Legal Or Not? Options

[lepetitmartien]

To get back on the problem sui generis, as long it can be heard publicly and not only in the friends/family circle (the letter of the law is even more restrictive, but we can say it's still fair use) and "like that" on the net (without some ID system to keep passerby off) it's touchy.

One thing you can do is to credit the rights owners (even with a generic sentence not explicitly naming them) like: all rights to the original composition etc./whatever belongs to their owners. If you are the owner of representing him and find this offending your/his rights in any way, we'll remove the offending material on simple demand. Please do not copy this material in any way etc. The only purpose of this material here is for the entertainment of my family and friends only.

That's the idea, you're a good boy, don't want to offend and you keep low profile. Note I'm NOT a US lawyer (note that with our DADVSI law here, it's going to be very very funny soon…)

[coldharbour]

On a side note i sampled Sonic Youth for one of my tracks, i met them and asked them if it was ok. They told me that unless I sold a heap of records it was ok. If I made a lot of money, it would be trouble.

Moneywise that's the way it goes, but on a side note : the band / artist itself can not give the permission to use any of the samples etc. of their material unless they hold the master copyrights and the song copyrights themselves. This very rarely is the case, as the record company owns the master and the publisher owns the song. The attorneys working for big companies couldn't care less if they wanna sue you and you tell them the band itself gave you the permission.

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.

It's not illegal, the samples PE used were cleared and paid by the record company. You can still make tracks like that, but of course it's quite expensive as you might have to pay quite a big sum of money for every sample you use - that's just the way it goes.

Many big hip hop / rnb artists nowadays don't sample anymore, they recreate the bits they wanna use by simply playing them again and tweaking the sound to sound like the original. This way you don't have to pay the master copyright (for the sample), you just pay royalties to the publisher according to the song copyright.

I think it's absolutely clear that if you use something someone else has created, you are to do it at his / her terms. If the original artist wants money, then you will pay or not use the sample. If you don't think it's worth it, then just don't use it.

Nevertheless, many artists still rely on heavy sampling, take Fatboy Slim and DJ Shadow for instance.

[straydog]

Things would be simpler if artists could just solve these matters between themselves, it's just a matter of respect for one's wishes, as prrcom said, yet there are always individuals willing to abuse this understanding, and then the law and the lawyers and the record companies come in, making things even more complicated... law is always a cold, dumb thing, unable to understand the difference between use and abuse or between intention and result, yet more and more each day the record companies are taking away artistic freedom and the goverments are voting new laws to support them earning on the backs of musicians. Where are the laws that would protect myself concerning the terms of my contract, where are the laws that would prevent them from marketing in anyway they think, even if I find it degrading for my product, where are the laws that would give me full copyright on what I want or not want to be done to my music, where are the laws that would keep them from making a fortune on my creations and myself getting a few pennies?

I remember a case where a local band had recorded a draft demo and had been -naturally- giving it around to gather opinions and fans. Somehow it got to the hands of a greedy record company, which published it as part of a collection, after of course getting the copyright for it, which the band thought was too early to worry about... the band saw it when it actually hit the record stores and, of course, they couldn't believe their own eyes. But the law could not protect them. Shouldn't it be obvious that you have the full copyright for something you have played, recorded and produced on your own?

It should be, but laws are there to protect the interests of bussinessmen and their pockets, not artists and their creativity, I think this was the whole "fuck the law" concept from the begginning...because if artists could get a decent portion of what the companies are making, nobody would actually have to worry about a small site using their music or a DJ using an 8 second sample... unless there was something ethical in the way, of course.

LepetitMartien, what is DADVSI law?

By the way, I always find such conversations thrilling... it's very interesting and helpful exchanging opinions on these matters that concern us all (though I would still prefer being able to play music without having to think about them at all)

Ce message a été modifié par straydog - lun. 3 avril 2006, 11:28.

[abcdaniel]

No, PE didn't get their samples cleared and payed for by the record company until the "Apocalypse '91" album. On that album they moved away from their style of intensely cut up collages, because they couldn't afford to pay for it. Read about it here: http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/2...blic_enemy.html Goodbye pop music evolution.

The basic premise is like this: It is illegal to use samples of recordings you don't have copyright to, but if you got enough money, you can pay for the right to use them. At startingpoint, it is illegal. You can buy yourself legal.

But there is no fixed sum for how much a sample costs. Some copyright holders are very aggressive, demanding millions. Like you said, it is most often not the artist, as in the case even with indie templates Sonic Youth, but the record company who owns the copyright of the recording.

