IDM Mailing Archive

oh for chist sake pirating, file sharing, downloading, swapping who gives a flying f**k what the RIAA calls it... if it's not properly authorized, it's STEALING, PERIOD! it doesn't matter if it's greedy, rich, butt-heads like Metallica, or some starving indie artist. pirate, according to Webster's, by definition means: One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization. which accurately describes the unlicenced manufacture of hit records for retail AND mp3 sharing/downloading. john

quoted 1 line C Twomey <newpower@interlog.com> 03/11/03 04:24PM >>>

>>> C Twomey <newpower@interlog.com> 03/11/03 04:24PM >>>

I'd like to point out that "pirating" is the term the RIAA/music biz has given to file sharing/downloading. Previously "pirating" was the unlicensed manufacture of hit records for retail - like someone in South America copying Michael Jackson records and importing them cheaply into the US. Now RIAA is trying to brand fans/consumers as pirates which is wrong by definition and just plain stupid as a strategy. - CT John Reading wrote:

quoted 2 lines I'd like to see a show of hands of people that don't priate on

> > > I'd like to see a show of hands of people that don't priate on

this

quoted 1 line list.

> > list.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Sure, it's theft if that is what the law says theft is. That doesn't mean that the law isn't a sham supported by parties trying to influence how the law is written and applied for their own benefit. You are taking for granted the concept of intellectual property. Copyright laws didn't even exist until a few centuries ago. Do you honestly see no difference between appropriating a physical object claimed by someone else and an idea? How did any artist create his work? You think he hasn't appropriated the ideas of others? You are accepting a construction of reality imposed upon you without criticism. Way to go, sucker. I should copyright intelligence and sell it. God knows I'd make a shitload of money off you. -----Original Message----- From: John Hager [mailto:HagerJW@Healthall.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:03 PM To: idm@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics oh for chist sake pirating, file sharing, downloading, swapping who gives a flying f**k what the RIAA calls it... if it's not properly authorized, it's STEALING, PERIOD! it doesn't matter if it's greedy, rich, butt-heads like Metallica, or some starving indie artist. pirate, according to Webster's, by definition means: One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization. which accurately describes the unlicenced manufacture of hit records for retail AND mp3 sharing/downloading. john --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to create something and they put it in the marketplace to profit from that creation then anything that doesn't involve the exchange of money for it qualifies as a form of stealing. If they wanted to give it away for free then it should be their choice as to whether they want to do so, not arbitrarily decided by people with access to the ability to do so. I'm not going to get all heavy about it as I see all sorts of negative and positive aspects to file sharing/swapping (mostly positive at this particular juncture of its history), but can we at least admit that when one obtains something for free when that thing exists in the physical realm with a price tag attached then it technically is stealing. And yes copyright laws were made by the people standing to benefit from them, but then murder laws were presumably made by the people who didn't want to be murdered, and that whole allowing woman to vote law was probably made by some woman who wanted to vote.... Jeff

quoted 49 lines From: "pixilated" <pixilated@alum.dartmouth.org>

> From: "pixilated" <pixilated@alum.dartmouth.org> > Organization: Dartmouth College > Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:15:04 -0500 > To: idm@hyperreal.org > Subject: RE: [idm] Indie Ethics > > Sure, it's theft if that is what the law says theft is. That doesn't > mean that the law isn't a sham supported by parties trying to influence > how the law is written and applied for their own benefit. You are taking > for granted the concept of intellectual property. Copyright laws didn't > even exist until a few centuries ago. Do you honestly see no difference > between appropriating a physical object claimed by someone else and an > idea? How did any artist create his work? You think he hasn't > appropriated the ideas of others? You are accepting a construction of > reality imposed upon you without criticism. Way to go, sucker. I should > copyright intelligence and sell it. God knows I'd make a shitload of > money off you. > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Hager [mailto:HagerJW@Healthall.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:03 PM > To: idm@hyperreal.org > Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics > > > > oh for chist sake > pirating, file sharing, downloading, swapping > who gives a flying f**k what the RIAA calls it... > if it's not properly authorized, it's STEALING, > PERIOD! it doesn't matter if it's greedy, rich, butt-heads > like Metallica, or some starving indie artist. > > pirate, according to Webster's, by definition means: > > One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without > authorization. > > which accurately describes the unlicenced manufacture of hit records for > retail AND mp3 sharing/downloading. > > john > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Jeff/Ninja Tune wrote:

quoted 5 lines Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to create something and they

>Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to create something and they >put it in the marketplace to profit from that creation then anything that >doesn't involve the exchange of money for it qualifies as a form of >stealing. >

so its stealing if i'm walking down the street and a guy drives by blasting amon tobin? do you guys have a system setup to take these royalties payments? how am i supposed to track all the songs i "steal" on my walk to work? thats rediculous. you cannot charge me for learning the information you put into the public. you can only charge me a for a service you provide be it a concert, or a nice shiney cd+art, or *gasp* hi-quality .ogg files downloads from your speedy trusted servers. suggesting that the information creator has control over the disemination of that information is obsene and fascist.

quoted 4 lines If they wanted to give it away for free then it should be their

>If they wanted to give it away for free then it should be their >choice as to whether they want to do so, not arbitrarily decided by people >with access to the ability to do so. >

you cannot control what i hear. period. if you want to make money, provide a service that i find worth paying for, there is no other way. laziness on the part of artists/labels expecting to reap money off of cd sales alone while not adapting their business model to follow the times is not a compelling argument for squashing my rights of free expression. furthermore, ninja tune literally built its entire catalog off of "stealing" the intellectual property of other artists, how dare you suggest this stops with you.

quoted 6 lines I'm not going to get all heavy about it as I see all sorts of negative and

>I'm not going to get all heavy about it as I see all sorts of negative and >positive aspects to file sharing/swapping (mostly positive at this >particular juncture of its history), but can we at least admit that when one >obtains something for free when that thing exists in the physical realm with >a price tag attached then it technically is stealing. >

no, i can't. the implications of this statement are too draconian.

quoted 5 lines And yes copyright laws were made by the people standing to benefit from

>And yes copyright laws were made by the people standing to benefit from >them, but then murder laws were presumably made by the people who didn't >want to be murdered, and that whole allowing woman to vote law was probably >made by some woman who wanted to vote.... >

the difference is that copyright is a restriction on other peoples rights of free expression, whereas putting a piece of metal through my head is not a right of yours. they are not comparable. this is a fascinating debate, and its going to nag us all for some time. welcome to the 21st century :) -josh keep your damned ip protection chips out of my head, your proto-facsist corperate copy right enforcements androids!!!!!!11!! ;)

quoted 63 lines Jeff

>Jeff > > > > >>From: "pixilated" <pixilated@alum.dartmouth.org> >>Organization: Dartmouth College >>Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:15:04 -0500 >>To: idm@hyperreal.org >>Subject: RE: [idm] Indie Ethics >> >>Sure, it's theft if that is what the law says theft is. That doesn't >>mean that the law isn't a sham supported by parties trying to influence >>how the law is written and applied for their own benefit. You are taking >>for granted the concept of intellectual property. Copyright laws didn't >>even exist until a few centuries ago. Do you honestly see no difference >>between appropriating a physical object claimed by someone else and an >>idea? How did any artist create his work? You think he hasn't >>appropriated the ideas of others? You are accepting a construction of >>reality imposed upon you without criticism. Way to go, sucker. I should >>copyright intelligence and sell it. God knows I'd make a shitload of >>money off you. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: John Hager [mailto:HagerJW@Healthall.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:03 PM >>To: idm@hyperreal.org >>Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics >> >> >> >>oh for chist sake >>pirating, file sharing, downloading, swapping >>who gives a flying f**k what the RIAA calls it... >>if it's not properly authorized, it's STEALING, >>PERIOD! it doesn't matter if it's greedy, rich, butt-heads >>like Metallica, or some starving indie artist. >> >>pirate, according to Webster's, by definition means: >> >>One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without >>authorization. >> >>which accurately describes the unlicenced manufacture of hit records for >>retail AND mp3 sharing/downloading. >> >>john >> >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >>For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >> >> >> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >

-- ____________________________________________________ independent u.s. drum'n'bass -- http://vitriolix.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

At 06:03 PM 11/03/03, Josh Steiner wrote:

quoted 1 line this is a fascinating debate,

>this is a fascinating debate,

No, it's a fucking boring debate that pops up on this list every few months and goes around and around and around in the same circles every single time.

quoted 1 line and its going to nag us all for some time.

