Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Announcements Your Rights Online

Don't Waste Culture, Recycle Art 101

Posted by michael from the plastics-and-metal-in-the-blue-bags dept.
Eddan Katz writes "Stepping up the copyright battle on behalf of artists, EFF is hosting an event tonight called Digital Mix at the Black Box in Oakland. Between laptop music, hip hop, and illegal art films, speakers will talk about the Creative Commons sampling license and EFF's "Let the Music Play" campaign."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Don't Waste Culture, Recycle Art More

Don't Waste Culture, Recycle Art

Comments Filter:

  • Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)

    by cultobill ( 72845 ) on Friday July 25, 2003 @05:22PM (#6535649)
    Not the most helpful EFF page I've seen. "Yeah, party. Here's who is coming"

    The Box site, however:
    On July 25th, from 8pm till 2am, the Electronic Frontier Foundation will host a night of music, art, and conversation to celebrate digital culture. Hosted at the Oakland Box in downtown Oakland, this special BayFF will bring up-and-coming artists of electronica, digital film, and illegal art together with leaders from the cyber-rights movement. Lawsuits and legislation have become the weapons of choice for dealing with file-sharing and cultural recycling("sampling"); come out and discover what all the hype is about. Between laptop music, hip hop, and industrial performances, you will hear from people who are fighting to protect new forms of expression and cultural distribution from the attacks of the entertainment industry. This is an all-ages event.
    • Sounds like a lot of money is spent when it could've been paying for a viable alternative... But oh well, maybe it'll educate a few people.. after all, it can't cost that much, maybe a few songs at 12000$ each..

  • Isn't it a little weird... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Friday July 25, 2003 @05:23PM (#6535653)
    To have an article about not wasting culture right after an article about the first Petri dish baby?

  • What is an illigal art film? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Idimmu Xul ( 204345 ) on Friday July 25, 2003 @05:24PM (#6535657) Homepage Journal
    Are they just stealing movies from Kazaa again?

    (But seriously.. what is one pls?)
    • http://www.illegal-art.org/

      Didn't Andy Warhol do this kind of thing already? I guess back then it was just called "art".

      Slap pictures of soup cans on a canvas now, and you'll have lawyers up your a$$ in 20 sec (5 seconds do put the soup can labels on there, 15 seconds to relish in your genius).
      • Parent should probably be modded insightful, although I can understand the funny mod. Warhol is probably the most known example of this kind of art, but there's also cut-up artists, and the EBM musicians with their sampled clips from the media. Makes me wonder how much an artist today could get away with...
        • I think you mean EBN, not EBM -- stands for Emergency Broadcast Network.

          EBN does some really cool music/video work. It's very clever, if not brilliant. I really enjoyed their cover of "We Will Rock You" done using video clips of George Bush (Sr.) and Bill Clinton, including the infamous clip of Clinton playing sax on a late night talk show. (There were other clips too, especially ones from old military propaganda films.)

          I thought it was both slick and funny how they used a clip of Harrison Ford screami
          • No, I meant EBM - Electric Body Music (Or in some cases European Body Music). It could be it's a Europe only phenomenon, but it was a style of synth pop which saw it's top somewhere around end of the eighties beginnig of nineties, although it's still somewhat popular among the synthheads. The foremost bands were Front 242 and Frontline Assembly. Reading your comment I realize this wave might have never reached the US. Oh well, it's your loss, but do check out those bands if you like synth.
      • " I guess back then it was just called "art"."

        No, even back then the cognosenti regarded it as the pure shite that it actually was.

    • Re:What is an illigal art film? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mkro ( 644055 ) on Friday July 25, 2003 @05:34PM (#6535731)
      Basically, it means using images/music/trademarks without permission to make a new, standalone movie.

      Check out http://www.illegal-art.org/video/ [illegal-art.org] for some good examples. Some are crap, some are funny, but I found in particular "Spin" a bit interesting.

    • Re:What is an illigal art film? (Score:4, Informative)

      by cybercyph ( 221022 ) on Friday July 25, 2003 @05:36PM (#6535756)
      illegal art is art that, according to this site [illegal-art.org], has sparked a law suit. examples are parodies of corporate logos, uses of trade marked charecters (like mickey or spiderman or barbie), and the like

    • Don's Plum (Score:3, Interesting)

      by IntelliTubbie ( 29947 )
      Don's Plum [imdb.com] is, in the US at least, an illegal art film. It stars Tobey Maguire and Leonardo DiCaprio, and according to what I've heard (though I don't know anyone who's actually seen it -- please correct me if I'm wrong), it contains a lot of debauchery, drugs, homosexuality, a la Kids.

