Page 4 of 4

Re:

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:26 pm
by pricklyrobot
diezdiazgiant wrote: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.
Right, but it's only as a result of copyright enforcement that people are obliged to credit the sources of their samples. Some people might give credit even if they weren't legally obligated, but others wouldn't.
madtheory wrote: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.
Another good point, that I think a lot of people miss. Copyright doesn't just protect the assets of greedy, evil corporations; it protects we individuals from them, and their [mis]use of work we've created. And copyright plays a key role in modern systems where artists are able to interact commercially, directly with their audience, without the need for co-opting, corporate fat-cats to get involved.

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:46 pm
by Johnny Lenin
madtheory wrote: 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 :).
All good points. On the other hand, the copyright practices for media soundtrack music and, in many cases, for environmental music, don't always directly protect the income of the artist. In fact, in most cases, soundtrack composers work as employees of the media company, with no more rights to the composition than the consumer who listens to the music or who buys the soundtrack CD. There are exceptions, of course.
Another good point, that I think a lot of people miss. Copyright doesn't just protect the assets of greedy, evil corporations; it protects we individuals from them, and their [mis]use of work we've created. And copyright plays a key role in modern systems where artists are able to interact commercially, directly with their audience, without the need for co-opting, corporate fat-cats to get involved.
True, but I personally think that rights of attribution and integrity (what are called "moral rights" in the Commonwealth") are a different issue than the right of financial compensation for the performance and/or reproduction of a work, though they are both subsets of copyright.

The bottom line for me is that "creators' rights" are historical. They define the creator/artist rather than the other way around, and they are expressions of the technological capacity and economic relations of a given historical moment. It's worth asking whether a 21st century creator/artist in an age of digital re/production and distribution is helped or hindered by a legal regime produced by different technological and economic conditions.

[This is a very thought-provoking thread, BTW, I'm learning a lot here.]

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:34 am
by RobotHeroes
:happy1:

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:45 am
by madtheory
Johnny Lenin wrote:It's worth asking whether a 21st century creator/artist in an age of digital re/production and distribution is helped or hindered by a legal regime produced by different technological and economic conditions
You're certainly correct. Since about 1988 (when UK finally defined their copyright and patents law), copyright legislators have been desperately trying to keep up with technological developments- see the current controversy with the EU proposal to extend the term for performers, and their confusing use of the word "producer".

Even the best minds find this issue a difficult one.

Looking at the income streams right now, they seem totally ridiculous and archaic. In the UK, MCPS and PRS have formed an alliance. In Ireland, MCPS seems to have stopped functioning. In the US, there are what, three societies to collect broadcast royalties? In the meantime, artists are licensing their music directly, either for a fixed fee (as you said in your example of TV composers) or a royalty for the good ones, who can actually trust the licensee to cough up in a timely manner.

It's nuts. Just like the credit/ debt situation the developed world has landed itself in. But do note that this Kraftwerk case is far from unusual, and there's obviously big money involved- it's been going on since 1997.

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:50 am
by Ashe37
pricklyrobot wrote:(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)
Not necessarily dead artists, but more specific intellectual properties. There's a reason that the expiration extensions that keep getting passed are nicknamed "Mickey Mouse extensions".

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:18 am
by synthy
i believe in what i call the recycle bin ( sampling small snippets from others music and giving it new life ) i don't do this with anything current at all. i will go back 15 to 20 years. this is my rule. you would never know what my samples are from. i say as long as you can alter the sample in a way that sounds totally different and not recognizable, let the beat recycle into something new. taking a piece that you can recognize is pure laziness if you ask me. get creative man. i don't sample from others very much at all. but if i hear something i like i will mess with it and put it in the recycle bin for later use. sometimes it wont get used for years.

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:02 pm
by madtheory
Ashe37 wrote:Not necessarily dead artists, but more specific intellectual properties. There's a reason that the expiration extensions that keep getting passed are nicknamed "Mickey Mouse extensions".
I only know of one extension- what others are there? And are you saying that the Disney company have a hand in changing the law?

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:20 pm
by Syn303
This album is a classic case of saying "f**k copyright", perhaps the most
overblown sample-laden album of it's time! The KLF were forced to pull
their 1987 album, due to copyright with ABBA. Bill Drummond and Jimmy
Cauty took the ferry to Sweden to meet ABBA, unfortunately their offices
were closed, so on the way back to ferry, they stopped and burned boxes
of their album and ditched a few boxes more overboard on the way back
to England.

The JAMs (The KLF) 1987 "What The f**k Is Going On?"

Image


Besides that, lots of other artists have sampled the big K, whether those artists cleared
it with Kraftwerk or not is a different story!

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:53 pm
by matia
I just want to toss in here that a great book pertaining to much of what is spoken of here is Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture. I don't want to paraphrase too much but the section on piracy needs to be read to really understand, at least from a general peripheral, the history of who exactly stole/pirated and whose side the law was on.

-matia

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 8:23 pm
by TRANSISTOR FACE
Best use of a Kraftwerk sample ever?

I think so.


Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 3:55 am
by Ashe37
madtheory wrote:
Ashe37 wrote:Not necessarily dead artists, but more specific intellectual properties. There's a reason that the expiration extensions that keep getting passed are nicknamed "Mickey Mouse extensions".
I only know of one extension- what others are there? And are you saying that the Disney company have a hand in changing the law?
There have been two copyright law extensions, and both extensions have been just enough to keep the copyright on Mickey Mouse from expiring. Yes, Disney did extensive lobbying to get them.

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 5:46 pm
by madtheory
Thanks, yes, I read Lessig over 3 weeks ago, very interesting angle :)

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 3:03 am
by Dj Pound
Its a sad state of affairs in music when people i.e. buttholes try to lay claim over such trivial nuances such as chords, drum one shots and what have you.

What a detraction, a regression...STAGNATION these out for a dollar attorneys and bloated rock ego's have had on the evolution of modern music.
Cant deny greed is a factor in 90% of these types of cases.

Ideally, Art has no rules.

Lawyers and shady record label capitalists will try to tell you otherwise!

Re: Kraftwerk sample case overturned

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 11:12 pm
by Architecture
Me personally, I dont really see a problem with sampling if you plan to release music for free. And if I sample, I usually rearrange a sample and usually stay away from loops.

To me the whole debate over sampling chords, drum hits, etc, is just ludicrious. The main reason why i sample is not for the musical passage exactly, but the sound and texture of the studios that those peices were recorded in. im not just sampling a trumpet sound for the sake of a trumpet, im sampling its atmosphere.