>and its going to nag us all for some time.

If by "nag" you mean "annoy to the point of insanity" - yes, you're absolutely right. Please, for the love of Jebus - could people please stop this discussion? The MP3 lovers are not going to say anything to convince the MP3 haters or vice versa, so it's a completelt futile "debate". Greg :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Greg Clow ::: greg@stainedproductions.com ::::::::: concert & event promotions ::: http://www.stainedproductions.com :::::: electronic music radio & reviews ::: http://www.feedbackmonitor.com ::: electronic/experimental record label ::: http://www.pieheadrecords.com ::::::::: 158 Close Ave. 2nd Floor ::: Toronto, Ontario M6K 2V5 ::: Canada --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

no one is forcing you to read this, and juding by the volumn of talk going on here this is obviously an interesting discussion to many people here. if you dont like it, delete it. Greg Clow wrote:

quoted 39 lines At 06:03 PM 11/03/03, Josh Steiner wrote:

> At 06:03 PM 11/03/03, Josh Steiner wrote: > >> this is a fascinating debate, > > > No, it's a fucking boring debate that pops up on this list every few > months and goes around and around and around in the same circles every > single time. > >> and its going to nag us all for some time. > > > If by "nag" you mean "annoy to the point of insanity" - yes, you're > absolutely right. > > Please, for the love of Jebus - could people please stop this > discussion? The MP3 lovers are not going to say anything to convince > the MP3 haters or vice versa, so it's a completelt futile "debate". > > > Greg > > > > :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Greg Clow ::: > greg@stainedproductions.com > ::::::::: concert & event promotions ::: > http://www.stainedproductions.com > :::::: electronic music radio & reviews ::: > http://www.feedbackmonitor.com > ::: electronic/experimental record label ::: > http://www.pieheadrecords.com > ::::::::: 158 Close Ave. 2nd Floor ::: Toronto, Ontario M6K 2V5 ::: > Canada > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

-- ____________________________________________________ independent u.s. drum'n'bass -- http://vitriolix.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

I know the artists & label want to get paid for their efforts and they damn well should. But don't you think some of these artists seem like hypocrites when they use cracked software. I remember being over a friend house when a very popular idm artist wanted to burn a stack of cds my friend had and that artist told them about how another BIG name idm artist gave them some cracked software. (Sorry I'm not going to name names). Why are we back on this topic, hasn't already been talked about to death) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 22 lines From: Josh Steiner <joschi@eds.org>

> From: Josh Steiner <joschi@eds.org> > Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:03:26 -0800 > To: Jeff/Ninja Tune <jeff@ninjatune.net> > Cc: idm@hyperreal.org > Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics > > Jeff/Ninja Tune wrote: > >> Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to create something and they >> put it in the marketplace to profit from that creation then anything that >> doesn't involve the exchange of money for it qualifies as a form of >> stealing. >> > so its stealing if i'm walking down the street and a guy drives by > blasting amon tobin? do you guys have a system setup to take these > royalties payments? how am i supposed to track all the songs i "steal" > on my walk to work? thats rediculous. you cannot charge me for > learning the information you put into the public. you can only charge > me a for a service you provide be it a concert, or a nice shiney cd+art, > or *gasp* hi-quality .ogg files downloads from your speedy trusted > servers. suggesting that the information creator has control over the > disemination of that information is obsene and fascist.

I never said that was stealing. There's a difference between hearing something and having a reproduction of a physical piece of work on a hard-drive.

quoted 14 lines If they wanted to give it away for free then it should be their

> >> If they wanted to give it away for free then it should be their >> choice as to whether they want to do so, not arbitrarily decided by people >> with access to the ability to do so. >> > you cannot control what i hear. period. if you want to make money, > provide a service that i find worth paying for, there is no other way. > laziness on the part of artists/labels expecting to reap money off of cd > sales alone while not adapting their business model to follow the times > is not a compelling argument for squashing my rights of free expression. > > furthermore, ninja tune literally built its entire catalog off of > "stealing" the intellectual property of other artists, how dare you > suggest this stops with you.

