EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 53, Issue 03 This issue's topics: Music/Legal Continued.. (3 messages) Oswalds procedures on 'DAB' Plunderphonics (52 messages) Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 12:06:12 ECT From: Anthony Tersmette Subject: Re: Music/Legal Continued.. a lawyer once told me that the very first thing one should do is to establish u sage of the name on interstate mail. order a patch cord out of state and have t hem mail it to you with your group name in the address. thats just one example. it could even be a correspondence with your aunt in oregon, for that matter. lo ts of room for creativity here. good luck! tonyt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 08:26:47 CDT From: "Michael D. Whitten" Subject: Music/Legal Continued.. What with all this discussion of Public Domain, U2, B-52s, plunderphonics, and all, I don't feel too stupid asking this question: Can anyone out there recommend how to copyright the name my performing and recording ensemble wishes to use. I hope its real simple and doesn't involve lawyers or lots of cash. What are others' experience on this? Perhaps someone can refer me to a book or other publication/resource. Any help would be much appreciated. Michael ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Whitten | m-whit2@vm1.spcs.umn.edu | m-whit2@staff.tc.umn.edu | "Sentience is over-rated." ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1993 02:32:52 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: Music/Legal Continued.. > > What with all this discussion of Public Domain, U2, B-52s, plunderphonics, > and all, I don't feel too stupid asking this question: > Can anyone out there recommend how to copyright the name my performing > and recording ensemble wishes to use. I hope its real simple and doesn't > involve lawyers or lots of cash. What are others' experience on this? > Perhaps someone can refer me to a book or other publication/resource. Any > help would be much appreciated. > > Michael If you have already written some songs and have them on tape, send them, in form of a tape or something, plus lyrics and music sheets if applicable to the Library of Congress and register them as a body of work by whatever your name is. I got the whole detail on this, if you need it. I just gotta dig at home. That should register your name and music. (oh there is a one-time fee involved i.e. it costs the same for a songs as for a "body of work") -AFC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 09:32:33 PDT From: Leigh Smith Subject: Oswalds procedures on 'DAB' In answer to a request for what John Oswald did to BAD to produce DAB, his plunderphonic version, the process is to long to describe here, see: Oswald, J. (1990) "Bad Relations: plunderography, pop and weird in DAB", Musicworks, #47: p9-10. While music broadcast to a wide audience by radio is legally considered a performance and therefore legally not public domain, the act of distributing this music indiscriminately demands a justification that it is not "public" in the very real sense. The radio station must pay to broadcast it, the audience does not, yet the audience is restricted to what it can do with it? -- =--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--= | Leigh Smith _--_|\ Email: leigh@psychok.DIALix.oz.au | | / \ Tel (H): +61-9-450-2014 | | Perth --> *_.--._/ Perth, Western Australia | | v | =--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 21:00:24 CDT From: John Eichenseer Subject: Plunderphonics Has anyone heard or seen "Treacherous," supposedly the new release from John Oswald (a.k.a. Plunderphonics)? I think Oswald's stuff is absolutely brilliant, and recommend it to anyone. For computer/sampler musicians and afficionados, it is a must. I hope to find his new one soon... Joe was talking about detuning and panning sounds to make them fuller, and so on. I will always second this; been doing it ever since I got my first synth way back, a DX-21, which had a "detune" parameter in Dual mode that did the obvious (didn't pan the sounds, tho). Interestingly, I heard a tip for the EPS classic somewhere which has been very useful: to give a sound more dynamic range and presence, use two layers, one panned hard left and the other hard right, without detuning them. I think that there may be some VERY subtle phase ju-ju going on when you do this; it definitely changes the quality of the sound a little bit, besides increasing its volume. regards, jhno eichen@trilogy.com ....... . . .. . . . . . . . . joh n e i c h e n s e e r d e l i c a t e e a r (512) 458-6474 . . . . . . . . . .. . .... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 08:36:13 EDT From: wbf@ALUXPO.ATT.COM Subject: Re: Plunderphonics John Eichenseer ) said: > Has anyone heard or seen "Treacherous," supposedly the new release from > John Oswald (a.k.a. Plunderphonics)? I think Oswald's stuff is absolutely > brilliant, and recommend it to anyone. For computer/sampler musicians and > afficionados, it is a must. I hope to find his new one soon... This morning, before getting out of bed to start the day, I began reading the latest Keyboard. It has, for the second time in recent memory, a blurb about John Oswald. It mentioned that this new release is banned from the US as a domestic release but might be available as an import. (Oswald in Canadian - Toronto, I think.) His first CD had to be destroyed (by court order I suppose) due to the illegal use of Michael Jackson's image and samples. Bill Fox ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 16:22:17 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Plunderphonics >Interestingly, I heard a tip for the EPS classic somewhere which has been >very useful: to give a sound more dynamic range and presence, use two layers, >one panned hard left and the other hard right, without detuning them. I think >that there may be some VERY subtle phase ju-ju going on when you do this; it >definitely changes the quality of the sound a little bit, besides increasing >its volume. On the samplers and sample players I've mucked about with, there is definite phase shifting. Whether it's due to inaccuracies in the voice triggering (which is possible: voice allocation from a mixed pool by software and all that) or something else, I don't know. The Peavey has a wave start parameter which can be modulated by a random mod source, so I can get this sort of thing to happen differently note by note. It's rather good for percussion, and I use the same scheme for pads (with the two layers spread hard left and right, and the playback offset varying randomly by as much as a second or so): works well for long sampled/looped notes from choral music, and doesn't pulse like detuning. Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 16:22:48 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Plunderphonics >His first CD had to be >destroyed (by court order I suppose) due to the illegal use of Michael >Jackson's image and samples. Hmm. Destroyed for health reasons, presumably? Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 14:48:43 CDT From: John Eichenseer Delicate Ear Subject: Plunderphonics Here's my take on John Oswald's Plunderphonics (as requested)... Oswald composes music using recordings and samples of other people's music exclusively. He is certainly not the first or only composer to this, but IMO he is one of the most interesting and musically successful. His Plunderphonics CD contains, oh, about a dozen tracks. They make use of a wide variety of musical sources (from Dolly Parton to Metallica to Stravinsky to Michael Jackson) and an equally wide variety of processing techniques. Some of his sound mangling methods are very sophisticated; I think most of it must be computer-based manipulation. This ain't no academic csound FM rehash, though; it is collage-mosaic of James Brown vocals, ultra smooth time-warping of an Elvis tune, the Rite of Spring at triple speed (same pitch, though; great perspective on Strav's form structures), and lots of tune layering (cheese orchestra with baying dogs). Oswald has a great musical ear for this stuff; he actually creates interesting and often hilarious compositions whose technical sophistication is, to my ears, a means to other ends, as opposed to an end unto itself. Plunderphonics was banned, due to its blatant violation of copyright laws. I do not know anything about his new CD (mentioned by several folks), nor its legal status. I hope it is available, because I think that this music is genuinely innovative, fresh, INTERESTING stuff fer crissake. On first listen, this was the most hip and exciting sound to pass my ears in quite a while, and it has endured many listenings. Phoalks, it is an artistic tragedy that this material is illegal and restricted. I do NOT intend to spark the Copyright Flamefests of yore, but it is my firm opinion that the copyright policy entrenched in our legal system is ridiculous and out-dated in the context of new technology and art forms (like, say, Plunderphonics, for instance). Oswald's material is clearly musical composition in its own right, which does not insult or detract from the original sources. The relationship between the original music and Oswald's level of composition is quite complex, in fact, and open to all sorts of abstract analyses. Listen and judge for yourself, if you are interested... There are some people who agree that this music deserves to be heard, and they will dub a copy of it for anyone that wants it. If you would like more information about this, drop me a line (eichen@trilogy.com) and I will send you details. Stay awake, jhno ....... . . .. . . . . . . . . Joh n E i c h e n s e e r D e l i c a t e E a r (512) 458-6474 eichen@trilogy.com . . . . . . . .. . .... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 14:58:37 CDT From: Mark Borcherding Subject: Re: Plunderphonics I am VERY interested in getting info on getting a copy of the Plunderphonics work. I have not heard anything off of the CD. Everything I have heard about makes me very curious about the sound. I will try to give you a call since it looks like your in the Austin Tx area. I would be interested in finding out what you are doing. Mark Borcherding 512 250 4384 (work) 512 339 6745 (home) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 08:11:00 EDT From: Mario Vergona Subject: Plunderphonices hi, I just do not understand something: Why is that the same people who rant and rave about making sure musicians are paid for their work, not violating copyright material, etc are carrying on about how great this new work of theifth is? KEYBOARD magazine as well a a number of people the this seem to think its really great. They also think it really terible how the Big Bad System has attempted to crush this artists expression. Wonder how you'd feel if it was your stuffon the album that you were not being paid for? I don't mind what Oswald does, it just how he goes about it. I seem to remember that ages ago people use to string various song parts together to make/tell a funny story on a record. These were actually played on the radio and some became hits. They used other artists' material, but the people were paid for it. No matter how one feels about Mickael Jackson, I do not blaim him one bit for taking legal action. I also feel that everyone is soooo into this because its like that magazine that gets passed around in class under the desk. Actually, if it was like that it might not be so bad. It hard to understand why KEYBOARD would trash people on one page concerning violation of copyright, then praise this on the next. m ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 09:00:50 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: Plunderphonics > > John Eichenseer described his take on Plunderphonics to which > Mario Vergona responded with a different point of view. (Do I see > flames in the not-to-distant future?) I'm not too sure where I stand, > yet, as I can see both points of view. But I wonder about something. > Here's a hypothetical situation... If I were an artist and tore out > pages from several (copyrighted) art books that I had purchased and then > used that material to make a collage, I've got the feeling that nobody > would make a stink about copyright violations. I'd be able to display > my collage in a museum or even sell the work without any copyright > infringement hassles. Is the collage a fair analogy of the Plunderphonics > CD? If Plunderphonics got into legal trouble, why wouldn't my collage? > Or am I ignorant of how the art world works vis a vis copyrights and my > analogy isn't very good? > > Bill Fox > It's my own admittedly limited understanding about this matter, but here goes, if the artists significantly transforms the material it becomes hers. Speeding up tempos, changing the colors of a scanned image, other forms of morphing are all significanly transformative... Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 09:01:21 EDT From: wbf@ALUXPO.ATT.COM Subject: Re: Plunderphonics John Eichenseer described his take on Plunderphonics to which Mario Vergona responded with a different point of view. (Do I see flames in the not-to-distant future?) I'm not too sure where I stand, yet, as I can see both points of view. But I wonder about something. Here's a hypothetical situation... If I were an artist and tore out pages from several (copyrighted) art books that I had purchased and then used that material to make a collage, I've got the feeling that nobody would make a stink about copyright violations. I'd be able to display my collage in a museum or even sell the work without any copyright infringement hassles. Is the collage a fair analogy of the Plunderphonics CD? If Plunderphonics got into legal trouble, why wouldn't my collage? Or am I ignorant of how the art world works vis a vis copyrights and my analogy isn't very good? Bill Fox ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 08:17:30 CDT From: Mark Borcherding Subject: Re: Plunderphonics I see both sides of the sampling other artists work and mixing into your own. To me you can make a statement in which you utilize the other persons words to make your point. If we say that a person can deny you this capability via a copyright does that not limit your freedom of speech even if economic gain is involved. I draw the line when a work with samples has no input from the person creating it. How does everyone feel about sampling something like CNN? or Public TV? Should one have permission to use these samples? Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 10:22:57 -0400 From: Chris Gray Subject: Re: Plunderphonics Surely what we are talking about here is a "derived work". If I take a track from the "Bandwidth" album and include it in a CD I release, then I am just anthologising, so the Team are entitled to a well-defined share of the proceeds and a credit on the cover. If I take part of one track and add a vocal line or otherwise embellish it, I create something which is part Team and part Me. If I sample some particularly cool sounds from the album and use them in a .MOD file, then the result is overwhelmingly Me and the Team get nowt. In the first two cases I would do well to get permission from the Team (and their publisher, if they had one), otherwise they could sue me for stealing their stuff and depriving them of income and even destroying their reputation --- I have a piece of sheet music at home with a copyright notice which forbids me from parodying the song. In the case of the anthology, I guess they'd say "Yes, if the quality is right", and settle for the going rate. For the embellished version, if they didn't like it they could stop me from going ahead. In the third case, I wouldn't need to even ask - any more than I asked FZ for permission to quote him in my .sig. (Just imagine if Roland tried to copyright the "sound and feel" of their strings patches, e.g. 8-0). The $64000 question is of course where to draw the line between quotation and plagiarism. I don't see that emusic technology really presents radically new problems, it just opens up some new possibilities. What will clarify the law is a corpus of court decisions - if anyone ever takes court cases to a con- clusion these days, instead of just settling out-of-court. What happened in the Plunderphonics case: MJ's legal dept. gives baleful glare, record company shrivels into apologetic heap? - Chris ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 10:44:45 EDT From: wbf@ALUXPO.ATT.COM Subject: Re: Plunderphonics Mark Borcherding asks: > How does everyone feel about sampling something like CNN? or Public TV? > Should one have permission to use these samples? If the sample is something like the President, CNN won't be able to prove you "stole" the sample from them since the President was probably covered by ABC, NBC, CBS, your local TV station, Public Radio, et al. But if the sample is of a specific newscaster or some other equally identifiable source, then you could be treading on thin ice. I think a possible source of John Oswald's problem is the name he chose for the CD. It's as if he intentionally is plundering others' works and is proud of it. Of course, history shows us that it is the extremists who test the boundaries, allowing the perception of center to drift (impercepably?) one way and then another. Jeff Harrington's point: > It's my own admittedly limited understanding about this matter, but here goes, > if the artists significantly transforms the material it becomes hers. At which point I wondered how and by who is it decided when something is SUFFICIENTLY transformed so that it does belong to the artists instead of the original source of the sample. So Jeff obligingly provides a list: > Speeding up tempos, changing the colors of a scanned image, other forms of > morphing are all significanly transformative... I think that there may be arguments here, especially when playing a sample faster can still be identified as to its original source if not sped up to the point of non-recognition. Just goes to show how problematic this issue can be. And it will probably end up being decided in Congress (like the Home Taping Bill of 1992) instead of by emusicians! Bill Fox ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 07:32:35 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Plunderphonics >There are some people who agree that this music deserves to be heard, and >they will dub a copy of it for anyone that wants it. Just curious: would dubbing (or sampling) the Plunderphonics CD violate its copyright? What does it say on the CD? Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 08:41:37 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: Plunderphonics > > Mark Borcherding asks: > > How does everyone feel about sampling something like CNN? or Public TV? > > Should one have permission to use these samples? > > If the sample is something like the President, CNN won't be able to > prove you "stole" the sample from them since the President was probably > covered by ABC, NBC, CBS, your local TV station, Public Radio, et al. > But if the sample is of a specific newscaster or some other equally > identifiable source, then you could be treading on thin ice. > > I think a possible source of John Oswald's problem is the name he chose > for the CD. It's as if he intentionally is plundering others' works and > is proud of it. Of course, history shows us that it is the extremists > who test the boundaries, allowing the perception of center to drift > (impercepably?) one way and then another. > > Jeff Harrington's point: > > It's my own admittedly limited understanding about this matter, but here goes, > > if the artists significantly transforms the material it becomes hers. > > At which point I wondered how and by who is it decided when something is > SUFFICIENTLY transformed so that it does belong to the artists instead > of the original source of the sample. So Jeff obligingly provides a > list: That's simple - a judge. You have to "sue" someone in the AmeriKKKan judicial system to prove financial damage. If you're lucky you'll get a first amendment fanatic for your judge ;-). All of this copyright stuff is wide open for interpretation by judges - and juries, if it goes to a jury trial. Remember, if you get sued by a corporation, no matter how trivial the suit, you're fucked. My father, an inventor, was sued repeatedly for 20 years by several giant oil/chemical companies, solely for the purpose of delaying the introduction of his technology. He finally settled out of court for $20,000.00 and went out and bought a new red truck. 20 years in court!!! > > > Speeding up tempos, changing the colors of a scanned image, other forms of > > morphing are all significanly transformative... > > I think that there may be arguments here, especially when playing a > sample faster can still be identified as to its original source if not > sped up to the point of non-recognition. Just goes to show how > problematic this issue can be. And it will probably end up being > decided in Congress (like the Home Taping Bill of 1992) instead of by > emusicians! > > Bill Fox > Oh boy... Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 18:14:19 CET From: Jack Latanowicz Subject: Re: Plunderphonics On Tue, 8 Jun 1993 08:17:30 CDT Mark Borcherding said: >I see both sides of the sampling other artists work and mixing into >your own. To me you can make a statement in which you utilize the other >persons words to make your point. If we say that a person can deny you >this capability via a copyright does that not limit your freedom of speech >even if economic gain is involved. I draw the line when a work with samples >has no input from the person creating it. > >How does everyone feel about sampling something like CNN? or Public TV? >Should one have permission to use these samples? > >Mark Yes, I wonder if George Michael had to get permission for taking pieces of commercials to his latest video... Jack L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jack Latanowicz tel/fax Pl-(0-61) 798-202 ul.Porzeczkowa 27 jack%plpuam11.bitnet@searn.sunet.se 61-306 Poznan P O L A N D "sooner or later everything has it's end..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 16:30:31 EDT From: Mark Simon Subject: Re: plunderphonics There is a composition by William Bolcom called "Black host" for organ with percussion and tape, written around 1968 and recorded on Nonesuch records sometime in the early '70s. Pretty good piece. I mention it because a close listening to the tape part reveals that it is made up almost exclusively of little snippets of rock music, most of them very short (Bolcom must have been very busy with the razor blade), but there are several distinctly discernable bits from songs by the Beatles and the Beach Boys. As far as I know Bolcom has never gotten in trouble for this. As a "serious" composer his works would not attract the level of public scrutiny, I suppose, that would raise the ire of either of those groups' lawyers. Also, he didn't advertise his use of this music, he just stuck it in and waited to see if anyone would notice. Perhaps John Oswald is just being punished for being forthright. Perhaps in the 60s people were more lenient about the use of their music. The Keyboard article mentions that the Grateful Dead gave Oswald their full cooperation to give the plunderphonic treatment to their work. My question is, if I take samples of Michael Jackson's voice and use them to construct an arrangement of, say, Rhapsody in Blue, to whom am I more liable, Michael Jackson or the Gershwin estate? From one I've stolen a physical sound, from the other an idea. Which is the greater theft? --Mark Simon tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 15:31:05 PDT From: metlay Subject: Re: plunderphonics I would very much like to acquire copies of Oswald's releases, preferably on CD. Any ideas? -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Team Metlay's BANDWIDTH is now out on Compact Disc! Email me for details... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 18:13:49 PDT From: Leigh Smith Subject: plunderphonics In the course of the discussion on Oswald's Plunderphonic CD, I wonder how many people have actually heard it, before they comment? I read about Oswald in yes...Keyboard and decided that it was worthwhile to hear what the fuss was about. After hearing it, together with other earlier examples and reading his articles published in Keyboard and Musicworks (Canadian Mag of New Music), I concur with the original poster - it is brilliant, nothing less. The main problem is that in the audio domain there are no such thing as quotation marks. If anyone publishes research which uses the results of other people's work, we can cite the original author and everyone is happy, to the point of the original work gaining in stature. Oswald is quite candid about his sources, he lists all artists involved in the original work, (in the case of MJs BAD, MJ is one of about 20 people involved), and lists the CD the work is taken from and the transformations that he performed on it. Refering to the analogy of tearing out pictures from art books, I think a better description is painstakingly cutting slivers from a number of pictures and meshing them together to create a _totally_ new work. The artists quoted on the CD release their material into the public arena, not the least to radio airplay, which makes their work _public domain_, heck if I was Oswald, I would have fought the lawsuit on the basis I recorded the work off the radio. The whole reason the CRIA got uptight about the CD was it's artwork, which portrays MJ's head wonderfully married to the body of a naked white woman. This sets the 'poked tongue' tone of the whole work. Oswald stated the problem was he called the work Plunderphonics and not Flatterphonics, which is what pissed the CRIA off. IMHO, the attitude is, If the industry is being masturbated then everything's fine, i.e. rap artists manufactured and marketed by the music industry, but as soon as anyone takes an opposite view to it, shit, something has to be done, and of course, the only way the industry does anything, is by using it's economic, rather than intellectual powers (if they existed). Naturally that last section is IMHO - take it or leave it - but, listen to the CD first! BTW, I recently heard some works by Australian artists influenced strongly by Oswald and using some of his non-plunderphonic work in their own compositions - the future seems clear - We are surrounded by media, and our use of it as raw compositional material will only continue and increase, despite legislation. -- =--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--= | Leigh Smith _--_|\ Email: leigh@psychok.DIALix.oz.au | | / \ Tel (H): +61-9-450-2014 | | Perth --> *_.