DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: The General Forum: Copywriting...good or bad?

Forums > The General Forum

Copywriting...good or bad?

withering	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 11:21 AM mainstream. When the copyright finally has expired the work will most probably be long forgotten. If an artist's work are not profitable, the "heirs" to that work will most likely do nothing about it, but they will still sit on the copyright. Why do you want to give your kids something they haven't worked for? That's never good for anyone! And I really do not see why intellectual property should be treated the same as physical property ? After all, my kids aren't going to benefit much from the tons and tons of programming knowledge stuck inside my dead brain, are they? :upsidedown:" id="75549">Woody, that's a ! All we need now is some multi-billion entities to lobby it into our governments... In the music scene I'm part of, quality music (at least for lunatics like me ) perish every day, because they were released in such small quantities ( mainstream. When the copyright finally has expired the work will most probably be long forgotten. If an artist's work are not profitable, the "heirs" to that work will most likely do nothing about it, but they will still sit on the copyright. Why do you want to give your kids something they haven't worked for? That's never good for anyone! And I really do not see why intellectual property should be treated the same as physical property ? After all, my kids aren't going to benefit much from the tons and tons of programming knowledge stuck inside my dead brain, are they?
Larree	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 3:22 PM "All I am stating is when a tune hits the seven year mark or ten or 15 it should be allowed for individuals to use." Well, in theory, anyone can use anyone elses music after it's released. If you want to record and release your favorite Beatles song you go to the Harry Fox agancy and pay your license fee! Oh wait. You don't feel the copyright owner deserves to make money. Are you a communist?
Larree	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 3:24 PM "Why do you want to give your kids something they haven't worked for? That's never good for anyone!" Why do you want to trample on the rights of the individual to do whatever he or she wants to do with his or her own property?
peatrap	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 3:51 PM lets compair the artis to a contractor, the artis wants to control their music, yet sell it at the same time, then it should be ok for the contractor who built your patio to charge you each time your friends come over and use it. copyright should not fall in the same space as death and taxes, it should not be forever.
woodhead	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 4:40 PM Oh wait. You don't feel the copyright owner deserves to make money. Are you a communist No I am not a communist, but I also do not think it is right for a law suit for a song that is out of criculation do you? I think you need to read my post again, I am all for the ARTIST keeping the copy right and to be able to sell it for commercial use and recive all the money or a majority of it but also if the consumer or the end user gets it from a friend, a p2p app, or a flea market ar a second hand store, the consumer should not have to worry about a lawsuit. So if you think I am a communist for this then I guess you feel it is all right about the close to four hundred lawsuits for a song, is this true?
withering	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 5:05 PM to do whatever he or she wants to do with his or her own property? Here's what I want to happen with my property when I die: My Brain and every thing stored within it shall be forfeit... My Guitars and wordly possessions will pass on to my heirs... My Art will stay, for the world to enjoy... (Duh... someone's got High Hopes at least) That sounds all and and harmony to me...? I guess the difference is that you define Art together with wordly possessions, or bluntly said: in yer pocket. (And for someone that actually makes a living out of it, I kind of understand that. But not agreeing!)
peatrap	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 5:45 PM the entertainment sector has cut themselves a big piece of money pie in this country and they will try anything to hold on to it.if we are to play by their rules, lets pay the person that envented the way to clean your drinking water, the person who envented the sewing machine,the person who developed cancer fighting drugs, the one who envented carpet and on and on lets pay them for ever and what ever they ask. As you can quickly see, the copywright is against one of the principle driving forces that makes this country great, competition.
woodhead	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 5:57 PM As you can quickly see, the copywright is against one of the principle driving forces that makes this country great, competition. Great point peatrap.
mhaygen	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 7:56 PM Larree, I am backin you 100%. "Competition" would be trying to write a better song not re-doing someone elses! Buy the way manufacturers of some of the products listed above do pay a licensing fee to the inventors and patent holders. How can you compare a contractor to an artist. You can compare them to a hired gun songwriter but we covered that earlier in these posts. Who is to say that after 15 years a song is out of circulation tell that to elvis, the beatles, zepplin, etc. The songs are still played today. I still hear songs on the oldies stations that are over 50 years old. But wait I am a no talente shitball hack that can't write my own songs therefor I can use someone elses just because I want to. yea thats the ticket. I think that there should be a box to check on all of the copyright forms that states that you release ownership after 7, 15, 25, years or NEVER. (I choose never! everytime)A copright is more similar to a patent than a deck. After years of research, hard work and loads of money do you really want to give up ownership in your lifetime so some schmuck off the street with nothing to do with the project can collect from your work? Like Larree said pay the license fee if you want to record and release someone elses hard work. Anybody that wants to turn over the rights to their songs right now can send them to mhaygen@hotmail.com. I will try to find a way of using them for profit and not paying you. Please send only quality songs and recordings (the ones that are most personal) I figure your hard work isn't worth anything. Why do you people want to give it up so easily?
woodhead	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 9:01 PM I am not talking about recording a cover song or redoing some one elses song I am talking about fair use is all, and the ARTIST recovering all copy rights after 7.5 yrs , lets say like Billy Joel for all that he wrote in the 70's this woud be a good start.
peatrap	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 9:59 PM mhaygen, would you be happer if the contractor was a engineer you know they dream up everthing that makes your life good.
woodhead	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 10:55 PM do you really want to give up ownership in your lifetime so some schmuck off the street with nothing to do with the project can collect from your work cover bands do this ever nite in the world, so ??
