Goodbye, Velvet Acid Christ
by Chris on Sep.08, 2004, under General Thoughts, Internet, Media and Rants
According to a few news soruces (“here”:http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,10704524%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html “and”:http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS3483166469,00.html “there”:http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=2269116 ) the US 6th cicruit court reached a decision that any and all sampling of music is illegal unless the work is specifically licensed. As you can imagine, the usual suspects are going to have a field day with this one.
From where I sit, I think that’s just stupid. There are abuses, to be sure, but sampling is a valuable addition to the toolsets of some “artists”:http://www.arztpfusch.com/, even though “others”:http://www.velvetacidchrist.com/ use it as a replacement for creativity.
What could be wrong with it, if it’s not overdone (whole measures, entire themes?)
September 8th, 2004 on 6:55 pm
Hmmm.
My initial reaction is, at least, one of indecision and therefore hesitation and, at most, one of strong dislike and, much more importantly, fright. Will have to think about this some more and develop my thoughts on the matter in greater detail, here, in the near future.
Most pertinent question that springs to my mind about this is: how far back does this stretch? Can any musician who has ever been sampled without permission now sue for royalties / infringement / whatever? If so, to whom do they direct the lawsuit? The band? The label?
Also, it’s unlikely that Velvet Acid Christ will suffer any enmity from this ruling given that, while Bryan Erickson has a tendency to sample lines from visual media (like oh so many others I can name), he’s not — that I can think of — sampled any music. Rather, it’s Front Line Assembly who is likely to get the proverbial whack from this. Hell, FLA built an entire song around the structure of a Chemical Brothers track… though the Brothers themselves built an entire track around the structure of a 23 Skidoo song.
Guess that brings me back to my question: how far can this ruling stretch?
Need to read more. For now, um. Yuck (yes, how very articulate of me).
September 10th, 2004 on 12:49 pm
in our society every sampling is theft. it doesn’t count if it’s only a 25ms snippet or one which lasts for 25 seconds. there are people who make a living from the original work. sampling is like stealing flour at the supermarket and selling the bread made from it at the weekly market. this is just a fact if we like it or not.
but nobody seems to notice that the problem is quite a different one. what i’m talking about is how we deal with culture in society. i’m not only speaking about music here, but also about fine arts, literature, acting etc.
where is culture coming from and where does it go? who are artists and what is their reputation in society? who consumes the stuff and what is their personal situation? how and where do you consume culture? and why? what is the significance of culture in our society? oh, and what is the role money is playing here?
take your time and think about these questions in detail. the answers are interesting and it’s (uhm… not) surprising that most people don’t seem to notice what this is really all about.
all these laments about sampling other people’s work and p2p filesharing are just symptons of bigger social problems.
cy (german part of a+p)
p.s. thanx for linking our site and the nice compliment!
p.p.s. oh, and we suck too much to be creative at all. i think we should put a sticker on the next album: “don’t buy this shit.”
September 10th, 2004 on 2:38 pm
It’s an interesting point that I think you’re trying to make, and given that it comes from an artist’s (and thus a content creator’s) perspective does tend to lend it some weight.
I personally look on copyright — especially in the digital age — as a contract between a creator and society at large. Given the trivial effort involved in duplication, a creator has to feel that there is some way of protecting their efforts in order to gain by them that which they wish to. Otherwise, how can they justify the time away from making their life livable? Thus, society agrees (through copyright) to protect the rights of that creator, or their agents, in exchange for the eventual release of those works into the public domain.
Enumerating the ways in which this is failing under the current copyright regime is an exercise left to the reader.