--._/ Perth, Western Australia | | v | =--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 00:05:16 EDT From: The Radio Gnome Subject: Re: plunderphonics Hi, Do these Plunderphonics sound anything like the Tape Beatles or Negativland? I'm a samplaholic myself :-) Andy Wing ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 08:36:00 EST From: john mcintyre Subject: Re: plunderphonics >I would very much like to acquire copies of Oswald's releases, preferably >on CD. Any ideas? Well, there's the obvious "check the used stores". That's where I found his EP that Elektra commissioned as a companion to their _Rubiyat_ self-congratulatory package. It has five songs and mostly combines snippets of the original with the _Rubiyat_ remakes; i.e. Oswald mixes Carly Simon's "You're So Vain" with Faster Pussycat's. Don't forget that Oswald is also a "legitimate" composer. When I saw Kronos Quartet about two years ago, the piece I liked best was a composition of his, which they have finally put on an album. My apologies that my not yet awake brain can remember neither the title of Oswald's piece nor the title of the Kronos disc, but it is the most recent of theirs that is not a "concept" disc; e.g. it's not the tangoes nor the African one. John McIntyre Physics - Astronomy Domine Dept Michigan State University ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 14:25:29 GMT From: Martin Rootes Subject: Re: plunderphonics > My question is, if I take samples of Michael Jackson's voice and use > them to construct an arrangement of, say, Rhapsody in Blue, to whom am I > more liable, Michael Jackson or the Gershwin estate? From one I've stolen > a physical sound, from the other an idea. Which is the greater theft? They are of course different, a physical recording is covered by so called "Mechanical rights" to enable performers and record company to get money when a record is bought. Compositions are covered by Copyright, to enable a composer to get money every time a composition is used (or arranged). As you get more money for writing a tune than playing it then I would assume not paying for copyright would be the greater theft. Intrestingly enough ideas are not Copyrightable (sp), so you can write a composition using the same ideas as Gershwin as long as it is not identifiably the same. This allows people to write compositions in the various musical styles around. If you could copyright ideas then the first rock band (who ever they are?) could claim every other rock band was breaching their copyright! The only way of protecting ideas is with a patent and these only relate to inventions. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Martin Rootes - Senior Systems Programmer/Analyst, Sheffield Hallam University Email : M.Rootes@shu.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 11:32:05 -0500 From: "David C. Bloom" Subject: Re: plundering > My question is, if I take samples of Michael Jackson's voice and use > them to construct an arrangement of, say, Rhapsody in Blue, to whom am I > more liable, Michael Jackson or the Gershwin estate? From one I've stolen > a physical sound, from the other an idea. Which is the greater theft? IMHO alert! IMHO alert! IMHO alert! IMHO alert! IMHO alert! IMHO alert! Mark__ Theft is theft. Whether you steal from talentless millionaire or the estate of a talented pauper makes no difference. Don't compare hypothrical misdeeds - it's a false rationalization. Software licensing, intellectual property, copyright and patent issues aside: they ain't yours, so you need the owners' permission to use them - _both_ of them. Neither is the greater liability [though MJ may consider it libel :->]. Note: composers don't consider their works "ideas" - unless you buy the stories about the great unfinished works [Shubert's unfinished symphony, Mozart's requiem, Bach's Art of the Fugue] whose "ideas" somehow survived them. Neither do publishers - or even the Free Speech libertarians. The physicality of a sound doesn't make it any more [or less] "real" than the scratchings of a scribe. Compositions may start out as ideas, but by the they're heard or read, they're much more. They're _property_. Taping your friends' CDs is theft; copying PC software is theft; photographing the Mona Lisa is theft. Don't ask me if I agree with it - it's the law. Both the plundered sample [Zappa's bane] and the unauthorized treatment [ASCAP's woe] are theft. Which is worse? The one that costs _you_ the most. That makes it a toss-up, as both of your hypothetical victims have expensive lawyers. __David End IMHO. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> david c. bloom <> <> <> open networks engineering, inc. <> "The first false assumption <> <> 777 e. eisenhower pkwy, ste 650 <> that underlies the scheduling <> <> ann arbor, michigan 48108 <> of systems programming <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> is that all will go well." <> <> net dcb@one.com <> \ \ <> __Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <> <> vox 313.996.9900 <> 0-0 <> The Mythical Man-Month <> <> fax 313.996.9908 <> . <> <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 07:35:58 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: plunderphonics >not the least to radio >airplay, which makes their work _public domain_ Erm, no, to my knowledge the artists don't "release" their work; the radio stations have licences to broadcast it. I don't know the status of the broadcast "copies" - I would presume the radio stations have copyright, and/or the original artists' rights propagate...? Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 07:36:39 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Plunderphonics >In the third case, I wouldn't need to even ask I think copyright law suggests that the very act of copying from the "original" recorded medium (the CD, whatever) is what constutes piracy. Isn't that what the "(P)" (phonograph) declaration is about? >The $64000 question is of course where to draw the line between quotation and >plagiarism. Well, there are three issues here: (i) Is it ethically wrong? (ii) Is it illegal? (iii) if (ii) and (not i), am I going to get caught? The whole creativity/plagiarism thing is a red herring IMHO. There's no difference between sampling from a Michael Jackson CD and parking illegally when it comes down to it. It just depends on the answers to these questions. Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 05:10:28 -0400 From: Chris Gray Subject: Re: Plunderphonics (i) Is it ethically wrong? (ii) Is it illegal? (iii) if (ii) and (not i), am I going to get caught? Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk I have been using this algorithm for decades, but didn't want to publicise the fact. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 11:54:46 GMT From: Martin Rootes Subject: Re: plunderphonics > >not the least to radio > >airplay, which makes their work _public domain_ Absolutly no way, the only way to make a work public domain is for the artist to state that it is, or for them to have died over 50 years ago. > > Erm, no, to my knowledge the artists don't "release" their work; the radio > stations have licences to broadcast it. Radio stations (in the UK at least) pay money to PRS (Performing Rights Society) for every playing of a record, PRS then distributes this to the Artists. > > I don't know the status of the broadcast "copies" - I would presume the > radio stations have copyright, and/or the original artists' rights > propagate...? Copyright remains with the publisher/artist, radio stations do not have copyright except on material they produce themselves. Just as playing a CD at home does not give the owner of the CD copyright. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Martin Rootes - Senior Systems Programmer/Analyst, Sheffield Hallam University Email : M.Rootes@shu.