[iowamark]

I thought this was interesting. There is an entire industry devoted to music sharing, which the law says is illegal.

[iowamark]

http://www.dailyiowan.com/2010/01/19/Arts/15036.html
“The copyright law as it stands is outdated and is not sufficient for creators today in a remix culture,” Franzen said.””

[a fool in paradise]

The practice of remixing existing bits and pieces of sound to create new music is a central component of hip-hop and other contemporary forms of music making. The problem is, recycling even two seconds of someone else's song without permission is a copyright infringement.

This from the demographic that insists that ALL American music is stolen from the black community because of the use of a drum.

"we're sampling it, not stealing..."

Sample something OTHER than the hook of the hits and I might believe it.

[The SISU kid]

bump for bookmark

[Mr. Blonde]

I’m assuming someone lost a fair use case somewhere along to shut this down.

Girl Talk is still treading along lawsuit free amazingly. I guess when you let people decide what to pay for your CD, the labels assume you don’t have much.

[a fool in paradise]

Remixers contend that it doesn't matter what you take, as long as you flip it, or transform it in a way that doesn't sound like the original.

James Brown and Prince don't care so long as you are paying. Prince even offered a $700 package of sample cuts.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Those who sample defend their art, saying creativity and skill are required to develop the new sound combinations.

Yes...perhaps. But if I take Michelangelo's David and and use paints and brushes and hundreds of thousands of tiny brush strokes in a heretofore unseen and unknown Impressionistic technique....it's still Michelangelo's David.

Any decent sound engineer can create new sound combinations. That doesn't necessarily make them an artist. If they use copyrighted material to do it, it does make them a thief.