Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Discussions about anything related to samplers and sampling techniques.
User avatar
diezdiazgiant
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:32 am
Gear: a computer and some odd bits of junk and microphones
Band: jizzflap f**k
Location: Chicago

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Post by diezdiazgiant » Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:27 pm

personally i hate the concept of a professional artist. if you can make money off your craft thats great but the way copyright goes i think its pompous. compare it to say, an artisan - if someone makes furniture, should they pay royalties for using a lathing technique that someone else perfected? or reproducing a wood moulding pattern? do i need to get expressed written consent and mechnical rights if i make a table that looks too similar to one made by a larger company?
bla bla bla its all so self serving, and instead of spending time creating we atrophy culture by trying to feed our egos that no one ever put together the same series of pitches at the same rythym. but whatever, people always choose self serving delusions.
Image
blunted daydreaming

User avatar
pricklyrobot
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 1742
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:37 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Post by pricklyrobot » Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:41 am

diezdiazgiant wrote:personally i hate the concept of a professional artist. if you can make money off your craft thats great
You realize the contradiction here, right? The act of making money doing something is what makes you a professional at it.

Secondly, your furniture analogy is flawed; you can't copyright objects or processes, you can potentially patent them, but that's a whole other area of the law.

And finally, following your logic, how would any artist make a living from his work? An author, for instance, would—in addition to writing his book—have to run a printing press and physically produce his own books (since, without copyright, he would be incapable of owning the writing itself; as well he shouldn't, given that it was created using a language he didn't himself invent, thus how dare he claim origination rights?!) Then hope he churns out enough of them quickly enough to turn a profit, before someone else starts printing their own copies of his un-copyrighted book and selling them for less (the free market at it's finest).

I'm not suggesting the idea of copyright ought to be immune from criticism (personally, I think recent trends in copyright law—copyright expiration extensions, etc.—have distorted it from being primarily a protection for individuals into more of a tool for corporate interests to hoard control of dead artists' works), but advocating its abolition without suggesting an alternative just seems like utopian shortsightedness.
Arturia MiniBrute -- bits o' Euro -- Sammich SID -- E-mu MP-7 -- Korg ER-1 -- Thingamagoop

User avatar
diezdiazgiant
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:32 am
Gear: a computer and some odd bits of junk and microphones
Band: jizzflap f**k
Location: Chicago

Opinions on the korg radias sequencer.

Post by diezdiazgiant » Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:17 am

What i mean with the furniture thing is that it too is a product of someones imagination. Design and all artisan crafts thrive on continual re examination. I believe in open source... I know its a lofty idea butthat doesnt mean it shouldnt be strived for. The origins of copyrights is from way back when to even own a printing press you needed the 'right of copy' from state officials, an attempt to limit ideas. In the end how is this different? There will be bad ideas... its up to us as individuals to weed them out by ignoring them and not denying the right to exist or we might just miss out on some fun s**t

User avatar
diezdiazgiant
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:32 am
Gear: a computer and some odd bits of junk and microphones
Band: jizzflap f**k
Location: Chicago

Opinions on the korg radias sequencer.

Post by diezdiazgiant » Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:35 am

Oh and with the furniture thing im refering to how with pieces from a time, region, or made by certain tools share characteristics. Certain curvatures for example. Now music - songs with guitar i hear the same chords all the time as the back bone of a song - common arc of a chair leg vs common arcs of a melody. Whats the difference? Instrumentation? Thats as superficial as the type of wood.

User avatar
pricklyrobot
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 1742
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:37 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Opinions on the korg radias sequencer.

Post by pricklyrobot » Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:10 am

diezdiazgiant wrote:I believe in open source...
Which means what, exactly?

Is it a different model for the way people control works of art that they create, and the legal rights attached thereto; or does it simply mean that you believe that artists who don't create a tangible product on their own (i.e. musicians who don't physically press their own records, writers who don't print their own books) aren't creating something of legitimate value and shouldn't have the right to profit from what they make, period?
Arturia MiniBrute -- bits o' Euro -- Sammich SID -- E-mu MP-7 -- Korg ER-1 -- Thingamagoop

User avatar
Johnny Lenin
Expert Member
Expert Member
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:56 pm
Gear: JX8P | AX60 | Little Phatty Stage II | DW8000 | Vox Jag | Fantom X6 | Juno-G | P-Bass | AS-120 | Double Jet

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Post by Johnny Lenin » Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:38 pm

The irony here, of course, is that we're all passionately debating artists' rights while most of us have piles MP3s on our hard drives that we never paid for.

