From: mason@netcom.com (Mason Jones)
Subject: Re: Make Sampling Legal...
Organization: Charnel House
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:44:16 GMT

rej@sal.wisc.edu (Randy Jones) writes:
: Mason Jones writes:
: >I don't know about this. Several of you folks are attacking copyrights
: >as both a recognition of originality, and as a barrier to creation.
: >Personally, I look at copyrights from my own point of view as merely
: >protection given my participation in a capitalist society. If I don't
: >copyright my works, then I run the risk of someone else appropriating
: >it and profiting from it, which I frankly see as unfair. Christopher
: 
: How do you define "appropriation"? Consider: is appropriating a riff
: or melody any less onerous than appropriating an entire musical tradition?
: From an information-theoretical perspective, there is certainly more 
: stealing going on when you call your "original" work, say, "rock" than there
: is in the copying of "Stairway to Heaven" chord for chord, note for note.

I haven't defined appropriation, actually. That's definitely the
difficult part, and I don't claim to have an answer. I don't buy the
argument that there's more appropriation involved in calling your
music 'rock' than there is in recording someone else's song and calling
it yours. Claiming that a band using a guitar, a bass, drums and
singing is more onerous than a band recording music and words written
by someone else is a fine example of theory being worshipped above practice,
and is simply not very useful in the real world.

: This is what I take Gregory's sneer quotes around ""originality"" to imply
: (in part): that what constitutes "original" behavior is socially constructed
: and sanctioned in a way which perpetuates the existing Western thought
: and power structure. 

No, I'd simply say it's socially constructed and sanctioned *due to*
existing Western thought and power structure. In the same way that so
many other things are the way they are simply due to long tradition.
That doesn't make it bad or good in and of itself, of course.

: >I view copyrights in a purely utilitarian manner. They are protection,
: >pure and simple. 
: 
: Pure and simple? It's not even clear to me what you feel is being protected,
: or what from.

It should be clear enough. Due to the aforementioned social constructions,
were it not for some sort of copyright-type protection, it would be
quite possible for some huge record company to take a recording of mine
and put it on another band's CD and thus profit from it without any
credit or claim, financial or otherwise, being given to me. What this
really seems to be is a case of those reviled Western power structures
making each other necessary -- copyright is needed because of the
capitalist structure.

: >While the philosophical discussion of originality and
: >the lack thereof is interesting, it's not clear how applicable it
: >really is. Yes, a copyright requires that the work be viewed as
: >'original,' their concern re originality isn't as deep as yours. It's
: >a matter of whether you really as though using a piano, for example,
: >automatically makes a work unoriginal. To believe that it does is a
: >rather astonishing bit of anal-retentiveness.
: 
: Not clear how applicable it really is to what?

To the real world. Re-reading my paragraph above, though, I'm not sure
what language I was typing in!

: Although you haven't stated this, I'll guess that your definitions of 
: protection and originality, which happily seem to correspond with those of
: our courts, are rooted not in questions of musical or critical inquiry
: but in finance. I respect that, as a working musician, you are bound
: to have financial concerns. But using those concerns as a point of 
: departure for this kind of discussion is like sitting down in a 
: graduate philosophy seminar and saying "well, I don't think any of 
: these complicated questions matter as long as my immediate needs are
: taken care of."

No, using those concerns is like saying "well, these questions are
great, but I think people should realize how the real world is operating
as well." That's quite different. My definitions of originality are
not necessarily the same as our courts, at all. My definitions of
protection aren't either. But I am forced to agree due to the
circumstances that *some* sort of protection is needed.

: >As I said above, the trifles are economic protection, which, however
: >unfortunate it may be, is at present necessary -- depending of course on
: >your goals. If your goals are merely to create some music, and you
: >really don't care at all what happens to it, then of course you don't
: >need that protection. If the idea of someone else making money from your
: >creation (irregardless of whether it's actually original or not) doesn't
: >bother you, that's fine.
: 
: Not only doesn't it bother me, I'm bothering to write this because I
: don't want it to bother you or anybody else, either. 

Unfortunately, until it's possible to live without needing money to
buy food and pay rent, considerations of money are going to matter.
I would be the first one to volunteer otherwise.

For me personally, how I feel is this: I copyright my works for the
sole purpose of preventing some evil corporation from appropriating
them and ripping me off. If someone wants to record a cover of something,
I'll most likely say sure. If someone wants to sample from something,
no problem at all. The copyright is for some incredibly unlikely, but
nevertheless possible, occurance. Without it, I could release a CD in
an edition of 500 copies, and suddenly find Warner releasing the exact
same thing, marketing the hell out of it, and not recognizing my CD
at all. Sorry, but for me I don't feel that making use of the existing
copyright protections to prevent that to be hindering creation in the
least, nor effecting our notions of originality. It's merely common sense.

: As long as music is considered a commodity, "creation" will continue to
: be channeled into certain socially acceptable forms of activity, including
: sanctioned forms of "rebellion", "expression", &c. These act as safety-valves
: for individual responses which could otherwise lead to substantive change
: in our ways of thinking. 

I don't necessarily agree with that, but I'll have to give it more
thought before responding. I agree that forces channel work into
socially-sanctioned forms but the effects on creation are iffy. How
much does the marketing and commoditization of created works effect
the creative process?

: My goal is "merely to create" some music, yes. I care a great deal, however,
: what happens to it, because I'm fully aware that by distributing patterns
: of sound to other people I'm engaging in a cultural dialogue which has
: great potential to affect my future. And recognition of the profound effects
: of financial concerns on this dialogue is crucial to furthering it.

Exactly what I was saying above, yes.


<====================================================================>
   Mason Jones               Charnel House Productions
   mason@netcom.com          P.O. Box 170277, San Francisco, CA
                             94117-0277    Phone/fax (415) 255-8554
<====================================================================>
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth