Jay-Z Explains He Is 'Honored' To Have His Work Remixed By Others

from the creativity-by-remix dept

A Dan points us to a fascinating interview with Jay-Z on Fresh Air that’s worth listening to in its entirety.

However, there are a few quotes concerning copyright and sampling that are most interesting. For example, there’s a discussion about the infamous Grey Album — a mashup by DJ Danger Mouse mixing The Beatles’ White Album and Jay-Z’s Black Album. As you probably know, EMI went insane over this release, threatening to sue everyone — as it has done since then on other Beatles mashups to this day. However, I can’t recall ever hearing anything, one way or the other, about Jay-Z’s opinion on the album, and it’s basically the opposite of the way EMI/The Beatles reacted (from about 12:50 in the interview):

Terry Gross: “So I’ve got to ask you how you feel about the Grey Album, which is the mash-up that Danger Mouse did of your Black Album and the Beatles’ White Album, without any copyright permission. So, how do you feel about it musically and how do you feel about the fact that he did it?”

Jay-Z: “I think it was a really strong album. I champion any form of creativity and that was a genius idea to do it, and it sparked so many others like it. There are other ones that, you know, it’s really good, there are other ones that, because of the blueprint that was set by him, that I think are a little better. But, you know, him being the first and having the idea; I thought it was genius.

Terry Gross: “Did you feel ripped off by the fact that he used your music on it without paying for it? Or did you think it doesn?t matter, it?s really good art.”

Jay-Z: “No, I was actually honored that, you know, someone took the time to mash those records up with Beatles records. I was honored to be on, you know, quote-unquote the same song with the Beatles.”

If you listen to the actual audio, you can hear his sincerity on that last part. Later on (around 23:45), he talks about the process of getting permission to sample Hard Knock Life, highlighting the ridiculousness of permission culture. While he was thrilled about having others sample his music and do stuff with it, when it came to getting the rights for Hard Knock Life, he had to convince the original songwriters to let him sample it, and to do so he told “a big lie” concerning how he had seen the play, Annie, on Broadway as a kid, and had written an essay for some school essay contest about the importance of seeing Annie on Broadway. While the original songwriter of Hard Knock Life notes that he was happy with the Jay-Z song, it still highlights one of the problems with permission culture. Basically, Jay-Z had to beg (and lie) to create art.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Jay-Z Explains He Is 'Honored' To Have His Work Remixed By Others”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
83 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

While the original songwriter of Hard Knock Life notes that he was happy with the Jay-Z song, it still highlights one of the problems with permission culture. Basically, Jay-Z had to beg (and lie) to create art.

I know! It’s terrible that people can’t do whatever they want to. I’m with you–pirates are great because they just take what they want. No permission or anything! Isn’t piracy great? Go, Pirates!!

btrussell (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“The infringer has effectively already admitted owing at least $50 million and the full claim could exceed $6 billion. If the dollars don’t shock, the target of the lawsuit undoubtedly will: The defendants in the case are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada, the four primary members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association.”
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096–geist-record-industry-faces-liability -over-infringement

Have a great day rooster sucker.

Brian (user link) says:

Rightscroppers

Aren’t we made better by keeping track and paying dues? You say “…had to beg (and lie) to create art.” What about saying ‘…had to beg (and lie) to sell art’?

Yes it’s a rough terrible mess dealing with claims and property but there’s a distinctly aggressive twist we call dealing that often wrecks and confuses me.

That’s the rub. Partly, capital is discovering value and making use. Partly, capital is value found among anothers’ property and negotiating carry.

Claims and property. Isn’t copyright a fair market for dispensing rights? If not, it’s far more broken than its details.

Kingster (profile) says:

Re: Rightscroppers

Maybe it’s too early in the morning and I haven’t had enough coffee, but I’m struggling with what you’ve said here.

Until there is demand, something is worth absolutely zero. In fact, it could be valued negatively – land for example. The government says it’s worth X, and taxes you on it. No one is going to give you X for it. So at this point, you are paying Y%, so the worth of the land is zero minus Y% of X. This is also the whole basis of one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

So really, I guess my point is that the sample for “Hard Knock Life” was, at one point, worth zero. It wasn’t going to make money in that sampled realm, until Jay-Z decided to do something with it. If he had used it, and not paid for it… Who would it really have hurt? Would the “owners” have “lost” anything? Nope.