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.

quoted 7 lines I'm not going to get all heavy about it as I see all sorts of negative and

>> I'm not going to get all heavy about it as I see all sorts of negative and >> positive aspects to file sharing/swapping (mostly positive at this >> particular juncture of its history), but can we at least admit that when one >> obtains something for free when that thing exists in the physical realm with >> a price tag attached then it technically is stealing. >> > no, i can't. the implications of this statement are too draconian.

quoted 9 lines And yes copyright laws were made by the people standing to benefit from

>> And yes copyright laws were made by the people standing to benefit from >> them, but then murder laws were presumably made by the people who didn't >> want to be murdered, and that whole allowing woman to vote law was probably >> made by some woman who wanted to vote.... >> > > the difference is that copyright is a restriction on other peoples > rights of free expression, whereas putting a piece of metal through my > head is not a right of yours. they are not comparable.

Some days I really would like to put a piece of metal through someone's head...it would be very dramatic and possibly qualify as a piece of art. Fucking stupid laws preventing my freedom of expression. Jeff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

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. >

all right kids, lets beat this fucker to death and steer the piracy thread in the next obvious direction with a fun little excursive in self reflection. assuming a number of you idm contributors are, like yours-truly, a musician of the electronic genre, lets step back from the pirated music quandary and ask ourselves if the tools we computer musicians are using are legit copies. it has become commonplace for musicians to approach me unashamedly - EVEN PROUDLY at robotspeak with tech questions regarding an arsenal of pirated warez. I understand that a music software's usefulness as a creative tool, unlike a guitar, sousaphone or accordion, is not self-evident. and trying-before-buying is where kracks excel. im not about to tell a newbie musician to shell out 700 bones for a copy of logic sight unseen, and at times i've recommended against it. BUT 2 years later when they've comfortably reached smug logic power user status with their krack rack of virtual synths, its not any easy thing- to settle a moral score and buy a legit copy. Some of the bleeding edge companies - native instruments being the poster child - are apparently just a tick from bleeding to death because of this krackage pestilence, which begs the chicken - egg question: are apps expensive because software companies are money-grubbing capitalists who want to price-out their target consumer, or are software companies forced to raise prices on apps to keep their company running and to pay their staff of incredibly talented, hardworking', and CREATIVE software engineers? further, how can they claim ownership over lines of code- its all ones and zeros, eh? ;] ------------ by the way, we are doing 2 free clinics this saturday. prop reason @ 1:00, ableton live @ 3:00, so if you can't figure out your krack because you got no manual, come on down and get yerself some learn'in! ;) lots of love and chocolate covered unicorns for all, aln -- alan_stewart robotspeak alan@robotspeak.com 415_554_1977 On 3/12/03 9:34 AM, "nethed" <nethed@ninjatune.net> wrote:

quoted 48 lines In the US, look at the links I just posted.

> 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: >> 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. >>

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

That is not begging the question. Look up "petitio principii." -----Original Message----- From: a stewart [mailto:alan@robotspeak.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:25 PM To: idm@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [idm] warez your krack? [was indie ethics] Some of the bleeding edge companies - native instruments being the poster child - are apparently just a tick from bleeding to death because of this krackage pestilence, which begs the chicken - egg question: are apps expensive because software companies are money-grubbing capitalists who want to price-out their target consumer, or are software companies forced to raise prices on apps to keep their company running and to pay their staff of incredibly talented, hardworking', and CREATIVE software engineers? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 8 lines Some of the bleeding edge companies - native instruments being the

> Some of the bleeding edge companies - native instruments being the > poster child - are apparently just a tick from bleeding to death > because of this krackage pestilence, which begs the chicken - egg > question: are apps expensive because software companies are > money-grubbing capitalists who want to price-out their target consumer, > or are software companies forced to raise prices on apps to keep their > company running and to pay their staff of incredibly talented, > hardworking', and CREATIVE software engineers?