BenRebel	Date: December 24, 2003 @ 12:28 AM Michael Jackson owns the Publishing to the Beatles Catolog
woodhead	Date: December 24, 2003 @ 12:44 AM Thanx for the heads up Ben my bad.
YaBoyDrew	Date: December 24, 2003 @ 2:45 AM whoa i havent been here in a minute this is the most comments i eva hadda on a thread the most i hadd b4 was 83 im feelin gooooooooood. happy yall like this subject
mhaygen	Date: December 25, 2003 @ 11:58 AM I will be more clear on my thoughts about this subject. I believe that a songwriter(s) that writes a song for fun or profit should retain the rights and the ability to collect forever. If someone wants to use the song, record the song for release to the public they should pay the author no matter how long after the song was created. I don't care about a cover band playing the song a couple times a week, but if that band somehow got a record deal and wanted to put my song on their album (If it was a hit for them but not for me I should still get credit and compensation for my contribution) I am not sure on the subject, but I was under the impression that clubs that use live acts or DJ's pay a fee to the collecting agencys and that is why a cover band doesn't have to. (? not 100% sure) Finally this is America and if people want to give up their rights to their creations they ought to be able to. For me I want retain the rights and control of my work forever and pass it down to my family. After a certain number of years the work will have no relevance to society and be forgotten anyways. How many of you are covering popular songs from the 1880's or 1920's? Compensation goes to the creator not the facilitator. The engineer, producer, sometimes musicians are just hired hands, they will make their money on the front side whether or not a song sells. The Artist/songwriter makes their money if only if the song sells. Last of all if someone pays me to write, depending on the song or jingle it would belong to that someone and I earn what they pay. on the other hand if I write a song or jingle and a someone wants to buy it I have the right to sell, or license it to them for whatever price I can negotiate.
mhaygen	Date: December 25, 2003 @ 12:40 PM Even though Led Zepplin has all the money they need, I still want GM/Cadillac to pay them for the song they wrote 30 years ago. I think its fair. What about songs or albums that are still selling after 20 years should their creators stop collecting? PF Dark Side of the Moon, Sargent Pepper, Back In Black etc. Never went out of style. But if you want to give it away or sell it for a one time payoff thats OK too your choice.
mhaygen	Date: December 25, 2003 @ 12:40 PM Even though Led Zepplin has all the money they need, I still want GM/Cadillac to pay them for the song they wrote 30 years ago. I think its fair. What about songs or albums that are still selling after 20 years should their creators stop collecting? PF Dark Side of the Moon, Sargent Pepper, Back In Black etc. Never went out of style. But if you want to give it away or sell it for a one time payoff thats OK too your choice.
woodhead	Date: December 25, 2003 @ 12:55 PM PF Dark Side of the Moon, Sargent Pepper, Back In Black etc. Never went out of style. But if you want to give it away or sell it for a one time payoff thats OK too your choice. True if a person actually decides that they want the actual release and goes down and buys the release new in it original format. I agree with you on the recording of the song, my concern is as I stated is the artist recovers all copy right no matter what after 7.5 yrs to do with the tune as they see fit. If this was to happen artist such as billyjoel could take all his biggest hits of the 70 and make a collection to sell or resell the copy right or what ever. Lets face it when artist any artist loses their copy right is wrong. Ask John fogerty as well when the copy rights are either basicly stolen or the artist is mislead which has happened and prb still does today, "work for hire" so yea if something along these line happens 7.5 yrs later the artist retains the copyright legaly for comercial use, but at the same time if a CONSUMER and I do mean a Consumer, you or me find it on a p2p in it original format converted to an mp3 it should be legal for the CONSUMER to download it with out the fear of a lawsuit. to listen to, not to rerecord it remake it or any thing eles along these lines these fall under comercial use. I am speaking of the consumer, not another artist using your tune for free.
peatrap	Date: December 25, 2003 @ 4:38 PM artist are just a business, a business will invest millions in a product, if it flops they loss a great deal, if they win they a protected for a limited time to make their proffit, why should artist be treated different. I agree that if you us a artist work to make money then they deserve a cut.