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 09:37:10 EDT From: Mark Simon Subject: Re: plundering I think David Bloom has missed the point in my question about the Rhapsody in Blue arrangement made from samples of Michael Jackson's voice. I was not concerned with comparing the artistic merits of either of these two musicians. And I certainly have no interest in actually carrying out such a project even if I had the capabilities and patience. I have plenty of ideas of my own. Nor am I interested in playing semantic games over the definition of the word "ideas". In legal terms a composition may be a "property" and an "idea" may be some broader concept relating to style (such as the "idea" of rock and roll, as someone mentioned). My usage assumes that music is an intellectual concept of which the sound is the physical manifestation, and in that sense the Rhapsody In Blue does indeed belong to the world of ideas. Likewise I would separate the idea of Michael Jackson's Beat It from his performance of Beat It. I think Martin Rootes interpreted my meaning exactly right. He spelled out the difference between mechanical rights as opposed to copyright. In essence, Michael Jackson and the rest are being used as performers of John Oswald's compositions and ought to be compensated as such, especially since Oswald considers it an essential part of his work that you recognize the sources of his samples. Perhaps some organization along the lines of ASCAP or BMI can be created to regulate the use of samples in original compositions. An artist would be compensated based on how often his sample was used in an electronic composition. That would admittedly make things rather complicated for someone like Oswald, not to mention expensive, but it would at least enable this kind of work to be done legally. --Mark Simon tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 10:39:36 -0400 From: Chris Gray Subject: Re: plunderphonics (content-free) __________________________________________________________________________ Chris Gray cgra@se.alcbel.be Compu$erve: 100065.2102 Ignore my broken mailer - the addresses above are the only truth __________________________________________________________________________ Property is theft Proudhon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 11:36:11 CDT From: John Eichenseer Subject: Re: EMUSIC-L Digest - 8 Jun 1993 to 9 Jun 1993 >After hearing it, together with other earlier examples and reading his >articles published in Keyboard and Musicworks (Canadian Mag of New Music), I >concur with the original poster - it is brilliant, nothing less. Yass, yass... >Oswald is quite candid about his >sources, he lists all artists involved in the original work, (in the case of >MJs BAD, MJ is one of about 20 people involved), and lists the CD the work >is taken from and the transformations that he performed on it. Hey, really? I have a xerox of some of the packaging, but I don't recall any documentation of the processing involved. I have been ravenously curious about what tools he used. I suspect it is almost entirely computer-based (as opposed to sampler-based), due to the sophistication and granularity of his results... A brief summary of such gearspeak would be most welcome, if possible... >The whole reason the CRIA got uptight about the CD was it's artwork, which >portrays MJ's head wonderfully married to the body of a naked white woman. >This sets the 'poked tongue' tone of the whole work. Oswald stated the >problem was he called the work Plunderphonics and not Flatterphonics, which >is what pissed the CRIA off. Possibly, possibly... I wonder if They would have tolerated the same music with more "Respectful" packaging, though. I tend to suspect that it would have made less noise, but gotten squished anyway. >We are surrounded by media, and our >use of it as raw compositional material will only continue and increase, >despite legislation. Yep indeed... I won't start worrying until this aspect of my musical output becomes commercially viable, which should be right about the time hell freezes over, I figure. That is part of the irony: this kind of music just doesn't make much money, period. It is far removed from the motherlode of the mainstream entertainment industry. Maybe this will change, and maybe some of us will be involved in this change. sloop, jhon eichen@trilogy.com ....... . . .. . . . . . . . . joh n e i c h e n s e e r d e l i c a t e e a r (512) 458-6474 . . . . . . . . . .. . .... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 13:22:38 EDT From: Simon Weatherill Subject: Re: Plunderphonics > Isn't that what the "(P)" (phonograph) declaration is about? Do you mean the 'P' in a little circle - like the copyright symbol? I thought that stood for a performance copyright. simon.weatherill@coat.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 10:58:34 PDT From: Leigh Smith Subject: Punderphonics revisited I guess this is a bit naughty coming back for a second comment on the debate but I forgot to mention that Oswald _Never sold any of his plunderphonic CDs, he gave them away to expressly avoid infringing copyright_. All his plunderphonic work is listed as public domain, i.e. permission to copy so long as not for profit. There were only ever 1000 copies pressed and the majority of these were sent to public libraries. The CRIA destroyed all copies he still had including master tapes, but a number of public libraries and individuals have them for duplication, no one can legally stop you, and no one can profit from the music anyway. To me, the concept of illegal art is a wonderful expression of the fascism of Western capitialism, much like the concept of forbidden ideas. How original were the pieces (MJ, Dolly Parton etc) Oswald used anyway? Controversially, -- =--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--= | Leigh Smith _--_|\ Email: leigh@psychok.DIALix.oz.au | | / \ Tel (H): +61-9-450-2014 | | Perth --> *_.--._/ Perth, Western Australia | | v | =--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 13:40:14 -0500 From: "David C. Bloom" Subject: Re: plundering, plunderful, plunderous Mark__ Point well taken. I didn't exactly miss your point, I just IMHO'd right over it :->. I'd hate to argue Martin's case in an American court, but I bet Zappa would give good testimony. This issue was batted around when Hammer's "Can't Touch This" was rising in the charts. He'd cut a deal with Rick James to sample his 70's classic "Superfreak", and cycled it endlessly for his 90's rap hit. We're talking 6-7 seconds of acoustic disco as a basis for a 4-minute [AM version] rap, which propelled Hammer's album into Platinumland. I hope Rick got a piece of the action, but I figure it was peanuts. When you get down to the bar, note, or dare I say, _bit_ level, samples still belong to their [acoustic/"mechanical"] originators. As such, I claim rights to the bit-value "1". Any CD that uses "1" has to pay me a royalty for each use. A 40min CD should contain about 100,000,000 "1" bits, at a penny/million bits, that's $1/disk! Unfortunately, MJ already beat me to claiming the bit-value "0" :->. It gets worse: if those bits make up a G-above-middle-C, I believe there's a royalty goes to Mike Metlay. If the G was sung by MJ, he get's a cut. If the G is part of the phrase G-G-A-G-C-B, that's "Happy Birthday To You" so according to Martin, there's another palm to grease. If the phrase ended up in your "idea" [composition] Mark, then by the same token, you share in a piece of the pie. As does your label, if you're lucky [read: "rich"] enough to press it. Etc, ad nauseum. Everybody "owns" something. Only the studio musicians and engineers get paid by the hour. It's a big food chain, and we're plankton, just trying to get by. Seriously, though. ASCAP and BMI were set up to clock the uses of a particular composition [later, recordings of compositions] for purposes of divvying up royalty monies. If you asked them to clock _samples_ of recordings of compositions, I'm sure they'd balk. I don't think publishers and labels care if their property is plundered and no profit is made. Someone please chime in if I'm wrong. __David <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> david c. bloom <> <> <> open networks engineering, inc. <> "The first false assumption <> <> 777 e. eisenhower pkwy, ste 650 <> that underlies the scheduling <> <> ann arbor, michigan 48108 <> of systems programming <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> is that all will go well." <> <> net dcb@one.com <> \ \ <> __Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <> <> vox 313.996.9900 <> 0-0 <> The Mythical Man-Month <> <> fax 313.996.9908 <> . <> <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 08:17:39 EDT From: The Radio Gnome Subject: Re: Plunderphonics Hi, What about Bill Nelsons "Chamber of Dreams"? In the liner notes he encourages other artists to use the samples that make up a significant portion of the music on this CD. Andy Wing ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 11:56:57 -0400 From: Chris Gray Subject: Re: plundering, plunderful, plunderous > It's a big food chain, and we're plankton, just trying to get by. First kelp, and now plankton. And still no sign of the Great White Whale... > Seriously, though. ASCAP and BMI were set up to clock the uses of a > particular composition [later, recordings of compositions] for purposes > of divvying up royalty