Slashdot Mirror
Domain: illegal-art.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to illegal-art.org.
Comments · 66
-
Re:I Love this guy! Such Chutpah
Mr Bean makes an exact copy of that chair, using his own tools and materials, and gives it to the friend for free. Now in that scenario, how would the craftsman sue Mr Bean for copyright infringement? If you were to have Mr Bean mass producing chairs and giving them away for free (probably all to Ballmer), then again, what part of the law is the craftsman going to sue Mr Bean under and why the hell should he be able to anyway?
That is my biggest issue with the current state of copyright. I, personally, have no interest in reselling original works to others. But what if I want to make a derivative work? Many of the pro-copyright crowd (cliffski, I'm looking at you) assume that people just want to take their work and either not pay for it or make money from it. There is a large swath of interest in combining works to form something new. Custom music videos are a good example of this. They violate copyright on both sides, but are a "new and creative" work. Some of them are quite brilliant. The Grey Album is another example, as is the Harry Potter Lexicon. But you can't do those legally now, and by the time they're out of copyright the material won't be meaningful and... you'll be dead.
As someone else mentioned, the public is tired of having their culture locked up and resold to them with onerous restrictions. They're taking it back and no amount of laws will prevent or stop it.
-
Re:Crazy Thought!
Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that it isn't creative. You don't even understand what you are talking about. You've obviously never listened to many DJs, or you would know shit like that is so creative: Mick Boogie, Kruder & Dorfmeister, DJ Benzi, Amplive, DJ Jazzy Jeff, Crookers, Diplo, DJ Danger Mouse, Wax Tailor, N.A.S.A., etc., etc., etc. And that's just off the toppa my head.
Stop hatin'! (It is verifiably bad for your health to harbor strong emotions based on nothing but some desire to protect a fragile ego.) Being a DJ is far more than playing music for people (although it is also very much playing music for people). It is moving people and entertaining them throughout an evening and keeping them dancing and psyched out about hearing all the bagin' beats and their favorites and new tracks. It's about hyping new artists and producing beats for them so that more people can hear music they like. It is about remixing and producing tracks featuring a variety of vocalists and instrumentalists. It is about evoking emotion on and off the dance floor and showing people another perspective on a beat or vocal hook they thought they knew inside and out. It's fine if you don't like the music, but to call something you know nothing about uncreative is just, well, hubris! -
Re:I love it when the magic works...
Is shooting up in the middle of an orgy good enough?
-
Porkchop Sandwiches!
-
Re:its about that time
for years these wannabe musicians (hip-hop DJ's) have been stealing tracks and music from people who actually make music and then going back and paying them after the fact.i hate to be on the side of the RIAA, but this is one time i am.
Yeah, not to mention wannabe musicians like the Beatles ( http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm ), and The Verve ( http://www.superswell.com/samplelaw/horror.html#ve rve ), and Led Zepplin ( http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/historic.html ), who were all punished for stealing music... Rock musicians are nothing but a bunch of talentless thieves! -
Re:Documented in 1995 by 'Spin'
Someone else who remembered Spin! Sad to know that nothing has really changed in 11 years isn't it? As I mentioned in my earlier post, Spin can be had at http://illegal-art.org/video/popups/spin.html. Everyone should watch it and join the ranks of the disillusioned... er... informed.
-
Re:Yeah, this will go no where.
Do you have a link or other citation you could share?
Watch the movie "Spin" (made in 1995). You can download it for free at http://illegal-art.org/video/popups/spin.html. I used to make people sit and watch it. it makes a great companion peice to Outfoxed. This type of "news" has been going on since the Reagan administration at least. -
This reminds me...
...of Wizard People, Dear Reader, a similar one-off project by Brad Neely; it's an audiobook-style replacement narrative for the first Harry Potter movie that, when synched up with the DVD (or DivX or whatever) makes for a freaking awesome movie.
-
Re:Partly reasonable, partly not
I think you're taking a very narrow view of "exact copy." Song X is still Song X no matter how it's encoded, so records, CDs, MP3s, and oggs of Song X would all be considered exact copies.
