However, this link leads to an article @ BBC News, which claims that caffeine does not raise blood pressure. A theory mentioned in the article is, that another ingredient in coffee is to blaim for the effect on the bloodpressure....which would make a high intake of decaffeinated coffee risky as well.
remember....you read it on the internet, so it must be true
A primary focus of this discussion seems to be based on the mechanics of paying in order to use a sample from another artist. Obviously, this megabucks business is as problematic as any in the modern world, when the laws of copyright and publishing are based on life in the 1800 century.
However: an important function of 'clearing samples' is an opportunity for the sampled artist to accept/deny being quoted in a specific context. Surely, the discussion is now moving into the field of arts, freedom of speach and (post)postmodernity...and the general, up untill now, 'stop-the-sample-clearing' sentiment does not come as a complete surprise.
Having said that, I believe in an artists right to choose (not) to be quoted in a certain context.
First of all, there are ethical issues at stake. Allow me to illustrate with a (rather lame) example. Lets say, for instance, that my (hypothetical) band recorded a song containing the frase: "...the light is so white, you can never win my love tonight...". Suddenly some neo-nazi group decides to sample the phrase: "white, you can never win". Without the ability to refuse to clear the sample, I could end up propagating for thoughts and ideas that neither I or my original text never held, because it is quoted completely out of context.
Second, imagine that the drum/bass-track from this song is being sampled by some sexist hiphop artist, using the sample as a musical platform for rapping about 'bitches' and 'hoes'. Presuming that I am not having the option of disallowing the sample to be used, my music will (again) be associated with values and ideas that I might happen to be completely against. Further, this association might also be made by my usual recordbuying audience as well, and might damage my future prospect of selling my records.
This is why I believe that the ability to accept/deny a sample is indeed still an important right for the sampled artist.
About using samples in general, I think William Shakespeare is known to have said: "talent borrows, genius steals". In the given context, I believe that talent uses raw samples, while genius incorporates older musical ideas in a way that is unrecognisable and sounds completely new, yet somehow familiar.
I hope that the discussion is still alive, and yes, you do have the right to quote my post;-)
A primary focus of this discussion seems to be based on the mechanics of paying in order to use a sample from another artist. Obviously, this megabucks business is as problematic as any in the modern world, when the laws of copyright and publishing are based on life in the 1800 century.
However: an important function of 'clearing samples' is an opportunity for the sampled artist to accept/deny being quoted in a specific context. Surely, the discussion is now moving into the field of arts, freedom of speach and (post)postmodernity...and the general, up untill now, 'stop-the-sample-clearing' sentiment does not come as a complete surprise.
Having said that, I believe in an artists right to choose (not) to be quoted in a certain context. First of all, there are ethical issues at stake. Allow me to illustrate with a (rather lame) example. Lets say, for instance, that my (hypothetical) band recorded a song containing the frase: "...the light is so white, you can never win my love tonight...". Suddenly some neo-nazi group decides to sample the phrase: "white, you can never win". Without the ability to refuse to clear the sample, I could end up propagating for thoughts and ideas that neither I or my original text never held, because it is quoted completely out of context.
Second, imagine that the drum/bass-track from this song is being sampled by some sexist hiphop artist, using the sample as a musical platform for rapping about 'bitches' and 'hoes'. Presuming that I am not having the option of disallowing the sample to be used, my music will (again) be associated with values and ideas that I might happen to be completely against. Further, this association might also be made by my usual recordbuying audience as well, and might damage my future prospect of selling my records.
This is why I believe that the ability to accept/deny a sample is indeed still an important right for the sampled artist.
About using samples in general, I think William Shakespeare is known to have said: "talent borrows, genius steals". In the given context, I believe that talent uses raw samples, while genius incorporates older musical ideas in a way that is unrecognisable and sounds completely new, yet somehow familiar.
I hope that the discussion is still alive, and yes, you do have the right to quote my post;-)
I must admit - the story about Newsbooster IS a bit confusing.
Having the obvious advantage of being danish, I reread the computerworld.dk coverage of the case, dating back to February 1. 2002, when the Association of Danish Newspapers gave their first warning about taking the case into the courtroom, if the deep linking did not stop.