mhaygen	Date: December 25, 2003 @ 5:22 PM OK Woodhead that seems to be a different topic than what I was thinking. One of which I have no definitive answer. It doesn't seem harmful unless you give it an exagerated scenario. Woodhead spends 3 months pre-production, 4 months in the studio, 2 months mix & mastering, spends $75,000 on recording and $25,000 on regional promotion.(Greatest Woodhead CD to date) Record gets releases mhaygen buys 1st copy in stores and converts it to mp3 shares with the world on the internet no more copies sold, because everyone gets it for free. Woodhead loses record deal for lack of sales, makes no money and never heard from again. You have to protect yourself. I am a consumer and I have no problems paying for mp3s $.99 each on ITunes or otherwise. The free stuff on the internet should be things that were intended to be free, not stolen material.
peatrap	Date: December 25, 2003 @ 6:53 PM mhaygen, you hit the nail right on the head about paying $.99 or less for singles. the riaa drew a line in the sand, you are going to be squeezed for ever penny they can get out of you, they were not willing to change. in a indirect way they created this tar baby and now their stuck with it. their rape of the comsumer attitude forced music lovers to look elsewhere, which helped fire up p2p systems and make them grow. the entertainment industry needs to look to the inside for a fix to this problem. the problem not p2p, it,s the music industry itself, their suing p2p users has started a war that may be their down fall.
mhaygen	Date: December 25, 2003 @ 8:02 PM Nobody expected to get the music for free before the new technology, why do people expect it to be free now? Don't get me wrong, I do believe that CDs are starting to cost too much, and the labels are profiting more than they need too. But promotion costs a lot today and this is America. I have a choice not to buy or support it. On a personal level I won't go to a first run movie unless its at the dollar show. I don't believe that actors need $20m for 6 months of work. Obviously some people think its ok to spend $10.00 to see a crappy movie. I'll wait to rent the DVD, but I won't bother with a stolen copy. Happy Holidays
woodhead	Date: December 25, 2003 @ 8:15 PM .99 for an mp3? and you are an artist? dont you see the differance in sound with the 2? I would not pay .99 for an mp3, I would pay a buck or two for a cd of mp3 but no more that that, .99 for an mp3 is a complete rip off and will not float dont see it happening.
mhaygen	Date: December 25, 2003 @ 8:28 PM Nobody expected to get the music for free before the new technology, why do people expect it to be free now? Don't get me wrong, I do believe that CDs are starting to cost too much, and the labels are profiting more than they need too. But promotion costs a lot today and this is America. I have a choice not to buy or support it. On a personal level I won't go to a first run movie unless its at the dollar show. I don't believe that actors need $20m for 6 months of work. Obviously some people think its ok to spend $10.00 to see a crappy movie. I'll wait to rent the DVD, but I won't bother with a stolen copy. Happy Holidays
mhaygen	Date: December 25, 2003 @ 8:37 PM Mp3 quality, yes its lower quality and yes I can hear the difference. I buy the CDs of the music I really want, I buy the mp3s when I just want to hear something immediately. plus MP3 is a fading format. the MP4 format is just around the corner and the quality difference between it and CD is greatly narrowed. But Quality isn't the question its content.An MP3 is worth what people are willing to pay, you are not buying an MP3 you are buying a song. People lived with vinyl, cassette tapes I think MP3 is acceptable for many purposes. Audiofile listening is not one of them.
woodhead	Date: December 26, 2003 @ 12:22 AM mp3 going away?? that is to be questioned. I here you on content but I am and will always be a strong advocate for fair use, and when it is ok to download an mp3 of a tune that is the same as recording it off the radio, I will not budge. OH and maybe you should visit boycott-riaa.com and get more info on the copy right reform I am talking about. Peace Woodhead
woodhead	Date: December 26, 2003 @ 12:23 AM mp3 going away?? that is to be questioned. I here you on content but I am and will always be a strong advocate for fair use, and when it is ok to download an mp3 of a tune that is the same as recording it off the radio, I will not budge. OH and maybe you should visit boycott-riaa.com and get more info on the copy right reform I am talking about. Peace Woodhead
woodhead	Date: December 26, 2003 @ 12:32 AM When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright 1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi, or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever. Courtney Love wrote this, read the entire article and this will be the start of your change towards copy right reform.
TameasDust	Date: December 28, 2003 @ 10:45 AM Then the question is CAN you license your music to a record company like elvis stuff is to people who want to market something ...
woodhead	Date: December 28, 2003 @ 9:27 PM Then the question is CAN you license your music to a record company I belive the way the lables do things is "work for hire", thus giving them control of the tunes period and they own them outright. Not the artist but the lable and in my opinon this is completly wrong, the artist should hgold the copy right and yea license the material to the lable for distribution.
peatrap	Date: January 4, 2004 @ 9:24 AM still want to p2p, check out (earth station 5) this is cool.
peatrap	Date: January 4, 2004 @ 9:26 AM still want to p2p, check out (earth station 5) this is cool.
