COPYRIGHT & SAMPLING [part 1]

[SHUVTV]

The Grey Album: Beatles , Jay-Z.... light years, joints, and work days away... i still thank danger for that album

[JayRocFly]

fuck sampling, just be original people, get a guitar, get a drum set, and do ur own shit

[deckarx]

@JayRocFly how long until guitars and drums can no longer be used because they've been used before umpteen million times before?

[AlienCommunity]

If you want this movie to download free, send me private message I'll send you download links.

[DiseasedManiac]

What i do with MY Sampling is try to Honor the integrity of the original work. Sort of, this is what it will sound like if Johnny Cash decided to make a remix of his songs with DMX.

[DZMPLZ]

hip hop = sampling sport = money for lawyers = lame judges = fuck creativity = soulja boy....

[DZMPLZ]

hip hop = sampling sport = money for lawyers =lam judges = fuck creativity = soulja boy....

[aligboyakasha]

is this an attempt to MASH UP rip and good copy bad copy? lol

[aligboyakasha]

GreGG, Pittsburgh. cool reference to RIP tho

[D201RECORDS]

what a bunch of words and terms I shouldn't write on here!

[mrethanboy]

@D201RECORDS If you'd care to express more specific thoughts, I'd love to hear them.

[cocoacoconuts24]

I know I must be late to this argument but...

I think what people are forgetting is that NONE of these samplers are claiming that "Hey, I played this guitar riff" or "I did these drum beats". No, that is NOT the creative work they are showcasing. The artwork they are trying to put out there is their skill in EDITING, which is NOT a lazy occupation in the slightest. And I think sampling should be appreciated on its OWN terms, which is the creative skill of making a musical collage. 

[antonioWiseGuys]

i think that sampling sounds out is the true way but if you just looping that shit and throwing some drums on it i donno man you got more work to do just my opinion

any true hiphop beat has a sample in it

[basstester]

I think sampling is ok, but i reckon the original sample used or the people made it get credit aswell..not jus the artist that sampled it, in question like, Girl Talk, Kanye West and Timbaland"!!!

[DrunkMonk101]

Nice Doc, so far. I like how you show us the original and the remade version of the song.

[TheMrfrawg]

100 miles and running, gotta be one of nwas' best song. i love young dre'

ice ice baby

im killing your brain like a poison mushrom

[evolawonder]

SO YOU'RE SAYING EVERYONE OF MY 500 ORIGINAL SONGS AND VIDEOS ARE ILLEGAL,...fuck i would of quit LOOK i am the definition of UNDERGROUND

[DivineTrash81]

Girl Talk is from Pittsburgh. Nice fact checking.

[PrawdaUnia]

Sample is not creativity but the shit that MTV plays everyday is? An example is that soulja boy. I can't see no creativity there. Sampling IS creativity, period.

[bigdaddydjdef]

4:09 three six mafia

[tacticaln00b]

"re-contextualized and altered" is a fluffy way of saying its a stolen work that someone added a little bit and maybe took off a little bit. Try to change a Microsoft software product by "re-contextualizing and altering" it, sell it as your original product, and count how many days it takes for them to sue you for all your worth.

"re-contextualized and altered" is simply a very nice way of saying covered up stolen goods

[blargh12]

Do you also comb your hair to the side like a good little moma's boy?

Jesus you are so lame. I guess you never heard of avantgarde artists from waaay long time ago. Is 12-bar Blues something stolen by Rock musicians? Search some turntablism videos here, listen to Endtroducing... album and get the fnck outta here.

These suits care about money, not about justice or music; they have no soul.

P.S. Good video but did you really have to say "Electronica"? It's Electronic Music.

[tacticaln00b]

"Copyright should protect artists only to the extent that ensures profit, but doesn't restrict creation of new works."

Not all artists create something for pure profit, and some don't even sell their works. What about them? So essentially, if someone stole their original work, used it, and it ended up being something distasteful, shameful, embarassing etc to the original artist, you are saying that they have no right to stop the new artist for damages?

[tacticaln00b]

and "sampling artists don't have as much creative freedom as other musicians"

yea its because what most of them do is illegal

[mrethanboy]

Dude, did you even watch my video? I know that's why they don't have as much creative freedom! I'm arguing that it's wrong!

[tacticaln00b]

Let me rephrase: "sampling artists don't have as much creative freedom as other musicians"

Yea, it is because they steal other people's performance and talent, mix it up a bit, and then call it their own. Of course they are going to not have as much freedom expressing stolen music--in other words, your statement is the same thing as saying prisoners don't have as much freedom as normal citizens. Aka, duh, of course they don't, because that is the way its supposed to be. We dont protect theives.