Except that it's not an either/or situation. They're creating products that cater to a niche of a niche -- people looking for esoteric programs for computer synthesis. While I think Native Instruments make very quality products, they're also making speciality products. They're attempting to save themselves by expanding their line (they just announced two spin-offs from the Kontakt program at the Frankfurt Messe for a low price), but expanding their line costs money as well. If they wanted to make gobs of money from making music products, they'd be making guitars or something. Regardless of the number of people who use their software as cracked versions (which, arguably, doesn't affect their bottom line as those people rarely have the monetary means to purchase it in the first place, unlike a $12 cd), they'd have to appeal to a much larger audience if they're in need of pulling down a lot of money. But a company that's still developing new products as well as supporting most of their older products doesn't really scream "failing company" to me. derek -- eggytoast.com - eggtastic.com ------ catchy signature coming soon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

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

quoted 30 lines From: "pixilated" <pixilated@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG>

> From: "pixilated" <pixilated@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG> > Organization: Dartmouth College > Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:19:47 -0500 > To: idm@hyperreal.org > Subject: RE: [idm] Indie Ethics > > 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. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

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

You can make plenty of great art without copyright enforcement, however making money off it (if that's the aim) is a lot easier to navigate with copyrights in effect. I can say without a doubt that downloading a track is not an artistic statement. Show me the "art" in it and I'll back down (cue massive argument about what constitutes art). As for sampling, I can argue all day that it's justified as an art form whether one pays for the samples or not. I believe copyright should protect works in their original state, but shouldn't impede someone from using that work to make a new form of art. Jeff

quoted 42 lines From: "pixilated" <pixilated@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG>

> From: "pixilated" <pixilated@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG> > Organization: Dartmouth College > Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:10:02 -0500 > To: idm@hyperreal.org > Subject: RE: [idm] Indie Ethics > > 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 >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

You have the option to sell your ideas in the marketplace because the law maintains a monopoly for you. I think you're confusing which came first, intellectual property law or the marketplace. Most of us have grown up in cultures that pretty much take for granted the idea that ideas can be owned, but the concept that something like a novel or a song exists immaterially, can be owned, and that the distribution of its physical manifestation can be controlled are relatively new. People created works of art before there were any such legal protections. I'm not necessarily saying we should abolish intellectual property, but it should be clear that the idea of intellectual property is problematic. I believe in contracts. It isn't apparent that these kinds of contracts are so great, and the implications of the monopolistic control of images and ideas are actually rather frightening. I understand how it sucks that some people download terabytes of music and don't give a dime to anyone involved in its production, but calling that stealing still doesn't legitimize the concept of copyright itself (the fact that it is a law doesn't make it legitimate). And no, it's not the same thing as stealing to download music when CDs containing the same music exist. I don't think it's all that relevant how large or small a label or artist is. Laws should apply equally to everyone. I don't blindly accept the laws, though. When you bring up laws against violence and for suffrage, are you saying that the creation of new laws necessarily promotes progress towards something better, and if so, whose idea of "better?" -----Original Message----- From: Jeff/Ninja Tune [mailto:jeff@ninjatune.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:41 PM To: idm@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to create something and they put it in the marketplace to profit from that creation then anything that doesn't involve the exchange of money for it qualifies as a form of stealing. If they wanted to give it away for free then it should be their choice as to whether they want to do so, not arbitrarily decided by people with access to the ability to do so. I'm not going to get all heavy about it as I see all sorts of negative and positive aspects to file sharing/swapping (mostly positive at this particular juncture of its history), but can we at least admit that when one obtains something for free when that thing exists in the physical realm with a price tag attached then it technically is stealing. And yes copyright laws were made by the people standing to benefit from them, but then murder laws were presumably made by the people who didn't want to be murdered, and that whole allowing woman to vote law was probably made by some woman who wanted to vote.... Jeff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

At 05:41 PM 3/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:

quoted 6 lines Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to create something and they

>Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to create something and they >put it in the marketplace to profit from that creation then anything that >doesn't involve the exchange of money for it qualifies as a form of >stealing. If they wanted to give it away for free then it should be their >choice as to whether they want to do so, not arbitrarily decided by people >with access to the ability to do so.