monies. If you asked them to clock _samples_ > of recordings of compositions, I'm sure they'd balk. I remember a composer friend of mine receiving a pleasant surprise in the form of a royalty cheque - something he wrote had been played on Swedish radio without him even knowing. This gave him a strange feeling - his composition had taken on a life of its own, and could get itself played whenever it felt like it. The fee was calculated on a per-minute basis, I believe. > I don't think publishers and labels care if their property is plundered > and no profit is made. Someone please chime in if I'm wrong. __David Hm. Try advertising a not-for-profit distribution of copies of MJ's "Thriller". See if you receive any interesting mail. > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > <> david c. bloom <> <> > <> open networks engineering, inc. <> "The first false assumption <> > <> 777 e. eisenhower pkwy, ste 650 <> that underlies the scheduling <> > <> ann arbor, michigan 48108 <> of systems programming <> > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> is that all will go well." <> > <> net dcb@one.com <> \ \ <> __Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <> > <> vox 313.996.9900 <> 0-0 <> The Mythical Man-Month <> > <> fax 313.996.9908 <> . <> <> > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> __________________________________________________________________________ Chris Gray cgra@se.alcbel.be Compu$erve: 100065.2102 Ignore my broken mailer - the addresses above are the only truth __________________________________________________________________________ A closed mouth catches no feet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 10:06:13 EDT From: Bill Fox Subject: Plunderphonics Scenario A: I'm in a band that does cover tunes. I sample a unique sound from artist X's CD so my band can sound like the CD when we cover a hit tune from that CD. Scenario A.5: I'm in a richer cover band and we own the same synth that artist X used. I'm smart so I figure out how to program that unique sound that X used. We play X's hit at our next gig. Scenario B: I'm in an original band and love that unique sound that X used in her hit song. I find it appropriate (musically) for a song I wrote that my band is about to record for our next CD. I'm not saying how I got that sound; could be the method from either scenario A or A.5. You don't know, artists X doesn't know, the public doesn't know (or care), and BMI, ASCAP, artist X's record label, etc. don't know either. But they believe I sampled the copyrighted CD. So they sue me. Scenario C: I sample "...number nine, number nine..." from the Beatles' white album and have my sampler turn it around backwards so that it appears to sound like "...turn me on dead man..." and include it on my next CD. Will EMI, Capital, Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono (Oh No!), and Michael Jackson all send their lawyers knocking on my door? Comments, please... -- Bill Fox * Fox's Den Recording Studio * Nazareth, PA * wbf@aloft.att.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It's a big food chain, and we're plankton, just trying to get by. - David C. Bloom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 12:34:30 EDT From: The Radio Gnome Subject: Re: Plunderphonics Hi, Scenario X) I buy the patch library for synth "A". I modify the patch by altering a few obscure parameters. Is the copyright violated only if the judge can't hear the difference? Suppose the judge is tone deaf? Nightmare scenario) Imagine the media moguls policing every bar where cover bands play and tring to collect royalties based upon the set lists. Andy Wing ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 14:00:55 EDT From: Bill Fox Subject: Re: Plunderphonics Andy Wing's continuation of my scenarios: > Nightmare scenario) Imagine the media moguls policing every bar where > cover bands play and trying to collect royalties based upon the set lists. This is already covered by BMI and ASCAP representatives who seek out bars that offer live entertainment and then charge them fees so the bands don't have to pay. We all know that the bands can't afford to pay and since they're the ones enhancing record sales by playing songs to the public, they don't get hit with the charges unless they've made the big time. There is a bookstore in Columbus, Ohio (Nickleby's) that won't pay and thus limits its entertainers to playing music that is in the public domain. A friend who plays there wanted to do some Dave Brubeck and so wrote to him and received written permission to play his songs, royalty free at this establishment! -- Bill Fox * Fox's Den Recording Studio * Nazareth, PA * wbf@aloft.att.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It's a big food chain, and we're plankton, just trying to get by. - David C. Bloom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 13:09:06 -0500 From: "David C. Bloom" Subject: Re: Plunderphonics > Scenario A: I'm in a band that does cover tunes. I sample a > unique sound from artist X's CD so my band can sound like the CD when > we cover a hit tune from that CD. Bill__ This is theft, but you're small potatoes, so nobody persecutes. > Scenario A.5: I'm in a richer cover band and we own the same > synth that artist X used. I'm smart so I figure out how to program that > unique sound that X used. We play X's hit at our next gig. This is creative reverse-engineering, and perfectly legal. Keep a good paper trail, cuz now that you're rich, they may try and persecute you. > Scenario B: I'm in an original band and love that unique sound > that X used in her hit song. I find it appropriate (musically) for a > song I wrote that my band is about to record for our next CD. I'm not > saying how I got that sound; could be the method from either scenario A > or A.5. You don't know, artists X doesn't know, the public doesn't know > (or care), and BMI, ASCAP, artist X's record label, etc. don't know > either. But they believe I sampled the copyrighted CD. So they sue me. ... And if they can show that you got it by scenario A [using a digital comparator or some other hi-tek toy] - or if you _can't_ prove that you got it by scenario A.5 [paper trail], you're toast. Be prepared to: - Be barred from using the sound. - Destroy or surrender all software that uses the sound. - Fork over all the money you made with the sound [if you used it once in one song at one show of a three-show engagement, they'll probably get all the money you made that weekend] - Pay damages to the label, publisher and/or artist - And here's the scary part: pay their legal fees!!! > Scenario C: I sample "...number nine, number nine..." from the > Beatles' white album and have my sampler turn it around backwards so > that it appears to sound like "...turn me on dead man..." and include it > on my next CD. Will EMI, Capital, Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono (Oh No!), > and Michael Jackson all send their lawyers knocking on my door? Slip&Fall lawyers look for trouble. _Real_ lawyers [whatever they are] won't come after you unless they think they can get you, or unless their clients will somehow profit from your being tied up in court. So it comes back down to the burden of proof and how you got the sample. If you're small-time, and you outright steal MJ's "woo!" and use it as a percussion hit [I know a lounge lizard band that did this], you'll probably suffer no ill-effects until you move out of the basement to a large venue. I read an interview with James Brown where he said he actually _liked_ it that so many artists have been sampling his "hey!" and "unh!" [myself included]. That doesn't make it legal by the way, it just means his label will come after you before he will [unless there's money in it]. We "plankton" can pretty much get away with anything so long as it's more trouble for _them_ to persecute than for us to pay up. If we start looking big enough to eat, we're dinner. Might makes right. Gold makes rules. __David > Bill Fox * Fox's Den Recording Studio * Nazareth, PA * wbf@aloft.att.