Yeah I'm about to do the same. Not having to hunt down the incredibly rare dress shirts that fit in a non-tent-like manner (and then buying every colour and style available because god knows when i'll find another) would make life a hell of a lot easier...
I totally didn't realize that was 1014 or I might have chosen it over logarithms. I really need to beef up my pre-Stamford Bridge knowledge. Here I was waiting for 2066 so I could reference an entirely different arrival from Normandy.
Hmm... I think I may have been briefly part of a clan but I can't recall the name. Mostly I just played solo. Honestly, I can't even recall the name I used for myself, though I'm sure it was something stupid that I thought was cool.
Their IndieGoGo clearly states that this is an independent project, and even runs through the entire (small) budget and how it's coming from crowdfunding.
Of course there's no guarantee that's true, I suppose, so... Do you have a reason to doubt it, and some evidence to the contrary to present? Or does it just make you uncomfortable that a growing number of individuals are standing up against broken copyright law?
When you're talking anthropology and, well, reality, I don't think you even need to apply a label like "public domain" at all. Instead it's simply the nature of all communication and expression: once something has been spoken or expressed in some way, it becomes fundamentally infinite, and owned by nobody. There's no natural limit on how widely it can be spread and no natural mechanism by which to prevent that spread, short of actually killing everyone who heard/saw something.
But, regardless of labels, you're totally right: it's really sad that people now think copyright is the default and the "public domain" is the exception, when in fact the exact opposite is true.
the last editors choice is a red herring comment about climate change. If it were free to mitigate climate change that comment would make sense, but if we had to borrow trillions of dollars to do what the comment espouses that could possibly, just possibly have bad side effects.
I often choose EC comments -- especially on the funny side -- because I think they make a valid point with wit and brevity. They don't have to be comprehensive nor should the editor's choice designation be taken to mean that they are the last word on anything.
Obviously there's a complex cost-benefit analysis (one that cannot be summed up in a handful of words) involved in decisions around anything like global warning. But, as that comment succinctly if sardonically noted, weighing the consequences of inaction against the consequences of unnecessary action is very much an element of that analysis (an element that, on the surface at least, seems likely to favour action).
I don't think sampling requires special consideration or different standards. I don't think sampling is a game changer. (that is my opinion, and in these situations people can make a big deal about it)
This is not a matter of "opinion". I explained earlier that fair use is not a clear standard -- it's an individual determination made by a judge about a given use. Not only does sampling require special consideration, every use of any kind that is claimed to be fair requires special consideration. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant -- this is how copyright law and fair use work.
When I explained that before, you said "seems straightforward enough"... yet you are now denying that it's true.
I am fine with the status quo - regarding fair use.
There is no true legal status quo regarding fair use and sampling -- just an effective one in terms of how the industry operates. The B.I.G. lawsuit may open the question of what the legal status quo is. Does that make you uncomfortable? Are you denying that the estate has the same right to make a fair use defence as anyone else accused of copyright infringement?
That's what's happening. It's entirely possible that a judge in this or a similar case could say "sampling is protected by fair use" which would change huge segments of the music industry overnight. I guess you are afraid of that -- I welcome it.
Also, you should consider this when you talk about the "status quo": in the visual arts, courts have frequently found works of collage and appropriation art to be transformative and thus fair use. That's functionally more relevant to this question than any ruling that has so far been made about musical sampling -- so the status quo might not be as much on your side as you think.
You can read all of my comments in this very thread -- they outline my argument quite clearly. So far, you haven't made a material response to any of them.
But, since you need to be handheld, I'll summarize. All I ask is that you read the entire summary and respond to it in full if you're going to respond, since so far you've been cherrypicking.
My argument is this:
1 - Fair use should be interpreted as permissively as possible (I can elaborate as to why I feel this is required according to the Constitution and the judicial and legislative history of copyright law if you so desire).
2 - Under a permissive interpretation of fair use, most if not all sample-based music would qualify as transformative (having a new "expression, meaning or message" according to the first factor) and be almost certain to qualify for a fair use exception to copyright
3 - Currently, no court in the US has thoroughly addressed the question of fair use as it pertains to sampling (this isn't "my argument", it's a fact)
4 - If you consider 1-3, the rest should be obvious: I believe the sampling in the B.I.G. song to be fair use, I am glad they are taking that defence to court, and I hope the judge shares my opinion (as many but not all have) that a permissive interpretation of fair use is vital to the constitutionality of copyright law
Is that clear enough for you? The last time I tried to provide detail, you responded with "yeah yeah yeah" -- I'm hoping you can muster up something of a bit more substance this time around.
Don't know why you keep talking about plagiarism -- that's not the issue here at all. Plagiarism isn't even illegal as either a criminal or civil offence (except in certain very limited situations under state statutes). It has nothing to do with copyright law. Please educate yourself about the law if you want to have this conversation.
It's amusing that you repeatedly accuse me of not having any solid argument. So far, you literally haven't offered one statement of any substance to this entire discussion. Which I suppose I should take as my cue to walk away from it, since you're not showing any signs of changing.
