From: quantum@mfci.UUCP (Quantum Audio Concepts)
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers
Subject: Re: sampling, copying etc
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:51:13 GMT
Reply-To: quantum@mfci.UUCP (Quantum Audio Concepts)
Organization: Bell Atlantic Business Systems Service Branford, Ct.

In article <77144@apple.apple.COM> bing@Apple.COM (Christopher R. Bingham) writes:
>In article <C15pHo.81E@hpwin052.uksr.hp.com> john@hpwin052.uksr.hp.com (John Radley) writes:
>>Stuart McIntyre (sym@aber.ac.uk) wrote:
>>: Dear fellow musicians,
>>:        Think of two musicians. oth decide to write a song. Both like
>>: rap, so they both write rap songs. One of them takes the style
>>: of the rap songs already in existance, mixes the ingredients, adds 
>>: his own ideas and writes it in a slighly new style, but it is still a
>>: rap song.
>>: 	The other artiste, although wanting fame an fortune is, however
>>: unfortunate enough to have no talent. He takes existing songs, samples
>>: large parts of them, sticks them together and calls it 'his' song.
>
>Let's try a different quiz.  Again, there's two different musicians.
>One plays or programs every note and sound himself.  He listens to some
>popular dance tracks with drum tracks that he likes and programs a beat as
>similar as possible on his drum machine.

I don't think I've ever heard any case of someone trying to copyright a
drum groove. Doesn't make sense - after the first rock tune in 4/4 with
your basic snare on 2&4 was copyright protected you would eliminate a
ton of music! Think about how many Soul II Soul drum groove clones there
are in the world.

So I don't see this aspect as a problem.

>       ...                                He hears an interesting 
>arpeggiated synth pattern in a song on the radio and includes a virtually
>identical pattern in his song.  

This may be a violation: you could argue that the pattern is more like a
melody, and that pattern is the "hook" that makes the original song a hit.
Or, maybe the pattern is backround, more like a chord progression (can't
go around copyrighting?? the ole 12 bar blues progression can we :).

An even more interesting question - what if the player reverses the pattern?

>            ...                 He listens to the latest Madonna #1 single
>and uses the vocal melody of the chorus as a background vocal line in his 
>song.  ...

I think this is an infringement. Still, are there words being sung to
the melody, or just oohs and ahhs? That might make a difference as to
wether it was prosectued (along with prominance in the song)

Of course, nobody cares if the tune never leaves the guys basement.

>song.  The result is predicatable and derivative, and sounds exactly like
>the work of the artists which he admires and emulates.
>
>The other musician uses samples a great deal in her work.  She records 
>many samples of varying lengths (some just a fraction of a second, some 10
>seconds or more) from a variety of sources: songs on the radio, news broad-
>casts, the traffic outside her window, etc.  Some samples are heavily
>processed, manipulated, etc. but others are heard in her music basically
>"as is".  

The main reason, I think, for copyrights, is to protect artists from having
others take their work, profit from it and reduce the artists profit. Some
people have utopian ideas that nobody should "own" music, but
people gotta eat, it takes time to make music, and either you are out
working 9 to 5 in an office or factory or you are working on making music.
I am lucky right now, I have a good job with plenty of free time to write.
But they may change. If I write a song that becomes a hit I don't want anyone
else taking that from me - because then I lose the chance to play my music 
full time and make a living at it. Its just like someone comes up with a
new idea for software, or new power source, or a new toy - anything ...
you work hard, you deserve the fruits of your labor. Read some Ann Rand -
the Fountainhead.

So as far as the sampler artist using pieces of my work, I would be
concerned. If I build a computer out of chips that I took from your basement,
without compensating you, isn't that theft? Be straight with me, pay me a
far share, so I can keep making stuff that you want to sample.

>  ...     But the samples are combined with each other and with other 
>instruments in surprising, unique, and very creative ways.  The samples of
>popular songs are used not to create a rip-off pop song, but to create a
>sonic collage that uses the literal content of the samples as social and
>political commentary.  The result is a musically sophisticated and highly
>creative work.  

All of this is just obscures the issue, and it is pure opinion to say that
the combination is "very creative ... sophisticated". I steal your car,
paint it bright orange with green dots, add a turbo charger, put on bigger
wheels, 10,000 watt sound system, neon lights, a microwave oven, VCR and
waterbed in the back ... You say I have deprived you of your basic 
transportation, where I say I have created for myself a sophisticated
driving environment, a moving commentary on the social excess of todays
society, a creative, surprising, unique vehicle.

Tell that to the judge :)

>Which musician is more legal?

If they don't compensate the original artist, both are wrong.

>Which musician is more ethical?

If they don't compensate the original artist, both are wrong.

>Does anyone see a discrepancy??

No.