Hell, if I was Jay-Z, and was negotiating something like this, I would ask for concessions from the original songwriters, that if they see a 5% or more bump in sales within a year of his release, then they pay him a percentage of their earnings for that year. Why? Because he’s adding value to THEIR property. Going back to the land example… You think those homes built by Extreme Home Makeover don’t get taxed at the new worth?

No, the sample had a worth of (really) zero. If I tell you I’m going to use a 3 second blip of your song, that should be enough, and you should hope that you’re going to get a bump out of it.

I’m sorry if that doesn’t make sense. As I said… Still waking up, and may need more coffee.

Anonymous Coward says:

Nice words but they are just that nice words, nobody really knows what is in his head really.

What I do know is that he is part of the people who pay the RIAA.

So no buying from him, no listening no nothing at least for me, which is not much and people can safely ignore me.

Where I listen to music there is no Jay-Z, Madonna, U2, Lily Allen, Metallica or anything like that, they are not part of my world.

btrussell (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Just another example of what a fine business man he is.

Buy product, cut with other cheaper, addictive/dangerous products, sell. Generally to younger people. Record execs and the like have money for the real stuff.

I wonder how many lives were ruined that people forgive because he remixed some other peoples music?

out_of_the_blue says:

Mike, you're busy devaluing honor.

“But, you know, him being the first and having the idea; I thought it was genius. …

Jay-Z: “No, I was actually honored that, you know, someone took the time to mash those records up with Beatles records. I was honored to be on, you know, quote-unquote the same song with the Beatles.”

Genius is thinking of a “re-mix”, eh? And he’s “honored” to have some of his audio mixed with the Beatles. — The values of genius and honor have been so diluted and cheapened by such mis-use that we may never recover. And that society rewards such dolts so vastly more than it does those who produce actual goods and foods is obscene.

It not’s merely “Jay-Z”; it’s the whole culture, Mike included, who find, or pretend to, something of great value in the *easy* and *trivial* re-mixing of *music*, and making heroes” out of those who merely produce pleasing noises. –That’s not going to keep food on your table or the lights on in the post-industrial police state.

The whole area of entertainment has *nothing* to do with the economy, has never made *any* society rich, it’s mere luxury made possible by industrial production, but because *easy* and *fun* for economists too, this clap-trap is what we get instead of sounding the alarm that the industrial base in the US is vanishing. PHOOEY.

There IS a third way, and that’s to ensure that trivial entertainers and corporate greedy grifters don’t thrive and prosper so out of proportion to their actual contributions to society, by taxing the hell out of high incomes.

herodotus (profile) says:

Re: Mike, you're busy devaluing honor.

“It not’s merely “Jay-Z”; it’s the whole culture, Mike included, who find, or pretend to, something of great value in the *easy* and *trivial* re-mixing of *music*, and making heroes” out of those who merely produce pleasing noises.”

The fact that some people make music that is trivial doesn’t mean that all music is trivial.

The cultural importance (or unimportance) of Jay-Z doesn’t impinge in any way on the cultural importance of, say, Milton Babbitt or Pierre Boulez.

“The whole area of entertainment has *nothing* to do with the economy, has never made *any* society rich, it’s mere luxury made possible by industrial production, but because *easy* and *fun* for economists too, this clap-trap is what we get instead of sounding the alarm that the industrial base in the US is vanishing. PHOOEY.”

Drama didn’t make Athenians rich either. Do you really think that they were wasting their time watching plays written by Aeschylus and Sophocles? Are classicists wasting their time studying and translating them? Are students wasting their time trying to understand them?

Is making money really the only worthwhile human activity to you?

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: I got no talent...

“…but if I did have talent, and I worked really hard at producing an album, and some dumb@ss came by and took that work to make his own work to make money. Well? I would be miffed.”

Except they couldn’t take your work to make their money. If they took your work then you wouldn’t be able to sell it, however if they’ve copied your work then you can still sell it and they’d have to compete with you. Nothing is created in a vacuum; either people are free to copy other people for their own work or everyone starts from scratch and we forget about having any modern music. Drawing a line in the sand serves no purpose other than to claim entitlement for the sake of greed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Obviously the Artist and Business will never mix. As an Artist, I say we need 2 separate copyrights.

One for the Artist. These rights and permissions override all others. Also it is non-transferable except upon death. It never expires. The Artist created the work so them and their heirs should own it forever.
Two we need a special Copyright for business which is controlled totally by contract and the Artist. This copyright is issued by the Copyright Office and requires a copy of the contract to be protected.

This crap of the Artist losing their rights just to release a their work has to stop. The company that licensed the Artists work will then have no say over usage unless they can prove a loss in revenue.

Of course I dream. All through history the rich have promoted the ideas of the poor and taken credit for them. They allow credit to go to the great artists and composers simply because they can’t prove they did it. But I know for sure if they can steal it, they will.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re:

As an Artist, I say we need 2 separate copyrights.

This is kind of how copyright works in Europe. The “artists’ rights” you speak of are called moral rights, or “droit d’auteur.” They are, essentially, what is covered by a CC-BY license.

Except for visual art (painting or sculpture), they do not exist in the U.S. or U.K.

The Artist created the work so them and their heirs should own it forever.

This is a terrible, terrible idea. Can you imagine how it would impact classical music?

If you truly do believe in such rights, there’s no reason they should survive long after the author’s death. You can’t infringe on the rights of a dead man.

This crap of the Artist losing their rights just to release a their work has to stop.

I agree with you 100%. “Assigning” rights should be unlawful, in my opinion. It should be licensing deals or nothing.

Fortunately, there is a legal limit of 35 years on the length of such deals, as long as they’re not “works for hire.” That’s why current RIAA VP Mitch Glazier secretly defined all sound recordings as a “work for hire” when he was a staff attorney in Washington.

Transbot9 (user link) says:

Re: Re:

As an artist, I can say that intellectual property laws (especially US IP laws) are worthless to me.

I can’t afford a lawyer, so I can’t afford to defend my rights if someone does steal my work. So for me, it’s the same as if the law doesn’t exist. Current and proposed measures to fight “piracy” and “counterfitting” do not protect me, either.

The artist as anything but a tradesman is a relativly new invention, of which we can probably thank Louis XIV (King of France) for, as he established the first Academy of Art. Personally, I’m not fond of the entitlement model, especially the one you are proposing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Lets see what happens when the future comes shall we.

If said artist get 2 children, they both get some money for it, when they have their children it will get divided and probably in a few hundred years everyone can trace their lineage to that artist and get some money from everybody.

Sounds like Social Security or healthcare to me.

The more it get diluted the less people receive but the more somebody else needs to pay if that seems like a good idea good luck with it.

Now if the copyright owner can dictate only one owner, this means that every copyright owner will soon have something to charge others for it and if you got only one piece of copyright but needs a thousand from others you end up paying way more.

It is a no win situation, that is why copyright is stupid.

m0n0l1th says:

Re: he Artist created the work so them and their heirs should own it forever.

Your comment brings up the major crux in owning anything, including a piece of land: you don’t really own anything you can’t protect. You can pay for anything you want, you can create anything you want but if you cannot enforce your rights, you do not practically have those rights. Anyone can squat on “your” expensive land if you can’t afford to throw them off. Anyone can play, re-mix and re-sell your music unless you have an EMI lawyer enforce your copyrights for you. And when you are dead, you definitely don’t own anything, incuding your biological material that used to make up your own body.

Anonymous Coward says:

Confusion between Art and Expression of Art

The grey album is artifact. The creative *idea* to do the mashup was the actual art – the rest was craftsmanship (in which there may be different art).

In a way, JayZ kind of made that distinction:
“But, you know, him being the first and having the idea; I thought it was genius.”

EMI in no way prevented the art (the idea). It can’t. Nor did it prevent the expression of that art through craftsmanship – the entire album could have been made legally (in the US, at least) and shared with friends and family. So you have perfectly legal art, and it’s expression.

However, to make a business off the resulting is what IP law is meant to prevent.

The sharing of IP is so that we can build on the ideas of others, not build businesses off the ideas of others.

I hate to say it, because I think EMI are a bunch of middleman no talent criminal douchebags, flogging an anachronistic business model. But they were right.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Confusion between Art and Expression of Art

the entire album could have been made legally (in the US, at least) and shared with friends and family.

In fact, this is wrong. You cannot distribute infringing works, even for non-commercial use.

