[Rumori] %20 & Chuck D with Fine Arts Militia & Public Enemy - Meaning

[PeterALopez]

As previously mentioned:
http://detritus.net/blog/archives/000253.html

Creative Commons with Wired Mag released a CD (http://creativecommons.org/wired/) and are now looking for reworkings of the sound from that CD.

The words/sound file below is related to:
http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/ccmixter/contrib/Wired/Chuck%20D%20-%20No%20Meaning%20No%20(feat.%20Fine%20Arts%20Militia).mp3 


%20 & Chuck D with Fine Arts Militia & Public Enemy - Meaning (the Commercial Sampling License version)

http://noneinc.com/sound/
%20&ChuckDwithFineArtsMilitia&PublicEnemy-Meaning.mp3
ReadMe:
http://noneinc.com/sound/%20ReadMe/Meaning-ReadMe.txt

The following is a response to Chuck D & Fine Art Militia's decision to license their creation "No Meaning No" under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial Sampling License.

According to Wired Nov 2004 pg. 194: According to Chuck D, %20 plagarizes the following:
"If you're taking bits of music and organizing them in a way that makes the result a distinctly personal creation, then I don't feel that you're infringing on copyright"

So then what's the deal with the Non Commercial Sampling licensing deal?  Or is the goal of this remix contest to create non distinctly personal creations....

Thus to protest the Fine Art of Sampling Contests: The Militia Mix "Sampling, Mashing, Sharing" (http://ccmixter.org/contests/militiamix), %20 has done the following sound file:

%20 & Chuck D with Fine Arts Militia & Public Enemy - Meaning (the Commercial Sampling License version)
Parts:
01. (00:00-00:17) = Let's Just Say; No's Intro
02. (00:17-00:50) = CD's Contracted Consumer(+Plus) Explanation
03. (00:50-03:05) = Meaning (No's Eliminatory Reversal of Fortune)
04. (03:05-04:27) = (Going) 'BACK' (Rhymplundsamplin' with the Chuck)
05. (04:27-04:39) = Bought/Brought Noise Interlude +Boing+
06. (04:39-05:01) = Caught!? I'm my only witness...
07. (05:01-05:52) = Xeroxed Criminal Claims (Rip.Sample.Mash.Copy.Plunder.Lawyer.Litigate.Decision.L0053r)
08. (05:52-06:42) = Message from Allen Harry (Economic Securities of the First World Fortune Lecture)
09. (06:42-07:30) = Fear of an Economically Centered Decision Making Planet
10. (07:30-08:44) = Realizations All Around (Understand?)
11. (08:44-09:44) = Yo! Welcome to the Message to the Rebel Prophet Party Shutting Down the Channel Zero Night of Chaos Hype
12. (09:44-10:14) = Summary Explanation of the Culture of No's Meaning -Personal Determinism- ///./w////future plans/../:///

The point being why promote the licensed prohibition of monetary transfer for creative works, by an individual who's life arguable 
gained from the same monetary transfer with works which contained creative reuse, ie sampling.

So the offending two letters ("the easiest and hardest word to say"), and their similar licensing counterparts, we're removed to provide an accurate reflection of the worlds activities and then to reemphasize and to help Chuck D understand.

Sometimes to understand you need to hear the words come from your own mouth.  Thus Chuck D's prior works we're re'd (reinvestigated/reinterpreted/recontextualized/retardified) to show how his past actions don't reflect his current choice of licensing, but time provides us with knowledge to change our opinions.

Issues Up For Discussion:
How does the Creative Commons Licensing scheme and legal decisions deal with individuals who violate their directives and could those creations still be protected by different countries copyright regulations.  (ex. US's Fair Use claim)

Creations using material designated using a Creative Commons Licensing which prohibits economic compensation yet reused for a creation dedicated to the Public Domain, ends up where?

Yours in profit,
%20
Consumer Whore
Corporate Shill
Wannabee Cultural Chimera
Part time music fan


more info like lyrics, and stuff:
http://noneinc.com/sound/%20ReadMe/Meaning-ReadMe.txt