User avatar
diezdiazgiant
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:32 am
Gear: a computer and some odd bits of junk and microphones
Band: jizzflap f**k
Location: Chicago

Opinions on the korg radias sequencer.

Post by diezdiazgiant » Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:00 pm

Dude i dont know where youre getting that from. Im just saying that these lawsuits over snippets and elements are frivolous. If i make a collage from a magazine its not threatening the magazines profit. If i sample the melody of sweet ohm its not threatening kraftwerk. If anything its a reminder of the hay day of some has beens...

User avatar
pricklyrobot
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 1742
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:37 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Post by pricklyrobot » Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:39 pm

Johnny Lenin wrote:The irony here, of course, is that we're all passionately debating artists' rights while most of us have piles MP3s on our hard drives that we never paid for.
And here is was thinking I was doing a good job of remaining dispassionate in this whole debate. :scratch: When I did download MP3's it was almost exclusively of out-of-print records that I couldn't just walk into a store and buy. If something is readily available for sale, I prefer to pay and get the liner notes, higher quality audio, etc.
diezdiazgiant wrote:If i sample the melody of sweet ohm its not threatening kraftwerk.
If you do it and make it available for free, then no, you're not threatening Kraftwerk's ability to make a living. But if you release it as a product for sale (a product which is itself copyrighted and not free for some subsequent sampler to use however he wants), which is after all what happened in the case we're discussing here, then you may be threatening Kraftwerk's ability to make a living, or at least have a say about how their work (their actual recorded work, mind you, not something inspired by it or similar to it, but the actual recording) is used.
Arturia MiniBrute -- bits o' Euro -- Sammich SID -- E-mu MP-7 -- Korg ER-1 -- Thingamagoop

User avatar
madtheory
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 5400
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 12:45 pm
Real name: Tomas Mulcahy
Gear: Wurlitzer Opus 1536, Model F, Morovdis Arpeggiator, Maplin My First EQ, Jeff Wayne Thunderchild rack, Thermostat, Buck Owens' Moog.
Location: Cork, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Post by madtheory » Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:46 pm

Hi diezdiazgiant. The furniture analogy is an interesting one. I think you fundamentally misunderstand copyright. It's straightforward to make money from furniture, it's a solid object, you put a price on it, someone buys it. If you're really good at it, you can charge a lot for it.

Problem with music is that it's not tangible like a chair. So we need the law to fill in that perceived value that tangible objects have. Same deal- if you're good, you make lots of money. The perception is that it's the metallica's of this world that make loads of money from copyright. Fact is, if you look at the membership of the various royalty collection societies, they have big numbers. The vast majority are people you never heard of. There are a lot of jobbing composers and performers out there who make decent money from royalties, which beefs up the gigging income in a very necessary way, so they can do ordinary stuff like pay the mortgage and put fuel in the car. Just like you!

FYI, in France, a painter gets a royalty on publically displayed paintings. Victor Hugo was the man who instigated copyright, actually "intellectual property" and it is a vital lifeline for culture. Personally, I think you need to wake up to the reality of copyright. It's provides a living for artists, facilitating them to create wonderful things.
Johnny Lenin wrote:The irony here, of course, is that we're all passionately debating artists' rights while most of us have piles MP3s on our hard drives that we never paid for.
Speak for yourself.

User avatar
Johnny Lenin
Expert Member
Expert Member
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:56 pm
Gear: JX8P | AX60 | Little Phatty Stage II | DW8000 | Vox Jag | Fantom X6 | Juno-G | P-Bass | AS-120 | Double Jet

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Post by Johnny Lenin » Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:52 pm

pricklyrobot wrote:And here is was thinking I was doing a good job of remaining dispassionate in this whole debate. :scratch: When I did download MP3's it was almost exclusively of out-of-print records that I couldn't just walk into a store and buy. If something is readily available for sale, I prefer to pay and get the liner notes, higher quality audio, etc.
Actually, you're doing a great job of it.

