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

[PeterALopez]

r(h)e:+0r!C4l  Sorry bout the rest of this, i'm suffering from re:postpart'mcreation depression.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
Subject: Re: [Rumori] %20 & Chuck D with Fine Arts Militia & Public Enemy -        Meaning
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 07:12:44AM -0500, PeterALopez wrote:
> The Creative Common licenses we???re initiated/fleshed out by
> Negativland from what I understand
In every talk I've heard about the sampling licenses, including at
the recent CC party IIRC, Negativland's role in developing the
licenses has been mentioned.

PAL adds:
What i heard was a third person account of an e-mail exchange.  (this might have been part of that..  http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-sampling/2004-August/000286.html : tanks,technosuxxx)  Maybe this is all my blurred reality bubbling, in the end nonsense.  But this is a debate I’d rather place elsewhere.

(is it just me or does anyone else have the glitch so that the word "meaning" is drifting every time there's another reply...)

thanks for the legalese.  The website covers it, so nothing really to discuss there.

As a staff member, (i understand if you can't divulge secrets) but does the CC fear the proposition of creators ignoring the system?  In some ways the system was set up to 'free' a certain type of creator who wouldn't normally attempt to create without the foreknowledge of having some protection for their creations, and that might be the goal, to reach out to a whole new level of creators.  and thus for a final decision yeah yeah yeah, each example is it's own case.  Is

So do other people view this more as a critic of the merits of cc licenses or a critic of Chuck D's stance on the subject of copy privaledges?  Is there any worth to pointing out Chuck's wavering beliefs.  (speach vs. action)  or general trivial waste of time, effort and energy *&%^^$  More and more this for me is an indightment of the culture.  It was best summed up last year during a discussion with Kno of the Cuninglynguists (sp?) who did one of the initial Black album remixes.  Discussion around the Grey album brought me to his message board where I posted my phuck up of the preeceedings.  So after having my track message post removed, he then proceeded to rail upon people who make known where samples come from.  The whole idea that it’s ok to do it but gosh darn tuuttin don’t talk about it, seems really counter productive.  (but that’s viewing long term not short term, keeping quiet will keep you out of trouble)  It was really refreshing to hear Steinski in the Some Assembly Required radio show (heard via Raiding the 20th Century) actually confront his contradiction with the system.  So anyway for me it seems that Chuck is like Kno, actions and words differ.  But in the end it’s my actions which go where people decide to take them.  There are no licenses for people to rally behind a work.  And all this shit was layed out years ago…  three cheers for re’petting a past societal failure.  Is Chuck the best ambassador?  or just stick with the assumption that Chuck is beloved by both camps to that's the best for both worlds.

While i get things off my mind, ignoring a statement from the beginning of this E-bs.  To re: 'Do the Right Thing'  "Why are there no samplers on the CD?"  CC had Negativland in hand and they make no appearance.  Are things really that bad that we don't want to offend any organizations with the first public use of the licensing schemes?  I must be over questioning the scope of the content on the cd.  Obviously i'm too far gone into the reuse to provide a moderate response.  who else was left off?

Psychoanalysing %20, I would say this is all growing out of my repeted actions to investigate my idols then find fault.  This ain’t the first and well blah  i'm not the target audience.

So is the track too noisey/incoherent to pay attention too?  (just nod yr head)

Only you can make me profitable.  And fight forest fires.
PeterALopez


> On selling violating the CC license, pragmatically yes, it's weather
> or not Fair Use can trump the cc licenses.  and i would say yes
> to that.

Every CC license has a clause like this one, copied from
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/legalcode :


            Fair Use Rights. Nothing in this license is intended to
            reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair
            use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights
            of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable
            laws.

My non-lawyerly understanding is that it shouldn't be possible for
a copyright license to restrict fair use rights anyway, with or
without such an explicit clause.

-- 
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://gondwanaland.com/ml/