With property that is infinitely reproduceable–music, ideas, etc.–there can be no theft of property. I have a friend who’s a novelist and an art teacher. Sometimes he gives a copy of one of his books to a friend, and sometimes that friend reciprocates by giving my friend a painting or a drawing. My friend always refuses such a gift: “Giving someone a book doesn’t leave me without it; their giving me an original piece of art does leave them without it.”
As long as the “creator” of the infinitely reproduceable property is fairly compensated, no one has lost a thing, and both parties have gained. Once a thing is published, its creator should only be able to insist on compensation, not on control of all of the infinitely possible variations on the original work.
With property that is infinitely reproduceable–music, ideas, etc.–there can be no theft of property. I have a friend who’s a novelist and an art teacher. Sometimes he gives a copy of one of his books to a friend, and sometimes that friend reciprocates by giving my friend a painting or a drawing. My friend always refuses such a gift: “Giving someone a book doesn’t leave me without it; their giving me an original piece of art does leave them without it.”
As long as the “creator” of the infinitely reproduceable property is fairly compensated, no one has lost a thing, and both parties have gained. Once a thing is published, its creator should only be able to insist on compensation, not on control of all of the infinitely possible variations on the original work.
With property that is infinitely reproduceable–music, ideas, etc.–there can be no theft of property. I have a friend who’s a novelist and an art teacher. Sometimes he gives a copy of one of his books to a friend, and sometimes that friend reciprocates by giving my friend a painting or a drawing. My friend always refuses such a gift: “Giving someone a book doesn’t leave me without it; their giving me an original piece of art does leave them without it.”
As long as the “creator” of the infinitely reproduceable property is fairly compensated, no one has lost a thing, and both parties have gained. Once a thing is published, its creator should only be able to insist on compensation, not on control of all of the infinitely possible variations on the original work.
Yes, because how else would all of those people who have never had an original idea in their lives be able to “create” if they didn’t have all of those nifty original ideas to borrow. God forbid they should have to come up with anything original of their own. Just pick and choose the best stuff, piece it together, and voila, you are an “artist”.
Artists should absolutely control distribution of their work and retain ownership. Otherwise, we will just be stuck with more unoriginal crap. I don’t know how I would live another day if I didn’t hear some other moron put his “ideas” over a great work of art.
Just because there is a demand for something does not make it compulsory, legal or moral to sell it. And the fact that technology has made it easier to break the law is not, in itself, good enough reason for removing the law.
A recording artist should retain a say in how their work is used, (except in cases where they have sold those rights, but that’s a different discussion). If the copyright holders of an album do not wish a work to be reused by another then that’s the end of it. No amount of possible royalty payments, artistic freedom, new technology, doing it for the “kids”, etc matters. “DJ Danger Mouse” is using someone else’s work without their permission and in a manner that, in the opinion of the copyright holder, may well be damaging to the reputation and value (either artistically or marketability) of the original work.
It doesn’t matter if others think that this opinion is wrong, or if money is to be made on all sides, or even if there is a huge demand amongst fans for the remix. It is the opinion of the copyright holder that counts most. No one can force them to sell something they do not wish to sell.
So this isn’t “an impressive stand”; this is plain copyright theft dressed up as a principled stand. “DJ Danger Mouse” wants to make money and a reputation for himself, and chiefly off the back of others’ music, no matter how much artistic input you want to argue he has contributed. Having failed to get permission from the copyright holder to exploit their music, he’s now making out that he’s fighting for the future of music or something against the evil music corporations. To this I cry BS. This is not a case of the fans against the music industry, this is about the right of the creator of the music having control over how their product is sold. No-one has a right that supersedes this.
The following is quoted from lissener above post. I’ve “remixed” it. It is not what lissener said and I’m doing it to illustrate a point.
By your own argument, lissener, the above is entirely fair use of your ‘property’ and you should have no problem with your name appearing on it. Too bad you don’t agree with it, eh? Where should I mail you your royalties?
I’m confused. Sampling is legal and has been for some time. Why do you think there was a few years where every other rap album had samples of James Brown? Or all those songs that use a snippet of beat from a famous song (like Vanilla Ice’s “Ice,Ice, Baby”). IIRC, samples have to be less then 5 seconds long.
I’m ashamed of myself for responding, because this is such a ludicrous strawman that I should toss in a rolleyes or keep quiet.
There are so many non-parallels in your two parallels that I hardly no where to start: misattribution has never been argued for, and your argument above is mostly about misattribution; I don’t own the material you quoted; the Chicago Reader does (I do not earn any royalties from the bit you quoted); if there’s a gray area that needs to be defined (as of course there is), your example is so far afield that it does not address anything remotely gray.