      So why haven't you heard of it? Because Leo and Tobey decided the film would undermine their wholesome, teeny-bopper public image -- so they decided to throw their weight around and block the film from being released. The

  • Just what do they mean by illegal art ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Friday July 25, 2003 @05:24PM (#6535659)
    If the art they are showing is truly illegal this seems a fantastic way to get thrown in the clink. If its not then this becomes the work of meerly pretentious posers.
    • pretentious? moi?

      why is it pretentious? what are your reasons for saying this?

      I agree that some forms of art can be, but have you watched any of the videos that are on the illegal art website?

      The carpenters story one is really funny.
      A lot of this stuff is satire...

      now Damien Hirst for example *thats* pretentious
      (IMHO) but lots of people say it isn't.

      just because it ain't a pretty landscape doesn't mean it's pretentious.

  • I can't make it in time.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cat_Byte ( 621676 ) on Friday July 25, 2003 @05:25PM (#6535663) Journal
    Will someone record this & put it on kazaa for me?
  • Someone should videotape this event, put the video onto their TiVo, then extract that video (into tmf format) and post it. Kinda symbolic.

    (Details on how to do this are available on the web, plus elsewhere [amazon.com])

  • Clever Wording (Score:2, Interesting)

    by trisweb ( 690296 )
    "cultural recycling"
    "fighting to protect new forms of expression"
    "attacks of the entertainment industry"

    Sounds like something the entertainment industry might want to attack, and it was just genius of us to give them some publicity, don't you think?

    I can just see the bust now... try using all those catchphrases on the Oakland police, and then the RIAA lawyers... But, then again, they'll probably get away with it...

  • Let The Music Play (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Khakionion ( 544166 )
    Let's not downplay the importance of the "Let The Music Play" campaign. Go to the EFF website, print out the ad [eff.org] that's appearing in Rolling Stone, Spin et al, and post it everywhere.

    The only way to fight the **AA is to enlighten the masses who aren't aware of the problem. After that, boycotts, actual progress in Congress, the whole enchilada will be a breeze.

  • On behalf of the artists? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheAwfulTruth ( 325623 ) on Friday July 25, 2003 @05:35PM (#6535741) Homepage
    You mean on behalf of SOME of the artists. Or SOME TYPES of artists. Since the "right" to sample is frequently just one artist infringing on the "right" of another artist to protect their artistic work.

    As an artist myself, I would be a little POed if the next Millie Vanillie decided to rip a hit or a rift from a song of mine without asking. The EFF's position on this does nothing but take AWAY my rights as a musical artist.

    As usual, there are two sides to this story and one side does not invalidate the other! The rights of one do not cancel out the rights of another. And in these situations the "right" has to belong to the original creator, not the follow-on users. If some bands want to put their music up for PD sampling, then great, otherwise, as always, be polite and ask before borrowing.

    Clearing samples is not all that hard, it's done all the time. Is it really too much to just ask? It takes a LOT of effort to create new and unique soundbytes, hits and signatur rifts. Then having someone come along and take them for free without even asking is just rude.

    There are far too many people taking and not enough creating as it is. Please, don't try to tell me that it's every Joe's right to use my music for their own personal gain.

    • Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:4, Informative)

      by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Friday July 25, 2003 @05:52PM (#6535874) Journal
      Well, I've checked your posting history, and it doesn't appear you're a troll, so I'll just assume you're uninformed.

      Creative Commons [creativecommons.org] is like an open source art advocate. They do NOT promote copyright infringement. What they do is provide you with licenses you can attach to your art which give other artists select rights to use your art. For example, they have a license that allows others to use your work so long as they attribute it to you. Or they can use it for only non-commercial purposes. Or they can use it, but just can't edit it. Or they can't prevent other people from editing it after they do. Or any combination thereof. Essentially, it's the GPL for art.

      Now, if you don't want somebody using your art without your permission, then don't use a Creative Commons license. Stick with plain old copyright, and charge for your art. If, however, you'd like people to be able to use it to create works of their own, and share those works with others, then, by all means, check out Creative Commons.

    • Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Please, don't try to tell me that it's every Joe's right to use my music for their own personal gain.

      If I buy your album, sample 30 seconds of one song, and release my own album featuring your sample, how exactly are you hurt? Were you planning on recording my album at some point and now I've stolen future sales from you? Do you honestly think someone will say "eh, why should I buy that album when I can get 30 seconds of it by buying this one?"