Fair use is fair use. Its established. There are no new rules because it is sampling.
Okay, now you're just exposing your total lack of legal knowledge.
Fair use is not a clear standard. In fact it is not even defined as a 'standard' at all in law. It is a defence that is raised once an infringement complaint has been brought, and its success is based on a four-factor test. Judges must consider every claim of fair use separately, and weigh the four factors, and there is nothing in statute that defines clear lines either within each factor test or within fair use as a whole. It is arguably the most subjective area of copyright law.
Reality and fact can be confusing. in fact, in my opinion, i see sampling as having zero impact on existing copyright laws
"Impact on"? Nobody said that. Sampling is a form of use that some are claiming is fair use and thus, like any and every other claim of fair use, it must be determined by a judge. No judge has made that determination so far.
When you claim that the law is clear and sampling does not qualify as fair use, and that that's an established fact, you are incorrect.
I know it's never fun to find out you are wrong about something, but I'm sorry, your understanding of fair use is very misinformed.
samplers can be musicians - Im not against sampling.
Earlier you stated: "The ones that hate it are samplers, not musicians" which I took to mean you consider the two to be mutually exclusive. Glad to know I misunderstood.
but obviously, like any other art form, if you are not careful with plagiarism, you could get caught
Further exposure of your total lack of legal knowledge. Copyright infringement has very little if anything to do with plagiarism. Or are you saying that you think sampling is fine as long as you give full credit?
What is your knowledge of music?
I just got a sweet, 24 track, digital recorder, and a microKorg a few months ago. and I ran a recording studio in the earlier 80s. Plus I've played in several bands in and around san francisco. and songs I have written and recording, I could go on and on about music, and music theory. I don't think this argument is about music.
Er, congrats? I have some great Korg gear too -- I especially love their recent line of throwback analog synthesizers. The Monotribe is lots of fun. I do most of my recording on a computer, with gear running through a Yamaha mixer and an Steinberg (aka Yamaha) DAW. I wasn't alive yet in the early 80s, but maybe that's why I'm not being all crotchety about the kids these days and their samples. Just a thought.
if they don't have a good fair use, instead of contacting the courts, why didn't they just contact whomever has the rights? (i really don't know the details here, perhaps that answer is obvious)
Um, because they believe they DO have a good fair use defence, which is why they are taking it to the court. Why don't you understand that? Fair use is something that can only be determined by a judge -- it's not a clear standard nor is it intended to be.
I told you, I am for fair use, but not all uses are fair.
And I have told you that the question of fair use and sampling is not as clear as you think it is. In fact, is has never even been fully addressed by the court. Why have you not responded to that point? Instead you still continue to pretend that your arguments are based in established fact and logic when, in fact, they are nothing of the sort.
If you have any real reply that is not baked in bias or fantasy, please share them
I've shared several. I've pointed out that fair use has not been determined for sampling -- you have not responded.
I've pointed out that the clear legal line against sampling is only binding in the 6th Circuit and not, in fact, universal copyright law -- you have not responded.
I've asked you in clear logical terms what freedom of yours is curtailed by other people having the freedom to sample -- you have not responded.
I've pointed out that a growing majority of people consider sampling and remixing to be a valid, important art-form -- you have not responded.
i don't really care what you say or think
I hate to break it to you, but I and anyone who values music stopped caring what you think way back when you claimed that samplers are not musicians, because all your opinions became uninteresting and invalid at that moment.
the samplers are arguing for allocating the creativity
Uh, what do you mean by that?
Anyway, answer me this simple question: if someone samples your work, what are you now unable to do that you were able to do before? My only requirement is that you define this in terms of a freedom that has been taken away from you, rather than an ability to limit someone else's freedom being taken away from you.
I don't hear any samplers or remixers saying that.
Uh, of course not, they depend on the fixed works of others, so they aren't going to be pro-copyright.
Guess so. And I support them. They aren't the ones trying to limit anyone else's freedom -- you are. There's no way around that: they are arguing for permissiveness in creativity, and you are arguing that you get to be the arbiter of what is original and what has artistic value, and then use the power of the law to enforce that.
Are you really surprised that fewer and fewer people take your side?
Because, you don't start with a copy of something and end up with entirely new and different.
Um, no, not at all. You're not being very clear or comprehensive, or really explaining yourself, or addressing any of the questions or counterpoints anyone has raised. You are, in fact, doing an abysmal job of making your point, because you are assuming that it's simply "obvious" to everyone that sample-based music is somehow uncreative and unoriginal. But, if you were paying any attention to what people here are saying at all, you'd realize that most of us don't think that's nearly as obvious as you do.
Its not very encouraging to have your monopoly minimized by copycats.
Too bad for you then -- you should work on having a friendlier, less greedy attitude. The purpose of copyright is not to encourage your creativity, it's to encourage creativity as a whole.
You're standing here saying that you only want to be creative if you are allowed to limit the creativity of others. I don't hear any samplers or remixers saying that. Thus I'm led to the only sensible conclusion: they are the ones with the greater respect for art and creativity.