The court ruling was based on the observation, that Newsboosters use of articles and headlines from online newspapers, and the use of deep links to these, violates the Danish law of Intellectual Property Rights 71 section 2, and law of marketing 1.
According to the Danish law of Intellectual Property Rights 71 section 2, the creator of a database has exclusive rights to even unessential parts of a database. Third persons use of such unessential parts is prohibited, if the use is repeatedly and systematic, and provided that the use violates the creators legitimate interests unreasonably.
The court found that Newsbooster violated the online newspapers exclusive rights according to the law of Intellectual Property Rights 71. Also, the court attached importance to the fact, that the grounds of Newsboosters commercial activity with deep links are:
- that the newspapers produce material, which can be linked - that the by Newsbooster used material constitutes the foundation of business for the media, whereto Newsbooster links - that Newsboosters service is in competition with the newspapers - that Newsbooster, by deep linking, can reduce the advertising revenue at the newspapers homepages, hereby reducing their prospect of income
On this basis, the court forbidded Newsbooster: - to offer a news service with deep links from newsbooster.dk and newsbooster.com directly to newspaper articles at the newspapers homepages - to display and make available the headlines from the newspapers homepages - to distribute electronic newsletters with deep links directly to headlines and articles at the newspapers homepages
So, as I understand it, this case is not about "linking in the regular sense", but about linking that yields a repeated and systematic use, and significally reduces the owners prospect of income.
In my opinion, the Newsbooster case implies several interesting issues, eg. if the newspapers revenue of income is in fact reduced, when one should think that Newsbooster would provide more hits at the webpages where only the headline and article - and presumably a banner advertisement - are to be found. Or, it could be seen as yet another example of how the laws of copyright does not make sense, when they are applied to the use of the internet.
The abundancy of Linux-compliant software for composing, as well as software for multitrack harddisk recording and signal processing, is my reason for sticking with Windows.
I think it would be pretty great if that kind of software was available for Linux, considering the stability and performance I expect could be gained.
But untill then, Windows is my choice of OS.
Slashdot Mirror
However, this link leads to an article @ BBC News, which claims that caffeine does not raise blood pressure. A theory mentioned in the article is, that another ingredient in coffee is to blaim for the effect on the bloodpressure....which would make a high intake of decaffeinated coffee risky as well.
remember....you read it on the internet, so it must be true
A primary focus of this discussion seems to be based on the mechanics of paying in order to use a sample from another artist. Obviously, this megabucks business is as problematic as any in the modern world, when the laws of copyright and publishing are based on life in the 1800 century.
;-)
However: an important function of 'clearing samples' is an opportunity for the sampled artist to accept/deny being quoted in a specific context. Surely, the discussion is now moving into the field of arts, freedom of speach and (post)postmodernity...and the general, up untill now, 'stop-the-sample-clearing' sentiment does not come as a complete surprise.
Having said that, I believe in an artists right to choose (not) to be quoted in a certain context.
First of all, there are ethical issues at stake. Allow me to illustrate with a (rather lame) example. Lets say, for instance, that my (hypothetical) band recorded a song containing the frase: "...the light is so white, you can never win my love tonight...". Suddenly some neo-nazi group decides to sample the phrase: "white, you can never win". Without the ability to refuse to clear the sample, I could end up propagating for thoughts and ideas that neither I or my original text never held, because it is quoted completely out of context.
Second, imagine that the drum/bass-track from this song is being sampled by some sexist hiphop artist, using the sample as a musical platform for rapping about 'bitches' and 'hoes'. Presuming that I am not having the option of disallowing the sample to be used, my music will (again) be associated with values and ideas that I might happen to be completely against. Further, this association might also be made by my usual recordbuying audience as well, and might damage my future prospect of selling my records.
This is why I believe that the ability to accept/deny a sample is indeed still an important right for the sampled artist.
About using samples in general, I think William Shakespeare is known to have said: "talent borrows, genius steals". In the given context, I believe that talent uses raw samples, while genius incorporates older musical ideas in a way that is unrecognisable and sounds completely new, yet somehow familiar.
