Well that's the end of rap music!

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
In regards to sampling not being creative...

Evidence A:

https://www.soundclick.com/bands/0/phillysouljahmusic.htm

The first minute or so of the original song is on there as well as the first minute of the dj remix i described which uses the same source song yet flips the samples differently.

Clearly, even with using the exact same source (and the same Jay-Z vocals for that matter too), you can come up with very different songs. the samples are recognizable yet it all sounds different and those are two distinct songs.

Ok. As I said (in about three different ways) sampling can be a creative work if there is a significant transformation from the original. If the remixes are that different (I didn't listen to them) then they are creative. My objection is to the idea that they are inherently as creative as the original just because somebody played with them in Acid.

And I'm not even going to deal with whether the result of a filter is a creative work, or a creative work on the part of the person running the program, or a creative work on the part of the coder, or blah blah blah.

[BustaMike]

Vanilla Ice, Puff Daddy. You've never heard anything good so your argument has no basis (not that you'd know good music if it slapped you in the face). If the only sandwich you've ever had was moldy, of course you're going to hate sandwiches.

Example of Creative Sampling
Please not this has NOTHING to do with commercial rap, yet you may have seen this before.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/noises.php

[Asher]

Originally posted by BustaMike
Vanilla Ice, Puff Daddy. You've never heard anything good so your argument has no basis (not that you'd know good music if it slapped you in the face). If the only sandwich you've ever had was moldy, of course you're going to hate sandwiches.

Quality or if it's "good' or not has no bearing on its legality.

You take someone else's work and incorporate it into yours.

In the intellectual properly world, this is illegal. For example, software. It's even not permitted under the most common open source license.

Can you imagine the outrage if Microsoft put some code from OS X into Windows?

Suddenly it's totally different if we're dealing with art... double-standard. It's a no-no.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Asher



He has not proven that copying someone else's work is creative, nor can anyone prove that. Sampling is, by definition, copying it.

Doing something with the copied work may be creative, but sampling -- by definition -- is not.

Oh dear, getting all tangled up in the tortured starnds of what passes for your logic are you?


'Perhaps he hoped that by choosing a secular tune on which to base a Mass setting (the first time such a thing had been done in English music) he would establish a series to go alongside the great European ones of L'homme armé or Mille regretz. '

(from my previous post- you probably skipped it since it didn't mention Microsoft, hockey results, or Matchbox 20- no matter)

So Taverner copies/references/plagiarises/pays homage to, the secular song 'O Western Wynd' and CREATES for the first time in English church music a mass based on such a work.

'As an artsy intellectual, surely you know that when you're not block-quoting something, for every paragraph that continues a quote, you preface it with a quotation mark.'

Asshat


I'm terribly sorry, perhaps my intent wasn't OBVIOUS enough for you- I separated the larger paragraphs in the quote to make it more readable for people with short attention spans, not used to long passages of prose and coherent arguments.

You'll note the consistency with which I use inverted commas to frame the quoted pieces, and the links which I post underneath to the websites from where the quotes are taken.

If that isn't obvious enough for you, perhaps I could put instructions in each post just for you, in bright red large letters, so your tiny pointed head won't get all sore.


I agree though, one can read your posts easily, but they're usually not worth even that small effort.

[chequita guevara]

Yes, well, the "legality" of the question only chaged with the most recent ruling, didn't it? Up until that moment, it was legal.

[Asher]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Oh dear, getting all tangled up in the tortured starnds of what passes for your logic are you?

'Perhaps he hoped that by choosing a secular tune on which to base a Mass setting (the first time such a thing had been done in English music) he would establish a series to go alongside the great European ones of L'homme armé or Mille regretz. '

(from my previous post- you probably skipped it since it didn't mention Microsoft, hockey results, or Matchbox 20- no matter)

So Taverner copies/references/plagiarises/pays homage to, the secular song 'O Western Wynd' and CREATES for the first time in English church music a mass based on such a work.

Your point is what?

I'm terribly sorry, perhaps my intent wasn't OBVIOUS enough for you- I separated the larger paragraphs in the quote to make it more readable for people with short attention spans, not used to long passages of prose and coherent arguments.

I should be able to glance at your post and see which is your laughable arguments or which is regurgitated bull****. As it stands right now, your posts are a mess.

You'll note the consistency with which I use inverted commas to frame the quoted pieces

No, see...it's inconsistent. You use the marks inside existing quotations. It's ambiguous -- is that the end of the quotation or the start of a quotation?

