MovieChat Forums > RiP: A Remix Manifesto (2009) Discussion > Just watched this...my thoughts.

Just watched this...my thoughts.

posted 14 years ago by d_henderson1810
29 replies | jump to latest

I have mixed feelings about this documentary. I agree to a point... but only to a point, about how restricive and draconian record companies are with music copyright. There are a couple of TV shows I like, which uses a lot of music, but may never come out on DVD, because of the amount of money it costs to obtain music rights for DVDs. It is also wrong that the minister's kid could be charged for having his friends watch music on Youtube.

However, where Gaylor's argument falls down is that his solution is not for the record companies to pull back to a reasonable level, but argues for unrestricted and unfetted rights to rip off music, and share it with others. That is wrong. If someone writes a song, puts music to it, and performs it, why should they not profit from it? They are making an honest living. Why should they not get paid because others (like Girl Talk) are too lazy to come up with their own songs and music, and have to mix other people's? You can't have unlimited freedom, and hide behind having "rights". Americans have the right to bear arms, but they can't use rights as a defence to shoot someone in cold blood, just because they felt like it (it can happen). You also can't use the "right to free speech" to incite riots, slander or libel someone, or make racist remarks in public. Laws are necessary to protect all. But laws restrict freedom to an extent as well. That is just how it is. It's not fair, but life is not fair. So deal with it. You benefit from laws, as well as lose out of laws.

Also, the guy who illustrated Mickey Mouse as a drug-dealer, deserved to get sued by Disney. Portraying Walt Disney's creation in a negative light can cause people to wrongly blame Disney for making Mickey a "bad role-model", and cost sales and advertising through boycotts. It hurts their brand. If this guy draws Mickey as a drug-dealer to share around with his friends, for a few laughs, I have no problem with that. But the minute it is put in the public domain, and he profits from Disney's creation, he is liable.

I think the best compromise would be this. The record companies and copyright holders lay off charging kids watching Youtube, and families making mix-tapes for personal use, but the public should give a bit as well, and accept that the moment that the mixer makes one cent of profit from their exploits, then they are breaking the law. So the kid inviting his friends over to watch videos on the net for free should not be seen to violate copyright, but if he charges admission, or profits from doing this in any way, then he is breaking the law. Why should the "copyleft" (appropriate name, as the left are often liberal on law and order, and kowtow to civil liberties) profit from someone else's work, when the original creator doesn't also profit? Answer me that! If Girl Talk wants to mix on his computer at home, go for it. But if he performs his remixes in clubs, he should do it completely free. The minute he charges admission, or charges the venue for him to perform, he is profiting, and is breaking the law.

To say that it is okay to take other's property for free, and sharing it because you have the right, is like saying that you can walk into a store, steal an item, and not pay for it. What's the difference, when you walk into an online music store, steal music, not pay for it, and then share it for free? You may say "who cares, the movie studios and music companies have heaps of money, they won't miss it". The problem with this argument is, that they are not the main ones who suffer. A record company who is ripped off can recover, but a music artist who is selling his first CD, is getting ripped off.The shopkeeper suffers when you steal from a store. It is like the banks. The banks put the tellers there, for you to scream at them, so that the people responsible suffer the least amount of pain, but the people who aren't at fault (like Radiohead, who actually shared their music free online to their fans) suffer, because the companies will not pay the artist if their CD doesn't sell well, because everyone has illegally downloaded it. Don't you care enough for your favourite artist or group, to see that they are rewarded for entertaining you and giving you such pleasure? Don't they, at least deserve that? The people on top plan it so that others take the fall, so ripping off record companies, really just hurts the people lower down the ladder.

I am also growing tired of doco-makers like Mr Gaylor or Michael Moore, all making documentaries about the same thing- how the government and corporate America is stopping your rights. WHAAA! WHAAA! Cry me a river. When people go on about their rights, such as "I WANT to download music, for free, because I WANT TO!" sounds so childish and selfish. I wonder how Gaylor would feel if I downloaded his doco, and then sold it illegally on a pirate site, and I don't intend to tell him about it either, or pay him. It will be my little secret. I'm not going to do it, but I wonder if it was the doco-maker getting screwed, would he shrug and think "Oh, well, that's creative freedom for you", or would he haul me into court? Does his opinion still apply, when he is the one losing out of it? I wonder.

