Don't Waste Culture, Recycle Art 101
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."
Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
Isn't it a little weird... (Score:5, Funny)
What is an illigal art film? (Score:3, Funny)
(But seriously.. what is one pls?)
Re:What is an illigal art film? (Score:2, Funny)
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).
Re:What is an illigal art film? (Score:1)
Re:What is an illigal art film? (Score:1)
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
Re:What is an illigal art film? (Score:1)
Re:What is an illigal art film? (Score:1)
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)
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:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is an illigal art film? (Score:4, Informative)
Don's Plum (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:Just what do they mean by illegal art ? (Score:1)
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)
Someone should make a TiVo tmf file of this event (Score:1)
(Details on how to do this are available on the web, plus elsewhere [amazon.com])
Clever Wording (Score:2, Interesting)
"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)
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)
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)
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:whu huh? (Score:1)
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:1, Insightful)
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
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:1)
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:1)
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
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:1)
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.
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:1)
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
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:2)
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:2, Redundant)
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
Not on behalf of talentless whiners. (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Not on behalf of talentless whiners. (Score:2)
P.s. I'm not trolling, just BUILDING!
Idea vs Instance vs Innovation (Score:2)
I made the argument that pure creation is not art. I made the argument in reference to the poster's mention of signature riffs.
The idea that someone who had no artistic talent or at least no apparent ARTISTIC appreciation should be interfering with the process of creating art, well let's just say: arrogant greedy bastard. I give him the E-F chord award.
I could care less for sound-in-time as I said. I care about art that is made of building blocks which have cultural and
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:2)
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'
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:2)
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.
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
There is literally no bad that can come of it.? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
That's what libel is for (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:There is literally no bad that can come of it.? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Tough. (Score:2)
Re:There is literally no bad that can come of it.? (Score:2)
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
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:1)
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)
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
Moral Rights Under the Berne Convention (Score:1, Redundant)
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
Re:Moral Rights Under the Berne Convention (Score:1)
>(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
People like you killed OLD SCHOOL RAP (Score:2)
Even Beck, who got a grammy for "Best Album" for his sample-
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:1)
I attended the "Illegal Art" event at the Black Box in Oakland last night. It was eye-opening. Among the illegal works of art shown as "Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:2)
I am not sure what "rights" you are talking about here. After you have released/sold your music or your creation to public
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:In defense of "illegal" art (Score:1)
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)
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:2)
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.
Re:On behalf of the artists? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
How long will it last? (Score:2)
illegal films are cool (Score:3, Interesting)
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.)
Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Dwnloads (Score:4, Informative)
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:
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.
Re:Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Dwnlo (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Thanks for the tip (and the links) (Score:2)
Also, thanks for the link. You'll see that I have given you a reciprocal link [goingware.com].
Re:Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Dwnlo (Score:1)
There are in fact legal p2p networks (Score:3, Informative)
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
Nice To See They Support It (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
anonymous music... (Score:1)
The sampling license (Score:2)
Free as in Free Speech Art (Score:2, Informative)
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
Why the hell hasn't anyone copied my art car? (Score:2)
Music (Score:1)