Maybe my standards are just too high, being a science guy. All I'm asking is for you to write posts that are easy to parse...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
Maybe my standards are just too high, being a science guy. All I'm asking is for you to write posts that are easy to parse...

Humans aren't as dumb as computers . . . or are they?

[Agathon]

Nope... if you are using somebodies elses work to make money, you should pay the "creators "something" for it.

I don't believe this at all. The copyright statutes with regard to music are silly. You can't copy someone's tune, and you can't sample from their records, but you can put yourself forward as a carbon copy in other respects and no one bats an eyelid.

For example, how many guitarists spent the 80s ripping off Eddie Van Halen? Or bands in the 70s that ripped off Led Zeppelin?

Copyright for music is too arbitrary to make sense as a theory of intellectual property.

All such laws as this one do is stop the creation of music that people want to hear, which is funny, because copyright law was enacted to do just the opposite.

[Agathon]

Yes, you said that was never your arugment, and yet it was your very first post. I can understand you failing to understand others, but how can you fail to understand what you wrote?

Your first post, sampling isn't creative.

Later, on two seperate occasions you say, that was never my argument.

Oh, really, then please explain what your original argument means, and how it means something other than what it says.

Same old story...

[Agathon]

Can you imagine the outrage if Microsoft put some code from OS X into Windows?

No. I can only imagine the satisfaction of Windows users.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Asher

I should be able to glance at your post and see which is your laughable arguments or which is regurgitated bull****.

No, see...it's inconsistent. You use the marks inside existing quotations. It's ambiguous -- is that the end of the quotation or the start of a quotation?

Maybe my standards are just too high, being a science guy. All I'm asking is for you to write posts that are easy to parse...

I believe the correct usage is 'which are'.

Arguments = plural, argument = singular.

In any case your intellectual limitations cannot be attributed to my writing style.


It is easy of course to spot the regurgitated bull**** in your posts.

Other than punctuation there's frequently little else.

I think also, you'll find that quotation marks used inside quotes means that someone, being quoted, is quoting someone else-
ah, but now I understand, being a science guy, perhaps you don't see that very often.


It's quite common in literature though.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Agathon
Copyright for music is too arbitrary to make sense as a theory of intellectual property.

I think the problem is less that they are abitrary and more that they are slaved to the idea of requiring an objective test to prove legality when you can't test things like how much influence one guitarist has had on another.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Asher

Samping itself is not creative. Just like hitting COPY and then PASTE on your computer is not original or creative.

You're taking something and copying it.

When you're duplicating something, you cannot be creative.

If you do something like rap overtop of it, the rap may be "creative", but the sampling of the original is not...someone else created that (hence the term 'creative').

I agree.


SPec.

[Agathon]

I think the problem is less that they are abitrary and more that they are slaved to the idea of requiring an objective test to prove legality when you can't test things like how much influence one guitarist has had on another.

Anyone who cares about rock guitar can hear a Van Halen clone right off the bat.

But the pro intellectual property people have just shown that they don't understand the notion. There is no moral phenomenon called "intellectual property" which someone gains rights to by creating it. That is not how intellectual property works in our society. The whole point of copyright from its inception was solely to promote the creation of things people wanted by providing a financial incentive to do so.

Every US Supreme court decision on the matter of copyright has upheld this utilitarian view of copyright.

The only real question about sampling is not "did he steal my notes?", but "is sampling negatively effecting the production of music that people want to hear?"

The anti-samplers need to prove that less people are writing music because of sampling to have any case at all. Either that, or at least that sampling is having a negative effect on the sales of the original. It seems to me that P Diddy had no effect on sales of The Police: Greatest Hits since I doubt anyone would buy one as a substitute for the other.

Does sampling mean that less work people want to hear is being made?

No. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case, samplers are producing lots of music that people want to hear. Perhaps not all of it is much good, but people like it.

There's also no evidence that Vanilla Ice negatively impacted sales of Queen's Greatest Hits II. Again it seems to me that this would actually increase sales of Queen records, since it would remind some people of how much they liked the original.

Sampling is most often a win win situation. The complaints are coming from people who wish to make something for nothing at the expense of listeners.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
Can you imagine the outrage if Microsoft put some code from OS X into Windows?

You mean like how Windows 3.0 borrowed from MacOS?