Sampling is a big deal, because you are using a chunk of the master recording, which is the end-product of many, many dollars of recording, mixing, mastering, promotion, artist development, etc. I worked for a while in New York with the guy who produced Rump Shaker and he had an attorney that dealt with all of his sample clearances. Moreover, there is no standard licensing charge for samples. The owner of the master recordings can charge you whatever they want, or not let you use it at all, because it's their product, and using their product to make your own product is not "fair use", it's profiteering.
On the other hand, re-recording a piece of a song is a lot cheaper and is subject to compulsory mechanical licensing, meaning that you pay 8 cents per re-recorded song for every CD you sell. Nobody can stop you from doing that. Dre did that with many P-Funk tunes on The Chronic.
It's one thing to re-interpret someone's idea. It's another thing to appropriate their implementation - the creator has every right to control that as they see fit.
It would appear that for many of the people replying to this post, whether or not someone is an "engineer" depends on what their educational background is. In that event, "engineer" is just a title, because we all know that someone's level of education is not a guarantee that they are actually good at what they studied. That is akin to denying anyone without a BFA in music the right to be called a "musician."
I would postulate that an engineer is someone who engages in the act (or art) of engineering on a regular basis. People are what they do, not what their degree says they are.
The main problem with taking away the floppy drive and replacing it with CDRWs or USB pen drives (?!) is that neither of those technolgies are as ubiquitous or standardized as the floppy. With a PC-formatted floppy, I can transfer files between new and old, networked and non-networked PCs, floppy-enabled Macs, and Amigas, to name a few.
Just today, for instance, my girlfriend had to email a Word document to work. There are two computers there - one has network access, and one has access to a printer. The networked unit does not have a CDR drive. The printer unit has no CD drive at all. Retarded setups such as this are not uncommon. In this and many other instances, floppies are the only way to transfer information between machines.
Until I can be sure that every other computer I may need to transfer information to has a standard re-writeable (read: non-wasteful) storage device besides a floppy drive, I'm sticking to my guns.
ROBERT GRACE, publisher of a Los Angeles legal newspaper, sued eBay and Hollywood memorabilia dealer Tim Neeley this week in a California Superior Court after the Web site refused to remove negative comments Neeley made after selling Grace six vintage entertainment magazines.
According to the lawsuit, Neeley said Grace "should be banned from Ebay," and was "dishonest all the way" for alleging in the online forum that the magazines he bought had arrived late and in a worse condition than advertised.
The seller slandered the buyer because he complained about the transaction. It's one thing to say "the stuff I bought from X arrived late." It's another to call someone "dishonest all the way." This is a case of a wronged consumer rather than a whiny merchant.
Just becuase your "art" is useless and mine is functional does not make us any different
That is an ignorant and biased supposition. Music, theatre, and the visual arts have always served the purpose of elevating people above the dull hum of their everyday lives. Some especially powerful works have even changed the way people thought about themselves and the world around them. They are far from "useless".
True talent *is* scarce - just go on MP3.com and listen to any random selection of songs.
If one's skill happens to lie in music composition, why should that person not be rewarded for the fruits of her labor? To be a serious musician requires a lifetime of dedication and sacrifice. I don't know where you got the idea that musicians feel they have the "right" to have money thrown at them just because they are musicians - it just isn't true. Only stupid people believe that.
The difference is that I have to go to work for hours and create art every single working day of the week. You on the other hand are only asked to create art for a few hours every so often. You have ZERO right to make money just because you think you deserve it. You have to earn it just like the rest of us.
If you think being a successful musician takes "a few hours every so often", then you have never tried. I have to go to work and make stupid and meaningless (but functional) programs and then, when I get home, I have to balance my life between time spent writing music and rehearsing with my band and maintaining my relationships. And if I can turn that into a career that I actually enjoy and actually enriches my life, then more power to me. There will be nothing undeserved about it. People who make money in music most definitely earn it, no matter how deplorable you might find their tastes. If the musical landscape is ugly and vapid it is only because the consumers have made it that way by buying Britney Spears and Limp Bizkit. And hey, man, the RIAA did not force *anything* down *anybody's* throat - they merely offered and people were too lazy to say "No."
I'm sorry you're so biased against someone making a profit from music - but it should and will continue to happen. The OML will simply not be adopted by anyone who plans to spend the rest of their lives making music.
Slashdot Mirror
Sampling is a big deal, because you are using a chunk of the master recording, which is the end-product of many, many dollars of recording, mixing, mastering, promotion, artist development, etc. I worked for a while in New York with the guy who produced Rump Shaker and he had an attorney that dealt with all of his sample clearances. Moreover, there is no standard licensing charge for samples. The owner of the master recordings can charge you whatever they want, or not let you use it at all, because it's their product, and using their product to make your own product is not "fair use", it's profiteering.
On the other hand, re-recording a piece of a song is a lot cheaper and is subject to compulsory mechanical licensing, meaning that you pay 8 cents per re-recorded song for every CD you sell. Nobody can stop you from doing that. Dre did that with many P-Funk tunes on The Chronic.
It's one thing to re-interpret someone's idea. It's another thing to appropriate their implementation - the creator has every right to control that as they see fit.
It would appear that for many of the people replying to this post, whether or not someone is an "engineer" depends on what their educational background is. In that event, "engineer" is just a title, because we all know that someone's level of education is not a guarantee that they are actually good at what they studied. That is akin to denying anyone without a BFA in music the right to be called a "musician."
I would postulate that an engineer is someone who engages in the act (or art) of engineering on a regular basis. People are what they do, not what their degree says they are.
The main problem with taking away the floppy drive and replacing it with CDRWs or USB pen drives (?!) is that neither of those technolgies are as ubiquitous or standardized as the floppy. With a PC-formatted floppy, I can transfer files between new and old, networked and non-networked PCs, floppy-enabled Macs, and Amigas, to name a few.
Just today, for instance, my girlfriend had to email a Word document to work. There are two computers there - one has network access, and one has access to a printer. The networked unit does not have a CDR drive. The printer unit has no CD drive at all. Retarded setups such as this are not uncommon. In this and many other instances, floppies are the only way to transfer information between machines.
Until I can be sure that every other computer I may need to transfer information to has a standard re-writeable (read: non-wasteful) storage device besides a floppy drive, I'm sticking to my guns.
The seller slandered the buyer because he complained about the transaction. It's one thing to say "the stuff I bought from X arrived late." It's another to call someone "dishonest all the way." This is a case of a wronged consumer rather than a whiny merchant.