TameasDust	Date: January 14, 2004 @ 2:01 PM ooooo dunna like N/A bummpty bump
robin101	Date: January 14, 2004 @ 10:59 PM I am personally glad that this specific thread is back up.
robin101	Date: January 14, 2004 @ 11:02 PM By the way Leflaw...why don't you explain a "reversion clause"? It's probably a good idea.
TameasDust	Date: January 19, 2004 @ 7:51 PM bump
peatrap	Date: January 21, 2004 @ 11:03 AM (copywrighting good or bad) Bad 1st it provides 1 special group special protection, no other bussiness is afforded that protection for a unlimited time , music is a bussiness and artist are producers. Their end result is a product called music which should be retailed like any other product. Inventers/produces in the country are given protection for their idea for a limited amount of time (patent), when this time runs out this idea become public domain. This process is what makes many of the day to day items you use and need affordable. Once it becomes public, competition kicks in and thats what this conuntry is all about, free enterprise. this driving force is the life blood of our country. The producers of music have asked for lifetime protection for their product and got it, buying it from the goverment. This is wrong, copywright is anti american, if producers of music want to stay in the feild of music then they must keep producing like the rest of us.
woodhead	Date: January 22, 2004 @ 12:17 AM if producers of music want to stay in the feild of music then they must keep producing like the rest of us. great point peatrap
BenRebel	Date: January 22, 2004 @ 5:54 PM Peatrap - Music unlike many other tangable products that have a "forever shelf life" can be changed and re-used in many other formatts making it more valuable or less in some cases than its first creation making the product an investment of the one creating it ..it having the ablity to re-generate revenue over and over again useing this and capitalizing on it is "life blood of our country" or just good business sence if a producer wishes to stop making music and set back and capitalize on his or her investment that is there choice as well I believe it should be.. So a producer of music never really leaves the game he just retires and enjoys it..this also is the american way. when you filled out your forms for BMI or ASCAP you were given an option whom you should leave your earned monies to if you are no longer here.. this is a good thing.. when I'm no longer here I do not have a J&J COMPANY a Microsoft company or a hotdog stand to leave my seeds I have music I have publishing and all the monies that it can make for them .. and I keep making music because I love it ..it also happens to generate funds I'm happy for that.and I have the means to turn that over to my family and not some person that says it was 10 years ago I want to make money from it now.. let his family do with out ..THAT is not what this country stands for .. hmm I don't think ..
peatrap	Date: January 23, 2004 @ 4:26 PM there is no product produced that has a forever shelf life. plain a simple time destories everthing. as far as being changed and reused, this happens everday with cars, trucks, and equipement, they are changed to fit the needs of the owner and they do not have to pay the orignal person that though the base idea up again. the people who build a peice of equipement do not set back on the butt
peatrap	Date: January 23, 2004 @ 4:26 PM there is no product produced that has a forever shelf life. plain a simple time destories everthing. as far as being changed and reused, this happens everday with cars, trucks, and equipement, they are changed to fit the needs of the owner and they do not have to pay the orignal person that though the base idea up again. the people who build a peice of equipement do not set back on the butt
peatrap	Date: January 23, 2004 @ 4:49 PM peatrap part 2. they do not set back on their butts for the rest of their life letting the money roll in, they get up and start another, cause they do not have the protection provided by copywright for special enterest.this copywright has been cramed down our throats buy special enterest and now that the war with the riaa has come out of the closet people are bucking up against the screwing they been taking for years, the p2p systems have provided them with the means to fight back, the entertainment industry is going to have to come out and work under the same guidelines as the rest of us live or bleed to death. People who produce music are nothing more then flesh and blood just like the rest of us, were tearing down your kingdom piec by piece. PS sorry about the double post.
robin101	Date: January 23, 2004 @ 8:43 PM Look, I think "copyright" is a moot point. It is only available(from the government), to protect the songwriter from getting his/her songs ripped off. It is simply a matter of protection. Has nothing to do with anything else in the business. This copyright "Good or Bad" is a silly and rediculous point. You are truly misunderstanding it's "intent". It is being confused perhaps with issues such as publishing (or something else). Copyrights are neither "good" nor "bad"...they just "are". The one time fee which is charged is only for the paperwork and storage involved. There is no "money making scheme" here. All in all, bringing up the value of "copyright" is analagous to bringing up the question: "Is 'breathing' good or bad?". It is off-track. THE INDUSTRY HAS NOTHING WHAT-SO-EVER to do with copyrights. They are personal protection...and that's all. Now, a better question would be more like: "Publishing, good or bad?". That is a worthwhile issue which does have it's reasonable pros and cons.
sinai	Date: January 23, 2004 @ 9:56 PM alright then... Chicago Bears...good or bad?