If it was just “friends and family,” I doubt anyone would care. But if he made it available for free download, he would be infringing. And if you or I downloaded that Danger Mouse album today, we would be lawbreakers.

Anonymous Coward says:

It’s nice to hear him say this now. But when Dangermouse was having an issue… He missed an opportunity for change.

If he wants to improve the artistic integrity of rap, make an attempt to get things back to the late 80s legal standing. It’s all great to appreciate ‘It Takes A Nation of Millions’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ but it’s something else to make works like them legal again.

darryl says:

Are you really superhuman Mike ?

he had to convince the original songwriters to let him sample it, and to do so he told “a big lie” concerning how he had seen the play, Annie, on Broadway as a kid, and had written an essay for some school essay contest about the importance of seeing Annie on Broadway.

Mikes lesson for the weekend,

its ok to lie and cheat, and commit fraud, as long as it results in getting what you want in the end..

@Mike
This isn’t about pirating, it’s about people creating entirely new works by building on the works of others before them. That you can’t tell the difference and call them “pirates” is either willfully misstating what is being talked about or extreme ignorance. Neither makes you look good.

No mike, and ENTIRELY NEW WORK would NOT include the works of others, that is not what he is doing Mike, he **IS** using the work of others, so his work is NOT an ENTIRELY NEW WORK.. its a mashup as you explained.

To create an entirely new work based on the work of others, would be for me to write a new blues song, or a new rocknroll song, I can easily be including the work of others, but I do not have to copy, sample, or lie, steal or cheat to get it.

It is an entirely new work, its based on 12 bar blues, but it is a unique work, and it is recognisable as a blues song, but it is not recognisable as ANYONE ELSES blues song.

So for you to say That’s not what I said and you know it. I don’t know why you feel the need to misrepresent what was said. It just makes you look silly.

No mike, I dont know if you are silly, but that is exactly what you said, and it is what you ment.. so which is it,

There is nothing stopping him from making an ENTIRELY NEW SONG, without having to copy or sample music from others, just he chooses not too, NO, instead he chooses to lie, and be fraudulent in his action to get what he wants.

And you Mike think that is something good and something that should be promoted.. nice one.. it must be the weekend.. !!! :P)

I’m always amazed at who clueless people don’t understand the very basics of art

Classic Mike, what you are trying to say there is that it is not possible to create art unless someone has allready done it before hand.. Yes, Mike I’m amazed at who(sic) or even HOW clueless some people are, that they cannot even understand the basics of art..

I would have to say Mike you would be in that group, if not the blind leader if it..

What because you are not capable of creating unique art, then therefore NO ONE MUST BE ABLE TO DO IT.

It appears to us poor suffering readers that if you cannot understand something, or if you cannot see how something could be done differently then for you it is not possible for ANYONE to do it differently, or in a new way.

Luckily we live in a work where some people are actually smarter and more creative that Mike can even imagine, and the result of that is all the new a great things we get to play with.

It must be a massive stain on your reputation that the real world does not work the way you have set it out in your simples “mik’es world” view. Thank goodness for that..

With Mike telling me that it is impossible to create a new form of art expression or a new style of music, that is not based on anything specific from the past.

You can write a jazz music peice, its is clearly in the jazz style, but it can easily not be sililar to any other jazz peice, it can be YOUR OWN CREATION.

Thats right Mike, some people are actually capable of creating things .
They dont need to copy or sample, or look at other peoples popular songs, they can pick up an instrument, and play around and make up a song.

Or you can be totally uncreative, and copy something someone else has done, you contribute nothing to the advancement of the art. and you are just cashing in on someone elses real talent.

So Mike its clear you do not like to reward talent, I can understand that from you, you are not in the boat to win a prize for being creative, so you just want to profit from others creavitve abilities, lacking those abilities yourself.

Fair enough, if that is what you are like, as long as we know what you motives are.. and the reason why you appear to hate invention and creativity so much.

If idea’s are so common and infinite, why does someone then have to use someone elses idea, to make money, and why do you have to support that ?

Freak says:

Re: Are you really superhuman Mike ?

The last part struck me as silly.

“If idea’s are so common and infinite, why does someone then have to use someone elses idea, [. . .]”

Why yes, I should always start with completely fresh ideas, instead of building on previous ideas, standing on the shoulders of giants and what-not.