      As an artist I would be fucking happy if someone out there

      • If I take your GPL'd code, rip off the license, and stick it in my closed-source Microsoft application, how exactly are you hurt? Were you planning on making my application at some point and now I've stolen future users from you? Do you honestly think someone will say "eh, why should I use that program when I can get 30 seconds of it by buying this one?"

        • If I take your GPL'd code, rip off the license, and stick it in my closed-source Microsoft application, how exactly are you hurt? Were you planning on making my application at some point and now I've stolen future users from you? Do you honestly think someone will say "eh, why should I use that program when I can get 30 seconds of it by buying this one?"

          I'll bite troll. Take out the part about closed-source Microsoft application and replace it with GPL. If you sample a Creative Commons work, and releas

          • Honestly wasn't trolling. The thread it was attached to was from an artist who doesn't release with a Creative Commons license (you did read what I replied to, right?). Someone was dissing him.

            I write both open-source and closed-source code, using whichever I think (or my customer/employer at the time thinks) is proper for the work.

            I think artists should have the right to do the same, and shame on anyone who doesn't respect the copyright owners. The swap on the licenses was to make people think.

            • Your post seemed to be under the assumption that everyone on Slashdot is the same guy. Using a "well then Microsoft should be able to grab some GPLed code" response to a AC who may very well have nothing to do with GNU (or open source) is going to insult a lot of people on Slashdot. From that post, I imagine the AC probably doesn't care, he may very well be distributing GPLed software, no source, under his name alongside a huge warez collection.

              You had a good point, but that sounded like a standard MS shi

              • I expect most posters to be familiar with the GPL at least, if they read here often. Slashdot also, while built of many diverse people, does have a certain trend in majority opinion....

                I also totally expect some people to think I'm trolling, but I was trying to show how much it'd piss an artist off to get ripped off. Any GPL author that understands the license and chooses it would be (rightfully) VERY pissed if their software got stuck into a closed source Microsoft application. Just like the original

        • Dear Satan's Librarian: That was the best rebuttal ever. Because this is slashdot however, noone will pay attention to it, or will dismiss you as a troll. But oh man, so good, so dead-on.

    • Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      KLF sampled stage noise from a live album by The Doors. The Freestylers sampled a small riff by Van Halen, but got no permission to use it or Van Halen wanted too much money - no big deal, they replaced the riff and still got a #1 hit. BTW, the illegal mix can be found on the net. Fact of the matter is, even without a sampler, lots of music just sounds cloned, OTOH, ingenious use of samples can fabricate completely new music - but you can't produce music that way because today you'd need to find out about a
    • every Joe's right to use my music

      As soon as you sold it to Joe, it ceased to be purely your music. He gave you money, and you gave him music. He lost money, you gained money. He gained music, you lost WHAT?

      Why do you think that somehow you should still have *absolute* control over what you sold him?

      All information is based on the work of others. Modern musicians don't seem to understand that thousands of years of musicians are responsible for what they are able to do. Did you come up with polyphany
    • Creating is silly. Creating is pure exploration. Not involved in the actual building process. What makes a song valuable is what you can recognize and relate to. Sampling is a tool for builders. Builders are the ones with the concepts, the art. A random number generator can be tweaked to create music. SSEYO.com's Koan Pro is proof.

      Artists who do not build are well IMHO, frauds. What you call soundbytes and signature riffs I call Novelty. Builders do not use novelty.

      Real artists don't get all teary eyed wh
    • I agree with you. EFF was founded by John Perry Barlow, who wrote some music for the Grateful Dead and doesn't want to prevent other people from sharing his music. It seems that EFF thinks every artist, writer or programmer should behave this way.

      Let me get this way: millions use Kazaa or whatever to get music, films and software without paying what the copyright holder demands for it. If you do this and don't get a subpoena, fine, but don't expect that the law should change for you. It is not everybody'

      • my point is that I know it is not my right to do this forever.

        yeah; only on days when I don't feel like getting on my high moral horse.

        If you think sharing music is stealing, then don't do it. But if you do it yourself don't point accusatory fingers at everyone else who doesn't think it's criminal.

    • Or SOME TYPES of artists. Since the "right" to sample is frequently just one artist infringing on the "right" of another artist to protect their artistic work.

      Protect it from what? No harm is done to an artist when another samples his song. There is literally no bad that can come of it. Clearing samples is nothing more than one more way for major labels to squeeze some more money out of the industry.

