179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← back to listing · view thread

From:
To:
Date:
Sun, 13 Jul 1997 23:11:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:
Re: (idm) jedis vs. prodigy
Msg-Id:
<970713231118_1511486204@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Mbox:
idm.9707.gz
KaisrSolze@aol.com wrote:
quoted 1 line Which raises the question "how far is too far?" I think everybody on this>>Which raises the question "how far is too far?" I think everybody on this
list supports the concept of sampling to one extent or another. What if IDM got to rewrite copyright law? To what extent should we respect intellectual property? Is there some arbitrary acceptable sample length? Does the sample need to be messed up/rearranged to be used? What compensation should artists get for the use of their work as samples? When can their work be used with or without their permission? When does something become public domain? And I don't want what the law is now--what do you think the law should be?<< "Steven T Lammers" <lammers1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
quoted 1 line ..I believe the legal cutoff is 11 notes.<<>>..I believe the legal cutoff is 11 notes.<<
And I believe that your belief is erroneous, a sort of music-law urban legend, at least in the United States. Still, it's always possible that eleven notes might be a fairly good rule-of-thumb for what will pass by unnoticed by record companies and other copyright holders, I dunno. (One music-rights guy I ran into in LA sported a button which said "Use one note, go to jail." It would certainly be interesting to see how he planned to decide who owned which note.) My understanding is that this whole area of law is fairly unsettled and awaiting a good test case. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) a de facto system of licensing is evolving, provoked by the occasional lawsuit which is settled out of court. This keeps the wheels of musical commerce turning (perhaps "grinding" might be more appropriate) but prevents the courts from dealing with the whole issue - which they'd probably prefer. Here in the US, the Supreme Court has fairly clearly implied that they'd like Congress to settle things by changing the copyright law and instituting a mandatory licensing scheme for sampling and other quasi-legal practices. A good source of (admittedly biased) information is the book _Fair Use_ by Negativland about their run-in with U2 after they released a single which used a sample of "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." (They lost that battle, but have continued to propagandize in an attempt to win the war, at least on the public relations front.) Ed Fitzgerald