The point of making "clips" free for reuse is to allow royalty-free sample-based music, such as remixes, mash-ups (e.g. The Grey Album) and the like. You're welcome to argue that that's not a good thing either, but it's certainly more of a grey area than transcoding and selling unoriginal work.
-f -
Danger Mouse
Gnarls Barkley actually features Danger Mouse. The same Danger Mouse who released The Grey Album on the internet a while back. http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/grey.html That alone should buy GB some slashdot-news-worthiness points.
-
Re:So, what's next after this?
You can get close and play DJ Dangermouse's Grey Album (http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/grey.html)
-
Spin
Any media entity can 'spin' news or quotes or intent, not just companies. Spin is what politics is all about. If you haven't ever seen it, check out Brian Springer's documentary "Spin" -- available online here, among other places.
-
Mod parent downDid I miss something? Is all of society now supposed to bend to the will of any single entity?
It may be easier for the average guy to write his own song, blog, or whatever, but that doesn't mean that he is contributing to societal advance.
Actually, I think it does in fact, help society. By being a basic content creation machine. Maybe you, or even 99% of the people out there hate my music, but that still leaves one percent, which could potentially be, with the numbers we are talking about, could be over a hundred thousand, and that's at a 1% share. Please take my "facts" witha grain of salt, just trying to make a point.
I'm not even including content creators out there who might not like the music themselves, but will use other's content to create interpretations of their own music.
"Just because it is easier to distribute ideas doesn't mean that it is easier to come up with *good* ideas."
No it is easier... just much harder to come up with an original idea.
"If anything I'm worried about all the smart, dedicated, creative people in the world being drowned out by all the morons and hacks, who vastly outnumber them, but in the past were kept quiet to some degree..."
Define "moron" or "hack" with out being objective.
You mention blogs in your post. I am a "blogger" but I do so for my own reasons, to be honest, I could give a dog's drool what you think. I think what you were trying to say is that you're scared that the "noise" will drowned out the "signal". I have a piece of advice for you, which IMHO should be the first "Web Commandment(TM)".
Treat the internet like a library. When you goto a library, what do you do when you want to find out information about a subject you have never studied before. You goto a librarian. Even if the librarian has no prior knowledge they can point you to books that are popular or to reference manuals.
In above just use this for the web.- library = internet
- librarian = search engine, wikipedia, a knowledgeable friend (online or not), chatroom, etc.
- popular book = popular sites
- reference manuals = wikipedia or other encyclopedia sites.
Your argument holds no weight as it's filled with:- anecdotal evidence - "Blogs are horrible."
- generalization - "You may have access to the modern equivalent of the printing press, but that doesn't mean you can publish the modern equivalent of the Principia Mathematica (either one)."
- Argumentum ad Antiquitatem - "Blogs are *not* an improvement over a good newspaper."
- Non Causa Pro Causa - "traditionally news media has become so watered down and useless that just about any form of media that doesn't talk to you like a child could supplant it."
- Agumentum ad Populum - "it is just that good newspapers are hard to find these days (the seattle times in pretty good though)."
- Petitio Principii - "Vastly *better* than others by any way you mean to quantify better."
- bifurcation - "You may have access to the modern equivalent of the printing press, but that doesn't mean you can publish the modern equivalent of the Principia Mathematica (either one)
Quit spreading FUD -jijin
-
Re:Whats the problem?
Are the Beatles going to be the next Mickey Mouse?
Speaking of beatles, why wasn't this submitted by * * Beatles Beatles?
Oh, and check out "The Grey Album" it's a remix of The Beatles by DJ Danger Mouse. http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/grey.html The site has a torrent link on it, but you can find http mirrors through google. -
Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?I had assumed this article is talking about the disc jockey that plays music at dances kind of DJ. Because most real DJ's have to pay for their tracks that they mix live or they create the samples themselves.