[–] meridoric 14 years ago

hey there!
indeed, the film does not offer a fair solution for protecting originality or invention. however, I thought it was a bold and original contribution to the entire debate, extreme as it is. I was at the documentary film festival where 'RIP' was shown and won the audience award. And the guys who made it were at a special screening of this film for volunteers and answered some questions. They seemed as authentic and bold as their creation. Their message was to encourage 'left copy' as much as possible. And if you do some research, you'll see they actually motivated strong movements and communities to "break the law" and remix.
Regarding your last remark about selling illegally their work, be sure that's impossible: everyone can watch this film for free; they encouraged people to pirate it, copy it in every possible way and re-remix it. So no one could buy your illegal copy because there could be no illegal copy! Conclusion: yes, his opinion still applies, and especially in this case. Be sure they were prepared for such reactions and they keep their fairness 'till the end.
Cheers!

[–] Apollyon_Crash 14 years ago

>"If someone writes a song, puts music to it, and performs it, why should they not profit from it?"

Nice as that may sound, that's not the way the free market works. We now live in an area of lossless digital copies...in other words, what was once a commodity is now literally in endless supply. Something can only be valuable if it is scarce, to some extent. In other words, it has to be a commodity.

Digital music is neither scarce, nor a commodity. "Stealing" an MP3 is about as feasible as "stealing" air. Therefore, the recording industry attempts to prop up their ancient business model by manipulating the legal system, in an attempt to gain a ridiculous amount of control over copies of material they own the rights to, in order to create artificial scarcity.

No one in a free market is entitled to be paid for anything, and this sense of entitlement is precisely what is wrong with is wrong with the copyright cartels today. If this entitlement mentality existed 100 years ago, we'd all still be riding horses, since blacksmiths would have lobbied Congress to outlaw the automobile, on the grounds that it's "stealing" shoeing fees from them.

>"Why should they not get paid because others (like Girl Talk) are too lazy to come up with their own songs and music, and have to mix other people's?"

I would argue that Girl Talk IS coming up with his own music...he's simply utilizing pre-recorded tracks as his instrument. Naturally, this couldn't work for all musicians, but the point of music is that everyone does it differently.

>"You also can't use the "right to free speech" to incite riots, slander or libel someone, or make racist remarks in public."

Wrong on the last one. Racist remarks are protected free speech, at least in the United States.

>"So deal with it."

The natural evolution of society should not be impeded by laws forced through to protect outdated business models and people who only picked up musical instruments for fame and fortune. Deal with THAT.

>"But the minute it is put in the public domain, and he profits from Disney's creation, he is liable."

You're misusing the term "public domain." Copyrighted material is the exception to public domain.

And the argument for the man is he's creating a PARODY of Mickey Mouse, which is considered a form of "fair use" of copyrighted material. Having read the first issue of "Air Pirates" (got it off torrent), I think his material would have likely been legal if he simply hadn't used Mickey's name, calling him "Nickey the Mouse" or something similar. I think this was the crux of the court's decision by claiming he "took too much."

>"Why should the 'copyleft' profit from someone else's work, when the original creator doesn't also profit?"

Again, free market. If you can make money, make money. If not, don't sit around and whine about it and act like you're entitled to something you couldn't figure out how to get.

>"If Girl Talk wants to mix on his computer at home, go for it. But if he performs his remixes in clubs, he should do it completely free."

The argument for Girl Talk is that he takes such small parts of the song, it's considered "fair use," even when he does profit. It's a "transformative" work, not likely to be confused with the original properties. There are gray areas to this, though, I'll admit, such as with lyrics and vocal performances, which tend to be more recognizable.

>"To say that it is okay to take other's property for free is like saying that you can walk into a store, steal an item, and not pay for it."

Copying is not stealing. Nothing is being taken.

>"because the companies will not pay the artist if their CD doesn't sell well."

The company will not pay the artist, anyway. RIAA-affiliated labels generally only pay artists about 8 cents per album. If their album sells a million units (which is RARE), they only get $80,000. Don't think for a second that you're "supporting artists" when you buy albums. You're only supporting managers, producers, and CEOs. The people now basically rendered useless with the advent of home recording and internet publishing.

>"Don't you care enough for your favourite artist or group?"

