Seeing as how plenty of great art was produced without the enforcement
of intellectual property, I don't see how it is evident that you have to
have copyright law to survive as an artist. I also don't think you can
say what is or is not an artistic statement. If you pay for all the
samples that you use, hey, you're a nice, law-abiding citizen and I'm
sure the government and its pals are happy about it. If you are going to
sample some stuff and not pay for it, I don't see how you can justify it
by saying you are doing it for "artistic" reappropriation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff/Ninja Tune [mailto:jeff@ninjatune.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:46 PM
To: idm@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics
Yes, I only have to pay for samples because of the existing structure,
but it's that same structure that allows us and our artist to make a
living so I'm not complaining.
Yes, all art samples. I fail to see where your argument is going here
(or at least how it's an argument to what I posted). I'm not saying
where the line is drawn, I'm simply saying that downloading a piece of
music is not an artistic statement, therefore it's a completely seperate
argument to sampling. The original reason I posted was because homeboy
was suggesting that I was a hypocrite to take a stance on downloading
when I run a label that releases some sample based music. Both involve
copyright issues, but they're very different arguments.
Jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org