I don't understand why they would have to pay royalties if they're mixing from mp3s when they had to pay for it.
Here's an example. Let's pretend I'm DJ Dangermouse and I bought some Beatles vinyl that I like to mix into my songs. Now, it shouldn't be a problem for me (Jay-Z) to get up there and mix these songs together. But if I put them in an album and make serious dough off of it, I'm in for a ride in the court system.
I've always been under the impression that it would be fine to perform this live and play it for an audience but once you try to sell it as a record, you're going to face some serious liabilities. I've been in bands that have covered Coldplay, Radiohead, The Beatles, Beck, The Pixies, etc. and we've never got in trouble for playing them live at crowded bars. In fact, when you start out, it's advised to include about 50% originals and 50% covers so that the music is accessible to anyone who might be there just for a drink.
There's a lot of studying to be done if you want to fully understand how sampling works with musical copyrights but up until this point, the only litigation I have seen is often brought up in instances of recordings.
Here's a straight forward article containing:Flat fees range from $100 to over $10,000, while royalties to recording owners range between half a cent and three cents for every copy of the track sold. Musical composition licenses typically give "the copyright holder a percentage ownership in the new work's musical composition copyright," as well as an advance of a few thousand dollars on the expected publishing income.
In the old days, artists used to smile and feel appreciated when they heard their music being played live. It was a sign of admiration. They only sought legal action if the song was recorded and money was made.
If you're a DJ who plays songs for weddings and events, then you probably should have to have a license to do so. But if you're a musician who just spins tracks together, it seems kind of ridiculous. I guess the license isn't that big of a charge if you're selling out venues. -
Why smart executives don't legally harass parody
When a huge corporation promotes itself as having a 'cleaner-than-thou' image, and then muscles down on someone who mocks this image in a tiny inperceptable forum, they often will generate a backlash in the media; the alternative media if not the major outlets.
Then the parody gets recognized far wider than it would have from its initial presentation. This brings recognition to the parodist and simulates discussion on the practices of the corporation and the contrasts between its business practices and its manufactured image. Smart business execs usually know this and will work to avoid publicity amplification. Walmart execs tend to be more mean than savvy.
Perhaps the clearest example of this publicity effect is the Disneyland Orgy which would have disappeared as an urban legend if clueless Disney execs had not have gone batshit when it appeared and mounted a huge effort to destroy it. As you can see, it lives now on the web forever. It still is pretty funny. -
Re:Disney has a chanceI don't recall Walt ever drawing Mickey Mouse as a dirty dirty whore, but that's what he's become, pimped out around the world.
No, but Wally Wood drew him as a drug addict, does that count? -
Re:'allows' remixing?
Exactly.. but my point was, there are most likely more "unofficial" remixes of a song than "official" remixes of the song... I was responding to the comment that "most remixes are requested"
You raise a good point about popularity though.. those less popular wouldn't really be concerned with copyright laws... but look what happened with The Grey Album (Jay-Z Black Album + Beatles White Album) -
Re:Is this only for music?
That would be Rocked by Rape, by the Evolution Control Committee. It's made entirely of Dan Rather samples from the CBS evening news, set to "Back in Black."
-
Re:Voters don't think
Excellent post; I'll tag something vaguely related on to it. I'd recommend that everyone watch Brian Springer's documentary "Spin", it's a fascinating insight into how media is used and abused in a presidential race. Now go get yourself a motorised sat dish and watch some pre-air broadcasts
-
Re:Copyright
"The community can't make sample-based music because sample-based music relies on evoking the connotations of the original work, which requires the original work to be well-known, and all the well-known samples are locked up at the labels behind proprietary all-rights-reserved licenses."
No, sample-based music does not need the original work to be well known. (It does not even need to use samples from existing music). Eg De La Soul - ever heard of The Turtles?, Public Enemy, Mechanics of Destruction, negativland. Sample-based music that isn't just using a catchy sample to bootstrap some appeal is common enough, and some of it is very good. Such music can use samples of arbitrary things (including other music) effectively as new instruments. -
Re:Copyright
"The community can't make sample-based music because sample-based music relies on evoking the connotations of the original work, which requires the original work to be well-known, and all the well-known samples are locked up at the labels behind proprietary all-rights-reserved licenses."