woodhead	Date: January 23, 2004 @ 11:03 PM The one time fee which is charged is only for the paperwork and storage involved. There is no "money making scheme" here Tell that to the 400 plus ppl and the 532 that are going to be sued for the non "money making scheme" of copy right. Tell that to the 12 year old who was sued, tell that to the 72 year old man that was sued, I bet they will tell you diffrent. Copyright reform must happen and yes, for non comercial use, a song should become available to the public for free after a certain amonut of years, and realistic years, life plus 75 yrs, or as some one else posted, 100 or 150 years. geez 150 for a song that I will never live that long and it is my tune. hell to have one of my tunes last 150 yrs would be cool, but not payed for when it is old and I dont play any more. I would much rather it be like the Happy birthday tune, oh wait that was an infringment also, ok how bout god bless america, oh wait another infringment, well for sure then like what child is this, oh wait another infringment. there has to be a time limit and a realistic one at that.
peatrap	Date: January 23, 2004 @ 11:17 PM copywright has everthing to do with whats going on, it is the root cause of all the termoil in the music world, it creates large and small monoplies, you pay their price, no choice, forever. Get sued by the riaa, you will here copywright so many times you will want to blow chunks. Special enterest created this monster, there are no others granted this protection,and yes breathing is good but if i had the copywright one it, it would cost you evertime you took a breath! any way the posting here is (copywright good or bad)not publishing good or bad.
woodhead	Date: January 23, 2004 @ 11:38 PM any way the posting here is (copywright good or bad)not publishing good or bad Exactly and what the RIAA has been using to terroize the general population of the internet.
YaBoyDrew	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 4:39 PM thanks robin 4 being happy 2 see this thread back up. Im happy 2 c it back 2 lol
ConcreteVisionz	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 4:22 PM Ladies and gentlemen, the greatest thing about music.........COPYRIGHTS
MickeyBreezy	Date: February 11, 2004 @ 12:08 AM copywrights can go either way, which has been xpressed many times in this thread...i just know they save u from gettin ur shit jacked.
dantys	Date: February 11, 2004 @ 3:34 AM freeing copyright has a "good" political end
YaBoyDrew	Date: February 16, 2004 @ 10:19 PM I think we should have laws on copywritting because it isnt right to "steal" someones music. But I dont think it should be taken advantage of to the point where people start suein other people for takin a 2 second sample. I look at it like how people nowadayz just sue eachother 4 anything. Itz 1 thing 2 do it 4 a big issue. But nowaday people sue people 4 lookin at them funny. At the point I think its just ridiculous. It is a tough issue to call on oneside though, because i believe in copywritting laws, but lets not blow it out of proportion. Sueing Napster was fine but sueing Dr Dre 4 using a 5 second sample from George Lucas, is just plain GREED. We gotta have morals...
ryanwilliams	Date: February 18, 2004 @ 9:52 PM That's greed? I doubt that. That's the excuse artists make up for not being able to come up with their own original music in the background. If I sample a SUPER well-known guitar solo and use it in my song, and everyone knows where it came from and that I clearly didn't come up with it on my own, then I owe credit to someone else, and it's not fair that I profit off their work. they could've worked YEARS on that guitar solo, they could've went through hell to get it heard, and you have to respect that.
sinai	Date: February 18, 2004 @ 10:39 PM mebbe you are respecting it by using it...
ryanwilliams	Date: February 18, 2004 @ 11:14 PM Nothing wrong with respect. But the very concept of the copyright itself is simply that I have control over what I've created. If you're free to use and profit from what I've created without my say, then how do I have that control?
sinai	Date: February 18, 2004 @ 11:20 PM yeah, but wouldnt you be the littlest bit pleased that someone out there dug your shit so much it inspired them to go off in a direction of their own with it?
ryanwilliams	Date: February 18, 2004 @ 11:41 PM I never said I wouldn't be. But that doesn't negate anything I've said.
YaBoyDrew	Date: February 19, 2004 @ 3:40 AM R U kiddin me with that Ryan?? Samplin sumones voice or a peaCe of their song like Eminem, wish i coulda used sum1 else but we all heard his songs, did in "Stan". Doesnt mean itz cause he couldnt come up with sumthin original of his own. I mean shyt who else made a song like "Stan", or any of his other songs. But IDK maybe ya right maybe when Kanye West used Chaka Khans sample 4 "through the wire" was cause he had nothin orginal in his hands. N maybe thats why at the end of the video he said thank u, not 4 repect but cuz he wasnt original. U C ryan, when my boy DJ Primeir, cant spell, is usin sumones voice in his songs itz not cuz hes not original, I mean shyt if he wasnt howd he stay around 4 more then a decade? Itz cause he respected what the person said, itz cuz it went with the beat, itz cuz it went with the song, itz cuz it went with the theme. N if u didnt kno anyone I just mentioned, well then y am I even bothering steppin on ya comment, you obviously dont know what ya talking about . Dont try 2 attack my "originality" in my own music.