Yeah. That's why I go to their concerts, where THEY actually get the money, not some slimy, outdated music label.

>"When people go on about their rights, such as 'I WANT to download music, for free, because I WANT TO!' sounds so childish and selfish."

Likewise, "I WANT to lobby the government to prop up my business model and stop the natural progression of mankind, because I WANT TO get paid without doing any real work!" also sounds pretty childish and selfish. The immature sense of entitlement is not with the copyleft crowd, it's with the industry.

>"I wonder how Gaylor would feel if I downloaded his doco, and then sold it illegally on a pirate site, and I don't intend to tell him about it either, or pay him."

He encourages the work to be traded and remixed. He WANTS you to add to it and give it away, and assuming your work is "transformative" enough and bears no major resemblance to his own work, I'm sure he wouldn't mind you profiting from it, either.

[–] d_henderson1810 14 years ago

> No-one in the free market is entitled to be paid for anything.

Remember that when you go to work tomorrow. Of course people deserve to be paid. Also, it is a reality. Until more people are willing to volunteer their services for free, people have to be paid. You know, receiving money for something isn't evil. I bet you don't think that it is when YOU get paid.

> Racist remarks are protected by free speech.

And while it may be legally true, it is morally wrong. So, don't defend it.

> Free enterprise, If you make money, you make money. If you don't, don't whine about it.

You obviously don't view creativity. I have plenty of ideas for movies and a TV series, but I want to copyright them before I put them out in public, because I don't want someone who wasn't as creative taking credit for it. What is wrong with that?

>Copying is not stealing. Deal with it.

Stealing "intellectual property" is as valid as stealing real property. But I forgot, you don't value creativity, do you?

You sir, are a leech. You think it is okay to take someone else's idea, and then use it anyway you want, give no credit to the original source, take credit for it yourself, and then profit for it. You are a sad thing? You are a hypocrite. Because, at your workplace, if you had a great idea, which could generate business for your company, and the boss would love it, but then a co-worker overhears you telling someone, suggests the idea themself, don't acknowledge it was actually your idea, and then gets promoted or a payrise,you would scream blue murder. Maybe then you will learn to respect what is not yours to begin with.

[–] Apollyon_Crash 14 years ago

"Remember that when you go to work tomorrow. Of course people deserve to be paid. Also, it is a reality. Until more people are willing to volunteer their services for free, people have to be paid."

You missed my point about the "free market." I was laid off from three different jobs in 2008. If I had the sense of entitlement of the entertainment industry, I'd be writing the government demanding that I still get paid for my role in those companies. The market forced those companies to downsize, and I lost my job. Just as the market has rendered most entertainment giants obsolete, and they're trying to manipulate the law rather than gracefully bow out. Profitability is not an entitlement.

"You know, receiving money for something isn't evil. I bet you don't think that it is when YOU get paid."

I don't think it is when I don't get paid. I DO think of it is a figurative evil when people attempt to lock up our culture for the sake of their money-grubbing.

"And while it may be legally true, it is morally wrong. So, don't defend it."

Why? I always defend free speech, even when I don't agree with it. To only defend the speech you agree with is selfish, to say the least. Anyone should have every right to express any opinion, period.

"I have plenty of ideas for movies and a TV series, but I want to copyright them before I put them out in public, because I don't want someone who wasn't as creative taking credit for it. What is wrong with that?"

Nothing. The problem is when the entertainment industry lobbies so that you can create one work, then sit on your butt collecting royalties from it and never have to work again, and the expense of a healthy public domain for others to build upon. I don't disagree with the concept of copyright, I simply think it has become something monstrous.

"Stealing 'intellectual property' is as valid as stealing real property."

Copyright infringement is not a form of “theft." Theft law was traditionally based on several elements: the (1) wrongful (2) taking / caption (3) moving / transportation (4) property of another (5) with intent to deprive permanently. Intellectual property can not fit into several of those categories. Intellectual property can't be taken in a traditional sense, you can not “move” intellectual property, and you can not deprive someone permanently of their intellectual property.

Intellectual property simply doesn’t conform to the traditional idea of theft. Infringement is a zero sum game, hence, nothing is actually being "stolen."

"But I forgot, you don't value creativity, do you?"

Of course I value creativity. That's why I promote creativity rather than bald-faced corporate greed.