When I design a car, I shouldn’t even go in with the idea of a wheel, nosirree, that wouldn’t be a fresh idea!

And when I program, I always start in machine language, build a compiler from there, build a high language from there, and then start! Except, oops, I totally stole someones idea for a CPU implementation right there . . . as well as languages, language structure, machine code itself!, basic logic, and even binary! Shit! I’m infringing on binary!

And look at you with your entirely new blues song! Shit man, you’re just copying that first blues song. Ain’t nothing new about that. And . . . is that a guitar?! Are you too lazy to make your own instrument?! And hey man, are you using a beat that fits into a normal time signature, (ie: 4/4)? Now you’re stealing ideas from the catholic church? How low can you get man, how low?

/snark

But thanks, I had a good long laugh.

Bluezy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Are you really superhuman Mike ?

If I eat onions do my farts smell like the other person’s farts that ate onions, too? And who is brave enough to analyze or ANALyze this possible infringement?

It is like Mattel toys suing is a company named Super Duper that makes toys that help autistic children for using the phrase “The cow goes moo”. They made them throw away the already produced toys after they won the case with their mega bucks profit from Barbie and Hot Wheels, etc.

My middle finger goes FLIP!

darryl says:

Re: Re: Are you really superhuman Mike ?

Hi freak.

Thats right when you design a car you start with a steering whell, and maybe 4 wheels for each corner and so on.

But you dont have to invent steel, or plastic, or wires, or insulation, or carpet, or gearboxes, or engines, or wheels.

Nor are you restricted from using those invention, or inventing your own products or materials.

When you write you’re software you do not have to invent the transistor, or the integrated circuit, or the wire, or the LED or the microcode, or the CPU structure, or the momory or the display and so on.

When I crate or write a song, I can use notes, scales, tempo’s, cadences, styles, techniques that are commonly availaible, but I can use those raw components to create something unique, its not based on anyone one elses work, it might be a blues song, it might use a 4/4 time with a 12 bar progression and use a blues scale like the pentotonic scale.

There you have it, ive use notes and invention, and timeing to create something totally new and unique..

You can do the same thing with your car, you can use the materials commonly available to create something that is unique, and it is unique because it is a product of your invention.

Obviously you are not infringing on binary and it is clear that is your problem, you are not infringing on ‘binary’ you are infringing on someone’s elses creativity with a raw material (binary) that you are infringing upon..

when you write you software what are you going, you are working out how to do something, that others do not know how to do, then what you are saying is that because SOMEONE (anyone) knows how to do that thing, that EVERYONE should be shown how to do it.

So going by that, you do not expect ever to be paid for your programming efforts, or for any work that creates knowledge, because if you create knowledge you assume its right for everyone to share that knowledge without reward..

So when you write a critical program for the company you work for, you dont ask for any pay for the work you did because that information has a right to be free..

Even if the person who contracted you to write that code (to solve that problem with the creation of information) are willing to make that problem solving information available to anyone who wants it, even that companies competition !.

Sorry but are you really silly enough to propose that scales, or the sound of a particular instrument, or a timing, or “digital” or ‘analogue’ ,or ‘words’ or ‘numbers’ can be copyrighted or patented ?

You talk about a blues song like “Shit man, you’re just copying that first blues song”.

Shit man,,, really, what if the words are diffenet, the timing is different, the key is different, the style is different, the voice is different, the instrument is different, and we go to court, and you say “shit judge, its just like “this” song.

And you play something that sounds nothing like my song, except you can class it as ‘blues’ music.

The judge, and the world will laugh you out of caught, but not after fining you for stupidity and being a pest…

You are a real joke if you are going through life believing that is how the world works.. Maybe you should get out more, and start to question Mike’s motives and logic on occasions.

You’ll be mush happier thinking for yourself, and not believing you can be sued for playing a guitar, because someone else has done it before you !!!!.

I wonder if you still believe the earth is flat and that the moon is made of cheese too ?

Freak says:

Re: Re: Re: Are you really superhuman Mike ?

Well, according to you, I should be sued for remixing a song.

I guess I should also be sued for having been influenced by another artist.