      Using samples is an art form. Back in the day, when things like "Paul's Boutique" came out, it was this

      • Protect it from what? No harm is done to an artist when another samples his song. There is literally no bad that can come of it.

        As I said before (and I'm saying it again because it's responsive, in context, and I'm hopeful the author of the parent will see the reply and respond), what if the sample of your work is used without your permission in Nazi, White Supremacy or Anti-Semitic music [panzerfaust.com], and you disaprove? Why should the fruit of your creativity and your labor be used without your permission to promot

        • Your reply is a very smart one, basically showing the one instance that can make a sampled riff detrimental to a performer's character.

          But think about it a bit further. Isn't that what libel suits are for? If I used a bit of a U2 song in my own nazi song (we're talking for instance here, I damn sure don't write nazi songs), and it made it seem like Bono was speaking in favor of nazis, I could rightfully be sued for libel. On the other hand, I believe I should be able to a simple guitar riff in a pro-nazi
        • Why should the fruit of your creativity and your labor be used without your permission to promote people, ideas and movements you loath?

          Why not? Remember when Jefferson said that creative works were like fire? Able to be spread, and to illuminate the originator equally as much as later persons who partake of it.

          This argument is pretty foolish. It isn't for the artist to control such matters any more than it should be possible for Ford to tell people that they mustn't sell used cars to Jews in respect for
        • You shouldn't be able to prevent someone from using your ideas like that, any more than you should be able to prevent a Nazi from footnoting a book you wrote in his own work. Should Nietzsche's estate (or, for that matter, Aristotle's) have been able to sue Hitler for making hateful use of his ideas? If you don't like it, don't make your ideas public. You quote the Berne convention, but frankly I think it goes too far in overturning the purpose of copyright in the American perspective (which was once muc
        • As I said before [...] what if the sample of your work is used without your permission in Nazi, White Supremacy or Anti-Semitic music, and you disaprove? Why should the fruit of your creativity and your labor be used without your permission to promote people, ideas and movements you loath?

          And how are you going to stop that? Let's say you're a pacifist who's written a song "Stop the man". It's entirely legal for a bunch of neo-Nazis to sit around and play that song and use it to explain why the Jews must b

      • Why is the parent comment only modded 3, Insightful? This is the most insightful comment on artistic expression I've read anywhere, ever.

    • Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The rights of one do not cancel out the rights of another.

      Uh... exactly. Someone sampling your rift (sic) doesn't in any way harm you. If anything it will make the listener curious as to where that killer beat came from and cause him/her to seek out the original.

      Just because you think you're the first person in history to play six notes in a particular sequence (and btw, you're wrong) doesn't mean that everyone else needs to give you cash just to make music. If that were the case the "inventor" of the

      • The rights of one do not cancel out the rights of another.

        Uh... exactly. Someone sampling your rift (sic) doesn't in any way harm you. If anything it will make the listener curious as to where that killer beat came from and cause him/her to seek out the original.

        What if the sample of your work is used without your permission in Nazi, White Supremacy or Anti-Semitic music [panzerfaust.com], and you disaprove? Why should the fruit of your creativity and your labor be used without your permission to promote people, idea

        • >Article 6bis

          >(1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.

          Isn't that rather counter to to concept of criticism under Fair Use Doctrine? Well, not really I suppose, as it says the original author can po
    • I liked old school rap, I listened to old school rap. Rock-influenced, rock-sampled, funk-based old school rap. Remember those days? Everyone from the smallest underground to the Beastie Boys' Licensed to Ill used samples like crazy. I don't think anyone would consider Slow Ride to have been Low Rider, but it relied heavily on the signature horn sequence. She's Crafty was based on a Led Zeppelin riff. But it was far from a Led Zeppelin song.

      Even Beck, who got a grammy for "Best Album" for his sample-

    • As an artist myself, I would be a little POed if the next Millie Vanillie decided to rip a hit or a rift from a song of mine without asking. The EFF's position on this does nothing but take AWAY my rights as a musical artist. ...

      The rights of one do not cancel out the rights of another. And in these situations the "right" has to belong to the original creator, not the follow-on users.

      I am not sure what "rights" you are talking about here. After you have released/sold your music or your creation to public

      • If I decided to launch cds and charge people to shoot at them, I would not need to ask your permission. Sadly, in Whinersville, Anycountry, European Union I probably could get fined and jailed.

        Go live in the EU. They'll kiss your ass to hear every worthless note you play.