YaBoyDrew	Date: February 24, 2004 @ 6:14 PM damn ryan wut happened!!????? i wasnt even done yet
YaBoyDrew	Date: February 24, 2004 @ 6:15 PM o thats right!!!!!!!!
YaBoyDrew	Date: February 24, 2004 @ 6:15 PM o thats right!!!!!!!!
YaBoyDrew	Date: February 24, 2004 @ 6:15 PM o thats right!!!!!!!!
YaBoyDrew	Date: February 24, 2004 @ 6:16 PM U WERE DONE, n idk y thats right came out so many tymes ididnt even post it that many times
ryanwilliams	Date: February 25, 2004 @ 9:33 PM yes, because I just live and breathe solely for the purpose of responding to your thread. Excuse me, while I go and abadon life as I know it so I can do just that. If you would be so kind as to re-read my comment, you'd see that it and "stan" really don't have much in common. In a way, Eminem made the verse from Dido his own, in that he took a song that had a completely different meaning and did a 180 with it. I think that's creative. If somebody COVERS someone else's song, and does it completely different from the original, I'm willing to respect that, even if I don't like their cover, because they're still being relatively original. But if you're just thumbing around for something and you go "ooh, that four seconds of vocal! That would be great!" Then no. Because you could've come up with something else to put there that was original, and if you were really any good, you wouldn't need to sample someone to get people listening. And again, back to the topic at hand, even if you do decide to use a sample, it's still not your work. Learn it and live it, or get bitten in the ass by it in court. My beef with sampling wouldn't be so extreme if the concept wasn't such the fad that it is. EVERYBODY does it. That in itself is unoriginal.
YaBoyDrew	Date: February 29, 2004 @ 1:59 AM Stan n the guitar sample dont really have much in common like you said. Except the fact that they both are the subject at hand, copying something from sumones music. Im sorry but Im having a little trouble following you, you said "In a way, Eminem made the verse from Dido his own, in that he took a song that had a completely different meaning and did a 180 with it. I think that's creative." But who said DiDo didnt spend all day writing that song??? According to you "it's not fair that I profit off their work. they could've worked YEARS on that guitar solo" Ima lil confused by the fact that you been sayin its "not original" to sample sumones work. But if they change the theme it becomes original all of sudden. Now I agree with you in the fact that Eminem changed her song COMPLETELY around. But the fact of the matter is its the same words, so in that sense he didnt change much. ...Like I been sayin n what u just confessed to me in that statement u made. ITs not the "samples" that make an artist original, its what they do to their own music. Its what they come up with in their minds. If they hadda "tuff life" n they wanna make a song about "having a tuff life", whats wrong with sampling sumones voice who says "I HADDA TUFF LIFE". Nothing is. Because they sampled it cuz (like i been stressing to you), they could relate to the song. I mean arent the best songs the ones you relate to????? So theirs nothing wrong with showin everybody that by sampling their words or guitar solo. Now if I use EVERYTHING from the person, their words n beat, n just everything else. That would be pushin it, it would be corny but whatever. Now if I keep doin that, then theirs a problem. Because like i said i would have to be greedy 2 be doing that at that point. I would be greedy in the fact that im usin all these other peoples music to sell my own music, 2 make money. Now thats greed, when u lose your self-respect to sell. Not an excuse but Greed. "Sueing Napster was fine but sueing Dr Dre 4 using a 5 second sample from George Lucas, is just plain GREED" ...So please Ryan tell me how is that an excuse??? Cause I make Music, not excuses...
ryanwilliams	Date: March 1, 2004 @ 8:12 PM I never said Dido didn't spend all day writing that song. But Dido also got paid. According to you, she shouldn't have been. I at no time said anything to the contrary. My point in mentioning somehone having spent their entire life, or years, working on a solo, was simply to say that it's ridiculous that you alone would profit from it, and not the creator. There is a difference, in my opinion, between taking a measure or two of music and looping it behind your track, and taking a set of words and using the remainder of your song to change the meaning of the words. Dido wrote a song that basically says "I love you." Now strip away the song and keep those words. Take them out of the mouth of a girl who has had a really bad day, and put them into the mouth of a man who is completely obsessed wth his idol. It's a lot different. THe words mean something entirely different. So I think there's a big difference between that and sampling a couple seconds of some song. If you know the song, by Eminem, "97 Bonnie and Clyde," see if you can get your hands on a copy of Tori Amos' version of the same song. Same words, but the vibe is completely different. If you're going to sample something, once again, that's fine. But you're going to have to pay for it, botttom line. Even if it is just a sentence. This is the price we pay. Now what you could do, that wouldn't cost you a damn thing, is to make the sample yourself. Have a friend do it. Then your problem would be solved. Suing Dr. Dre for using a five-second sample is justice--And somebody that's been around as long as him oughta know that. Out of curiosity, did he even cite the sample in the liner notes? That makes a difference too. If you use something of mine and don't even bother to mention doing so, we have a definite problem, because now it looks like you're trying to say you came up with that on your own. And I present to you a situation where I am a musician, and so are you. I sample you in one of my songs, here on Dmusic. Some bigshot out there hears my song, signs me to his label, and the next thing you know, it's your voice that you're hearing on the radio, but as a sample in MY song. I go on to make millions of dollars, and have a good 10-15 year career in the music field, that all started with a song I sampled you in. You, on the other hand, are still here on Dmusic, and while you're doing that, you're working a full-time job somewhere, slaving away for 8 hours a day for shit money. Making enough to get by (This, btw, is entirely situation, it is to say nothing of either of our music). Wouldn't it bother you that I'm continuing to make revenue off your voice every time my song PLAYS somewhere, and basically sitting back on my ass doing nothing but making music and touring, while you're working all day? Maybe the cut you'd have gotten would be enough to keep you from having to work so hard.
woodhead	Date: March 3, 2004 @ 9:56 PM hmmm, sampling someones tunes for your own, same thing as stealing in some eyes, could also be plagerizing in some. The copy right laws need to redefined period. You cant have it both ways. protect my copyright for what I have writen, but dont sue me when I sample your work for my art work, two sides of the sword, you have to have it one way or the other. So if you support copy right in its current fashion, dont sample, dont make copies of the cd you bought, do not loan them out, do not convert from wave to mp3, and bow down and let the record industry rape you for 20 bucks for a couple of good tunes and a bunch of filler material.
woodhead	Date: March 3, 2004 @ 10:01 PM oh and by the way the RIAA filed another 500 law suits on copyright infringment. So to all who support the current copyright law are saying it is ok to sue the fans of your tunes.
pog	Date: March 7, 2004 @ 5:13 AM I'm with ryan on this one... dr dre should've known better.... stan is a collaboration, and there's a big difference between protecting someones work and monopolising it. The capitalistic bastard executives have been ripping artists off for years, both overcharging the fans and always taking bigger cuts than they deserve, straight out of the artist's pocket. The laws in place that are here to protect the artist's work have been exploited in fine print on many occasions. This is where I consider the problem, not with the copyright system itself. It just seems to get more and more complicated as the next genius lawyer find a new exploit or loophole. This is also why it's a big grey area. I think it all needs reviewing, but once it is... wow deja vu ... another fat vulture.
mahesh5ive	Date: April 26, 2004 @ 11:33 AM
YaBoyDrew	Date: May 2, 2004 @ 6:30 PM yea my views havent changed much on this 1
robin101	Date: May 2, 2004 @ 7:04 PM You can always "re-cut" a song. All you have to do is pay a small fee to: "HFA" (the Harry Fox Agency), in order to attain a license for "permission". In this way, you don't have to worry about being sued. As far as I know, the labels do not "always control the show". Under 2500 copies is very inexpensive. If you happen to sell over 2500 copies the cost of the license remains "minimal". I sincerely do not understand why so many believe that the "labels" control everything. The "writer" is truly a seperate entity. Rick
woodhead	Date: May 2, 2004 @ 7:24 PM I sincerely do not understand why so many believe that the "labels" control everything In our situatuation today, the lables if you are signed with control your music. Robin you should now this, it is called work for hire, and there for once the record company get it s gredy hands on it theycontrol it, they profit from it they say if it is released or not. The law suits and yes their really are law suits are buy the record labels not the artist. The labels are the ones suing the population at large, the labesl arethe ones who are trying and succefully having new laws passed to protect their intrest, not the artist, but thier own. Lets face it if the RIAA and the MPAA had thier way sites like this would not even be up, for they have no control, but they are trying to get control af ALL media on the internet. So yes they have control, and if you dont believe that, ask W. Nelson why he had to sue nashville to get his RED HEADED STRANGER recordings back, so he could release them. this is one of the things that started the outlaw movement in the 70's
robin101	Date: May 3, 2004 @ 6:02 PM I’m not going to argue that point Woodhead, but in my most humble opinion, I could give a shit less about the RIAA. To me, all they do is “stamp” & “authorize” gold , platinum & multi-platinum albums. The organization is relatively “impotent”. I attempt to try to understand the threads about the “RIAA”, but in reality, I believe the perception of this organization is Waay “OFF TRACK”. I don’t want to cause an argument, but this organization wields no “real” power. Why the emphasis?…I don’t understand. I think some are “making it up and believing it”. I am an “industry rebel”…always have been, If anyone would be affected by the RIAA, I certainly would have. To me, they are nothing. It’s just about laughable. I just “don’t get it”. Who is feeding you (plural) this information? Rick
woodhead	Date: May 3, 2004 @ 8:50 PM Have you heard of the Digital broadcast flag that the RIAA is trying to have passed. As for my info I get my info from a lot of dif sources, and in reality the RIAA if you did not know this is a lobby group bought and paid for by the record labels, and I am sure you know what lobby groups are for, and these record companies that control and pay the RIAA are not even of this country. P.S. I am not trying to start an aurgument either but yes I do not likethe RIAA and I will not by any product from them, I get my music now from sites like this. and as I said in another thread, tell the 1000 or more ppl that were sued by the RIAA using thier law (DMRC) that they lobbied to have passed and strip away any rights to privacy by forcing your ISP to give over your information with out having to get a signature from a judge (thank GOD some one came to thier senses and pulled their reins back in a bit) These are the reasons some of us here do not like the RIAA.
