Ableton Forum

-

Well, that's kind of part of the turf of it being a bootleg isn't it?

-

if you're not asking for money, you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want with whatever the fuck you want. soundcloud is just covering their asses.

overly cautious copywrite laws stiffle new ideas and creativity. lawrence lessig has written a fantastic book on why - http://www.free-culture.cc/

-

Well, wait till you hear my rmx of Lange Nacht Berlin

memes_33 wrote:if you're not asking for money, you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want with whatever the fuck you want.

Great. I think I'll take your shoe and beat the shit out of you with it. Won't even ask for a single penny!

There is no sane argument for using other people's work in the name of creativity, regardless of whether or not money is made.

Make your own shit, that's the whole fucking point!

TomViolenz wrote: But if they dragg it through the mudd with their skills, without having the decency to at least ask me, and then use my name to elevate their status, screw them

Well the things is, remixes are almost always titled: original artist - song title (remixer). It is very clear that the remixer used samples of the original (whether stems or just a bootleg) and did his/her own thing with it. If the remix sucks, it's the remixer who is judged as having inadequate skills, not the original artist. So I don't see the harm of it.

-

jbw wrote:

memes_33 wrote:if you're not asking for money, you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want with whatever the fuck you want.

Great. I think I'll take your shoe and beat the shit out of you with it. Won't even ask for a single penny!

There is no sane argument for using other people's work in the name of creativity, regardless of whether or not money is made.

Make your own shit, that's the whole fucking point!

the difference here, of course, is that if you take my shoe, i no longer have a shoe.

copywrite is not about owning an idea. its about owning the right to sell that idea. as an artist, you should be able to use whatever ideas you want to express your own idea. what if cambell's soup sued andy warhol over his use of their cans? i would say that is a sane argument for using other people's work in the name of creativity.

-

-

TomViolenz wrote:

memes_33 wrote:if you're not asking for money, you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want with whatever the fuck you want. soundcloud is just covering their asses.

Not with my work you don't!
I don't care for the money
But the quality IS important to me.

overly cautious copywrite laws stiffle new ideas and creativity.

This is for me not about copy right, if people steal my work to enjoy it, that's on their concience.
But if they dragg it through the mudd with their skills, without having the decency to at least ask me, and then use my name to elevate their status, screw them

This is all only in principal of course
I have neither a name, nor anything people care to "remix"...

i disagree. i don't think anyone would think less of your work if someone else did a bad job of sampling or remixing it. the person remixing it could have the opinion that your work is not very good, but there's one tiny gem in there that they feel is worth people hearing more, perhaps under a different context.

if you think about it in extreme terms, say there's one copy of an album in existence- its a shitty album, but there is one guitar line in there that is mind-blowing. i'm a producer, i hear that guitar line and say, 'wow, that's cool- more people should hear that' and i use it under a new context. now that idea is available to many more people- the world is arguably a better place. if i didn't sample that line, no one would hear it other than me and the idea is basically dead, leaving the world no better than if i had never even heard it in the first place.

i think the people who would argue that sampling/remixing/etc is wrong are more interested in their own ego than the positive effect it has on the world/art. i'm all for giving credit where it's due, but without limiting what an artist can or cannot use as a canvas.

-

TomViolenz wrote:

ttilberg wrote:Well, that's kind of part of the turf of it being a bootleg isn't it?

Yes, and that's why it's good that Soundcloud tries to stop it!

Haha yes, I fully support and share your position - that comment was intended at OP. I originally wrote a long snarky response but decided it was unnecessary.

Again, just now I wrote another long snarky response, and again deleted it.

In short, just like you can choose to bootleg another guy's stuff without the rights to do so, Soundcloud can choose to not let you publish it on their framework. It's really simple -- you are entitled to nothing.