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > It's a big food chain, and we're plankton, just trying to get by. > - David C. Bloom I hereby grant Bill Fox a license to use this quote in his sig file. Others may use my quote only if they pay me a royalty of $1/recipient. :-> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> david c. bloom <> <> <> open networks engineering, inc. <> "The first false assumption <> <> 777 e. eisenhower pkwy, ste 650 <> that underlies the scheduling <> <> ann arbor, michigan 48108 <> of systems programming <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> is that all will go well." <> <> net dcb@one.com <> \ \ <> __Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <> <> vox 313.996.9900 <> 0-0 <> The Mythical Man-Month <> <> fax 313.996.9908 <> . <> <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 14:35:12 -0500 From: "David C. Bloom" Subject: Re: Plunderphonics > Scenario X) I buy the patch library for synth "A". I modify the patch > by altering a few obscure parameters. Is the copyright violated only if > the judge can't hear the difference? Suppose the judge is tone deaf? Andy__ Depends on the license. Some software is only licensed to be used in its as-released configuration [though this is rare]. If you buy the library, you're _probably_ licensed to use it, and that use _probably_ includes tweaking it. What good would it be if you could own it but not use it? Also, judges and lawyers call in expert listeners on cases of any importance. > Nightmare scenario) Imagine the media moguls policing every bar where > cover bands play and tring to collect royalties based upon the set lists. This has been discussed, but like the "sampler police", dismissed as being ineffective and a dubious source of royalties. Like I told Bill Fox, the big guys only care if you start to look like one of them. Then you're either covered by your integrity - you've greased palms [paid royalties to be granted a license to use they're property] - or you're meat. To the "media moguls" you're a client, a customer or a competitor. __David <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> david c. bloom <> <> <> open networks engineering, inc. <> "The first false assumption <> <> 777 e. eisenhower pkwy, ste 650 <> that underlies the scheduling <> <> ann arbor, michigan 48108 <> of systems programming <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> is that all will go well." <> <> net dcb@one.com <> \ \ <> __Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <> <> vox 313.996.9900 <> 0-0 <> The Mythical Man-Month <> <> fax 313.996.9908 <> . <> <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 21:24:52 GMT From: Herschel A Gelman Subject: Re: Plunderphonics I'm just doing some Usenet grazing, and decided to butt in here-- I have a slightly different scenario to present. Let's say I sampled someone's voice, and it gives me a really cool sound. However, it probably isn't too likely that the voice would be recognized, since I'm using more as an instrument than a sample--I looped the end, and used it to play a melody line (the voice, by the way, was one of The Bobs. Sounds really nice...). Now, the piece I used the sample in is just for me (well, and for my electronic/computer music class, but...) so I know there isn't really anything legally wrong (I'm not trying to sell the song or anything). But is something like that potentially illegal? I mean, if there is no mention of the source, I highly doubt that anyone would be able to identify it--I know the song that I took it from fairly well, and my sample still doesn't remind me of it. Hmm. Oh well. Just wondering (and rambling...) -- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 09:43:23 +0200 From: Patrice Tarabbia Subject: Re: Plunderphonics >Imagine the media moguls policing every bar where >cover bands play and tring to collect royalties based upon the set lists. Seems an attractive job to me... Patrice (tarabbia@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr) -- Life it ain't real funky Unless it's got that pop Dig it ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 08:56:00 EDT From: Bill Fox Subject: Re: Plunderphonics Patrice (tarabbia@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr): > >Imagine the media moguls policing every bar where > >cover bands play and tring to collect royalties based upon the set lists. > > Seems an attractive job to me... Hmmm. I've got a pad, a few pens and pencils, and a calculator. Send me private email, we'll talk! David Bloom in a magnanimous gesture: > I hereby grant Bill Fox a license to use this quote in his sig file. > Others may use my quote only if they pay me a royalty of $1/recipient. :-> Thanks for the license. But how will you collect on any unauthorized usage? Even if you could tell how many recipients there are, as soon as you said it, it became public domain since there was no copyright notice attached. And another thing, it isn't the artist who sets royalty rates; they're determined by law. Canada's rates are much better than those in the US, I hear. -- Bill Fox * Fox's Den Recording Studio * Nazareth, PA * wbf@aloft.att.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright 1993, William B. Fox Any unauthorized use of the contents of this mail message, in whole or in part, may be a violation of applicible laws, subject to prosecution, or persecution at the very least! 8:0 :^) |-\ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 15:17:45 MEZ From: THomas Subject: Re: Plunderphonics Dear Bill, What you do in your scenarios A and A.5 is covering tunes. No matter how good or bad you do this or how close you come to the origin, you cover tunes and somebody has to pay royalties to Artist X if you publish or publicly perform them. Scenario B is somewhat more complicated and we have to think about what is a sound ? In your scenario you use a certain sound for an "instrument" in your composition. You don't pay anything to the heirs of Adolphe Sax if you use a Saxophone. You bought the right to use all sounds a saxophone can create when you bought the saxophone. You may even build your own saxophone. You bought a sampler to sample sounds and you bought a synth to synthesize, I am not a lawyer but in my opinion it is not a single sound that is worth copyrighting but the way it is used. What if a bassclarinet player plays a multiphonic that has first been discovered by Harry Spaarnay is s/he violating Harry's copyright? I know lawyers might argue differently especially in the US (and Canada?) but IMHO this is nonsense and if there is a law that says they're right this should be changed! Your scenario C is even more complicated. What you do is quoting and manipulating the work of somebody else probably without permission of the original artist. Now there are works which do so and still are works in their own rights. Think of Berio's "Sinfonia" where he thoroughly incorporated dozens of quotations of many other composers, dead or alive, more or less recognizable, more or less manipulated. Nobody has ever asked Berio to pay royalties for that because everybody recognized the Sinfonia as a unique work by Berio and nobody else. Though it is definetely hard to determine the "originality" of a work that uses quotations of others and even harder to define a procedure that even lawyers can apply, I think that this is the direction to go. With excuses for my clumsy English and my long "German" sentences Thomas +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Thomas Neuhaus| "American beer is like making | | Frankfurter Str.16, D-45145 Essen/Germany | love in a canoo -- fu**ing | | Phone 49-201-767748 | close to water" Monthy Python | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 11:58:27 EDT From: Bill Fox Subject: Not Quite Plunderphonics Thomas Neuhaus's apology and quote: > With excuses for my clumsy English and my long "German" sentences > "American beer is like making love in a canoo -- fu**ing close to > water" Monthy Python Actually, that's canoe, not canoo. ("If the plural of ox is oxen, why isn' the plural of fox, foxen? It's all English to me!" - Mikis Synadinos, an AT&T engineer of Greek origin in Columbus, Ohio) So don't fret about clumsiness in a language that isn't your native language. You should see what we Americans do to English! And speaking about American beer, here are two exerpts from Gibraltar (Progressive Rock News List) from an American's review of the recent Prog Fest in L. A. --------------------------------- > Things took off then, as Mike, John and Paul of IQ mingled with the > many American fans that had never dreamed of seeing IQ play in the > states. I chatted with John for some time and enjoyed his stories > and sense of humor. We endured the comments about "bloody lousy > American beer," though that didn't stop the Brits from drinking most > of it! > ... > Peter Nicholls and Paul Cook from IQ showed up (Paul apparently could > stomach Amercian beer for two nights in a row, no matter how much he > complained). --------------------------------- Bill Fox * Fox's Den Recording Studio * Nazareth, PA * wbf@aloft.att.