IDM Mailing Archive

1997-04-21 15:46Seofon>Comte de Lautremont said or wrote (at least, I'm told he did): > "Plagiarism is necessary

From:: Seofon <seofon@wco.com>
To:: <idm@hyperreal.com>
Date:: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:46:48 -0700
Subject:: (idm) Re: Plagiarism

quoted 6 lines Comte de Lautremont said or wrote (at least, I'm told he did):

>Comte de Lautremont said or wrote (at least, I'm told he did): > "Plagiarism is necessary. Progress implies it. It embraces an author's >phrase, > makes use of his expressions, erases a false idea and replaces it with >the right > idea."

The author A. A. Attanasio once said to me, in regard to sampling artistic ideas, "It is the one mud of all sculpting", a statement with which I very much agree. The idea that artists are these little islands of talent scrabbling for ideas and grandiosity at at least dull, and at most absurd and backward, IMHO. Absolutely, progress involves composting the past.

quoted 5 lines An example that comes to mind is an

>> An example that comes to mind is an >> incident involving Mark Gage. He says someone slowed down one of his >> songs, changed the name, and proceeded to release it on a compilation >> cd. That is hardly flattery or musical evolution. And unless your >> material is properly protected this kind of thing can happen.

Oh goody, I think I'll play devil's advocate today. I'll grant that this is an incredibly stupid and irritating thing to do, but does it really set Mark back at all? And this is even the extreme case. DJ's spin Mark's stuff all the time; and does he get a cut? Does the DJ announce "Ahem, this is Vapourspace now playing -- go out and buy his records"? If I unwittingly buy a CD and realize that the artist is a "ripoff artist" ... well, that's a bad bit of luck and I won't let it happen again. But if the masses grant fame and appreciation to the ripoff artist, then this is a matter of marketing and mass stupidity, not music. Like it or not, there is more to the music industry than music, let alone musical evolution. By all means, you can charge after people and sue them over every little sample ... I think it's a big waste of time. I'd rather put the effort into promoting myself better or something. After all, if someone rips off one of my songs and gets rich and famous with it, then the brute fact is that they have better PR than me. --Seofon

1997-04-21 16:12Chris Fahey-----Original Message----- From: seofon@wco.com Like it or not, there is more to the music

From:: Chris Fahey <chris@wanderlust.com>
To:: 'IDM' <idm@hyperreal.com>
Date:: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 12:12:41 -0400
Subject:: RE: (idm) Re: Plagiarism

-----Original Message----- From: seofon@wco.com Like it or not, there is more to the music industry than music, let alone musical evolution. By all means, you can charge after people and sue them over every little sample ... I think it's a big waste of time. I'd rather put the effort into promoting myself better or something. After all, if someone rips off one of my songs and gets rich and famous with it, then the brute fact is that they have better PR than me. --Seofon CF sez: I agree somewhat, but you're gonna get flamed like nuts by artist victimized by copyright stealers with powerful lawyers. To have good PR you need $, which isn't distributed fairly to the people based on merit! BTW, when a DJ spins someone's records they legally ARE required to pay for it just as if they used a big sample on a CD. This is usually done through ASCAP fees. Basically, a nightclub or bar which plays recorded music MUST pay ASCAP a certain flat fee per year to be permitted to play "music" (just general "music") in their establishment, whether it's a tape, a DJ, or even a transistor radio. If the music is part of the attraction of the establishment, then the establishment must pay the fee. (If they do not pay, they can be sued for copyright infringement.) This money, ostensibly, goes to the artists and/or record labels. Chart tracking and album sales, i think, help determine how to distribute the money to whom. Radio stations pay these fees too, but I think they are supposed to give rough estimates as to what music they are playing. So the classic rock stations don't pay astralwerks anything, for example. So, technically and legally, whenever you play somebody's music for personal profit you have to pay the artist, however indirectly. Anybody know more about this who can explain it more accurately? I'm no entertainment lawyer -CF

1997-04-21 21:13Zenon M. FeszczakAt 12:12 -0400 21.04.97, you wrote: > After >all, if > someone rips off one of my songs an

From:: Zenon M. Feszczak <feszczak@sas.upenn.edu>
To:: <idm@hyperreal.com>
Date:: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:13:19 -0400
Subject:: (idm) Re: Plagiarism
Reply to:: RE: (idm) Re: Plagiarism

At 12:12 -0400 21.04.97, you wrote:

quoted 5 lines After

> After >all, if > someone rips off one of my songs and gets rich and famous with >it, then the > brute fact is that they have better PR than me.

...and a brute fact that is. Might makes right? I don't buy it. PR should not be the defining factor in success And PR, as we all know, is not a good criterion by which to discover good music. That's why we need discussion lists like this one. If one were to making judgements based on PR hype, then we'd all right now be listening to the greatest hits of <CENSORED BY IDM PURITY BOT>

(idm) Re: Plagiarism