I hope that the discussion is still alive, and yes, you do have the right to quote my post
A primary focus of this discussion seems to be based on the mechanics of paying in order to use a sample from another artist. Obviously, this megabucks business is as problematic as any in the modern world, when the laws of copyright and publishing are based on life in the 1800 century. However: an important function of 'clearing samples' is an opportunity for the sampled artist to accept/deny being quoted in a specific context. Surely, the discussion is now moving into the field of arts, freedom of speach and (post)postmodernity...and the general, up untill now, 'stop-the-sample-clearing' sentiment does not come as a complete surprise. Having said that, I believe in an artists right to choose (not) to be quoted in a certain context. First of all, there are ethical issues at stake. Allow me to illustrate with a (rather lame) example. Lets say, for instance, that my (hypothetical) band recorded a song containing the frase: "...the light is so white, you can never win my love tonight...". Suddenly some neo-nazi group decides to sample the phrase: "white, you can never win". Without the ability to refuse to clear the sample, I could end up propagating for thoughts and ideas that neither I or my original text never held, because it is quoted completely out of context. Second, imagine that the drum/bass-track from this song is being sampled by some sexist hiphop artist, using the sample as a musical platform for rapping about 'bitches' and 'hoes'. Presuming that I am not having the option of disallowing the sample to be used, my music will (again) be associated with values and ideas that I might happen to be completely against. Further, this association might also be made by my usual recordbuying audience as well, and might damage my future prospect of selling my records. This is why I believe that the ability to accept/deny a sample is indeed still an important right for the sampled artist. About using samples in general, I think William Shakespeare is known to have said: "talent borrows, genius steals". In the given context, I believe that talent uses raw samples, while genius incorporates older musical ideas in a way that is unrecognisable and sounds completely new, yet somehow familiar. I hope that the discussion is still alive, and yes, you do have the right to quote my post ;-)
I must admit - the story about Newsbooster IS a bit confusing.
Having the obvious advantage of being danish, I reread the computerworld.dk coverage of the case, dating back to February 1. 2002, when the Association of Danish Newspapers gave their first warning about taking the case into the courtroom, if the deep linking did not stop.
The court ruling was based on the observation, that Newsboosters use of articles and headlines from online newspapers, and the use of deep links to these, violates the Danish law of Intellectual Property Rights 71 section 2, and law of marketing 1.
According to the Danish law of Intellectual Property Rights 71 section 2, the creator of a database has exclusive rights to even unessential parts of a database. Third persons use of such unessential parts is prohibited, if the use is repeatedly and systematic, and provided that the use violates the creators legitimate interests unreasonably.
The court found that Newsbooster violated the online newspapers exclusive rights according to the law of Intellectual Property Rights 71. Also, the court attached importance to the fact, that the grounds of Newsboosters commercial activity with deep links are:
- that the newspapers produce material, which can be linked
- that the by Newsbooster used material constitutes the foundation of business for the media, whereto Newsbooster links
- that Newsboosters service is in competition with the newspapers
- that Newsbooster, by deep linking, can reduce the advertising revenue at the newspapers homepages, hereby reducing their prospect of income
On this basis, the court forbidded Newsbooster:
- to offer a news service with deep links from newsbooster.dk and newsbooster.com directly to newspaper articles at the newspapers homepages
- to display and make available the headlines from the newspapers homepages
- to distribute electronic newsletters with deep links directly to headlines and articles at the newspapers homepages
So, as I understand it, this case is not about "linking in the regular sense", but about linking that yields a repeated and systematic use, and significally reduces the owners prospect of income.
In my opinion, the Newsbooster case implies several interesting issues, eg. if the newspapers revenue of income is in fact reduced, when one should think that Newsbooster would provide more hits at the webpages where only the headline and article - and presumably a banner advertisement - are to be found. Or, it could be seen as yet another example of how the laws of copyright does not make sense, when they are applied to the use of the internet.
Hope this brings the discussion "back on track".
The abundancy of Linux-compliant software for composing, as well as software for multitrack harddisk recording and signal processing, is my reason for sticking with Windows. I think it would be pretty great if that kind of software was available for Linux, considering the stability and performance I expect could be gained. But untill then, Windows is my choice of OS.