"You think it is okay to take someone else's idea, and then use it anyway you want, give no credit to the original source, take credit for it yourself, and then profit for it."

And when precisely did I argue that? What I'm arguing for is BUILDING upon established work, creatively. Nobody said a blasted thing about just claiming an example of someone else's work.

As for profiting from transformative work: Every artist in the world does that. Did you even watch this documentary? Why is okay for Walt Disney to profit by reproducing public domain works, then attacking the public domain? Do you seriously want to live in a world where any idea you come up with, you could be sued because it's similar to a 100 year old novel that someone else - for some reason - still owns the rights to?

"You are a hypocrite. Because, at your workplace, if you had a great idea, which could generate business for your company, and the boss would love it, but then a co-worker overhears you telling someone, suggests the idea themself, don't acknowledge it was actually your idea, and then gets promoted or a payrise,you would scream blue murder."

Don't be so arrogant as to tell me what I would do. You don't know me, or my motivations.

And your example, frankly, doesn't make sense. If I already suggested the idea, then how could anyone else take credit for it? I've already put the idea out there.

"Maybe then you will learn to respect what is not yours to begin with."

Funny...considering the entertainment industry makes it's money off the works of artists and rips them off. In a sense, not respecting what isn't theirs to begin with...

[–] BloodBarn 14 years ago

Girl Talk is lazy ?! you sir don't know a lot about music.

Your poetry will now be written with blood

[–] itsalltears 14 years ago

maybe "lazy" isn't the right word. i think "not as talented as the musicians he is sampling" would be more accurate.
if the original artists hadn't spent their time and money coming up with, performing, and recording the music, girl talk wouldn't have anything to work with.
without the potential of a profit from their investment in high quality recording equipment and producers, we wouldn't have all the great records to listen to either. make everything free and you'll note that quality will drop.
when did art that simply recycles art that took more skill become "cutting edge?" girl talk can be enjoyable to listen to, but let's not ignore that a HUGE portion of the appeal is the novelty factor. the "hey i recognize these songs."

[–] BloodBarn 14 years ago

That's how pop songs work too, you hear it, you like it because in a way it's familliar, only most people don't realize that pop songs use the basic chord structure Robert Johnson used in 1939. All of occidental music consitutes of 12 notes in the chromatic scale anyway.

And you're talking like remixing is a new thing, John Cale and his friends, Pierre Henri and the others were cuting and pasting tapes in the 50s ! look at concrete music or tape music...

Remixing is an art, just as writing your own song, turntableism is just as tough to master as the guitar pal trust me ! so is software remixing...

Look at all that Nickelback krap, they rip themselves off each time the put out a new song. Music is the art of using sounds in time and that's exactly what remixing is.

Your poetry will now be written with blood

[–] itsalltears 14 years ago

there's a difference between using similar chord progressions to other songs and literally just taking someone else's recordings and putting them together. he simply takes 2 or more different songs and layers them over each other on-beat using a computer program in which you can set a metronome for the beats. it's mastering a computer program, not exactly sitting down and coming up with an original song. it's like the difference between painting the mona lisa and photoshopping a collage of other artist's paintings.

[–] BloodBarn 14 years ago

I know exactly how it's done I do it myself, tough I'm not as good as he is and that's why I know it's a hard and creative process.

My point was that between creating from existing recorded material and fooling yourself into thinking you're original with your own band that sounds like anything else on radio these days.... I'll take the DJ anytime.

Your poetry will now be written with blood

[–] Apollyon_Crash 14 years ago

"without the potential of a profit from their investment in high quality recording equipment and producers,"

That's not a major investment anymore, and hasn't been for years. Listen to recordings from self-released musicians like Corey Smith and Jonathan Coulton and you'll realize that anyone can cut a professional-sounding album in his living room with only a modest investment. Basic recording equipment isn't "high tech" anymore, thus recordings produced on it are no longer a commodity.

The music industry wastes money by paying someone $10,000 just to "warm" the microphones, or pay guys like Steve Albini thousands and thousands of dollars to produce the album and run it through a reel-to-reel recorder to SOUND like it's low-fi.

"we wouldn't have all the great records to listen to either. make everything free and you'll note that quality will drop."

Will it? I think the quality would increase. You'd have people producing music for the sake of producing art, rather than cookie-cutter image bands that are only in it for the money. Take KISS, for example: One Gene Simmons is about three more than we need.