Umm, well. . . . wrong. The phrasing you used here seems a bit off. We’re talking about people using samples they have found. Dj’s & Producers mine the samples. They find them. If they created the sounds from scratch, then they would not technically be samples (sort of - I’ll get to that). What good Djs and producers do supply are songs. Tracks. Tunes. They are suppliers of music. You can debate the artistic merit all you like, but the fact that they supply tracks that did not exist prior to their creating them is a fact. An unavoidable fact. There are millions of songs out there that use samples. The people who created these songs can be said to supply songs that feature samples. The statement “Djs aren’t suppliers of samples.” is a weird strawman that no one is really talking about. And it isn’t even true, as some Dj’s release albums full of original sounds for sampling. They are called battle records, and are designed specifically for others to sample. So those albums can be said to be providing samples. A Dj can create something original, and than sample his own work as well. So really, no matter how you look at it, that statement doesn’t stand up.
? ? ?
Again, you seem to be missing the point. No one said that the Dj writes the song they sampled from. What a Dj can do is use the sounds they mined as individual parts in a new song that they did compose. A song can be written & recorded using samples. The end product, when done well, will be an original composition that is different from any of the works it sampled.
Man did you miss the point of that old saying. Sir Isaac Newton once said in a letter to Robert Hooke ““If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants.”. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. This isn’t something to be ashamed of. This isn’t a flaw, so it shouldn’t be used as a criticism. What Newton meant was that he was able to make all the various scientific and mathematical discoveries because he took advantage of all the knowledge and discoveries that had been made by others before him. Similarly, Djs are able to make new, original, and wonderful music because of the knowledge and work of other musicians. By your logic, we would treat with disdain anyone who ever furthered scientific inquiry using Newton’s work. Dj culture has a great respect for musical pioneers. This sampling stems, in part, from respect and admiration of the greats. As a matter of fact, most Dj’s try to let you in on their influences and heros by playing their music. Wherever you are going with this line of thought is a dead end. If you don’t think it takes talent, knowledge, and skill to compose/remix a track that has appeal, then you are sadly mistaken. The fact that they are inspired by the greats doesn’t take away from this. It seems you have forgotten the most important part of the giants quote. Not only do they stand on the back of giants, but they have a chance to see further than any of the giants whose shoulders they stand on ever could. The giants deserve credit for what they have done, but these kids deserve credit for raising the bar even higher. They have broken musical molds and created, IMO, some of the best music ever to grace the planet. And they will be the next giants on the totem pole, and tomorrow’s kids will stand on their shoulders, and no doubt they will create new and wonderful art that will capture the hearts and imaginations of millions.
These statements really seems to display a general ignorance about what we are talking about here. An oldies sample music station? Huh??? There are stations now that play music that has oldies samples. “Sample Music” isn’t a genre like rock or easy listening. Sampling is a technique. A technique that can be used to create rock, blues, hip-hop, or whatever style the composer wishes. “Oldies sample music station” is pretty much a non-sensical concept.
Samples are only fashionable as long as the source is remembered? Totally, and utterly wrong. As a matter of fact, Djs get props for pulling samples from long lost or rare works. Many times I’ve wondered, “Damn! Where did they get that hook?”, and the uncovering of the source has led me to artists whose music I never would have heard or experienced otherwise. There is no such connection. I have no idea where you would get this idea.
Sample-based songs are themselves almost completely sample-proof? Again, totally wrong. Anything can be sampled. Anything, as long as it makes noise. I can take a track that uses nothing but samples, sample part of it, and then go to work on a new song or drop it into a song I already composed. Whether or not you find the practice moral, the technical aspects seem to have escaped you.
As is your right. But what good is art that you keep to your self? My favorite part of the artistic experience has always been sharing it. Acting, Djing, writing; as much as I enjoy these things, I enjoy sharing it 10 times as much. If you’d rather your art not exist then share it, then you’re not much of an artist. Of course you don’t have to be.
This is probably the only thing that you have said that rings true to me. Under the type of system I would prefer, Vanilla Ice would have been charged full price to use that material the way he did. A kid who uses a 2-3 second sample should be charged less. The CR holders and OAs (original artists) should not be able to stop this, they should only be allowed to demand fair compensation. That particular situation was bullshit because Vanilla refused to admit that Queen was the source. This is not the way it usually goes. Most artists who use samples are more than willing to give credit to the people who created the source material. Basing judgement of the music on the works and actions of Vanilla Ice would be idiotic. He was a punk who got punked for being such a punk. This art form, like any other, is pursued by people with staggering talent as well as by no-talent hacks.
