Legal Or Not? Options

[hahaworld]

3 things (briefly):

1. Copying music is illegal whether the music is officially copywritten or not. Even if you don't make a profit off it, it's illegal.
2. There is a difference between music that is "public domain" and "out to the public." I put my original music out to the public, but I am still alive. Therefore, it's not public domain.
3. Fuck the law? Great idea! I'll be by your house later on to break in and rob you blind.

p.s. Congratulations, abcdaniel. You got goddamn and bullshit and fuck (albeit an abbreviated one in the wtf acronym) into your post! All three! Always a pleasure to wade through junior-high level vocabulary in these forums. Thanks for keeping the intellectual bar so high.

[abcdaniel]

Yeah, well, I was a bit drunk when I wrote that last post. But it is not junior high level, it is serious stuff. If you can't grasp that level, however you define it, then that is your problem.

The whole intellectual property legal fanatism is blocking creativity. When hiphop came along it used bits of old recordigs in a collage way, like had been done in visual arts for a long time. The idea was to build something with new meaning from known fragments of audio with a meaning and cultural interpretation already in place.

Many composers did it, had fun with music, chopping, changing meanings, digging after forgotten pieces of pop culture. Public Enemy then revolutionized popular music by taking this approach to the extreme, and really chopping and blending like crazy, making previously unheard music. The albums Public Enemy released around 1990 are still the most contemporary pop music around. Unfortunately, this music is illegal.

Public Enemy, along with many others, had to stop their creative pursuit, because lawyers figured out that you could sue these artists for all their money. That doesn't hold up. No more contemporary music.

That we, as creative artists, are letting this happen, and even endorse it, is really depressing. How can music be illegal?!? How can creativity be illegal?!? This is dystopia.

I make music, I like to get payed for it, but when you put something out to the public, wether it is art, litterature, music, commercials, whatever, it must be free to be used by the public. It is a question of freedom, openness and of a societal dialogue and evolution. If you desperately want to control your work, if you don't want anyone to play around with it, then leave it in the drawer. And I'm not talking about piracy here, only about letting the public discourse be public.

How would you feel if you had to pay royalties to architects for every photo you took with a building in the background? How would you like to get sued over the photos you took? i'm an architect too, I know a bunch of others, we could probably do you in quite good.

I make illegal music.

Ce message a été modifié par abcdaniel - dim. 2 avril 2006, 10:21.

[Mac Daddy]

Like I said: This is plain dumb. Stupid. You are stealing from musicians no matter what you or any others say. What don't you understand about: Thou Shall Not Steal? Nothing wrong with my thinking... I know too many music thieves... I detest them...

Only 7 notes in music, can't you create anything. Ain't about lawyers, it's about basic right and wrong. All who support this are the lowest smallest least talented suck butts of all... That's right, especially... You.

[straydog]

Thou shall not possess what is, by its own nature, unpossessable (unless you are willing to keep it to your headphones, of course)

Degrading music to such a low as pure materialism is a pretty shallow way of thinking, to say the least. Music always worked by applying one's creativity upon another's, before hip hop there was jazz and before jazz there was blues, and it always involved listening to one another and exchanging ideas to create new ones. What has changed nowadays?

We're gonna play a game that's funny
get the get the get the money

This whole copyright paranoia, as supported by the big music bussiness, has sadly found its way into artists who probably have their eyes fixed into their pockets rather than their instruments, forgetting the simple fact that if what you make is good it can never be harmed, no matter how many interpretations...But that's not the point, right?

Money money money money money

Next thing we know we're gonna be sued for playing a riff that was in a '60s song we never even heard of, or be arrested by the FBI for humming a tune in the streets....

Jusclowning, it's a good thing you changed your mind about the website. Even if lawyers weren't after you in the beggining, mac daddy would be sure to get them now

(I don't play "illegal" music, but I support it every chance I get)

[JusClownin]

It's good to know there are actual people who can see behind all of the corporate crap and get down to the essence of what's real. Look, any of you who are offended at the idea that someone is out there laying down their own vocals on someone else's instrumentals, well, I'm sorry you take offense to that. As a musician, albiet an amateur one, but a musician no less, I am in the grand pursuit of what is music to MY EARS.