How does that work for promo CD's? Those are given away for free. Radio CD's? Free. They're expected to be played for hundreds (thousands if it's a popular group) of people at no cost to the people. derek --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

we give them away for free to be broadcast for promotional purpose. Much like we can put free MP3's into circulation at our discretion. It should be noted that there is an income stream for radio play. There is some confusion that somehow I'm implying that we should own and get paid for the fact that our music gets broadcast and that people should pay if they hear Amon coming from their neighbours window. I never implied that. I'm simply stating there's a big difference between hearing a track on the radio or via other means, and actually having a reproduction of said track sitting on a hard-drive. I have to re-state again that we at Ninja Tune don't take a particularly hard stance once way or the other, it just irks me that people try and take some moral high-ground on what at the end of the day really is piracy. I shoplifted all sorts of shit when I was young and never felt really bad about it, but I never tried to pass it off as a cultural revolution. All I'm saying is that it should be up to the people that own and/or created the work as to how they want it to circulate. Jeff

quoted 27 lines From: EggyToast <eggy@eggtastic.com>

> From: EggyToast <eggy@eggtastic.com> > Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:03:10 -0500 > To: idm@hyperreal.org > Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics > > At 05:41 PM 3/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: > > >> Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to create something and they >> put it in the marketplace to profit from that creation then anything that >> doesn't involve the exchange of money for it qualifies as a form of >> stealing. If they wanted to give it away for free then it should be their >> choice as to whether they want to do so, not arbitrarily decided by people >> with access to the ability to do so. > > How does that work for promo CD's? Those are given away for free. Radio > CD's? Free. They're expected to be played for hundreds (thousands if it's > a popular group) of people at no cost to the people. > > derek > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

It is piracy because the law says it's piracy. I am not trying to justify theft. I am asking people to examine what "theft" is, to critically examine the world around them. Does it not seem odd to you that you can claim sole ownership to am arrangement of sounds that someone could reproduce without your incurring any cost? Music is just sound onto which we place meaning. I think you should be able to make a living doing what you do and I am glad Ninja Tune is around. That being said, I think you need to carefully consider what sort of system you are a part of and what the implications of that system are. Sure, radio play and MP3 listening are different, the key key difference being that someone else is deciding what will be played and when. This control is of great economic value. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff/Ninja Tune [mailto:jeff@ninjatune.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:57 AM To: EggyToast; idm@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics we give them away for free to be broadcast for promotional purpose. Much like we can put free MP3's into circulation at our discretion. It should be noted that there is an income stream for radio play. There is some confusion that somehow I'm implying that we should own and get paid for the fact that our music gets broadcast and that people should pay if they hear Amon coming from their neighbours window. I never implied that. I'm simply stating there's a big difference between hearing a track on the radio or via other means, and actually having a reproduction of said track sitting on a hard-drive. I have to re-state again that we at Ninja Tune don't take a particularly hard stance once way or the other, it just irks me that people try and take some moral high-ground on what at the end of the day really is piracy. I shoplifted all sorts of shit when I was young and never felt really bad about it, but I never tried to pass it off as a cultural revolution. All I'm saying is that it should be up to the people that own and/or created the work as to how they want it to circulate. Jeff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Well my justification for downloading mp3's is that I do eventually go out and buy records of the stuff I really like. The ability to listen to what I'm getting before I get it, and helps filter out a lot of crap that I wouldn't buy. I try and support small labels out there (buy cd's and records) I'de feel like an ass if I didn't. But I hate listening to real player clips on websites and there isn't shit for record stores for at least a six hour drive from where I live. Okay but I don't feel bad about d/ling Missy Elliot or something like that and nort buying the album. MP3's help me make an educated decision in wwhat records I buy. Indie labels gotta give it credit for that, there is a lot more underground music bieng exposed as a result. --- Jeff/Ninja Tune <jeff@ninjatune.net> wrote:

