Re: [linux-audio-user] so.... u wish to hear something completely horrible

On Wednesday 23 August 2006 08:30, Lee Revell was like:
> On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 13:57 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> > Well, the liklihood of me remixing a tune from anyone on this list
> > without letting them know well in advance is pretty slim.
> >
> > But in my book any tune which I have...
> >
> > A: paid for
> > B: Remixed live and found a way to either improve or modify it to make
> > a
> > new point
> > C: found a sample that helps me to save time and money
>
> Really, the problem is that copyright law does not distinguish between a
> DJ who samples copyrighted music for his gigs where a few hundred people
> turn out at best, and a huge movie studio that uses a copyrighted song
> in a soundtrack for a movie that grosses millions without paying.
> Obviously (IMHO anyway) the first should be legal, the second illegal.
> At least, if I were the copyright owner I'd feel ripped off by the
> latter, but not the former.
>
> IOW, I agree that some aspects of copyright law are broken and don't
> reflect reality, but I believe the concept of copyright is valid.
>
> I had a DJ friend who made an entire album using only samples from
> Metallica's "And Justice For All" - it was brilliant, and if you didn't
> know, you'd have no idea it was all Metallica samples. That should
> obviously be legal, and just as obviously, Puff Daddy taking Zep's
> "Kashmir" and looping it over a beat without paying for it would (and
> should) be illegal.
>
> Unfortunately, to really have a fair copyright law, I'm afraid you'd
> have to adopt a "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" type
> definition.

Thanks for your clarity on these complex issues, Lee. Clearly DJing should not
be outlawed by this discussion. In terms of traditional Vinyl DJing, the
copyright is satisfied by the venue paying public performance rights,
copyright can theoretically be traced by reading the record labels. I think
if a piece is clearly presented as a DJ mix and the component parts are given
correct attribution, then morally I would rest my case even if copyright law
does say otherwise.

However, if a piece is presented as an original work and you are claiming
authorship, then I think it is reasonable to say that one SHOULD seek
permission for samples used. OK, this definition would create a fair number
of corner cases, but it's far from fluffy.

In any case respect is the issue.

-- 
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
We are the people We've been waiting for.