Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
Let's imagine a world where copyright is SERIOUSLY respected.
Take music, for example.
All genres spring from one or two artists adapted and embellished freely (over time) by other artists.
Now, anyone aspiring to be a rap artist has to pay money to the copyright owner who originally came up with that concept if they want to record a record or perform. Now if everyone had to pay money to Cab Calloway's heirs (arguably it's instigator - but for argument's sake, let's say that he owned the copyright), how many rap bands would there be today?
Musicians themselves are probably the MOST guilty of 'theft'. Most of them talk about their 'influences' (meaning that they are incoroporating other people's ideas into their music without permission) and adapting (same thing) that work into their own.
This sort of intellectual 'theft' has been going on for so long that many musicians believe that its ok to steal other's ideas as long as no-one does it to them. Madonna is a good case in point. She has lashed out viciously at file-downloaders in the past but had little to say when others complain about her activities (The [s]theft[/s] incorporation of Bourdin's visual copyright in her music video being a case in point).
|
The whole principle of creating is that you are taking that which you experience and merging it into a relatively unique hybrid of those experiences.
As such, yes, all musicians have influences, and their creations are the sum of their influences yes.
That is not an issue, nor a problem. If you substancially alter a piece it is recognised as being an original. That is some ways is good - you avoid copyright infringement - and in other may be bad - you may alter a cover to the point it needs a new negotiated release from the originator.
What we are looking at with mp3 theft is illegally reproducing the entire work unaltered. Song, recording and performances all.
Also, the contexts of influences alters from genre to genre. In Jazz music, the practice of "quoting" is used. Where horn players for example, take recognised melodies and play them over substancially different chordal arrangements. Different songs. But it's a nod to the originator.
As for Rap as a genre, you can't copyright production techniques. You can't actually copyright chords either. Technically a song is the lyric (50%) and the melody (25%) and the IMPLIED chords (25%) as opposed to the VOICED chords. An a cappella song has implied chords, even though none may be played/heard (voiced).
The principle is in the amount of work copied. this is why sampling became such a hot issue. Before sampling, you could take a drummers beat, and have a drummer copy it, note for note. No problem. However, taking the original recorded beat is a problem.
Why? It is not the IDEA (intellectual property) that is the problem, but the performance (physical property). You can't copyright beats, but neither can you use someone elses performance.
As I've said there is a copyright owner of a
SONG, and then an owner of a
RECORDING. Within that recording there are various
PERFORMANCES, and various SONGS.
Performers sign RELEASE AGREEMENTS with the owner of the recording that allow them to use their PERFORMANCE. Every single advertising session I do, I sign a release. I have not written anything, but I have performed. I give a license for the recording owner to use my performance for a determined period, and for a determined amount.
I hope this clarifies. These posts do take time, and are essentially giving the reader for free, what I've been paid for in the past. Knowledge costs money.
However, I care that knowledge is spread though, and do enjoy chatting with you guys.
Yes it seems complicated, but is actually understandable.
the song is intellectual property
the sound recording is physical property
When you buy a CD, you do not purchase either the song, or the recording, but the single copy of the CD.
The song owner gives the sound recording owner license to use their intellectual property. The performer gives the recording owner license to use their performance. The recording owner then sells you a copy of their product.
When you steal a recording, you deny the writer, the performer and the recording owner their due compensation. The three can be seperate people, or groups of people, or can be all the one person.
[ 02-06-2004, 04:30 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]