No, sample-based music does not need the original work to be well known. (It does not even need to use samples from existing music). Eg De La Soul - ever heard of The Turtles?, Public Enemy, Mechanics of Destruction, negativland. Sample-based music that isn't just using a catchy sample to bootstrap some appeal is common enough, and some of it is very good. Such music can use samples of arbitrary things (including other music) effectively as new instruments. -
Re:wrong
You don't address the grandparent's point: that some things that were bad are no longer.
"So it's still socially acceptable to mock blacks, women and other minorities, and denigrate them in public? The income levels for these minorities haven't risen?"
Do you deny these claims, or deny that the constitute a good change? Ceteris paribus, they constitute progress, I think. With reference to your JE, perhaps the grandparent is broadly correct (no claims of universal truth an'all) and, in particular, correct that it is unacceptable to be overtly racist in public life: eg. in a publicly broadcast political advert.
To anticipate replies, this could be called simple 'political correctness' and hypocrisy, where racist newsreaders are made-up by ethnic minority workers and read carefully worded articles that show no racism. Be that as it may, that's still an improvement since a) when the hypocrites are revealed, they are punished; b) many kids grow up never hearing a racial slur, or other mocking.
Anyway, I'm not in a position to judge accurately the facts, but if the grandparent is correct, I'd say that constitutes progress, however incomplete. -
Re:perhaps you should look at it this way...
The entire concept behind 'free speech' is that you defend the right even if - especially if - you happen to disagree with that speech. But since you're a Brit in LA, as you said, I don't expect you to grasp that concept as easily as an American would."
Oh, I get it now. You mean like this. Glad we got that one sorted.
In the UK, we have pretty much the same rights. Just less PR/marketing.
Anyway. Thank you for pointing that out. Your kindergarten explanation makes things so much clearer.
cLive
-
Re:Michael Moore is a bigmouthed troublemaker....
Some people do, you know. Brian Springers "Spin" is an excellent example of DIY documentary, using only satellite-snached newsfeeds. It is a truly priceless piece of illegal video art, that show what the talking heads and politicians do when the satellite feed is in standby (i.e. before they come on or during commercial). It even sheds some light on how the spin-doctors give on-the-fly advice to the politicians / activists etc during commercial. A must see-film if there ever was one.
-
Re:The DMCA is a BAD law.
Once again, mod this guy up... especially since you have some +2 (+1, whocares) interesting responses. I'm not sure if I understand you _defending_ the DMCA or not. Perhaps we can agree that content providers _shouldn't_ have to worry about their content being stolen.
What is the _real_ issue though? Is it that the companies/cartels whom the RIAA/MPAA represents are simply using the U.S. government to maintain their _monopolies_ on music _distribution_? I like your analgy "in the physical world," but let's be realistic...
Content providers now have tools that allow them to procede with SCOesque lawsuit scare tactics _rather_ than the "content production" we would like them to do. Let's be honest, when was the last real "good" movie released? Ok, perhaps I'm showing a little bit of bias (completely understating my position), but all I'm asking, especially in the case of the RIAA, is that "content providers" get off their lazy asses.
Ever notice how the "Pop" and/or "Top 40" charts have a "variety" of differing music styles represented? I'm sure we all here can agree that there _is_ no innovation left in the music industry. Fuck man, the last actual "good" music I heard lately was the DJ Dangermouse _remix_ album of Jay-Z's Black Albume entitled the Grey Album... and that got yanked pretty quick by the damned DMCA police.
