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."

Comments

Hmm...

[cultobill]

Not the most helpful EFF page I've seen. "Yeah, party. Here's who is coming"

The Box site, however:
On July 25th, from 8pm till 2am, the Electronic Frontier Foundation will host a night of music, art, and conversation to celebrate digital culture. Hosted at the Oakland Box in downtown Oakland, this special BayFF will bring up-and-coming artists of electronica, digital film, and illegal art together with leaders from the cyber-rights movement. Lawsuits and legislation have become the weapons of choice for dealing with file-sharing and cultural recycling("sampling"); come out and discover what all the hype is about. Between laptop music, hip hop, and industrial performances, you will hear from people who are fighting to protect new forms of expression and cultural distribution from the attacks of the entertainment industry. This is an all-ages event.

Isn't it a little weird...

[mikeophile]

To have an article about not wasting culture right after an article about the first Petri dish baby?

I can't make it in time....

[Cat_Byte]

Will someone record this & put it on kazaa for me?

Re:What is an illigal art film?

[mkro]

Basically, it means using images/music/trademarks without permission to make a new, standalone movie.

Check out http://www.illegal-art.org/video/ for some good examples. Some are crap, some are funny, but I found in particular "Spin" a bit interesting.

On behalf of the artists?

[TheAwfulTruth]

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.

Re:On behalf of the artists?

[meta-monkey]

Well, I've checked your posting history, and it doesn't appear you're a troll, so I'll just assume you're uninformed.

Creative Commons is like an open source art advocate. They do NOT promote copyright infringement. What they do is provide you with licenses you can attach to your art which give other artists select rights to use your art. For example, they have a license that allows others to use your work so long as they attribute it to you. Or they can use it for only non-commercial purposes. Or they can use it, but just can't edit it. Or they can't prevent other people from editing it after they do. Or any combination thereof. Essentially, it's the GPL for art.

Now, if you don't want somebody using your art without your permission, then don't use a Creative Commons license. Stick with plain old copyright, and charge for your art. If, however, you'd like people to be able to use it to create works of their own, and share those works with others, then, by all means, check out Creative Commons.

Re:What is an illigal art film?

[cybercyph]

illegal art is art that, according to this site, has sparked a law suit. examples are parodies of corporate logos, uses of trade marked charecters (like mickey or spiderman or barbie), and the like

Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Dwnloads

[MichaelCrawford]

You can avoid being sued or arrested if you download legal music instead of getting your tunes from the p2p networks. You also don't need to deal with Digital Rights Management.

Many unsigned and independent musicians provide free downloads of their music on their websites as a way to attract more fans. Here's some from my friend Oliver Brown for example. Many such musicians, while relatively unknown, are as good as any major label band and certainly an improvement over the pablum they serve up on ClearChannel.

You can find many more examples in my new article:

• Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads

The article also explores some of the historical and legal issues behind copyright, and suggests steps the file traders can take to make file sharing legal.

If you're a musician who offers downloads of your music, I can link to your band's website from the article if you give my article a reciprocal link. Please follow the instructions given here

And yes I have been posting this to Slashdot repeatedly for several days, because I think it's important for people to understand there's a way to get quality, free music without breaking any laws, while at the same time benefiting the many talented, hardworking musicians who aren't signed with a major label.

Ilegal Art

[didjit]

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.

In defense of "illegal" art

[commodoresloat]

Get real. Nobody is stealing your art or taking away your rights. Incorporating samples and riffs into new pieces of art is just the natural evolution of art given advances in technology. Art builds on previous works; it always has. If you're a musician, did you make up every single note, chord, or chord progression that you play? Of course not. Is that stealing? No; it's learning. Now I'm not going to deny that there are people who make works that are nothing but copies of other peoples' works, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about using snippits of other peoples' work and incorporating it into a new work that is clearly and identifiably not a derivative of the previous work.

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.