Furthermore, that isn't even important, because no one is really advocating making all music free, but rather limiting the scope of copyright into something far more reasonable, and recognizing that it's a human right to build upon creative work.

Remember, fair use isn't the exception to copyright, rather copyright is the exception to fair use.

[–] zzaacc44 14 years ago

"The natural evolution of society should not be impeded by laws forced through to protect outdated business models and people who only picked up musical instruments for fame and fortune. Deal with THAT."

lol I dont think downloading Billy Jean and stealing a riff has much to do with "the natural evolution of society". That whole building on ideas in music by stealing pieces of previous works argument is stupid. How is taking parts from another song in any way creative or building upon the original? If you wanted to help the evolution of an idea presented, and be a real musician, you would make your own damn song with all your own music, and I dunno, further elaborate on the concepts and emotions they put forth in the lyrics and music in a new and original way. THATS the evolution of art, originality, new ideas, new sounds, not plagerism. How the *beep* is music going to evolve and remain vital if everyone is just sampling old songs? A guy playing a Nirvana riff over and over behind a beat isnt building upon anything, he just stole a riff for his beat because he didnt want to come up with his own. I dont even care about those people though, or the record label's extinction, I just feel sorry for all the great musicians in the future who are going back to the piss poor wandering lifestyles of their kind's distant past. A small fraction of the ammount of profesional musicians now will be able to exist in the future with no one buying records and no promotion exposing them to the public. It'll just be a *beep* load of people fighting for a few local live dive music venues with their crappy quality demos collecting dust on myspace. But if you didnt care about fame and fortune why would you even try to become a profesional musician? Wouldent you just play to yourself in your room, or around the camp fire with your friends, or on the street for free?

[–] Apollyon_Crash 14 years ago

That whole building on ideas in music by stealing pieces of previous works argument is stupid.

Even though pretty much EVERY musician does it?

Deep Purple "stole" their riff from "Smoke on the Water" from Astrud Gilberto and Gil Evans, and the lead riff from "Black Night" was ripped from Ricky Nelson's "Summertime."

Perhaps Led Zeppelin's most popular track, "Stairway to Heaven," ripped almost every note from the song "Taurus" by Spirit.

Fergie's "Fergalicious" is a complete, unauthorized rip-off of J.J. Fad's "Supersonic." Didn't stop it from becoming popular.

Even "Don't steal our music" masters themselves, Metallica, ripped off Bleak House's "Rainbow Warrior" when they did their own half-assed remake and called it "Sanitarium." Another Metallica song, "The Unforgiven II," is ripped off from Jimi Hendrix's "1983," and one of their most well-known songs, "Enter Sandman," is ripped from a song called "Tapping Into the Emotional Void" by a band called Excel.

In short, it's nothing new.

If you wanted to help the evolution of an idea presented, and be a real musician, you would make your own damn song with all your own music.

That's not how music as we know it works.

As Blood Barn pointed out on page 1, most mainstream songs use the basic chord structure Robert Johnson used in 1939. All of occidental music constitutes of 12 notes in the chromatic scale. There are only so many ways it can be done and considered "original." At some point, you're building on someone else's tune, whether you like it or not.

A small fraction of the ammount of profesional musicians now will be able to exist in the future with no one buying records and no promotion exposing them to the public.

I've got to disagree here. Giving away music for free is the best kind of promotion. Any musician will tell you the real money comes from live shows. Hell, if you sign to a major label, they take the money for your recordings, meaning you only make concert money anyway. The trouble is, the majors make the money from recordings by sticking an artificial monetary value on it. How do you determine the monetary value of something that is in unlimited supply?

But if you didnt care about fame and fortune why would you even try to become a profesional musician?

Define "professional." Plenty of musicians are happy to make it on their own with a "real job" on the side, or even live solely off their music without necessarily becoming a household name. Corey Smith has made literally millions of dollars self-releasing and self-touring, and I'll wager you've never heard of him. Most haven't, yet it hasn't stopped him from earning a living doing what he digs. When you have a dedicated fanbase that you can connect to, who needs "mainstream exposure" and huge anonymous crowds?

