Homework post for 3E
Copyright criminals homework:
First of all, watch the following trailers. Visit the Copyright Criminals website, do some reading on Wikipedia, and post an essay. If you prefer to express a balanced opinion, write a for/against compostion presenting arguments for AND against. If you DO have an opinion, write an opinion essay where you will prove and defend your opinion (for OR against). Word limit 200-250. Deadline: October 11, 2010.
Copyright Criminals Promo Video from Eclectic Method on Vimeo.
Copyright Criminals from IndiePix on Vimeo.
Comments
First of all, there are some people who think that, as entertainment lawyer Ken Freundlich says, there are rules of the game, and it’s copyright. So if it is a law people ought to obey it and not use without permission somebody’s other works. Secondly, it appears that hip-hop musicians are just lazy. It is obvious for some people that is much easier to take something that is already awesome and play it again with your name on it. What is more, some musicians use pieces of somebody’s songs and never thank as in James Brown’s drummer’s case.
Nevertheless, it is believed that hip-hop is really creative kind of art and all of those turntablists, DJs and MCs are real talented artists. In addition, it appears that sampling has reintroduced the world to forgotten artist, just because some DJ use piece of ancient recording. Moreover, there are voices that rock and roll was lazy and boring, but hip-hop is believed to be something fresh, powerful and future of the music. Furthermore, some people believed that music is an assemblage of sounds and nobody could copyright a sound and .
On balance, it seems that issue of sampling will be debating for a long time, because there are so many voices for and against it.
Mateusz P.
Firstly, every genre of music is influenced by the other. Blues, jazz, rock and even electronic music share some things in common. Hip hop went a one step further and took the parts of some musical pieces . Rearranging those break into new songs or beats is the great way to get to know a new view of older music. Personally I think, that the whole idea of showing the past achievement on the future’s ways is a great experience for listeners and musicians.
Secondly, sampling can be also a great experience for the original songwriters. There are some forgotten band and songs which can reach another moment of glory because DJs are popularizing the older masterpieces. In 1980’s Run DMC performed a cover of Aerosmith’s song Walk This Way guesting Steven Tyler and Joe Perry of Aerosmith. The song reached top places on quite a few of music charts. Finally the song promoted Run DMC as well as Aerosmith.
Summing up, although DJs break law ‘stealing’ breaks, and although some original songwriters have a lot of problems with it, the sampling is a kind of modern art which can’t destroy the soul of music. It can only develop it.
Maciek
Sampling is the act of taking a portion, or sample, of one sound recording and reusing it as an instrument or a different sound recording of a song(definition taken from Wikipedia). It is considered by some people to be a crime. Personally, I don`t like this kind of music. I mean scratching, rap and so on. But I`m not against sampling. In my opinion it’s great idea.
Firstly, it’s creating something new by using something old. And it is easy! You don’t have to play any instrument to make your own song. Take a few recordings, or more and just scratch it. A device you use is sampler, some name it a musical instrument, but I think it’s too big word.
Secondly, in each path of science you take sb’s work and make it better, by little changes or proving that it isn’t right. In music is the same, isn’t it? For instance, guitarists take chords from one song and remake it to another… It gives the same chords but different melody.
The last, but not least advantage is that sampling gives opportunity to mix up music made by artists who would never play together, e.g. Mozart with The Beatles. In real it`s impossible.
Summing up, sampling is easy way to make music which is impossible to play on normal instruments. And it gives completely fresh view on music.
On one hand, one group of people like musicians, actors, dirctors, photographers works to make something. They sacrifice their time to write and record songs or write a script and make a movie, but they have money on that. It's their work. But for example, singers get about 20% money of each sold CD. It means that if we download this CD, we kind of rob that singer. And that would be the reason why I would be against copyrighting.
But on the other hand, 80% of that money goes to producers, shops and many other people who did something to release this CD. And often mark-up is more than 40%. This is the reason, why I feel cheated (sometimes - when I know this CD should have been cheaper) and I deciede to download it.
All in all, I think downloading music or films for your own if you can't afford it. Everything depends on how we feel with that.
correct artist. Often we don't even know whose job was to make it. If we like a song, we don't
think about who was the first artist of that base bits, guitar riffs, or percussion melodies.
