Worth and control of music

[Folder]

There seems to be a growing attitude among some people that mechanical copyright laws are too strict. Their argument is that since most musicians want to have artistic control over their own property, that the laws need to be changed so that rappers can sample whatever they like and not have to worry about being sued by the copyright holders.

 

Sound on Sound ran an editorial by some guy named Nat Lendell last month. Slate website had an article by some guy named Matthew Yglesias. And a professor in Iowa named Kembrew Mcleod wrote an editorial for several newspapers recently.

 

All of these articles complain that rappers either can't clear certain samples or that the copyright holders are asking for too much money for their use.

 

All are "essentially" advocating for the legalization of stealing intellectual property.

 

Do people value musical talent and ability anymore? Do they have any respect for artistic integrity? Do they understand the concept of intellectual property?

 

I have zero sympathy for anybody who is frustrated because they cannot just take an artist's work without full permission.

[John Bartus]

 

There seems to be a growing attitude among some people that mechanical copyright laws are too strict. Their argument is that since most musicians want to have artistic control over their own property, that the laws need to be changed so that rappers can sample whatever they like and not have to worry about being sued by the copyright holders. Sound on Sound ran an editorial by some guy named Nat Lendell last month. Slate website had an article by some guy named Matthew Yglesias. And a professor in Iowa named Kembrew Mcleod wrote an editorial for several newspapers recently. All of these articles complain that rappers either can't clear certain samples or that the copyright holders are asking for too much money for their use. All are "essentially" advocating for the legalization of stealing intellectual property. Do people value musical talent and ability anymore? Do they have any respect for artistic integrity? Do they understand the concept of intellectual property? I have zero sympathy for anybody who is frustrated because they cannot just take an artist's work without full permission.

 

 

THIS.

 

Well put. The sad truth is that there are a lot of people, mostly younger, who grew up in the digital age of Napster and Gnutella. These are people who don't have an appreciation of intellectual property rights and believe that it's perfectly okay to sample and steal. I just wonder how any of these writers would feel about their articles and books being printed and distributed without their permission or receiving any financial compensation for their work...

[scarecrowbob]

"All are "essentially" advocating for the legalization of stealing intellectual property."

 

 

I'm not saying that artists shouldn't have protections (they should), but you are way oversimplifying something that is pretty complex.

 

You are correct that people are arguing to expropriate some folks, but to call it stealing is putting the cart before the horse. I can expropriate a slave owner of their slaves, and they might say that I'm stealing their "property", but that doesn't make it wrong.

 

And ownership of artists work is not a simple thing in any culture, even if there are clear laws about how it is handled in the US:

 

IP isn't a defacto "right" but something we have negotiated as a society and which (in the US) exists only to promote the advancement of the arts,

 

there are obvious differences and a lot of shades of "copying" ranging from full on bootlegging to a passing reference, each of which might or might not constitute stealing in any given circumstance,

 

and "artistic works" only make sense within a context that no single person can own, and so closing off ways other artists can reference that context might not be a good thing both from the standpoint of "advancing the art" and from the position that a lot of art works on common grounds with other art.

 

While it might feel righteous to denounce folks who think that sampling is a legit art form, you are oversimplifying the issue.

[Philter]

 

All are "essentially" advocating for the legalization of stealing intellectual property.

 

Cool story, bro.

[Beck]

You

[WRGKMC]

Copyrighting a single songe written and recorded by a single artist is very simple and simple laws can cover that.

When you get to a professional production level, dealing with many contributing artists, professional recording engineers,

graphic artists, studio musicians, band members all wanting their part of the action, it all gets very complex. Protecting

those intellectual rights get complex as well. Big production studios have the power and legal backing to protect both

their rights and those involved in the production. If you see that as being bad, I suggest you really dont understand all

thats involved. its really not that much different than any other corporation. if you have your own engineers, studio musicians,

graphic artists and managers who are paid by the hour, all the intellectual portion of that work they perform belongs to the company.

If you have work contracted outside the company, then you have to have those doing the work sign contracts that

basically say, you're hired for pay and you have no intellectual rights to the work and face legal action if you steal it.

Most wouldnt do that because they are business who want to stay in business.

 

For single artists, the same laws for major companies provide the same protection for individuals, "if" you learn the laws and "If"

you deal with the legal contecats and such the way a corporation does. You are in essence self employed.

Like any business, if you run a small business and it grows, then you deserve the benifits.

I'd say if anything, the barriers for an artist to have direct distribution to customers really didnt exhist till recently.

Digital recording and the internet has changed all of that to a huge extent. You no longer have to go hat in hand to a

major studio to get a contract and bend over and grab your knees and hope you dont get raped to badly.

You can use the same laws to protect yourself as the big guys do if you learn the laws and protect your own rights.

What you wont have is the financial backing to protect your rights. That requires lawers and courts and its the biggest problem

with the industry. Even the big guys cant protect their own rights, how can a one man business do it.

Unless there is fair and just enforcement, (not this $100K per download crap companies collect), the laws alone wont do anything for anybody.

[philbo]

It's really pretty simple.

 

Possession = Control. If you don't want to lose control of your material, stop distributing it. Keep it locked up in a vault.

 

If you want to make money from your work, music is a bad career choice.

