IDM Mailing Archive

quoted 1 line Check the archives

>Check the archives

Would if I could, but they're phucked up right now. Anyway, my original post has been misinterpreted by some, partly due to my own poor word choice. Here's my explanation: >I don't want what the law is now--what do you think the law should be? What I meant was, I don't want to hear from posters what the exact wording of the law is now. Most of these laws were written years ago. I'm not saying they're by any means obsolete, but sample-based music has really increased in the last 20(?) years, and as such, it would seem like a good idea to at least reexamine our current system. Also, on a more practical level, we seem to have a whole bunch of debates about when sampling is a ripoff, when it isn't, etc. Wouldn't it be better to have one big debate where we could (try to) reach some sort of general consensus on what is proper? Rather than sniping at one another, why doesn't everybody say what they think the law should be-constructive criticism is the key, not destructive. And that's where all my other suggestions came in, food for thought. Change the words "Is there" to "Should there be", "Does" to "Should", etc.

quoted 2 lines Is there some arbitrary acceptable sample length? Does the sample

> Is there some arbitrary acceptable sample length? Does the sample >need to be messed up/rearranged to be used? What compensation should

artists

quoted 2 lines get for the use of their work as samples? When can their work be used with

>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?

These are all points for discussion. I don't want legalistic specifics, just some nice generalities. And, if you think the laws are fine now, say so. Just seems with artists scared to release things because they'd get sued, etc., etc. it would be good to have some laws which rbut why not discuss it anyway? Then, when I get elected President, I'll do right by IDM. Finally, on the whole socialism/capitalism thing, I really don't think that's a valid point at all. If we lived in a fully capitalist/libertarian society, we wouldn't have any copyright laws. However, we live in a highly regulated capitalist society, and as such, we create regulations (read laws, etc.) which best serve the values of our society. So, why not discuss what the most reasonable regulations are? Laws do change sometimes, and the impetus comes from somewhere. That somewhere isn't always big business. (If you don't want to clog the list as I have done, you can private e-mail me and I'll compile the positions of the various camps, for semi-regular updates, etc.) Sam