The labels have turned into automatic content producers, creating "music" for the cash-crapping consumers. They don't even try anymore. Now that they have the DMCA, they don't even have to produce content to generate cash... they can just sue shitloads of kids and settle for 3G's here, 4G's there... Making money is making money, right? I just get tired of these big-damned corporations taking my money _AND_ my rights. I should be allowed to do whatever I want with a DVD or CD, so long as I don't violate copyrights. I shouldn't be hampered by some stupid copy protection that's just gonna piss me off till it's circumvented. Why can't the freaking RIAA/MPAA go after the illegal CD/DVD duplicator outfits like they've been doing? I guess it's just more fun to mess with the "little" people. -
Depressingly Predictable
As soon as I read the earlier
-
Depressingly Predictable
As soon as I read the earlier
-
Re:Don't die
No, it's Fox being greedy fucks. They lost Maggie Roswell who did Maude Flanders after paying her $6,000 an episode. She wanted a raise and Fox only offered her $150. Eventually she just tried to get Fox to pay her airfare from Denver (her town) to LA and Fox said get bent.
"I was part of the backbone of 'The Simpsons,' and I didn't think [the requested raise] was exorbitant," Roswell said. "I wasn't asking for what the other cast members make. I was just trying to recoup all the costs I had in travel. If they'd flown me in, I'd still be working."
I also blame Groening for being a greedy fuck and not sticking up for the voice actors. But that's mostly because of him suing Bunnyhop for having a cover of Binky, Groenings one-eared bunny from Life in Hell punching out the Trix Rabbit. It's nothing that the Simpsons don't do in every episode.
But I still watch the Simpsons. -
Re:Illegal Art
Incidentally, if you're interested in the much-talked-about DJ Danger Mouse "Grey Album" (the "illegal" mix album created using material from the Beatles' White Album and Jay-Z's Black Album), it's available on the Illegal Art site as well here.
-
Re:Illegal Art
ok, so i did a quick google and found it: http://www.illegal-art.org/ -- I strongly recommend you temporarily disable your pop-up blockers, as you'll miss one of the exhibits on the homepage. (dont worry, it's nothing malicious, nor is it an advertisement or anything)
-
Download It!
.torrent (thanks to SuprNova.org). Or over HTTP from illegal-art.org.
Some of Jay-Z's stuff is pretty good, but Jay-Z and the Beatles aren't the best mix. But my motivation for downloading was driven solely by the RIAA's desire to make sure I didn't get it. -
There is a better way
Step one) Download from here.
Step two) Play Music.
Step three) There is no step three.
-
Re:BitTorrent
http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/grey.html (site respone is slow, download speed was ok)
-
Illegal Art
The Grey Album is an exhibit at Illegal Art , an site dedicated to discussion of the copyright issue as it affects creativity.
-
MUTE 0.2.2
I don't know if you could find it using MUTE http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/
0.2.2 is better at not dropping downloads than 0.2.1 and earlier, but still suffers from not having enough users to guarantee you'll be able to find what you want. It's also extremely slow. BUT it's encrypted and anonymous, which is increasingly what's required in this time of RIAA's and EMI's.
I believe Canadians can download from http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/grey.html no problem, completely legal thanks to the copyright revision of the late 1990's which also introduced the hated blank media levy.
Ain't my cup of tea, but it's so much it's own thing that in a reasonable universe it would be considered original work. This isn't the Beatles. -
Why P2P?You can get 'em piecewise or continuous.
I join the other posters on this story in welcoming our EMI Overlords, who's actions both informed my ignorant self and piqued my curiosity enough to *cough* sample the album.
Maybe Amazon can add a "Publishers who banned this album also banned..." section so we can know what music is worth acquiring?
-
Re:Oh you mean THIS album?
-
.mp3 links - not torrent files
If you just want a few songs, here's a site hosting the individual files. I just got 300 K/sec off them, so they seem pretty strong.
if you keep the songs, just paypal him a few bucks. guys like this deserve compensation -
Re:Lots of stuff in FTA satellite feeds
Check out a movie called "Spin". Its available for free download in DVD, VCD and Real.