It would be really nice to rework the framework of intellectual rights and payments, so that it actually enhances the the position of musicians and composers, instead of just fortifying control and cash-flow for record companies. You could have fixed rates for samples, like 20% off the revenue of that song to be split among the sampled artists. You could have the Internet Service Providers sending part of the revenues they get from the filesharing push for broadband, to the the downloaded artists.

JusClownin: I think you can put your music online. The lawyer army probably won't bother you until you make cash, and the lawyer army is costly, so they won't be engaged in something that isn't likely to bring in at least a heap of cash. The little disclaimer lepetitmartien suggested seems like a good idea.

Ce message a été modifié par abcdaniel - lun. 3 avril 2006, 11:47.

[Mac Daddy]

You have got to be the most dumb person on Earth. Not a musician, use/misuse/abuse musician hard earn work, without paying them (Sweat Shop Personified) Enter a musicians Forum and ask if its alright if you rip us off and then some other dumb ass thief says: "It's ok? He does not speak for me. Use my stuff, like I said, I'll kick your ass, physically, then have my lawer kick whats left. Power to the people... Son you don't know what that saying means or how many died up holding it... It sure had nothing to do with "Ripping People Off"... More like ripping the Government off. You suck. Nothing wrong with my temperment by the way, I smoke some of the finest 'Stuff' Europe has to offer... Usually keeps me very calm and mellow... Then I see ugly wrong crap and go the other way... Hope you do some time for the crime... Bet you're real pretty?!

[straydog]

"Nothing wrong with my temperment by the way, I smoke some of the finest 'Stuff' Europe has to offer... Usually keeps me very calm and mellow... Then I see ugly wrong crap and go the other way..."

You should go back to your "normal" temperament, I have trouble understanding what you're trying to say...

[Mac Daddy]

I'm old enough to be Diddys daddy and your daddy too from the sounds of things. Only thing I steal is hearts son. Original... I don't think there is anyone on Earth more original than me. DOB 11-11. Four one's. There's a thang called Numerology... Check out dem numbers. Son I'm the Alpha-Omega if there was ever one.

Just don't steal son... that's what this is about. Your inability to create. Can't help you there... But, rest assurred there are more of your "types" than creatives.

Mac Daddy is because this is the Mac Forum. I am hardly a Daddy when it comes to Mac Computers... I thought it was funny. My name is: 'King'

If Mac Daddy has been around for 60 years then I get to use it Sonny. You probably were not even born when I was Macking back in the 60's sucka... You ain't got enuff game to play with me son... I don't want to say something to destroy your little mind, so go on and play with some of your peers... You can't hang.

[straydog]

Now I understand... it has been your huge egoism that has been blocking your eyesight from the beginning and preventing you from adressing all of the important questions published here. And your simplistic black/white approach and insults have been just its concrete reinforcements.

By the way, who asked to play with you????

[lepetitmartien]

LepetitMartien, what is DADVSI law?

It's the french law under examination which is so stupidly made that it will just make more piracy… it's not definitive, but if it becomes so, it'll be a disaster for private liberties and authors alike. Even the Majors (intensively lobbying behind for this text) will gnaw their fingers in the end.

It can even make forbid free software or mail clients…

I'd like the discussion on the side issues to keep civil, MM is no boxing ring and we are clearly against piracy on the site by respect to people visiting (editors, composers, developers…) and for legal reasons. And it's certainly not a subject people can get violent in.

We are on a limit of fair use here, and it's certainly not to make cash, so cool down.

Have a bier

[straydog]

So, France is under copyrights confusion too... In Greece laws are still pretty unclear, and most new ones are directly imported from the U.S., without actually having much to do with how people think of the whole copyright issue... and piracy is still at large...

You are absolutely right about violence, it was not my actual intention, but if you find my last comment to be offensive you are more than welcome to delete it.

And since we are talking about laws and perhaps need to lighten things a little, the most stupid law to ever hit Greece was when, about two years ago, a TV journalist (sort of anyway) had "exposed" cases of internet gambling. Everybody went crazy, and the result was a law actually banning all forms of electronic entertainment and closing down internet cafes... of course it was never actually put to extended use, a few cafes shut down, but the gamers did their own little revolutions and it was soon put away. Anyway, it goes to show how bad an advisor panic is, and how little law-makers are actually in touch with new technology or the public demands.

I guess you have some of those geniuses in France too...

Wanna share???