If someone is interrested it is really easy to find an information of ewerything we want know about
copyright. And I think, that copywright is very good for each artist.
There are many people who earn a lot of money on 'recreating' someones great work. It might be
really unkind and selfish, because if you are an artist the only way to prove it is to create your own
art.
OK, I understand that there are sorts of music where artists needs to use someones samples to make
something totally different. I do not have anything against, if it is according with the law.
Nowadays everyone can do music. It is not that easy, but todays computer technology alows us to
make music in our home. We just have to be careful whereas our art can piss somebody off. If it was,
consequences will not be satisfactory.
Dominik Szewczyk
The main question in the whole disscusion should be 'can one own a sound?' If so, then I'm able to go and register the sound of ticking clock – then all clock-owners in the whole universe would be stealing my sample. It may sound like an absurd, but the law allows that! If we follow this logic, we 'll soon find out that we can't use anything already made.
I was amused when I was watching the 'artists' whining about stealing their tracks. They wouldn't have even known of the crime, if it weren't about money. The music is an art and it should evolve. From something already created to something completely different due to the creative mind of a DJ or someone. It should be a praise for them, when their old songs are recreated into something original and new.
I may not like music from the samplers, but I have to admit, that pepole who are into those things are artist. They have to feel the music, so they can create completely different melodies. Some of the original artist admitted: „Did I do that? I wouldn't have known if they haven't told me.”
Copyright law is very controversial for me, it isn't accurate and its interpretation varies wiedly. Noone can be satisfied by current situation – both original artists and samplers, who don't even know wheter they are balancing on the edge or creating lawfully.
The record industry took notice of rising popularity of the new musical style. Sampling is possible with tape loops or with vinyl records on a phonograph but usually it's done by sampler.
I think that sampling is a very good idea because it's much more simple.
Firstly to get good music by using traditional methods is time consuming and it's very expensive: we need to hire musicians and rent out recording studio or have appropriate skills and instruments.
Therefore sampling has gained such popularity.
Secondly thanks to it we can combine different types of music. It gives you unlimited possibilities in the selection of music styles and different artists.
Sampling is creating completly different melodies by using old ones.
Maybe I don't like this kind of music but I think that people are artists whatever they do and this is intresting way to make music. Ada S.
Recently, a lot of controvency has been rised upon the issue whether sampling is legal or should be prosecuted and treated as a crime. Personally, I treat the manipulation of previous records as not ethical. Moreover, original artists’ money is taken from them as their work is not paid for it. Some people believe it is copyright infringement. Majority of people are unable to recognize and to define the original artists as in the case of James Brown’s drummer. Due to that the author is not rewarded either financially nor given the proper public recognition.
On the other hand it is very difficult not to be influenced by previous musical pieces. However, sampling gives the fresh air to an original and forgotten song as in case of some DJ’s going back to an ancient recordings. Owing to that we can rediscover the music, was not our cup of tea.
Taking all the pros and cons into consideration I strongly believe that everything is for people including sampling. Neverthless, we should create barriers and define the limits of “borrowing” other artists’ work to avoid future debates whether or not sampling is against the law.
Michał Podwysocki
Is the sampling larceny? I think that partly is.
Sampling is “ the act of taking a portion, or sample of one sound recording and reusing it as an instrument or a different sound recording of a song”. Creating something original out of nothing seems to be more difficult. Skilful use the past, the process of merging two works into a new, separate entity may be a good thing.
People use the ready-made tracks to create something completely different. This music has its fans and enemies. It Is considered art. It is a creating something new. It is good, when from the old song, unknown song to create something different and good. Then gains fame the processing and original record.
something different is copying someone's ideas for a purely profit-making, without creating new value, and another thought-manipulation of someone else's composition, which is making specific, intellectual impression on the recipient.
Despite this, I think DJ should ask for permission for altering other people's songs.
I hate to hear of the "window of a neighbor," a customized song, which I hear a voice or music artist known and liked. What is more when the author thinks the record as exclusively his own, gives it a title. This is embarrassing.
In my opinion, these songs have a "short period of validity”, and tracks used for sampling for example Rolling Stones created the songs that are timeless and making greater impact than dj’s remixes (which I don' like). Rather, it just kind of fun.
