I again am faced with admitting that I have been exposed to an issue that before taking TCF155, I had never considered. “Sampling” is what I did with my children when walking through Sam’s Wholesale Club. How was I to know that it had something to do with stealing beats or bars from another artist’s music?
Copyrights, but specifically the current trend to ignore them, were our topic of the day. After watching the movie Copyright Criminals, and chatting with others in class, I discovered that my opinions of the issues presented were in direct opposition to those of my classmates. I polled each person individually for their answer to the question: In your opinion, is sampling a form of copyright infringement? Only one student initially said "yes" and indicated that they believed that an original artist should be compensated when another artist “grabs” something from their work. I was surprised by the pervasive attitude that all art is basically common property. I, at the time, vehemently disagreed with my classmates.
As the discussion went on, a few others eventually agreed that original artists should be paid something, but how much would depend on several factors, with that I agree. The fee could be based on how much content is being copied or possibly the purpose for which it is being used. Another consideration might be the current demand for the original work at the time it is being acquired. It seems that an older selection might actually experience a revival in interest due to the new usage by another artist. I believe that there needs to be a more exact measure of what should be paid, possibly in direct relation to what exactly is being used or the purpose for which it is being used. This would prove tremendously difficult. Who would be charged with setting the exact measure of value? How would the industry ever find someone who would not be partial to a particular artist or genre? If only a beat is used, is it any less valuable than the vocal, beat and accompaniment combined? Regardless of methodology, I believe that an original artist should be paid each and every time that their creation is “grabbed” when someone else makes money, much like a royalty payment. I would be more willing to wink at the theft if no one stood to gain lucre.
The previous was my knee-jerk opinion regarding copyright infringement. My perspective shifted a little after reading the assigned article: Confessions of an Intellectual (Property): Danger Mouse, Mickey Mouse, Sonny Bono, and My long and Winding Path as a Copyright Activist-Academic1. My ignorance of music history was painfully apparent to me as I read about the origins of what I considered to be original works that actually were in some ways copied from other previous works unknown to me. I was aghast that anyone would dare to sample The Beatles, but then read in this article how Yoko Ono exposed John Lennon to “magnetic tape sound collage” the then contemporary term for what we now call “sampling!” Revolution #9 is on The White Album and serves as an example of John’s work as a thief by my previously asserted definition. This article reports that much of this compilation was taken from tape loops pillaged from the archives at EMI! So alas, my ignorant opinion appears to have been poorly founded. I guess I will just have to continue my practice of listening, learning and always being willing to change my mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment