Riaa Takes Swipe At Music Producers
<div class="IPBDescription">No more sampling! (for free, at least)</div> <a href='http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18338' target='_blank'>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18338</a>
The RIAA is very much an anti-independent artist organization. Most independent producers specialize in electronic music (hip hop is part of electronic); much of this extremely large genre utilizes "sampling," either to grab a sweet bass line (see: most of Hip Hop) or as a tool or effect to be used in a song because it fit.
The RIAA is taking "artist's rights" and perverting them into "record company rights" right under people's noses. That's what the file sharing is really about, and that's what this is about.
The RIAA is very much an anti-independent artist organization. Most independent producers specialize in electronic music (hip hop is part of electronic); much of this extremely large genre utilizes "sampling," either to grab a sweet bass line (see: most of Hip Hop) or as a tool or effect to be used in a song because it fit.
The RIAA is taking "artist's rights" and perverting them into "record company rights" right under people's noses. That's what the file sharing is really about, and that's what this is about.
Comments
He can say that because Artists don't make their livelyhoods from CD sales, therefore the only people losing money are record labels.
We're not talking about 'illigal music sharing' were talking about sampling, which is the staple of all forms of electronic music and widely used in nearly all forms of music all together. Pretty much every professional artist we have today with a very few exceptions (bands that exclusively play musical instruments) have used a fair bit of sampling at least in thier music, we are talking everyone from Snoop Dog, to Moby, to Britney Spears. This is acctually a huge blow to artists, and doesn't effect consumers what so ever. Essentially what is being said, is that if we want a sound to use for a digital instrument on one of our tracks, we will have to pay someone for a samples disk of some sort, which in all likelyness won't have what we are looking for, but there is no way for us to test it because riaa planning on shutting down the massive online sample databases.
This is a ludicous shot at music, essentailly they are no longer saying that they just own the series of sounds that are put together to create a song, they are saying they own every individual sound within that song. Every guitar pluck, every base pluck, every drum beat, and every sound effect. freaking ****
"Lets sue the little guys for downloading a track, lets sue the rapper for sampling this 3 second riff, lets sue our own mothers because we're greedy bastards."
I can't wait until something terrible happens to them. I'm compelled to pull a 9/11 and crash a jet plane into the RIAA headquarters.
Did you read the artical? we are talking about a 2.5 second guitar loop that was sampled, and then had the pitch lowered on top of it for a track. It would have been barely recognizable from the original track, but RIAA still wants money from it, because the original 2.5 seconds belonged to them.
Kinda funny when you think about it. First they claim they're against pirating because it damages the Artist's income and prevents new artists from rising, and then they go and damage artist's income and prevent new artists from rising.
I personaly think the RIAAs latest actions seem a bit, well meh.wth, <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> but here is what the lawyers say.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->DIGITAL SAMPLING
The controversy surrounding digital sampling has generated quite a bit of misunderstanding among musicians. For instance, many musicians are under the misperception that it is OK to sample anything less than 4 bars of another song. In fact, sampling just a few notes may be enough to cause legal problems.
IS DIGITAL SAMPLING LEGAL?
Most legal experts believe the issue of digital sampling was resolved in 1991, when a Federal District Court ruled that Biz Markie's use of a few notes from the chorus of Gilbert O'Sullivan hit song "Alone Again, Naturally" amounted to copyright infringement. In addition to citing to the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not steal"), the judge barred any further sale of Biz Markie's album and referred to matter to the U.S. Attorney for possible criminal prosecution. Another court later ruled that sampling phrases like "ooh" "move" and "free your body" may also be enough to find copyright infringement.
Digital sampling may not just violate copyright laws. Failure to obtain permission before sampling a distinctive voice may also violate certain state laws recognizing that famous personalities have a "right of publicity." A few years ago Tom Waits successfully sued Frito Lay for using an imitation of his distinctive vocal style in a commercial. Bette Midler also won a lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. for imitating her voice in a television commercial without her permission. Sampled artists may also have a claim for unfair competition if their voice or "persona" are used without permission.
IS DIGITAL SAMPLING PROTECTED AS FAIR USE?
So far, no court has ruled on whether digital sampling may be protected as fair use. However, legal experts agree that for a sample to qualify as fair use, it must be used for purposes such as parody, criticism, teaching, news reporting, research or some non-profit use. Using a sample merely because it sounds good is simply not enough to qualify for protection as fair use. [Note: For more information on music and fair use, click back to my recent Fine Print column on the fair use exception to copyright infringement.]
OBTAINING SAMPLE CLEARANCES
To legally sample a song, it is necessary to obtain permission from the copyright holder of the sound recording (usually the record company) and the copyright holder of the composition (usually the song's publisher). Permission from the owner should also be sought when sampling a television show or motion picture.
