years later).  

this is not to say that attribution is without merit.  but it doesn't
work across the board.  standards like attribution and consent might
sound good on paper, but when applied in the real world things get
murkier.  the result is that certain styles of artistic expression are
forced into a legal "gray area" because what seemed like a simple
standard becomes impossible to live up to.  this causes a chilling
effect on creative expression.

=====
"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