Using the 1992 presidential election as his springboard, documentary filmmaker Brian Springer captures the behind-the-scenes maneuverings of politicians and newscasters in the early 1990s. Pat Robertson banters about "homos," Al Gore learns how to avoid abortion questions, George Bush talks to Larry King about halcyon -- all presuming they're off camera. Composed of 100% unauthorized satellite footage, Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality. -
These are worse
-
These are worse
-
Re:An Excellent Example
Most interesting. And if you deny JS popups, go
here. -
The media you don't see
Using the 1992 presidential election as his springboard, documentary filmmaker Brian Springer captures the behind-the-scenes maneuverings of politicians and newscasters in the early 1990s. Pat Robertson banters about "homos," Al Gore learns how to avoid abortion questions, George Bush talks to Larry King about halcyon -- all presuming they're off camera. Composed of 100% unauthorized satellite footage, Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality.
(588 MB download)
www.illegal-art.org/video/vcd/Spin_1.mpg -
Re:The Simpsons
As much as I love the Simpsons, Matt Groening isn't above threatening to sue people for stupid reasons.
The whole Illegal Art project is pretty neat.
Bunnyhole had to destroy an entire run of their magazine because Groening threw a hissy fit. This really annoys me because I love the Simpsons and Futurama. Especially the parodies.
It's fine for Groening to parody other people, but don't parody him. -
Re:The Simpsons
As much as I love the Simpsons, Matt Groening isn't above threatening to sue people for stupid reasons.
The whole Illegal Art project is pretty neat.
Bunnyhole had to destroy an entire run of their magazine because Groening threw a hissy fit. This really annoys me because I love the Simpsons and Futurama. Especially the parodies.
It's fine for Groening to parody other people, but don't parody him. -
Re:Good.
Sorry, but code can very well be free expression.
If I take something that is commonly available to anyone and render it in a unique or special way, is it art?
How about repurposing copyrighted or protected media into new forms? Is that art.
I may not think everything produced is art, but who am I to judge what is or is not creative expression? That is the slippery slope raised by this case. -
Re:Amen!
This Negativland piece is a pretty sound refutation of your claim. Check out the rest of the Illegal Art site, too.
-
Re:Amen!
This Negativland piece is a pretty sound refutation of your claim. Check out the rest of the Illegal Art site, too.
-
Re:On behalf of the artists?
First of all, there are more than two sides to this story. Why do so many assume this fight is between the "I should get all my music for free" crowd and "everyone is infringing the RIAA's rights, so the RIAA should be allowed complete control over the internet and all computers!"
I can't even see where the EFF is saying people should take music for free. At least not in the linked urls. Their "Let the Music Play" page says: "The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating artists and copyright holders."
The Digital mix party mostly seems to be about introducing new artists and sampling with the Creative Commons license. There appears to be some "illegal art" crap, though I don't see where it says what kind--the guy might just be using company logos to make a political point. Though I found this statement at illegal-art.org interesting:
The laws governing "intellectual property" have grown so expansive in recent years that artists need legal experts to sort them all out. Borrowing from another artwork--as jazz musicians did in the 1930s and Looney Tunes illustrators did in 1940s--will now land you in court. If the current copyright laws had been in effect back in the day, whole genres such as collage, hiphop, and Pop Art might have never have existed.
The irony here couldn't be more stark. Rooted in the U.S. Constitution, copyright was originally intended to facilitate the exchange of ideas but is now being used to stifle it.
I don't really care if some piker doesn't want me to sample his work. Fine, I won't use it except to respond to his comments and demonstrate how stupid he is. In fact, this is one of the major reasons we have fair use.[1] If you're not allowed to quote excerpts or show samples of a work, it is quite difficult to comment on it.
There are far too many people taking and not enough creating as it is.
There are plenty of people creating, you just don't want to see it. Why don't you walk out of the RIAA's castle for a few minutes. Maybe you'll learn something.
Uh oh. I just sampled part of your post in my reply. Does this mean I should be arrested?
[1] Real fair use, not the "nothing is fair use" stance of the RIAA nor the "everything is fair use" stance of warez hounds.