Bryl Dominika
Firstly, I think that sampling is something like organ transplantation from dead people. Organ will dead with this person in the same time. DJ or Mc can save them from oblivion by using fragments (organs) of song in their new music composition.
Secondly, unknown artist become recognizable thanks to DJs who use parts of theirs songs. Someone who doesn’t be recognizable by years now can be famous even if he’s dead. It’s some kind of respect and memory.
Next, sampling is a process which has influence on music. DJs like Qbert create new kind of music. I love hip hop and I think that without sampling it wouldn’t be so emotional. When I listen hip hop and I hear a sampler from nice, old song I think that it’s a union of new and old, two different things which creates something great and unforgivable.
Moreover, sampling it’s not a criminal for me. Artist whose parts of song were used in new composition should be proud of themselves, because someone wants to promote them.
In conclusion, I think that people shouldn’t treat sampling like copyright criminal. They should think that it is an art and creating something new and different.
Many of them without even knowing that doing it illegally downloading various files, folders, films and finally music. This is usually for their own use, for example, in the form of enertaiment.
Music attracts some people there to use it in their own, new song, renew it. I think it is a kind of respect for the artist. Altering the old song , such as 'Tu Vou' Fa L'Americano' for the song Yolandas Be Cool 'We no speak americano'. This is a complete renovation of the track, used in many clubs, witch extend the popularity of a song. DJ's such copyright allows not only for the renewal of the track but also showing the good, old, and above all the uncown songs. This music captures the artist and somehow his biography. Such restoration can also show the culture of earlier years. Copyright is also used to create modern pieces of miusic.
Probably many people bother to copy music from other, but I think that this way of creating something new is good , the opponent to think that it is stearling ideas and money. I think it is a good idea if used, of course, are old song and their artists are dead.
Paulina.
Firstly, sampling, as Wikipedia says, is taking a portion of sounds and reusing it. Unfortunately the fact is, these sounds are cut from melodies which were created before. It is like taking someone's photo and remake it. That is just an inspiration, someone could say. Still how would you feel when normal person took your work, you were creating for 6 months, and "improved" it in a day and earned fourth as much as you did ?
My next argument against is lack of creativity. Real, mature artist is able to make his creation from the very beginning, when sampler is just a copier. For me, sampling is like collage. Mostly people, who don't have much of art abilities are doing it. They are doing it because it's easy, not much of work on one's own is necessary. It is getting popular. When it is popular, everyone does it. When everyone does it, it becomes ordinary, unoriginal.
I hope I have defended my arguments with clear proofs. There will always be people, who do not know the value of honest, hard work to become someone important in this world. Easy methods can make the process faster but it is up to us if we accept such fake artists.
Karol
It’s also painful that artists and producers give each other a kick in the ass instead of sticking together. Their creativity is being limited so the same happens to music development.
Firstlly, useing samples in songs can give an original song a new meaning which is a great thing, because you can look at the old song from the new point of view. Alsow songs which aren't well known or not very good can become better by using their samples in different songs or mixing them.
Secoundly, sampling created new culture which includes DJ's MC's, samples are their work tools so they if someone will say that they can't use his song ro sound he is takeing from them possibility to makeing music.
Summing up, i think that DJ's should have a right to free using samples abecauce they are makeing somethig new and fresh, without that we wont't be able to listen to that music which is often very good and creative.
First of all, there are some people who think that, as entertainment lawyer Ken Freundlich says, there are rules of the game, and it’s copyright. So if it is a law people ought to obey it and not use without permission somebody’s other works. Secondly, it appears that hip-hop musicians are just lazy. It is obvious for some people that is much easier to take something that is already awesome and play it again with your name on it. What is more, some musicians use pieces of somebody’s songs and never thank as in James Brown’s drummer’s case.
Nevertheless, it is believed that hip-hop is really creative kind of art and all of those turntablists, DJs and MCs are real talented artists. In addition, it appears that sampling has reintroduced the world to forgotten artist, just because some DJ had used a piece of an ancient recording. Moreover, there are voices that rock and roll was lazy and boring, but hip-hop is believed to be something fresh, powerful and future of the music. Furthermore, some people believed that music is an assemblage of sounds and nobody could copyright a sound.
On balance, it seems that issue of sampling will be being debated for a long time, because there are so many voices for and against it.
Mateusz P.