[6thCreated]

lol oh really? Using that logic I guess who ever "invented" the western chromatic scale could say that every person to ever make western music was "stealing" his material right? Like Mozart and Bach? They illegally used his musical notes that he invented so....

[Garveergor]

Great. An artist creates a new work, then some lazy ass comes along and uses it to sell records. These questions are not "vague", either. The maker of this video seems very pro sampling. Sampling, itself, is killing music by allowing people to be uncreative, in general, and new ideas are seldom generated. To be able to say "ah, that sounds good---I think I'll take it for my own" is wrong and ridiculoue and for sheep who'll buy anything.

[mrethanboy]

I definitely am very pro-sampling. I think people who say sampling is "lazy" or "uncreative" are simply not familiar with great sampled works.

Check out these albums and then tell me that sampling is un-creative and non-original...

DJ Shadow - "Endtroducing....."

The Avalanches - "Since I Left You"

Girl Talk - "Night Ripper"

Kanye West - "Late Registration"

[djsmithy]

It depends on how its done, some times its creative, most times its not.

Simple as that.

[mrethanboy]

Of course! But that applies to all kinds of music --- some is creative, some is not.

Should we make Nickelback illegal just because their music isn't creative? No, that's ludicrous. Similarly, we shouldn't pick and choose what kind of sampled works we legalize and what kinds we do.

[djsmithy]

Really poor comparrisson there.

Its as simple as this right.

If someone samples a track, they should clear the sample with the original artist before its released.

Is that so bad? To give them a bit of credit for creating the sample in the first place?

I honestly cant see how this is killing creativity, its the opposite of it!

[mrethanboy]

When you write an essay and cite a book, do you have to clear the ideas with the author beforehand? No, you simply give them credit and continue writing the essay (which is, personally, how I believe sampling should work).

As it stands, however, clearing a sample costs EXORBITANT amounts of money and it prevents would-be samplers from releasing their work.

The real reason that the music industry upholds sampling law is for money. It's not about creativity, at all.

[djsmithy]

Exorbitant? Thats a huge generalisation man.

It depends on the artist youre clearing it with.

Some artists put out their samples out free on the web for anyone to remix, others ask for a % of money you make from a track.

I guess if you wanted to sample an artist in the pop charts, thats where it will be very costly, but fuck chart music anyway!

You should really take out the "killing creativity bit" imo, its just too false a comment.

The rest of your argument is perfeclty valid though.

[Garveergor]

I appreciate your insightful approach to your arguement, but in my opinion:

DJ Shadow "Endtroducing....."

The Avalanches "Since I Left You"

Girl Talk "Night Ripper"

Kanye West "Late Registration" ---Kanye being the worst---are great examples of terrible "artists". Kanye even had to settle W/ Evel Knievel for ripping his whole image. The point being that Kanye, and others, draw upon other's hard work for instant recognition--then claim that they, themselves, are creative. Essays don't count.

[mrethanboy]

Each of those albums has received enormous amounts of critical acclaim and are generally recognized as excellent musical works. If you don't like it, that's fine --- but I think that your opinion is massively outweighed here.

[Garveergor]

Outweighed by whom?I've worked, as a musician, with a lot of big, name acts."Critical acclaim" means nothing today when it's only used to make money by the very people piling on the acclaim.Britney and Miley get acclaimed, too, but the real work in music was done by originals like Beatles, Zappa, Hank Williams. Their songs are still being covered today.How can you think that Kanye,in all his unoriginality,will pass the test of time? Are the Black-eyed Peas the new Dylan? Sampling is lazy crap.

[mrethanboy]

I do honestly believe that DJ Shadow's "Entroducing....." (the first entirely sampled album) is one of the best albums of all time, and will continue to top, at the very least, top 10 1990's lists.

But another thing to consider is that sampling artists don't have as much creative freedom as other musicians, and therefore, there is less likelihood that there will be any more "classic" sampling albums.

[mrethanboy]

Also, speaking of the Beatles...

How do you feel about Paul McCartney taken, note for note, a Chuck Berry bassline for "I Saw Her Standing There"? Basically the same principle as sampling, right?

Doesn't bother me, because I think it still resulted in a great, great song.

[Garveergor]

Yes, and the Beach Boys ripped Surfin' USA from Berry, too. It makes me cringe. I just think that taking the best of someone's life work and making it your own is creative enough, but shouldn't allow you to profit from it without the writer's permission. If the writer says yes, then ok. Still think samplers should just go work at Burger KIng and let the real artists---who CREATE---to their work. Just my thoughts, nothing personal.