    • In defense of "illegal" art (Score:4, Interesting)

      by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Friday July 25, 2003 @07:10PM (#6536618)
      Get real. Nobody is stealing your art or taking away your rights. Incorporating samples and riffs into new pieces of art is just the natural evolution of art given advances in technology. Art builds on previous works; it always has. If you're a musician, did you make up every single note, chord, or chord progression that you play? Of course not. Is that stealing? No; it's learning. Now I'm not going to deny that there are people who make works that are nothing but copies of other peoples' works, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about using snippits of other peoples' work and incorporating it into a new work that is clearly and identifiably not a derivative of the previous work.

      For example, Rob Base & DJ EZ Rock's 80's (or early 90s?) hit "It Takes Two" has a brilliant beat that is made up of samples directly taken from older funk songs. People knew the songs but nobody thought it was a ripoff; the combination of samples was ingenious. I don't know whether they cleared the samples -- I suspect not, since it was relatively early in the era of the digital sampler and the performance DJ; probably a bit before all the legal maneuvering that resulted in the current practice of "clearing" samples -- but in either case I don't believe they should have to, any more than any blues guitarist should have to pay to incorporate a standard blues progression into a new song. There's a difference between playing the same thing yourself on the guitar and using a sampler to play it only if you don't believe the sampler (or turntable) can itself be a musical instrument.

      Now, I do think samples should be credited, absolutely in the case of big hits that turn an obscure old funk riff into dancefloor anthems; the only reason they aren't widely credited is because people are afraid of being sued. I DJ, and I know the crowd goes crazy when they hear what they think is the intro to a Fat Boy Slim song, only to hear the original funk record from the early 70s. Almost every time someone comes up to me and asks me who is remaking a fatboy slim song and I have to explain that it is Camille Yarbrough's beautiful voice that is sampled by Fatboy Slim and not the other way around. Fatboy Slim's song is a totally different song, unique and valid in its own right as an original work of art. But it clearly pays tribute to an earlier work, and the work is clearly credited (though in tiny print).

      Now, I'm glad if the artist herself got paid for the sample, though I suspect the deal was cut strictly between record companies. But I don't think it is necessary to pay the artist or "clear" the sample any more than it would be necessary to pay shakespeare's estate for making a modern version of romeo and juliette. I don't object to the economic arrangement or the courtesy call ("We're going to sample your work in this new song and would like to know how you'd like to be credited"), but beyond that I absolutely disagree with an artist's (or company working on behalf of the artist) right to control whether or not you can use a sample. Whether or not Fatboy paid Camille Yarbrough to use the sample, she did get paid from his use of the sample in terms of increased popularity in an era when she would otherwise be forgotten (in fact, she had been forgotten until he came around). In either case I don't think she should have the right to say "no, you can't use the sample at all" to an artist making reasonable use of portions of her work with credit.

      What bothers me most is people using that right to stifle artistic expression, prevent parody and silence criticism. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and any successful artist who doesn't see that is too blinded by their own ego to be making the rules about intellectual property.

      • except for my completly origonal composition in z flat major/minor in 3.1419/42 time for the dildophone with me rapping over it in a language which i invented especially for this song...

        seriously though, one of the ways i've heard about a lot of older music was through people sampling/covering/remaking it later (a lot of people i know got into james brown after they found out that clyde stubblefield was the drummer that was sampled on so many songs they liked,etc) and the way things are now people have

    • Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      songs with rifts have problems... you mean riffs
    • Boohoo. It takes more than looping a catchy RIFF to make a hit.

      Sorry bud, using samples takes skills too.

      There is little that hasn't been played before. And I highly doubt you are all that innovative. Deflate ego.

    • First of all, there are more than two sides to this story. Why do so many assume this fight is between the "I should get all my music for free" crowd and "everyone is infringing the RIAA's rights, so the RIAA should be allowed complete control over the internet and all computers!"

      I can't even see where the EFF is saying people should take music for free. At least not in the linked urls. Their "Let the Music Play" page says: "The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that allows music lovers

  • I wonder how long this 'illegal gathering of infringers' will last before the RIAA's personal 'IP Enforcement Team' busts down the doors and 'protects their copyrights' by shooting everybody unless they sign over all of their assets.

  • illegal films are cool (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday July 25, 2003 @05:49PM (#6535849) Homepage
    Too bad they must be kept underground and the makers anon because of greed.

