Slashdot Mirror
Don't Waste Culture, Recycle Art
Eddan Katz writes "Stepping up the copyright battle on behalf of artists, EFF is hosting an event tonight called Digital Mix at the Black Box in Oakland. Between laptop music, hip hop, and illegal art films, speakers will talk about the Creative Commons sampling license and EFF's "Let the Music Play" campaign."
"cultural recycling"
"fighting to protect new forms of expression"
"attacks of the entertainment industry"
Sounds like something the entertainment industry might want to attack, and it was just genius of us to give them some publicity, don't you think?
I can just see the bust now... try using all those catchphrases on the Oakland police, and then the RIAA lawyers... But, then again, they'll probably get away with it...
"!"
Let's not downplay the importance of the "Let The Music Play" campaign. Go to the EFF website, print out the ad that's appearing in Rolling Stone, Spin et al, and post it everywhere.
The only way to fight the **AA is to enlighten the masses who aren't aware of the problem. After that, boycotts, actual progress in Congress, the whole enchilada will be a breeze.
OMG! Wau!
You mean on behalf of SOME of the artists. Or SOME TYPES of artists. Since the "right" to sample is frequently just one artist infringing on the "right" of another artist to protect their artistic work.
As an artist myself, I would be a little POed if the next Millie Vanillie decided to rip a hit or a rift from a song of mine without asking. The EFF's position on this does nothing but take AWAY my rights as a musical artist.
As usual, there are two sides to this story and one side does not invalidate the other! The rights of one do not cancel out the rights of another. And in these situations the "right" has to belong to the original creator, not the follow-on users. If some bands want to put their music up for PD sampling, then great, otherwise, as always, be polite and ask before borrowing.
Clearing samples is not all that hard, it's done all the time. Is it really too much to just ask? It takes a LOT of effort to create new and unique soundbytes, hits and signatur rifts. Then having someone come along and take them for free without even asking is just rude.
There are far too many people taking and not enough creating as it is. Please, don't try to tell me that it's every Joe's right to use my music for their own personal gain.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Don's Plum is, in the US at least, an illegal art film. It stars Tobey Maguire and Leonardo DiCaprio, and according to what I've heard (though I don't know anyone who's actually seen it -- please correct me if I'm wrong), it contains a lot of debauchery, drugs, homosexuality, a la Kids.
So why haven't you heard of it? Because Leo and Tobey decided the film would undermine their wholesome, teeny-bopper public image -- so they decided to throw their weight around and block the film from being released. The producer of the film sued the two stars, and as a settlement, they agreed that it would be banned from distribution in the US.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Too bad they must be kept underground and the makers anon because of greed.
Most indie films and "fan films" are illegal. because they use a song without paying the artist $897,554,665,32 to use it, or because the creator is a big idiot, (See lucas for the big idiot example)
I have found that if you look past the fact they didn't spend 22 million to make the film, they are actually very good, entertaining, and actually usually better quality than what comes out of Hollywood. (as in story and plot.)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm glad to see the EFF not only supports the digitial music initative but also mildly practices the fundamentals behind the MP3 drive and file-sharing.
:)
Their campaign title, "Let The Music Play" was a well known song in the 80s by a group called Shannon.
So, by (and I use the term loosely to be modded interesting) "infringing on the copyrights" and using a well-known song title as the campaign against the RIAA, it was not only clever marketing, but a witty double entendre.
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
As part of the illegal art expo at SF MOMA this month, they've had several shows. I went to one in SF last week which was quite cool. The movement to protect this artform and avoid massive lawsuits seems similar to some of the problems faced in the open source movement. Perhaps there should be an open source music movement now. These artists/musicians/filmmakers are interested in freedom of expression through using other people's work in new and creative ways.
Creating is silly. Creating is pure exploration. Not involved in the actual building process. What makes a song valuable is what you can recognize and relate to. Sampling is a tool for builders. Builders are the ones with the concepts, the art. A random number generator can be tweaked to create music. SSEYO.com's Koan Pro is proof.
Artists who do not build are well IMHO, frauds. What you call soundbytes and signature riffs I call Novelty. Builders do not use novelty.
Real artists don't get all teary eyed when somebody laughs at their work. Real artist call sampling communication.
Builders are sick and tired self involved so called poets. More music please, not more sound-in-time. It's disgraceful.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Nice article. I linked it from my site (which has a whopping TWO legal mp3s of some "music" I did back in the early 90s).
I wonder why you don't mention negativland.com anywhere in the main article page, though. While their music may not be terribly popular (they do have some free downloads on their site) they are constantly on the forefront of the battle for Fair Use rights and against the expanding "intellectual property" movement. They also have an excellent page of other articles on the topic-- including Steve Albini's version of Courtney Love's "Do the Math" speech.
I do not have a signature
For example, Rob Base & DJ EZ Rock's 80's (or early 90s?) hit "It Takes Two" has a brilliant beat that is made up of samples directly taken from older funk songs. People knew the songs but nobody thought it was a ripoff; the combination of samples was ingenious. I don't know whether they cleared the samples -- I suspect not, since it was relatively early in the era of the digital sampler and the performance DJ; probably a bit before all the legal maneuvering that resulted in the current practice of "clearing" samples -- but in either case I don't believe they should have to, any more than any blues guitarist should have to pay to incorporate a standard blues progression into a new song. There's a difference between playing the same thing yourself on the guitar and using a sampler to play it only if you don't believe the sampler (or turntable) can itself be a musical instrument.
Now, I do think samples should be credited, absolutely in the case of big hits that turn an obscure old funk riff into dancefloor anthems; the only reason they aren't widely credited is because people are afraid of being sued. I DJ, and I know the crowd goes crazy when they hear what they think is the intro to a Fat Boy Slim song, only to hear the original funk record from the early 70s. Almost every time someone comes up to me and asks me who is remaking a fatboy slim song and I have to explain that it is Camille Yarbrough's beautiful voice that is sampled by Fatboy Slim and not the other way around. Fatboy Slim's song is a totally different song, unique and valid in its own right as an original work of art. But it clearly pays tribute to an earlier work, and the work is clearly credited (though in tiny print).
Now, I'm glad if the artist herself got paid for the sample, though I suspect the deal was cut strictly between record companies. But I don't think it is necessary to pay the artist or "clear" the sample any more than it would be necessary to pay shakespeare's estate for making a modern version of romeo and juliette. I don't object to the economic arrangement or the courtesy call ("We're going to sample your work in this new song and would like to know how you'd like to be credited"), but beyond that I absolutely disagree with an artist's (or company working on behalf of the artist) right to control whether or not you can use a sample. Whether or not Fatboy paid Camille Yarbrough to use the sample, she did get paid from his use of the sample in terms of increased popularity in an era when she would otherwise be forgotten (in fact, she had been forgotten until he came around). In either case I don't think she should have the right to say "no, you can't use the sample at all" to an artist making reasonable use of portions of her work with credit.
What bothers me most is people using that right to stifle artistic expression, prevent parody and silence criticism. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and any successful artist who doesn't see that is too blinded by their own ego to be making the rules about intellectual property.
As I said before (and I'm saying it again because it's responsive, in context, and I'm hopeful the author of the parent will see the reply and respond), what if the sample of your work is used without your permission in Nazi, White Supremacy or Anti-Semitic music, and you disaprove? Why should the fruit of your creativity and your labor be used without your permission to promote people, ideas and movements you loath?
Please consider an author's Moral Rights under the Berne Convention:
Also consider an author's Right of Adaptation under the Berne Convention
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)