[–] zzaacc44 14 years ago

Listing off a couple examples doesnt prove that "almost every" musician rips off other peoples songs, nor does it at all validate it. I could give you a much longer list of the original songs musicians have made. Even if there was only one musician in the whole world who did, it would dissprove your assertion that "thats the way music as we know it works". If that was true, every song in existence could be traced back through history to the first caveman beating a stick against a rock. Also, you're giving singular examples, meaning these bands can and do make their own songs, so what exactly do you think that proves? Record labels dont take 100% of the proceeds on cds! That's ridiculous. And if we're talking about triple platinum artists, they make a lot more money in record sales then they would touring. The point of touring is to promote the cd, because, as you said, cds are in nearly endless supply with very little overhead. Unless youre talking about digital recordings, I wouldent say records have a completly artifical monetary value. They pay to record the songs, design the cover, make the cd, the case, distribution etc. I agree they're completly overpriced, but thats kind of like saying your nike shoes should be the same price as what they pay in china to make them.

[–] Apollyon_Crash 14 years ago

"I could give you a much longer list of the original songs musicians have made."

Go for it. What you think of as "original" is likely at least *influenced* by earlier work. That's how culture evolves in the first place. The overly restrictive view of copyright that the entertainment industry holds today stifles that.

"If that was true, every song in existence could be traced back through history to the first caveman beating a stick against a rock."

Bingo.

"Record labels dont take 100% of the proceeds on cds! That's ridiculous."

Isn't it? Unfortunately, it's also true for over 90% of the musical acts out there.

Here's how it breaks down: A major record label pays an upfront for a band to record their first album. A typical amount for this is about $250,000. However, nearly every bit of this is spent on recording, and the label decides what money goes where. They decide who the producer will be. They pick the studio musicians. They even pay the caterers out of this money. That guy who comes in and warms up the microphones? They give him a good $10,000 slice of it. That should give some idea of how fast that money dwindles.

From each CD sold, 24% straight from the top goes to the distributors. 63% goes to the record label. 13% goes to the band. From the full amount that goes to the band, each band member gets 18%, the manager gets 15%, producer gets 3%, and the business manager and lawyer each get 5%. So assuming the band's CD sells for $10.99, the band collects about $1.43 per album to split.

Yet it's not so simple. First of all, that $250,000 advance is 100% recoupable...the album takes it from the band's 13% share until it's paid back. Meaning the band doesn't collect until 13% of their album proceeds totals over $250,000.

Now let's say the label makes the band shoot two music videos. These videos cost $500,000 each, and the cost of the videos are typically split 50/50 between the label and the band (which hardly seems fair given the huge splice the label takes from the album sales, but it is the typical amount). 50% of $1,000,000 for both videos combined in equivalent to the cost of one of the videos: $500,000. This is deducted from their 13% share until completely recouped, and the band doesn't GET their 13% share at ALL until it equals $750,000.

Except not. Then the label gives the band $200,000 in tour support. I'm sorry, did I say *give*? They *loan* it. 100% recoupable....once again, out of the band's 13%. So now they don't see a dime of their 13% until 13% of the albums overall shares total over $950,000.

Still not finished. The label spends about $300,000 on independent promotion, which is a necessity for the band to get radio airplay. Once again, that $300,000 is recoupable out of the band's 13% until its paid off.

So if you're not keeping track, the band now owes the label $1,250,000, which has to come from their 13% share of the album sales. The label, predictably, gets their 63% and divides it up immediately starting with the first album sold.

In order for the band to start seeing their 13% royalties, the band's album has to sell approximately 874,126 units. When you consider how few albums shift more than even 10,000 units, this is basically hopeless...it's not unusual for a #1 album to sell under 500,000 copies. And this is only a typical deal...some artists get it even worse. Country singer Lyle Lovett, for example, has sold 4.6 million records worldwide and claims he's never gotten a DIME from album sales, thanks to the label's creative accounting.

"Unless youre talking about digital recordings, I wouldent say records have a completly artifical monetary value."

I actually was talking about digital recordings. Since MP3s can be copied endlessly with no loss in quality, it shifts "supply and demand" favorably to the "supply" side. When supplies reach infinite, prices are naturally pressured to zero.