YaBoyDrew	Date: May 10, 2004 @ 5:03 PM I FOUND THIS SITE I THINK YALL WILL FIND IT PRETTY INTERESTING... http://www.the-breaks.com/perl/browse.pl?page=1
YaBoyDrew	Date: June 15, 2004 @ 2:01 PM Im stilll not against anything I had said before. I just beleive that if someones sampling a song, to sue them right off the back isnt right.
AxedNeil	Date: June 16, 2004 @ 7:29 PM What if.........you turned on the radio and heard someone else doing your song???????? Copyrights are good! My band does some cover tunes at our LIVE shows...hard to do some of the 3 and 4 hour gigs without them...if i heard another band doing one of my tunes LIVE i would be freaking honored! but not to hear someone else's RECORDING of my music on the radio...ROCK ON with the copyrights!
YaBoyDrew	Date: June 17, 2004 @ 1:48 PM okay im talkin bout SAMPLES not a whole song. if u do a whole song then u gotta give a shoutout. but usin a line or 2 from sumone else....... rightfully u can complain but im sayin if u complain bout that u all bout money. so my point is it shouldnt be that way. but it is n will be
robin101	Date: June 21, 2004 @ 6:16 PM I truly don’t get it yet. I’m been completely truthful here, not antagonistic. What’s that harm in paying a small fee to HFA to use a part (or parts) of my copy-written songs. Why should I give up anything which I have created myself - for someone else’s use….even if it is “sampling”? For instance, a song is an “asset” (but referred to as an “intellectual asset”). A “vehicle” is a “physical asset”. Should my “vehicle” go into public domain after a period of time? I think not. Record companies sometimes own the “publishing” to my songs. However, as the songwriter, I will always own 100% of the writing. Therefore, although the record company may make money - I make the same amount…penny for penny. I sincerely see nothing wrong with that. Besides in certain contractual agreements, the publishing reverts back to the artist after a certain amount of time anyway. Why should any have to “give up” any personal asset - ever? I don’t get it. People should be creating their own songs anyway. Why bother “borrowing” someone else’s? I believe that if we all had enough faith in our own creativity, there would be no need for this discussion at all. Rick
TameasDust	Date: July 25, 2004 @ 9:29 PM to be completely off point ... hi Rick long time no see ....
robin101	Date: August 10, 2004 @ 4:53 PM Yeah...how are ya T? I'm around, just watchin' things.
YaBoyDrew	Date: December 30, 2004 @ 2:03 AM i think copywriting is GooD AND BAd it just depends how u look at it
azhazhellfire	Date: January 6, 2005 @ 4:23 AM If only people could be trusted...
WannaBeMc	Date: January 9, 2005 @ 5:20 PM Right ..
MCCUBED	Date: January 16, 2005 @ 11:39 PM IF I LOOK AT IT FROM A RIGHT ANGLE BOTH OF MY EYES MIGHT GET TANGLED. IF I LOOK AT IT FROM THE BOTTOM I MIGHT NOT SEE WHAT WAS WRITTEN. IF I LOOK FROM THE TOP IT LOOKS COPYWRITTEN SO NONE OF THE SHIT ON THE PAPER WILL GET BITTEN. NO MATTER WHERE YOU STAND OR WHERE YOU SIT THAT LITTLE SYMBOL WOULD BE LEGIT. A COPYRIGHT IS LIKE A CONDOM. EXCEPT IT FEELS BETTER TO PUT THE SYMBOL ON THEM(SONGS). JUST MESSING AROUND
YaBoyDrew	Date: May 9, 2005 @ 10:31 AM Ima fan of the oldies so I jus luv samplin music, wut can i say. I like to hear sampled songs, and then downlaod the original. Im 4 it
Guest	Date: February 27, 2009 @ 5:12 PM
vilifiend	Date: February 27, 2009 @ 5:14 PM damn you guest

Previous 100

Page: [ 1 2 ]

~~Next 100~~

Post A Reply
From:	Guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: