> << I would assign most of the responsibility
> to record companies, which are notorious for the tenacity and ferocity
> with which they pursue every conceivable claim against allies and
> competitors alike. The lawyers are mere functionaries in the process. >>
> The thing is, it really is a direct rip-off. I'd have sued too!
It only seem to be a "rip-off" because you grew up in a culture where
legislators _defined_ derivative art as "theft". They did such a good
job of propagandizing this idea that it seems "natural" to most people
who might be surprized to know how recent the idea is. And those
legislators were--guess who--lawyers, the consummate monopolists.
> But in today's song market it seems really strange to sue, because today's
> music is so dirivative! And then using other musician's music even to the
> point where we are actually USED to hearing stolen music. We expect it!
> Dubbing and using sound clips is normal now... yesterday my neighbor was
> sampling James Brown.. that's wrong... like sampling the beatles...
> But then I like Beck so I better shut up
All art is derivative, and always has been. Shakespeare never wrote
a story in his life (he just reworded other people's stories). All
music comes from common scales and harmonies that have been part of
the public domain for centuries. Sampling is nothing but applying
modern technologies to the age-old art of collage; if Rembrandt or
Mozart had had computers, you can bet they'd have been doing it too.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:45 MDT