[–] zzaacc44 14 years ago

we weren't talking about bands having influences, we were talking about bands stealing specific musical passages. Every artist is influenced by other artists, and the culture as a whole, but obviously that's not the same as actually copying them to the extent that your just reproducing and remixing previous works. I like some remixes, but I still respect the musician who can make the music himself more than the guy who just steals bits of other people's recordings to make his own.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Apollyon_Crash 13 years ago

I never suggested that everyone "just steals" ideas. What I'm saying that the restrictions of the current copyright system make it too difficult (damn near impossible, in fact) to build upon the works of others, which is something that mankind has done throughout recorded history.

[–] itsalltears 13 years ago

you can sample all you want and remix other people's music all day. the only problem is if you turn around and try to sell it as your own.

[–] zzaacc44 13 years ago

"I never suggested that everyone "just steals" ideas."

read your previous posts, thats exactly what you said

[–] Apollyon_Crash 13 years ago

Then you haven't been reading my posts. There's a big damn difference sir, between "stealing" and "being influenced by." The trouble is, the current copyright system treats the latter like the former.

I also pointed out several famous songs that were close enough to be considered rip-offs of other popular songs. The difference is, I don't see a problem with that...I just think it's hypocritical for the same groups and labels who whine about what they call "stealing" engaging in virtually the same thing themselves. "Morality is what I say is right, and immorality is what I say is wrong!"

[–] zzaacc44 13 years ago

no one was ever talking about bands having influences for christ's sake. we're talking about lazy dumb *beep* who take little snipets of other peoples songs or steal their melodies, which is who the copywrite system goes after. theyre not going after the monkees for being rip offs of the beatles, *beep* theyre not even going after people who play the same rythmm as another song or like the couple songs you mentioned, sound similer. dont YOU understand the difference between playing like keith richards and using a recording of the riff from start me up? theyre making money off of someone elses recordings instead of making original recordings that may be heavily influenced by someone elses music. jeez, the record labels dont just say "i think you were influenced by our band, youre in copy write infringment" or "your song sounds a lot like our song, pay up"

[–] my-modern-life 13 years ago

wow, you totally don't even understand the concept of remixing. remixing isn't just musicians stealing parts from songs because they're so uncreative and lazy. they borrow bits and pieces from other songs in order to create something new, interesting and original.

a good comparison would be when a musician is listening to another musician's song and gets inspired to make their own, building off the sound of the previous musician. it's how genres evolve; generations of musicians are building off the sounds of the previous generation. the only thing that is different with remixers is that they actually take parts from the songs they are inspired by instead of emulating said parts. apparently, that's where the big ****storm is coming from, but is it even that big an issue? they are going to get the sound SOMEHOW, and if not directly, then through imitation.

it's like cooking. you use previously prepared ingredients, but you're creating something out of it yourself.

[–] itsalltears 13 years ago

ingredients in food aren't copyrighted.
it's not a musician being inspired and building from it.
we're talking about someone taking someone else's recording, which is copyrighted, putting it in a computer program, then layering their own (or someone else's) drums or vocals on top of it and calling it their own.
there's nothing wrong with remixing someone else's recording, but when you claim credit for it and take money that they should get the publishing for, you're stealing.

[–] Apollyon_Crash 13 years ago

When it's edited to the point that it isn't even recognizable anymore, is it at that point anything but your own? Remixers are musicians that use pre-recorded samples (as much as half a note in length) as their instruments.

[–] itsalltears 13 years ago

if it's completely unrecognizable i can see that argument, but in this movie the example he keeps going back to is girltalk, which consists entirely of samples that even the most casual of music fans would recognize instantly.

[–] oft_I_am 12 years ago

So what? What difference does it make? Most of his samples are less than a few seconds long and are looped. Are you going to tell me that you should be able to own and control a few seconds of a beat or a melody that (it is all but guaranteed) was influenced or taken from someone else anyway? Do you have any concept of how popular music evolved in Western society, because it seems like you don't.

let me take this to its logical extreme: how about I copyright the note "F Sharp". No one can ever use that note unless they pay me royalties. Absurd concept, isn't it? What you suggest is no different.

Get real. You have no clear idea of what you are discussing.

$§ "Support mental health or I'll kill you." ~o~

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] itsalltears 12 years ago

nope. his samples are mostly entire sections of songs. entire choruses and verses etc. no one ever claimed that you could copyright one note so stop that idiotic strawman argument.

[–] ilon 9 years ago

Words are my invention, so you better pay me for everything you said.