Or using the same instrument . . . hell, someone had to invent that, didn’t they? At one time, you could actually be sued for making another instrument that sounded similar, given that some part of the first instrument was patented.
That time is actually now, people have/are sued/suing each other over the sound of electronic instruments, and when they could/can, sued/suing each other for using what boils down to basic physics, based on patents.
I was actually thinking of one of those lawsuits when I mentioned that using a guitar could be infringing, (Short of it: Guy couldn’t sue for infringement on the instrument on which a vital part of it is patented by him, (an electronic filter that gives it a characteristic sound), because it was only made for the 2nd guy’s own use. When the 2nd guy tried to release an album using the instrument he made for himself, however, the 1st guy sued. A settlement was reached after the court didn’t throw the case out).

Most ideas build off of each other. The others are mutative permutations of existing ideas. Usually, they’re both. That’s how humans think.
If you think that a new idea is worth less because it is built on the shoulders of giants, well . . . you wouldn’t get very far in any science.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Are you really superhuman Mike ?

Sir I marvel at your stupidity, you argument on both sides of the fence and seems to not have a clue that it is doing so.

You disprove your own previous talking points with this post and apparently without shame think others should pay attention.

“When I crate or write a song, I can use notes, scales, tempo’s, cadences, styles, techniques that are commonly available, and I can use those raw components to create something unique, its not based on anyone else work, it might be a blues song, it might use a 4/4 time with a 12 bar progression and use a blues scale like the pentatonic scale.

There you have it, I’ve use notes and invention, and timing to create something totally new and unique..”

ps: I tried to correct the grammatical errors but I’m illiterate so if anybody see anything else wrong please correct it for us all.

Right there you admitted that using others hard work is ok and without shame LoL

Transbot9 (user link) says:

Re: Are you really superhuman Mike ?

No offense, but it seems to me that you know very little of the creative process.

No artist exists within a vacuume. For example – one of the most well-known artists is Picasso; but Picasso did not invent Cubism alone. He and Braque kept playing off of each other’s ideas until finally, Cubism was born. In fact, Collage became considered an art form thanks to those two, and that’s the graphic fine arts version of a mash-up.

DuChamp’s ready-mades are further examples of fine arts “mash-ups” – in which the importance is creating the new expression or idea rather than the original materials. Granted, he did admit that the whole Ready-Made thing got a little out-of-hand once it caught on, but his work makes him the poster-boy for Fair Use.

More or less everything has been done before, and truly original ideas are exceedingly rare. Archetypal literary criticism & Monomyth is still taught in institutions of higher learning.

A major aspect of creativity is taking something that has come before and doing something different with it. One aspect is unusual juxtaposition – two unlike things are merged to create something new (like all the half-human, half-whatevers in mythology). You may think a Jay-Z mash-up or a moustached Mona Lisa is a little weak, but it is still artistically valid.

Bluezy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Are you really superhuman Mike ?

Bravo! Well commented.
I had an idea a long time ago to take the famous works and alter them and make posters call it Vandalart. Then someone actually did it. You can buy Mona altered now and I like the thing they did with David where you can dress him up on your refrigerator! He looks sexy with a leather coat. Black and White classic look!

darryl says:

I love that----- "to do so he told "a big lie""

and to do so he told “a big lie” concerning how he had seen the play, Annie, on Broadway as a kid,

So its ok to lie, cheat and commit fraud as long as it results in you getting what you want, and Mike thinks that is a good thing.. !!!

But no, Mike does not support pirates, only liars and cheats..

Anonymous Coward says:

@4 addon to mike

i took 5 images of other artists work spent 3 days and made a new image, people were like wholly frak how’d you do that…so i explained it and even told them which artists and where there works can be seen….two came back and said thanks…for the free advertising…i said thanks for making your images and keep up good work.

I also said man always builds off the old to make new.
IF the tools make it easier so be it, you cannot fight change.

YA riiiiiight says:

@29 , then @30 then @44 then @46

too bad you do not see what you do as contributing to humankind , rather you see your so called art as a product it means YOU are not an artist but a marketer of a product.

BTW didn’t that king of france get his head lopped off for extravagance and arrogance towards his fellow countrymen?