Artists should obtain permission from all copyright owners before any song containing a sample is distributed publicly. Waiting until after your record is distributed can result in lost income, expensive legal fees and the removal of your record from the market. Releasing your record before obtaining clearances also reduces your bargaining power if you later attempt to negotiate a sample license.
HOW TO CLEAR A SAMPLE:
Music attorneys often clear samples, although this can be somewhat expensive. Clearance agencies are usually cheaper, and many are familiar with licensing samples. Record companies can also clear samples for their artists, but the cost of negotiating and obtaining clearances will later be deducted from any recording advance or royalties the artist may be entitled to.
Of course, you may decide to obtain a sample license yourself. To clear samples, it is necessary to write to the record company and publisher of the sampled song. ASCAP or BMI will likely have the publisher's current address. In your letter, ask for a quote for a clearance fee, and identify the song you are sampling and how much is used. Don't forget to include a tape of the original song, as well as a copy of your unreleased song using the sample.
In granting a license, a record company may seek a flat-fee of anywhere from $100 to $5,000, or possibly more. Record companies may also seek a royalty (from $.01 to $.07 per record sold) as well as an advance. Music publishers may also ask for a flat fee or a percentage of income from the new song, or both. Depending on how the sample is used, some publisher may also demand a percentage of copyright ownership in the new composition. Because copyright owners are not obligated to grant clearances, you may have no choice but to comply with the owner's asking price, or remove the sample. Of course, a copyright owner may also deny permission to use a sample.
Different factors affect how much money a record company or music publisher will want for a sample. Price may vary depending on how much of the sample is used, how many other samples are used, whether your song has already been released, and the type of rights a record company is willing to grant. For example, a music publisher may choose to license a sample for sound recordings only. In this case, you would be unable to use your song containing the sample in a motion picture, video or CD-Rom without an additional license from the music publisher.
Finally, to keep costs down, some artists choose to create their own samples by first recording their own "cover" version of the sampled song. By using this technique, an artist avoids having to obtain a clearance from the original record company. Nevertheless, when creating your own sample based on another song, you will still need to obtain a clearance from the music publisher of the original composition.
CONCLUSION:
Scratching and sampling has created some of this century's most vital and expressive music, bridging the gap between popular and experimental composition. Nevertheless, using a sample without permission violates two copyrights - the copyright in the sound recording and the copyright in the underlying composition. Because the cost of legitimately clearing samples cuts into an artist's record advance and royalty rate, it is understandable why many young artists later create their own samples in the studio after they become established acts.
While a sample of 1 or 2 notes is OK only if it is taken from a non-essential or commonly used phrase, another sample of 1 or 2 notes may be infringing if taken from a musically significant part of a song. Thus, taking the recognizable word "Help" from the Beatles' song, or appropriating the distinctive style of an artist's performance, such as James Brown's unique scream, would constitute an infringement. Because there is no hard and fast rule on what is safe to sample, the best advice is "When in doubt, obtain a license."
Alan Korn
Law Office of Alan Korn
1840 Woolsey Street
Berkeley, CA 94703
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lmao, so they own something that is leagly the atrists as soon as it left there lips/instrument.....
I mean come on its like saying they own voice
Kinda funny when you think about it. First they claim they're against pirating because it damages the Artist's income and prevents new artists from rising, and then they go and damage artist's income and prevent new artists from rising. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
****, this probably kills the whole lower ranks of the techno and hiphop composer sceane in one foul swoop. I can't think of an independent artist I know that probably hasn't used hundereds of samples from old songs and what not in thier music, probably without thinking twice about it. This most likely means that every selling artist in existance has to delete every song they have made to date (or at least make sure they never sell) delete thier sample database (most of which are huge, at least for the better artists) and begin the arduous task of creating a new sample base with 'safe' samples. Once a sample is in your stuff, there is no way to determine where it came from, or who is going to want to sue you for it, so the risk of unsafe samples is to great.
Anyway, why do they call piracy stealing? Isn't that just a cheap shot at people's morals..
They do, there for I shall never speek a workd again. Afterall, I have a keyboard. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yeah. All people need now is a bit of favouring in court, and they're rich. Someone might sue me now for typeing in a manner similar to other people's.
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Seriously, though, this is ridiculous. A couple of seconds of a guitar beat, and they claim it's like stealing the song. Also, which Judge cited one of the Ten Commandments? I'm all for having faith in something, but disestablishmentarianism? What is that crap?
And........ SIGGED!