I seperate the good stuff from the junk. For so long I just freak the funk. . .
Well, I have to say I disagree with both lissener and club 33.
Club 33: your view that people who sample are simply bloodsucking, unoriginal hacks is naive and incorrect. Lots of good stuff is being done, and lots of it with great respect for the original work. Saying that anyone who samples is a hack is like saying that every classical musician alive today is a hack–they’re just ripping off Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach. If they were any good, they’d think up something new and original. Same goes for those cretins that say they’re “covering” jazz “standards.” Losers.
Lissener: Your view of intellectual ownership is waaaaayyyy too narrow. So ideas cannot be owned? Then the entire patent system should be thrown out. Your company has a novel drug or piece of software it’s spent millions developing? Too bad. I’ll just rip off the formula/code and put out my own version. And why should books be “ownable”? Hell, I’ll just go out, retype the next Harry Potter book when it comes out, and sell it myself for a third of the cost of what Scholastic is charging. Where’s the harm, so long as something is infinitely reproducible? You miss the obvious reality that, very often, the ability to make money off of an idea–and ideas cover lots of ground besides mere art–is wholly dependent on you having a monopoly on that idea. Someone being able to reproduce your drug, software, engine design, film, book, or song without your permission robs you of money in a very, very real way.
did you deliberately ignore the second plank in my two-plank copyright platform: adequate, reasonable compensation to the “original” artist. Your argument above is as if I never mentioned compensation, which is not the case.
Not if they compensate you for it. You don’t need “ownership”, in the sense that you get to tell other people how they can use what you write, in order to get paid for your creation. A compulsory license system would let the artist make money and let the DJs make remixes.
No, I didn’t. You ignore the basic conundrum: What is reasonable compensation? Who decides?
If I, as the copyright/patent holder, believe that I can make more money from an idea by marketing it exclusively by myself, then no amount of “compensation” is going to be enough for me, and any amount decided upon by a third party will be theft.
I can’t believe I’m arguing against the points I originally made in my early discussions with DJ, but there it is. There is a wide gap between what some people believe is “adequate compensation” and what others think it is.
And many people believe that a lousy reproduction of their work will injure it more than any financial compensation could make up for.
That’s why I said earlier (a) licenses should be required, and “friendly” usage to which the CH agrees should be low-cost, reasonable, etc. (whatever the F that means). BUT, (b) “hostile” usage to which the CH does NOT agree should be so punitive that such hostile use will be greatly discouraged; say, so that a musician could make use of someone else’s work w/o their permission and receive effectively NO income for it; the CH would get virtually all the money, and the hostile user would get nothing–but, if they only wanted to use it for “artistic” reasons, then they wouldn’t care about not getting paid, right?
The point of my two parallels is right there in your grasp, but you’re missing it. You are entirely correct to claim misattribution and that is your right. And that’s my point.
But who are you to decide when someone else is being misattributed? The Beatles’ White Album is their statement. It is their lyrics, their opinion of what makes good music. Who has the right to decide that the “Grey” album is not a misattribution other than the copyright holders? Does “DJ Danger Mouse”, or anyone else, get to decide that his version is true to what the Beatles wanted from their music?
What if someone decided that a version of Gradmaster Flash’s “White Lines” would sound better without the “Don’t” in Don’t Do It". Would that be ok? Obvious misattribution I’d say, but the original copyright holder doesn’t get a say according to you. As long as they’re getting their money…
The royalties are irrelevant. Of course you’re not earning any royalties. My point was about how happy you’d been about some else taken your words, rearranging them to suit their whims, then publishing them with your name on them. Well, unlicenced remixes are pretty much the same.
Anyone who can read and knows the definition of “misattribution” can make that call. DJ Danger Mouse isn’t suggesting that his Grey Album was actually recorded by Jay-Z or the Beatles, or sanctioned by them.
Sure, why not? It’s not a misattribution as long as you make it clear you’ve taken Grandmaster Flash’s song and changed it yourself.
The obvious difference is that a remix isn’t published as the original artist’s work. The original artists are credited, but it’s clear that the remix was made by someone else.
My statement was a little too all-inclusive, I admit. I’m not saying that everyone who uses a sample is a hack. But there sure are a lot of hacks out there who only have the ability to create anything worthwhile because there are a hell of a lot of worthwhile things out there to sample from.
I assumed you were talking about the Grey Album with that… if you were referring to a different album, one that in fact doesn’t showcase a DJ’s originality and talent, then I guess I stand corrected.
Did Disney get permission from whoever “owns” the stories of Cinderella, Snow White, the Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast? Somehow I don’t think so.