Actually IP law is or was made to so that new works could be made and you get SOME compensation to continue…i would argue the Beatles are not continuing to create art thus there works should be free to play with and remix redo and make a new….if you lock it down for 150 years in the usa then nothing new will come of it…..culture , art and science thus are hindered….(mixing technology and such would not be made )

@44
well imagine if mathematics which were written down were all copyrighted forever and you could not practice use or distribute it without expressed written paid permission.
We’d prolly not have much math and or even computers or anything would we? As mike states a lil bit above you…according to you everything is piracy thus no one can do anyhting…Sweet…whom do we send our souls and checks too?
I do things because i wish too, i make things for same reason. When i share it is because it feels good to know others appreciate it. Making any money is the last thing on my mind….

@46
you mean like the CRIA stealing all the revenue since 1980 and at min a 6 billion lawsuit by the artists follows?

about entirely new work….
HOW is this done tell me how, and ill strt giving you the IP that is associated to it and your payment is long over due on stupidity….ALL art and works are derived form that which came before. YOUR brain has sampled all kinds of things and due to that sampling you

“come up with new works based on those experiences”
and speaking of say “clipart” as an example of how imagery can be then remixed into new images that are then used in all kinds a things form movies , tv , marketing advertising all kinds a things…BUT it came form stuff before, and it takes a skill to see how 5-10 images can come together to make somehting uniquely new….same was done with this song, modernized , added to and made for culture of today….

I too am also capable of making video animations form scratch as well as digital images , hte KEY here is if i can save time ( which we all can agree is also money ) with creating somehting from multiple works anew in a shorter time span that means my efficiency is greater and my potential to do more increases….

thus society gets more from me rather then a tax which copyright has become for the lazy suits that go around suing everyone acs law style.

one reason i do not publish much is i also do not have money for a lawyer to make sure all the “free clip art i use is really free , thus you can’t enjoy because YOUR LAW makes it too easy to just accuse and sue….

In conclusion copying to me is not about pirating or stealing your work. ITS efficient to do so in some cases.
THINK about file sharing really for a minute.
IS it a sign of smarts and efficiency that people will sit down in front of a computer and in 2 minutes have a full album or spend money on gas get into there car drive to store and pay for it with DRM that stops them form listening to it in the car or on there computer?

Transbot9 (user link) says:

Re: @29 , then @30 then @44 then @46

RE:

too bad you do not see what you do as contributing to humankind , rather you see your so called art as a product it means YOU are not an artist but a marketer of a product.

BTW didn’t that king of france get his head lopped off for extravagance and arrogance towards his fellow countrymen?

The difference between a professional artist and a non-professional artist is that the professional artist gets paid. That’s it. That being said, I do produce art that will never make me a cent, because I enjoy making it. Personally…I think it’s a little arrogent to be entitled for continuous payment for one’s contribution to humanity, especially if the contribution is a “one hit wonder.”

Louis XIV lived to the ripe old age of (nearly) 77 before dying of gangrene. You’re thinking of Louis XVI.

Anonymous Coward says:

Create it from scratch? Re-mixing isn't art?

That has to still be the stupidest argument I’ve heard anywhere bar none.

As many have pointed out nothing in life is created from scratch, including every animal on the planet unless, I guess, you happen to be a creationist.

Your mind is shaped by all the experiences of your life. If you create an “original” song, guess what? It’s based on everything you ever heard. The only choice you have is whether to “copy” conciously or unconciously.

I can’t find the reference (probably because it pre-dates the web), but years ago I heard on the radio a “mashup” tune made to prove this exact point. They’d taken a famous classical track – something like Beethoven’s fifth I can’t remember – and to the tune, mixed up all the bits of other songs that they’d found that used recognisable snippets of it’s tune to re-create the original. The result was rather amusing and included as I recall such giant works as “oh yes we have no bananas”. Do you think the guy who wrote that sat down and thought “Hmmmm Beethoven… THAT’s what I need to copy!”. No, didn’t think so, but would it have made any difference to the final song if he had?

And as for remixes not being art? All I can say is Terry Gilliam. All his animations in Monty Python were created by him photocopying “great masters” then cutting out bits and moving them around. As far as I can see, that’s about as close to the definition of “remixing” as you can get without it actually being music. Would anyone like to claim that the “art” of Monty Python wasn’t enhanced by the linking “stream of conciousness” animations of Gilliam? Of that his animations in and of themselves have no artistic value?

Just because I might think Jay-Z is a talentless noise polluter doesn’t make his method any less valid. I could say the same of many “artists” who “create” less obviously copied works (i.e. “original” songs).

Life copies and adapts. Get used to it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...