But in all seriousness, despite what i said earlier, i can't see this being as petty as it seems. I'm waiting for Nem0 or Kalias or some other Forum-argument-pwner to come and lay the facts down and show us that the RIAA is just following the law and not being petty arseholes, and we should get off the RIAA hating bandwagon. But this is a pretty petty thing to do.
Anyway... *waits*
...
*Sobs in corner*
It depends on your taste, but I agree.
*points to MTV*
PS Let's not turn this into a "x sucks, y's better" thread on music. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Sorry for going a bit off-topic.
Basically, remember Napster? Remember how the music industry was still bustling and practically doubling its income every week? And then napster was taken down, and they say its because of napster that suddenly their losing sales. What was actually happening, is someone would download a song off of Napster, then look at what the person they downloaded from had, tried that, and thus, smaller artists shot up real quick, getting huge sales. Some say this is even how Linkin Park got so popular- a few had 'em, and then napster hit 'em. Myth or not, Dvorak had a point with his "Napster Saved the Music Industry: The RIAA's killin it" article. I'll try and drag it back- it was a genious idea.
EDIT:
Good point... I went out and bought alot of underground cd's back when Napster was around!
Anyway, it makes me so sad to see huge corporations out to destroy everyone like this, just so they can make a few (million) bucks. Talk about a lack of compassion, they don't care who they step on, not one bit. Pretty soon they are going to be suing artists for making a song that sounds like one they relesed some time earlier.
Absolutely pitiful, I wonder if people like the RIAA realise how foolish they look to the masses.
Basically, remember Napster? Remember how the music industry was still bustling and practically doubling its income every week? And then napster was taken down, and they say its because of napster that suddenly their losing sales. What was actually happening, is someone would download a song off of Napster, then look at what the person they downloaded from had, tried that, and thus, smaller artists shot up real quick, getting huge sales. Some say this is even how Linkin Park got so popular- a few had 'em, and then napster hit 'em. Myth or not, Dvorak had a point with his "Napster Saved the Music Industry: The RIAA's killin it" article. I'll try and drag it back- it was a genious idea. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The funniest part is the shut down of Napster brought about the rise of Kazaa and rampant movie piracy, good job RIAA not only did you not stop music piracy you quadrupaled software and movie piracy.
The RIAA is not willing to admit that all music is recycled in some way, shape, or form. How many times in music history has someone said "wow, that's a great baseline, let me make my own version" and all of the sudden it becomes a cultural movement? Too many for the RIAA, apparantly.
The RIAA knows its reality is fading fast, and so it is lashing out as much as it can as musical artists of all kinds strike out and sell records <i>without record companies</i>, something that is dangerous to them.
I swear, those of you that remember audiogalaxy.com, if that particular website still had its original program and servers running, the record companies would be going bankrupt in by now. That's why they freaked out and killed it so quickly.
What's next? Having DJ's pay massive sums because they made a remix of a song live?
I'm thoroughly disturbed, but as an independent producer, I say screw 'em, I've got the balls that they don't.
Agreed. Now, more than ever, we really need <a href='http://www.electronicscene.com' target='_blank'>Electronic Scene</a> up.
The original spirit of copyright is the protection of <i>shared culture</i>. It isn't meant to protect the monopolies. It is there to protect human culture from them. It is a compromise to allow creativity to flourish, to reward them but it is ultimately protect creative works from being monopolized. To enforce the release of creative works into the public domain, where it becomes shared culture, free for the taking of all.
Copyright law has evolved into something that in effect allows the past to control the future. <b>All</b> works are built upon the past, be it creative works or technical achievments. The extension of copyright terms to an insanely long times only serve to allow a <i>limited</i> number of people to benefit from works of the past, when it really should be that everybody and anybody can benefit and build on these works.
Copyright law really hinders humanity, culture from evolving faster, from new works being created. Heck, when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse he derived the character from someone elses work, a work that was not even a year old. He built on this character, made it better, his own (much like what musicians do when they sample). And yet now, the Disney corporation along with their cronies of the MPAA lobbied for copyright terms to be extended, effectively denying future generations the same freedom that Walt Disney had used to build the Disney empire.
Everybody should be concerned by the insanity of copyright laws. Especially creative people, but really everybody should be concerned about how our creativity is being limited by the past. How we are less and less a free culture.
Resources to educate yourself on copyright laws (and yes, this will be biased):
<a href='http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/get' target='_blank'>A great presentation on how we're being locked in by the past in by the past://A great presentation on how we'... in by the past</a>
<a href='http://free-culture.cc/freecontent/' target='_blank'>Free copy of Free Culture</a>. This book does a great job at explaining the consequences and the history of copyright law.
<a href='http://chemikhazi.blogspot.com/2004/08/copyright-and-protecting-culture.html' target='_blank'>My own rant</a> about copyright law. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->