In recent years, there have been a number of conflicts between the artistic interests of "sound collage" composers manipulating found sound samples, and the monetary interests of record labels and copyright holders. On one hand, the view of the composer is that, through change of context, something new is created w/ the aid of samples that is unique from the original source. If the sampled elements are small enough, and taken in a distinctly new direction, than copyright law need not come into play at all. On the other hand, record companies and copyright holders view their property as simply that: their own property, and any use of it, no matter how small, is an infringement on their rights.

This poll is meant to reflect the opinions of the Radio Mute community and encourage discussion on the legal issues surrounding this type of music.

I think sound collage is "folk music" for the information age.

I don't think I've ever heard it put quite like that, Evil...but I like it! ((and it does make sense...))

One thing to add to this as-of-now non-existent discussion: copyright law in this context could conceivably limit social commentary/parody/dissent by eliminating one important tool of critique and criticism, using copyright as a means of insurance against negative review...

I love 'plumderphonics' and stuff like that.
To me, it seems simple enough.
I like De La Soul but If you make a gazillion dollars, then you should owe somebody money.
Contrarywise, if 8 people buy copies, you wouldn't think it should be a big deal.

Some of the Scanner stuff is borderline, but only the people on them would recognise themselves. It's a different issue to filming someone, unless they are saying incriminating things, or they really, really wouldn't want it recorded. Other sounds are pretty easy to cover up.

One the other hand, bootleg mash-ups generally sound shit, so put 'em all in jail...




BTW Seba, Nickelback's on the phone...

Yeah, well...they can get lost, it's not as off I've profited off of that monstrosity!

I want to return to the values of Ancient Greece.

Where copying someone's work was considered to be a great compliment.

There wasn't any copyright in Ancient Greece, and this didn't lead to the disintegration of art.

OH NO! People weren't concerned so much with gaining money, but to pursue art for art sake.

I guess.

I'd be flattered if someone used a sample from me, but it works both ways. Look at what Eminem did for Dido, and then look at what the Rolling Stones did to the Verve. I'd like recognition, just not exploitation. Plus the charm goes out if you spend all your time (for major samplists) checking if anything is releasable.

I suggest everyone to read what John Oswald has to say about the subject

you can read his article here:

http://www.plunderphonics.com/xhtml/xplunder.html