[Folder]

 

While it might feel righteous to denounce folks who think that sampling is a legit art form, you are oversimplifying the issue.

 

 

Who on this thread has denounced folks who think that sampling is a legit art form?

 

The title of this thread is "Worth and control of music"

 

What you may view as expropriating is always going to be viewed by the victim as stealing.

[Bookumdano2]

 

All are "essentially" advocating for ......

 

 

Doesn't matter. Just a bunch of people complaining. The rules are strong, intact, and fair.

[Folder]

Imagine if you will a scenario where artists could no longer use material snipped from books, magazines and newspapers to make a collage or other artistic work. Well, you don

[Raymar]

I wonder what's next, will they start demanding an artist's money as well?

 

"I'm sampling your music and I demand a royalty!! :mad:"

[John Bartus]

You

[Beck]

In a written work an author can quote another author extensively whether the one quoted likes it or not. An entire book of quotes can be written as long as the authors are credited. However, those authors receive no compensation from words they

[John Bartus]

In a written work an author can quote another author extensively whether the one quoted likes it or not. An entire book of quotes can be written as long as the authors are credited. However, those authors receive no compensation from words they

[Folder]

 

LOL if it

[Lee Knight]

 

Don't have a clue what your ranting about.

 

 

Neither does he.

[Beck]

I can see my work here is done, and a job well done if I do say so myself.

 

You

[Vito Corleone]

I never had a brother and part of my tirade I stole from the movie,

[Folder]

quote me almost verbatim without giving me credit or even remembering where you got it. I see it all the time

[Temple of Light]

If you desire true IP and copywright protection nothing short of 1028 bit encryption through several firewalls is gonna give it you.

It is quite simple really, design a website for commerce so people can purchase your material directly, via credit card transaction: have a neutral third party validate and verify your site's firewall and security, and boom! done:

no middlemen, no copywrites, no record companies, no spilling the beans before they are sold.

[Folder]

It's really pretty simple. Possession = Control. If you don't want to lose control of your material, stop distributing it. Keep it locked up in a vault. If you want to make money from your work, music is a bad career choice.

 

 

For more than ten years I've been letting people download my (mostly instrumental) songs off the Internet for free. The worth of my music is pretty much measured by free downloads, plays and kind words from strangers.

 

The fact that anybody would take the time out of their day to listen to one of my songs is rewarding. If somebody decides that they like one of my songs enough that they want to download it and put it on their mp3 player, its a bonus. All artists want their work to be appreciated. I think this is normal.

 

Over the years I have had a few people contact me asking if they could download one of my instrumental songs and use it in a video presentation or on a website. I've always said that I needed to know how it would be used before I agreed to let them. I've always let them do so and never asked for any compensation.

 

Over the years I have also had a few people contact me and tell me that they have downloaded one of my songs "without my permission" and recorded their "so called vocal" tracks over it.

 

These contacts have always felt like a hard punch in the gut.

 

I've been told by some "so called artist" that they thought my tracks were dope and that they had been looking for something like them to record their "so called vocals" over.

 

I've felt the pain of discovering that my hard work and passion had been defiled and uploaded to some "so called artist's" personal website.

 

I've tried to convince some "so called artist" that they need to remove my work from their website because I don't like how they have tarnished it, only to be told that it is their website and they don't have to do anything that they don't want to do.

 

I've been told that I must not have any taste in music because I don't like how my own music was degraded by some "so called artists' .

 

I've been told by some "so called artist" that if I "just give it a chance" over time I might start liking their wretched contribution to my work.

 

I've had some "so called artist" offer to strike a bargain with me and promise to give me a portion of any money they might make from my damaged property.

 

I've had to live with the fact that one of my songs has been distorted into a work of "so called art" that represents everything that I loathe.

 

I've felt violated and helpless because I knew that there was virtually nothing that I could do to prevent my defiled song from "getting out there" on the internet.

 

And finally I've been called a {censored} head because I had the nerve to threaten legal action against some "so called artist" who felt they had the right to expropriate my property without my permission or any compensation and just {censored} it all up!

 

I still offer my music downloads for free, but when I sense the prevailing attiudes about the worth and control of music beginning to change from a permission culture to a free culture I begin to get nervous.

[Bookumdano2]

 

It

[Beck]

 

I remember that episode. Man, you were the kid on Lassie?

 

 

That was before my time, but my mom tells me one of the reasons she liked the name Timmy was because of that show. She named me after the biblical Timothy and Timmy from that Lassie series. And as anyone will tell you... and well hell as you can see for yourself from threads like these, I'm really cute and sweet just like that... and I like collies.

 

Well, back on topic...

 

The RIAA, and record companies are usurping copyright law and making there own rules by threatening to take legal action against people and entities, like youtube, even though there is no violation of copyright. There are fair use provisions for video and audio clips that allow anyone to use snippets of short duration, for education, commentary, rebuttal, entertainment (or entertaining commentary).

 

There are videos being removed all the time from youtube that don

[A. Einstein]

And as usual Mr. Beck fails completly to make a true statement based on real facts.

[Beck]

 

And as usual Mr. Beck fails completly to make a true statement based on real facts.

 

 

What you mean to say is, facts that you are familiar with, which apparently aren't quite enough. I can't help you there. You are in a bubble of your own making. Only you can pop it and see what else is outside of it.