But it's interesting that as inviolate as any of us might, or might not, believe an artist's right to control his/her intellectual property might be, we're all willing to make exceptions.

And I think you raise an important point: The commercial value of a work of art -- what you're willing to pay -- is not contained in the work itself (the property), but in its distribution and packaging -- its accessibility in a physical medium, audio quality and liner notes.

With that in mind, would it be possible to conceive of a commercial exchange model that would allow creators to be paid for their work without perpetuating a notion of intellectual property that few of us seem to believe is absolute in practice, anyway?

User avatar
pricklyrobot
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 1742
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:37 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Post by pricklyrobot » Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:15 pm

Johnny Lenin wrote:With that in mind, would it be possible to conceive of a commercial exchange model that would allow creators to be paid for their work without perpetuating a notion of intellectual property that few of us seem to believe is absolute in practice, anyway?
Certainly, yes. My argument is mainly with people who call for the abolition of copyright, but appear to have put no serious thought into what might, thoroughly and effectively, take its place.
Arturia MiniBrute -- bits o' Euro -- Sammich SID -- E-mu MP-7 -- Korg ER-1 -- Thingamagoop

User avatar
Johnny Lenin
Expert Member
Expert Member
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:56 pm
Gear: JX8P | AX60 | Little Phatty Stage II | DW8000 | Vox Jag | Fantom X6 | Juno-G | P-Bass | AS-120 | Double Jet

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Post by Johnny Lenin » Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:44 pm

pricklyrobot wrote:Certainly, yes. My argument is mainly with people who call for the abolition of copyright, but appear to have put no serious thought into what might, thoroughly and effectively, take its place.
I agree. But I don't think that it's a question of abolishing copyright so much as recognizing that, for a whole lot of technological and cultural reasons, it has been subverted by practice.

User avatar
madtheory
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 5400
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 12:45 pm
Real name: Tomas Mulcahy
Gear: Wurlitzer Opus 1536, Model F, Morovdis Arpeggiator, Maplin My First EQ, Jeff Wayne Thunderchild rack, Thermostat, Buck Owens' Moog.
Location: Cork, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Post by madtheory » Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:10 pm

Johnny Lenin wrote:
With that in mind, would it be possible to conceive of a commercial exchange model that would allow creators to be paid for their work without perpetuating a notion of intellectual property that few of us seem to believe is absolute in practice, anyway?
You're forgetting about the many other uses of music that do not, as such, require the physicality you describe: to draw listeners to your radio station so you can charge for advertising based on listenership; to affect customers' mood in a retail environment (supermarket, bar, hairdresser, disco); to create/ enhance atmosphere and mood on film or TV (adverts, documentaries etc.); to sample and re use in your music for the purposes of fun and profit :).

Any time you use music as part of an action that earns you money, you must pay the artist because you've used his intellectual property. This has nothing at all to do with downloads, and this particular royalty stream has not diminished with the advent of the web. In fact, the web has empowered artists to access these streams directly, rather than via a greedy middle man such as a record company or a publisher.

User avatar
diezdiazgiant
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:32 am
Gear: a computer and some odd bits of junk and microphones
Band: jizzflap f**k
Location: Chicago

Post by diezdiazgiant » Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:36 pm

Well its a message board not an earnest legal review, i mean h**l everything ive posted is from my cell phone while on break at work... So things are going to be paraphrased. I understand copyright i just dont care for it in its current form. I grew up on public art done for the sake of it. Some of my favorite things are built essentially from scavenged sources so im naturally going to find this threatening. Even when its free you stand to face douche bag lawyers. Case in point - the grey album and the cease and desist orders served. There does need to be a middle ground

User avatar
diezdiazgiant
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:32 am
Gear: a computer and some odd bits of junk and microphones
Band: jizzflap f**k
Location: Chicago

Post by diezdiazgiant » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:01 pm

Oh and just speaking for myself, if i hear a song i like and in the liner it says its got elements or samples from 'x' then i look up that artist. It brings more attention to that artist.

Post Reply