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It's a big food chain, and we're plankton, just trying to get by. - David C. Bloom ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 13:12:24 EDT From: The Radio Gnome Subject: Re: Plunderphonics On Tue, 15 Jun 1993 14:35:12 -0500 David C. Bloom said: >Like I told Bill Fox, the >big guys only care if you start to look like one of them. How big is big? Anyone follow the Negativland/U2 saga? IMHO if Bonos bosses can sue Negativland for naming an album "U2" then the Air Force can sue Bono et al for naming the group after their spy plane (and I guess the B-52s are liable, too) :-) :-) Andy Wing ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 13:20:30 EDT From: The Radio Gnome Subject: Re: Plunderphonics On Tue, 15 Jun 1993 21:24:52 GMT Herschel A Gelman said: >I have a slightly different scenario to present. Let's say I sampled >someone's voice, and it gives me a really cool sound. However, it >probably isn't too likely that the voice would be recognized, since I'm >using more as an instrument than a sample--I looped the end, and used it >to play a melody line This is exactly how I create my sonic collages (in addition to heavy processing of said samples). If someone started making money with this technique, think of all the time the lawyers would spend trying to 'extract' the original sample in order to provide ammo for a lawsuit. Imagine the new field of 'acoustic forensics' :-) Andy Wing ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 14:41:30 -0500 From: "David C. Bloom" Subject: Re: Plunderous Plunderkind Plumbing > > I'm just doing some Usenet grazing, and decided to butt in here-- > > I have a slightly different scenario to present. Let's say I sampled > someone's voice, and it gives me a really cool sound. However, it > probably isn't too likely that the voice would be recognized, since I'm > using more as an instrument than a sample--I looped the end, and used it > to play a melody line (the voice, by the way, was one of The Bobs. Sounds > really nice...). Now, the piece I used the sample in is just for me > (well, and for my electronic/computer music class, but...) so I know there > isn't really anything legally wrong (I'm not trying to sell the song or > anything). But is something like that potentially illegal? I mean, if > there is no mention of the source, I highly doubt that anyone would be > able to identify it--I know the song that I took it from fairly well, and > my sample still doesn't remind me of it. > > Hmm. Oh well. Just wondering (and rambling...) Herschel__ I'm _not_ emusic-l's resident legal expert. I deal with copyright and related issues _very_ periferally in my day-job alter-ego as a software engineer. But certain truths are self evident: Sample a Bob without his permission and use it for _anything_ - it's theft. I'm happy for you that it sounds really nice, and I hope you get an A in your music class, but if it was an ethics class I'd flunk you - not because I believe that it's wrong. What I believe is not important. Consensus Determines Reality [stick _that_ in your sig file, Bill Fox :->]. And in this case, the consensus is determined by the courts. And the courts say Bob's samples are protected. So what you did is plunder this guy's product; and the vox populi say his vox is his [sorry :-> couldn't resist]. What you describe is not just _potentially_ illegal, it's _definitely_ illegal - according to the reigning reality. So rationalize all you want. And by all means continue to bombard emusic-l with your hypotheticals. By the way, if Bob ever grants you rights to his voice, I'm _sure_ it would have to be credited. Also, there are some _very_ good ears out there who can discern the original artist through megabytes of digital post-processing, so don't kid yourself. You may not even be able to get away with it. Anyone else? __David <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> david c. bloom <> <> <> open networks engineering, inc. <> "The first false assumption <> <> 777 e. eisenhower pkwy, ste 650 <> that underlies the scheduling <> <> ann arbor, michigan 48108 <> of systems programming <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> is that all will go well." <> <> net dcb@one.com <> \ \ <> __Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <> <> vox 313.996.9900 <> 0-0 <> The Mythical Man-Month <> <> fax 313.996.9908 <> . <> <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 13:10:21 GMT From: Martin Rootes Subject: Re: Plunderphonics > On Tue, 15 Jun 1993 14:35:12 -0500 David C. Bloom said: > >Like I told Bill Fox, the > >big guys only care if you start to look like one of them. > > How big is big? Anyone follow the Negativland/U2 saga? IMHO if Bonos > bosses can sue Negativland for naming an album "U2" then the Air Force can > sue Bono et al for naming the group after their spy plane (and I guess the > B-52s are liable, too) :-) :-) Maybe perhaps not the Air Force, but the company who make it might. I know a band in Sheffield (England) who fell foul of a similar naming problem. They are called (in England) the Comsat Angels (named after a short story by Arthur C. Clarke). However, in America they are not allowed to call themselves this, because there is an american company called Comsat Inc.! I could understand it if Arthur C.Clarke wanted to sue (he invented the term Comsat by the way), but why a satelitte company wants to stop a band from using a particular name I just do not know? American law is bloody weird. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Martin Rootes - Senior Systems Programmer/Analyst, Sheffield Hallam University Email : M.Rootes@shu.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 11:02:05 EDT From: Bill Fox Subject: Plunderphonics Martin Rootes commented: > ... American law is bloody weird. That's because lawyers have no natural predators to keep their numbers in check. As a result, this country is tied up with litigation, the most common American activity next to watching TV. ;-( -- Bill Fox * Fox's Den Recording Studio * Nazareth, PA * wbf@aloft.att.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "What I believe is not important." - David C. Bloom ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 11:23:40 EDT From: Brian Good Subject: Re: Plunderphonics > > Martin Rootes commented: > > ... American law is bloody weird. Bill Fox responded: > That's because lawyers have no natural predators to keep their > numbers in check. The T. Rex in Jurassic Park did a pretty good job on one. :-) brian good ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 10:36:02 -0500 From: Randy Holder Subject: Re: Plunderphonics "Did you hear that scientist are using lawyers in laboratory tests instead of rats? They do this for two reasons. 1) The scientists get less attached to the rats. 2) There are some things that even rats won't do." A Semi-quote from the movie "Hook". :-) :-) Don't get me wrong, IMHO we need lawyers..just don't get carried away with unnecessary legal proceedings. It's just that we were on the topic of lawyers so, I decided to share this with everyone. **-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*** | Randy V. Holder | "Success is a journey, | * ADSB Computer Lab Supervisor | not a destination." * | Electronic Mail Support | | * Lotus 1-2-3 Support | * | User Count Coordinator | | * Chief Banana Salesman in the | * | in the Bahamas | | **-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*** On Mon, 21 Jun 1993, Brian Good wrote: > > > > Martin Rootes commented: > > > ... American law is bloody weird. > > Bill Fox responded: > > That's because lawyers have no natural predators to keep their > > numbers in check. > > The T. Rex in Jurassic Park did a pretty good job on one. :-) > > brian good ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 10:54:57 -0500 From: Randy Holder Subject: Re: Plunderphonics Oops...I made an Error let me revise this. Sorry about the non-music discussion post. Here's the correct item. > "Did you hear that scientist are using lawyers in laboratory tests instead > of rats? They do this for two reasons. > > 1) The scientists get less attached than with the rats. > 2) There are some things that even rats won't do." > > A Semi-quote from the movie "Hook". > > :-) :-) > Don't get me wrong, IMHO we need lawyers..just don't get carried away with > unnecessary legal proceedings. It's just that we were on the topic of > lawyers so, I decided to share this with everyone. > > > **-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*** > | Randy V. Holder | "Success is a journey, | > * ADSB Computer Lab Supervisor | not a destination." * > | Electronic Mail Support | | > * Lotus 1-2-3 Support | * > | User Count Coordinator | | > * Chief Banana Salesman in the | * > | in the Bahamas | | > **-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*** > > > > On Mon, 21 Jun 1993, Brian Good wrote: > > > > > > > Martin Rootes commented: > > > > ... American law is bloody weird. > > > > Bill Fox responded: > > > That's because lawyers have no natural predators to keep their > > > numbers in check. > > > > The T. Rex in Jurassic Park did a pretty good job on one. :-) > > > > brian good ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************