quoted 97 lines Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to

> > > Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to > create something and they > put it in the marketplace to profit from that > creation then anything that > doesn't involve the exchange of money for it > qualifies as a form of > stealing. If they wanted to give it away for free > then it should be their > choice as to whether they want to do so, not > arbitrarily decided by people > with access to the ability to do so. > > I'm not going to get all heavy about it as I see all > sorts of negative and > positive aspects to file sharing/swapping (mostly > positive at this > particular juncture of its history), but can we at > least admit that when one > obtains something for free when that thing exists in > the physical realm with > a price tag attached then it technically is > stealing. > > And yes copyright laws were made by the people > standing to benefit from > them, but then murder laws were presumably made by > the people who didn't > want to be murdered, and that whole allowing woman > to vote law was probably > made by some woman who wanted to vote.... > > Jeff > > > > From: "pixilated" <pixilated@alum.dartmouth.org> > > Organization: Dartmouth College > > Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:15:04 -0500 > > To: idm@hyperreal.org > > Subject: RE: [idm] Indie Ethics > > > > Sure, it's theft if that is what the law says > theft is. That doesn't > > mean that the law isn't a sham supported by > parties trying to influence > > how the law is written and applied for their own > benefit. You are taking > > for granted the concept of intellectual property. > Copyright laws didn't > > even exist until a few centuries ago. Do you > honestly see no difference > > between appropriating a physical object claimed by > someone else and an > > idea? How did any artist create his work? You > think he hasn't > > appropriated the ideas of others? You are > accepting a construction of > > reality imposed upon you without criticism. Way to > go, sucker. I should > > copyright intelligence and sell it. God knows I'd > make a shitload of > > money off you. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Hager [mailto:HagerJW@Healthall.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:03 PM > > To: idm@hyperreal.org > > Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics > > > > > > > > oh for chist sake > > pirating, file sharing, downloading, swapping > > who gives a flying f**k what the RIAA calls it... > > if it's not properly authorized, it's STEALING, > > PERIOD! it doesn't matter if it's greedy, rich, > butt-heads > > like Metallica, or some starving indie artist. > > > > pirate, according to Webster's, by definition > means: > > > > One who makes use of or reproduces the work of > another without > > authorization. > > > > which accurately describes the unlicenced > manufacture of hit records for > > retail AND mp3 sharing/downloading. > > > > john > > > > > > > > >

---------------------------------------------------------------------

quoted 8 lines To unsubscribe, e-mail:

> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: > idm-help@hyperreal.org > > > > >

---------------------------------------------------------------------

quoted 5 lines To unsubscribe, e-mail:

> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: > idm-help@hyperreal.org >

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Copyright and intellectual property became an issue when it was possible to reproduce and distribute a work without the producer of that work being acknowledged, or rewarded, for the initial work that was creating the income. Mass reproduction and distribution didn't exist a couple of centuries ago in the same way it does now. And I think you'll find that people were complaining about forgeries before copyright existed. on 11/3/03 10:15 pm the person going by the name pixilated at pixilated@alum.dartmouth.org spake :

quoted 44 lines Sure, it's theft if that is what the law says theft is. That doesn't

> Sure, it's theft if that is what the law says theft is. That doesn't > mean that the law isn't a sham supported by parties trying to influence > how the law is written and applied for their own benefit. You are taking > for granted the concept of intellectual property. Copyright laws didn't > even exist until a few centuries ago. Do you honestly see no difference > between appropriating a physical object claimed by someone else and an > idea? How did any artist create his work? You think he hasn't > appropriated the ideas of others? You are accepting a construction of > reality imposed upon you without criticism. Way to go, sucker. I should > copyright intelligence and sell it. God knows I'd make a shitload of > money off you. > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Hager [mailto:HagerJW@Healthall.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:03 PM > To: idm@hyperreal.org > Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics > > > > oh for chist sake > pirating, file sharing, downloading, swapping > who gives a flying f**k what the RIAA calls it... > if it's not properly authorized, it's STEALING, > PERIOD! it doesn't matter if it's greedy, rich, butt-heads > like Metallica, or some starving indie artist. > > pirate, according to Webster's, by definition means: > > One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without > authorization. > > which accurately describes the unlicenced manufacture of hit records for > retail AND mp3 sharing/downloading. > > john > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

What constitutes a "work?" What about the traditions of singing and oral storytelling? Were the content they produced not valid as "works?" Were troubadors and bards unable to make livings because people were stealing their content, most of which they had learned from others to begin with? Complain about forgeries, but what is it to be (in)authentic and why should you privilege one over the other? As for art in an age of mass reproduction...I'm tired. We can discuss Benjamin or whomever later. -----Original Message----- From: Muffin [mailto:muffin@signmytits.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 6:59 PM To: IDM Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics Copyright and intellectual property became an issue when it was possible to reproduce and distribute a work without the producer of that work being acknowledged, or rewarded, for the initial work that was creating the income. Mass reproduction and distribution didn't exist a couple of centuries ago in the same way it does now. And I think you'll find that people were complaining about forgeries before copyright existed. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

now THAT's what im talking 'bout!!!!! cheers, a On 3/12/03 10:31 AM, "daniel" <daniel@aptrick.com> wrote:

quoted 55 lines Heres a quandry - I am willing to bet half of the people bitching about

