In the US, look at the links I just posted.
In the UK, have a look at the MCPS/PRS website.
There is substantial case law that has clearly defined and drawn
the line as to what a sample is.
Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and how
It Threatens Creativity
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Suggesting another book to buy before speaking without knowledge.
Sorry guys, but I went to harvard last summer and studied internet law
and spend my spare waking hours studying about these things and possible
solutions/alternatives - i thought this list had more 'intelligent'
people on it... perhaps they're just lurking waiting for the storm to
die down.
If anyone wants to know how Copyright and the Music Industry works in
the UK, I suggest checking out
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic - go to the contracts section written
by a lawyer. ask their experts a question and read the info on the site
about copyright and sampling. you might learn something today.
excuse if this sounds patronising and cynical -- i'll go back to lurking
nH
At 12:19 pm -0500 12/3/03, pixilated wrote:
quoted 18 lines You only have to pay for samples because of the existing structure of
>You only have to pay for samples because of the existing structure of
>copyrights. Anyway, who are you to decide what "sampling" is? All art
>"samples." I defy you to tell me where to draw the line. The copyright
>issue in art is about money, not creativity, as someone "sampling" your
>work does nothing to impede your own creation of art.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff/Ninja Tune [mailto:jeff@ninjatune.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:12 PM
>Cc: idm@hyperreal.org
>Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics
>
>We can debate all day on the merits of sampling, but it can start with
>the fact that you have no idea as to what samples we've cleared/paided
>for. It can end with the fact that sampling is an art form which
>re-arranges pre-existing work into new context and pieces of work. It's
>a big difference and two very different arguments.
>