Great link Geoff. It was valid in 1985, and so much more valid now...

awesome article, Geoff, thanks.


love this quote from the article:
Proposing their game plan to apprehend the Titanic once it had been located at the bottom of the Atlantic, oceanographer Bob Ballard of the Deep Emergence Laboratory suggested "you pound the hell out of it with every imaging system you have."

if any of you are interested in copy right laws and fair use info, check the negativland website:
http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html

and here is an interview with Negativland about fair use and copy right issue:
http://www.kuci.uci.edu/text/interviews/nland.html

In Australia, our Copyright Laws are even more strict than that of America.

We don't have a 'Fair Use' clause (unlike the United States), so technically making copies of music that you actually own (or transferring them to a IPOD or some other mp3 program) is actually an illegal activity.

So basically Apple is selling IPODs, that are technically illegal to use in Australia.

There is something wrong with Copyright Law, if pretty much everyone (in fact EVERYONE) who purchases an IPOD is breaking the law!

that's interesting Geoff, now I wonder how much they paid and how long they had to wait to clear the samples before they could release that The Avalaunches album...

I read it was about two years and $200,000. Crazy how they kept track of all of them.

I forgot to note that Apple is probably selling iPods in Australia under the pretense that everyone will be transferring only the protected digital files from their own music store...which probably sidesteps any Austrialian laws if the store is availalbe there...

The iTunes store isn't here yet, we'll be the last region and it'll be in about 2024...

I think some common sense comes in, and no-one is likely to get arrested for using an ipod in this way, because the public would think it unjust, people would riot, I'd start looting, and get arrested all over again

We have stacks of stupid, arcane laws written about 200 years ago (as every country does), that bear no usefulness in this age, and most get changed eventually. But it only takes a few dickheads to spoil a party...

I just saw the Stones vs. the Verve on VH1. Keith Richards saying, "We're supposed to be flattered? We're being ripped off! Ha ha ha!" Yeah, Mick and Keith, those guys gotta pinch every penny, the just don't see enough royalties! Pigs.
I guess from the RS legal standpoint, if they let The Verve do it, the might be inviting open season on the RS catalogue. But I still think suing for 100% of the publishing rights was disgusting.
Essentially RS "stole" everything from Muddy Waters and B.B. King! It may be the same chord for chord, but it's not "sampling" so it's OK. There's a fine line isn't there.

I voted for freedom to sample. Fog de man!
I would then like to see artists do the courtesy of citing the source of each sample. It would be interesting to know. Plus, if a listener really enjoys a sample, he or she might go out and buy that artist's music!

The single coolest sentence I've seen written this week...



Who got most of that 100% too, betcha Mick and Keith even though it was a string part I doubt they really wrote.

Businessmen, nothing more now...



Check this article out, scroll near the bottom and see how pathetic it gets when they own words put into particular order...

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/142...08/story.jhtml

Bastards!!!

Thanks. I always say, brevity is the soul of wit and no bullshit!




And not just "samples" either. So they don't like the way an artist says "You can't always get what you want," the publishers will sic their monster lawyers all over him?
PRICKS!