    Most indie films and "fan films" are illegal. because they use a song without paying the artist $897,554,665,32 to use it, or because the creator is a big idiot, (See lucas for the big idiot example)

    I have found that if you look past the fact they didn't spend 22 million to make the film, they are actually very good, entertaining, and actually usually better quality than what comes out of Hollywood. (as in story and plot.)
  • You can avoid being sued or arrested if you download legal music instead of getting your tunes from the p2p networks. You also don't need to deal with Digital Rights Management.

    Many unsigned and independent musicians provide free downloads of their music on their websites as a way to attract more fans. Here's some from my friend Oliver Brown [kingturtle.com] for example. Many such musicians, while relatively unknown, are as good as any major label band and certainly an improvement over the pablum they serve up on ClearChannel.

    You can find many more examples in my new article:

    The article also explores some of the historical and legal issues behind copyright, and suggests steps the file traders can take to make file sharing legal.

    If you're a musician who offers downloads of your music, I can link to your band's website from the article if you give my article a reciprocal link. Please follow the instructions given here [goingware.com]

    And yes I have been posting this to Slashdot repeatedly for several days, because I think it's important for people to understand there's a way to get quality, free music without breaking any laws, while at the same time benefiting the many talented, hardworking musicians who aren't signed with a major label.

    • Nice article. I linked it from my site (which has a whopping TWO legal mp3s of some "music" I did back in the early 90s).

      I wonder why you don't mention negativland.com anywhere in the main article page, though. While their music may not be terribly popular (they do have some free downloads on their site) they are constantly on the forefront of the battle for Fair Use rights and against the expanding "intellectual property" movement. They also have an excellent page [negativland.com] of other articles on the topic-- includ
    • What's wrong with downloading legal music from the p2p networks? Or are they limitted to only illegal copyrighted material?
      • The problem with most p2p networks is that you don't know the legality of what you're getting. If you download a song from an artist you've never heard of, how do you know they gave their permission for their file to be on the network?

        But there are p2p networks for downloading legal music. Some of them use digital signatures to authenticate the legality of the files. Here's the ones I've found so far:

        I talk ab

  • I'm glad to see the EFF not only supports the digitial music initative but also mildly practices the fundamentals behind the MP3 drive and file-sharing.

    Their campaign title, "Let The Music Play" was a well known song in the 80s by a group called Shannon.

    So, by (and I use the term loosely to be modded interesting) "infringing on the copyrights" and using a well-known song title as the campaign against the RIAA [eff.org], it was not only clever marketing, but a witty double entendre. :)

  • Ilegal Art (Score:3, Interesting)

    by didjit ( 34494 ) on Friday July 25, 2003 @05:54PM (#6535884) Homepage
    As part of the illegal art expo at SF MOMA this month, they've had several shows. I went to one in SF last week which was quite cool. The movement to protect this artform and avoid massive lawsuits seems similar to some of the problems faced in the open source movement. Perhaps there should be an open source music movement now. These artists/musicians/filmmakers are interested in freedom of expression through using other people's work in new and creative ways.
  • To show the fact that nobody can own idea, why not create anonymous music? I suppose it'd have to be instrumental though. Remember, nobody can own an idea.
  • I'm part of the discussions about the new sampling license (don't be impressed, anyone can be (see link in article)). I had various problems with the existing licenses (they allow advertisers to use your work for free, no open-source clauses), and I'm very excited that they decided to tack another license onto their pile. I'm very happy with my own [rootrecords.org] (based on the GPL), but I very much like the idea of standardization. If we all used one of a set of licenses, it would give the open-source-* movement that much
  • take a look at this Free Art License [artlibre.org] based on the GPL, but aimed at covering the Copyleft distribution terms of any artform.

    it's the only one to make a difference between an original artwork and its copies, which may seem irellevant applied to digital art, but allows "real" physical artworks to be used and reused as GPLed code.

    here is the Free Art License [artlibre.org],the translation of the original License Art Libre [artlibre.org]
    and the website in french [artlibre.org].

    the license is in perpetual evolution.and more and more people use it.

    i ca
  • I would be happy if they did. I mean, come on, what are you waiting for? They're all the rage - try to find even one art festival these days that doesn't have art cars. I mean it - I challenge you to find even one. You can't! I simply can't believe there isn't even one less talented person willing to flatter me with their copyright infrigement? I put a lot of effort into sticking all those barbie doll heads on to the hood of my rusted out Chevy van and - believe me - it wasn't easy. And don't forget the mos
  • Sounds like this get together is for a great cause and would be very interesting!!! How did the event go...I'd be very curious to know?

Slashdot Top Deals

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss

Close