[mrethanboy]

Haha, of course it's not personal. It's the internet!

But yeah, I think it's clear that we pretty fiercely disagree. Maybe we should just leave it at that.

[djsmithy]

So to finish off,

I believe that copyright law is forcing artists to be MORE CREATIVE if anything!

It protects the CREATIVE artists, from being RIPPED OFF by lazy artists, trying to make a buck from other peoples creations!

If you want to make money from other peoples shit, then clear it with them first.

If you want to be creative, then come up with your original samples instead of being so lazy!

[tacticaln00b]

Well said. Furthermore, just because a maipulated product is viewed "better" than the original by the public does not make it acceptable. For instance, if a manipulator samples a song but tweaks it to make a "better" beat and thus "better song", the original artist's intention/purpose is still ruined. Its like someone else telling you that you are wrong with your creation and that your intended purpose is not correct-- in other words, its like a slap to the face in the creativity world.

[mrethanboy]

How is the original work ruined? That doesn't make any sense... Sampling doesn't alter the original work at all.

True, the context or our perceptions of the song might change. However, that's true of many things with music. For example, after 9/11, many songs were "ruined" because they talked about planes or explosions, so radio didn't play them anymore.

Was that right? In my opinion, the original songs clearly weren't ruined despite the changed context. Same goes for sampling.

[mrethanboy]

Copying another's music is a cultural practice that extends back to the very beginning of the medium's existence. Themes, song structure, rhythms and note patterns are often repeated within different genres of music. For example, blues is largely based on the constant re-imagination of the same three chords. Many classical music composers wrote pieces that clearly built upon the work of their predecessors. What makes sampling so drastically different? Just because it's digital and not analogue?

[tacticaln00b]

As I said, the "artist's intention/purpose is still ruined." Which, in many respects this is what the copyright is for--to keep the control of the original idea, and the resulting benefits, in the hands of the owner. Yes, sampling does alter the original work, because it only takes part of the whole, and the intention of the song was the whole. Example: Try and take half a painting away and see if it alters the original work.

[mrethanboy]

If you take part of a song, the original song is undamaged. Girl Talk samples Nirvana's "Scentless Apprentice", but you can still go and buy a copy of "In Utero" and listen to it in its original form. This is what I mean when I say it is undamaged.

You are arguing that a sampled song is different from the original, to which I say... No duh. Of course the artist's original statement will be re-contextualized and altered. In fact, if it wasn't, then you would just be straight up stealing the song

[tacticaln00b]

Which is exactly my point. If the original song has been altered without permission of the copyright holder, it is not the same, therefore it is a violation of copyright. The fact that it is creative or that someone likes it has nothing to do with it.

[mrethanboy]

That is what the law says, yes. But I think the law is wrong.

I'm saying that this work is (1) creatively viable and (2) doesn't hurt the original artist. So why should we restrict it?

Copyright law was originally written to promote creativity, and now it's restricting it. Check the constitution:

The purpose of copyright is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"

Copyright should protect artists only to the extent that ensures profit, but doesn't restrict creation of new works.

[mrethanboy]

If samplers didn't alter the original work, it would be theft.

However, they do --- and in the process create something new, original, and creatively significant. This is why I support sampling.

[mrethanboy]

What is your chief complaint about sampling?

That it isn't creative?

(because if you go down this road, you'd have to make a lot of other mainstream music illegal)

That it hurts the original artist?

(because there has NEVER been an instance where it has)

What principle do you base your refutation of sampling on?

[tacticaln00b]

If the product is manipulated in any way with out consent, it is in violation of copyright law. Greg Gillis manipulates other people's work. Period. Example: you spend 2 weeks painting a masterpiece. You enjoy it as it is, but then someone takes your canvas cuts it into strips and glues them together in a different order. In principle it is the same concept. If someone painted their own piece to look the same as the master's and then cut it up, then there is no violation. The work is yours.

[djsmithy]

I have to agree.

"How copyright law is killing creativity in the music industry."

That to me is a contradiction in itself

The most creative thing you can do,

is create a totally NEW sound.

Sampling something from the past is not creative, pioneering or innovative.

Ive no problem with people transforming an original sample into something thats totally unrecogniseable from the original.

Now thats a creative use of sampling!

[mrethanboy]

To what extent do you mean by "totally unrecognizable", though?

Personally, I think that a sampled work is justified so long as it is substantially different from the original. Sure, the samples in hip hop and electronica are recognizable, but they are re-contextualized and supplemented by other musical elements. I think this is creative, I think it doesn't damage the original artist, and I think it should be legal.

[antillmusic]

Nice one, added it to the favorites. Antill