Hey Tom, great discussion by everyone and thanks for the compliment. I'm not against sampling by any means, and I still use samples, I just try to avoid identifiable, copyrighted ones. If you nick a bit of old Chuck Mangione and mangle it sufficiently that it isn't recognizable, although it's technically against the law, you are unlikely to get caught or face any penalty as long as you don't tell anyone and it is REALLY unrecognizable. It's sort of like speeding here on the freeways in Southern California; everyone does it and the "man" simply looks the other way. What really draws the man's ire are blatant ripoffs like "Ice Ice Baby" and the Negativland U2 record (which got us into this whole discussion). It's interesting that everyone agrees that Vanilla Ice should have to pay for using two seconds of Queen but no one seems to think that Negativland and SST should have to pay for using 35 seconds of U2 and copying their logo. Could it be that simply that Vanilla is "uncool" and Negativland is "cool"? It seems that way to me, but what do I know?
Also, I didn't mean to imply that you won't run afoul of copyright law if you don't sell your art; the point I was trying to get across is that you're unlikely to be financially ruined as in the Negativland/U2 scenario. DJ Danger Mouse was also forced to rehost his brilliant "Grey Album" multiple times as the man brought the hammer down hard. (Remember "Grey Tuesday?") The publicity got him known in the right circles and he can thank "the man's" unwanted attention (as well as his considerable talent) for his newfound success. There will always be outlaw servers for this kind of material, because there will always be areas that exist outside of the influence of these corporations or take an active interest in seeing them destroyed (e.g., China, Malaysia, et al...)
An interesting historical note: the film industry as we know it began in Hollywood because it was so far away from NYC (where most publishing houses were located) that the movie studios could infringe on trademarks and copyrights with relative impunity. It was simply too difficult to serve notice to people 3000 miles away, so Hollywood became sort of an "Interzone" for pirate creative types. Where will the new Hollywood be? My bet is somewhere in Asia...
|
Also, I didn't mean to imply that you won't run afoul of copyright law if you don't sell your art; the point I was trying to get across is that you're unlikely to be financially ruined as in the Negativland/U2 scenario. DJ Danger Mouse was also forced to rehost his brilliant "Grey Album" multiple times as the man brought the hammer down hard. (Remember "Grey Tuesday?") The publicity got him known in the right circles and he can thank "the man's" unwanted attention (as well as his considerable talent) for his newfound success. There will always be outlaw servers for this kind of material, because there will always be areas that exist outside of the influence of these corporations or take an active interest in seeing them destroyed (e.g., China, Malaysia, et al...)
An interesting historical note: the film industry as we know it began in Hollywood because it was so far away from NYC (where most publishing houses were located) that the movie studios could infringe on trademarks and copyrights with relative impunity. It was simply too difficult to serve notice to people 3000 miles away, so Hollywood became sort of an "Interzone" for pirate creative types. Where will the new Hollywood be? My bet is somewhere in Asia...
- G.K. Wicker 9-15-2005 3:31 am