But, I guess that's what's beautiful about life. I can do the things that make ME happy, as long as those things do not hurt or intrude on anyone else's life. I'm not here to get rich off of someone else's hard work, believe me. I have a job and I know just how much blood, sweat and tears can be put into someone's music, but at the same time, that music was made to be enjoyed, and dare I say it, don't put out an instrumental version of your song if you don't want people singing on them. For all of you who do, thank you for providing me tools for me to make great songs that I listen to every day...thus providing me with joy, which is I'm sure was you're whole intent.

Oh, and Mac Daddy, for someone harping on originality so much, gotta say I love the name, change Mac to Puff and I think you have your idol...he uses other people's beats, but he paid for them, so that makes it great right? hahah.

[prrcomm]

Let's extend this f**k the law concept.

Given that line of logic, whatever a painter, sculptor, actor, director, author or anyone involved with the creative arts should not get paid for his or her work.

If one feels so passionately about one's art that he or she wants to create it and let it be used by the world without compensation, God bless you. There are, however, some artisans that would like to make a living at what they do. How dare anyone deny them of that right? Copyright laws are designed to protect those people.

I am a voicover artist by trade. I'm not independently wealthy; matter of fact, I'm downright poor. Someone uses one of my works, I want to be paid. It's my right. Don't crack my stones because of it. I will certainly respect your right to do as you wish with your art.

And i9nsn't that what it's all about...respect?

[JaMen]

"Oh, and Mac Daddy, for someone harping on originality so much, gotta say I love the name, change Mac to Puff and I think you have your idol...he uses other people's beats, but he paid for them, so that makes it great right? hahah."


The name "Mac Daddy" has been around for years, even before Sean Combs was employed at any place of business.

[abcdaniel]

The law prohibits us from making certain music. That is not acceptable. Laws shouldn't regulate how we are allowed to express ourselves.

This discussion is not about payment, but about control vs freedom. It is about our creativity. Obviously we should get payed for our work, but once it is out in the public sphere, it must be allowed to be used by the public. Control ends there. Should litterary quotes be banned? Paraphrases, caricatures, reworks, references, who owns them? Who should be allowed to do them?

The answer is: Everyone.
That is our dialogue, our culture, our society.

If you are involved in creative arts, you do a job and you get payed for it. You make a record, someone buys it, you get money. Your music is played on the radio, you get money. Simple. You make a sculpture, someone buys it. You make a play, people pays for entrance. We should get payed. We should be allowed to be as creative as we can imagine too.

[banevt]

copyright laws? When an object of art is exposed to the public it really isn't your property anymore, it belongs to the public whether or not you like it. Your idea/art/interpretation has affected them. If you say something to someone you can't really ever take it back. What's done is done, they will always remember or at least have taken into account what you said in their overall impression of you. You can try to fight and claw for every dime you can get "legally" but thinking that you own it is a very strange idea to me. I can understand wanting to be paid for what you do and if someone were to copy word for word and try to take credit for something you did I can understand the anger. On the other hand they do say that imitation is the highest form of flattery. This is a tough topic to nail down with an overall right and wrong, black and white attitude or solution. I have a friend that I get together with and we take bits of TV, movies, sounds and sometimes visuals from where ever and layer and affect them with our own sounds and interpretation to make sort of an audio/visual collage. We'd like to think that it is a new form of art once we have processed all that input information, even if it happens to use pieces of other peoples creativity. If I were to take a bass track and cut up the notes to make a new bass part would that be my work or the original bass players work? If I took the bass track unedited and created a new song around that bass part is that my work or the bass players? All of humanity is built from one persons ideas taken by other people and used in different ways or added to and creating totally new or only slightly different ideas. The idea that you can own something abstract or "intellectual property" has come from the greedy mindsets of commerce. I guess we have to ask ourselves whether we are artists or merchants.

[JusClownin]

I'm sorry to have started such a dialogue here. If you look back to my original post, you'll find that what I was asking was not "will I be sued if I rip someone's music off to make money off of it."

I guess it goes as far as, "should someone be sued for singing karaoke at home and recording it so they can enjoy it with their friends and family?"

Of course you should feel entitled to compensation if someone uses your work for firnancial gain or even notoriety that leads to it. What would worry me more is how little of these artists get any kind of compensation while the big wigs in the recording industries make out like fat cats.

At the end of the day, I believe, that you should be creating art to feed your soul not your stomach...if you can make money from it, all the power to you, but the fact that others are enjoying your creation as much as you should be great too.

Regardless, I understand the differing views and please believe I have respect for the artists.