> Heres a quandry - I am willing to bet half of the people bitching about > people pirating MP3's and arguing over privacy/copyright laws have > pirated copies of all their music-making software. ; ) > > -daniel > > -----Original Message----- > From: a stewart [mailto:alan@robotspeak.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:25 PM > To: idm@hyperreal.org > Subject: Re: [idm] warez your krack? [was indie ethics] > > > all right kids, lets beat this fucker to death and steer the piracy > thread in the next obvious direction with a fun little excursive in self > reflection. > > assuming a number of you idm contributors are, like yours-truly, a > musician of the electronic genre, lets step back from the pirated music > quandary and ask ourselves if the tools we computer musicians are using > are legit copies. > > it has become commonplace for musicians to approach me unashamedly - > EVEN PROUDLY at robotspeak with tech questions regarding an arsenal of > pirated warez. I understand that a music software's usefulness as a > creative tool, unlike a guitar, sousaphone or accordion, is not > self-evident. and trying-before-buying is where kracks excel. im not > about to tell a newbie musician to shell out 700 bones for a copy of > logic sight unseen, and at times i've recommended against it. BUT 2 > years later when they've comfortably reached smug logic power user > status with their krack rack of virtual synths, its not any easy thing- > to settle a moral score and buy a legit copy. > > Some of the bleeding edge companies - native instruments being the > poster child - are apparently just a tick from bleeding to death because > of this krackage pestilence, which begs the chicken - egg question: are > apps expensive because software companies are money-grubbing capitalists > who want to price-out their target consumer, or are software companies > forced to raise prices on apps to keep their company running and to pay > their staff of incredibly talented, hardworking', and CREATIVE software > engineers? > > further, how can they claim ownership over lines of code- its all ones > and zeros, eh? ;] > > ------------ > > by the way, we are doing 2 free clinics this saturday. prop reason @ > 1:00, ableton live @ 3:00, so if you can't figure out your krack because > you got no manual, come on down and get yerself some learn'in! > > ;) > lots of love and chocolate covered unicorns for all, > aln >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

i pay for the software i use. a stewart wrote:

quoted 100 lines all right kids, lets beat this fucker to death and steer the piracy thread

> all right kids, lets beat this fucker to death and steer the piracy thread > in the next obvious direction with a fun little excursive in self > reflection. > > assuming a number of you idm contributors are, like yours-truly, a musician > of the electronic genre, lets step back from the pirated music quandary and > ask ourselves if the tools we computer musicians are using are legit copies. > > it has become commonplace for musicians to approach me unashamedly - EVEN > PROUDLY at robotspeak with tech questions regarding an arsenal of pirated > warez. I understand that a music software's usefulness as a creative tool, > unlike a guitar, sousaphone or accordion, is not self-evident. and > trying-before-buying is where kracks excel. im not about to tell a newbie > musician to shell out 700 bones for a copy of logic sight unseen, and at > times i've recommended against it. BUT 2 years later when they've > comfortably reached smug logic power user status with their krack rack of > virtual synths, its not any easy thing- to settle a moral score and buy a > legit copy. > > Some of the bleeding edge companies - native instruments being the poster > child - are apparently just a tick from bleeding to death because of this > krackage pestilence, which begs the chicken - egg question: are apps > expensive because software companies are money-grubbing capitalists who want > to price-out their target consumer, or are software companies forced to > raise prices on apps to keep their company running and to pay their staff of > incredibly talented, hardworking', and CREATIVE software engineers? > > further, how can they claim ownership over lines of code- its all ones and > zeros, eh? ;] > > ------------ > > by the way, we are doing 2 free clinics this saturday. prop reason @ 1:00, > ableton live @ 3:00, so if you can't figure out your krack because you got > no manual, come on down and get yerself some learn'in! > > ;) > lots of love and chocolate covered unicorns for all, > aln > > -- > alan_stewart > robotspeak > alan@robotspeak.com > 415_554_1977 > > On 3/12/03 9:34 AM, "nethed" <nethed@ninjatune.net> wrote: > > > 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: > >> 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. > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org