But again - can you say that my example, for pretty much complete lack of consent of acknowledgment in sampling that created literal music revolution and changed culture as we know is not valid and should be outlawed because nobody asked or acknowledged original artists?
Should all hip-hop and electronic artists go to jail?
The Culture completely agreed to break that law just some decades ago, because it was totally ridiculous not to, people became millionaires, some even closer to billionaires…Nobody got hurt, no property god damaged…because that’s impossible.
Original funk and r’n’b artists haven’t been damaged in any way, on a contrary - their original music have been bought much more because of appreciation of original records by those who sampled them and those who discovered their music through samples used in new compositions of different artists, and it lives both through that legacy and new music that came out of some small cuts and samples used, be it iconic vocals, drums or whatever else.
Ok, “Jail” is not on the table here, this is a civil matter…
.
My understanding is that sampling requires permission from who you’re sampling from. As far as legal remedies for ignoring that…not my area.
It’s like the intellectual work behind the information/data has no value compared to a car or a furniture.
The way patent/copyright is managed in many countries is excessive due to lobbying of big companies, but I think authors/creators should have at least some data protection while they’re alive.
Well that’s technically super grey area if you try to apply it in terms of how you view intellectual property, as i’ve outlined previously, because it’s exactly what you have been arguing with @Kresimir about on a brightest display possible.
And that is a great example of why ownership of intellectual property is a bunch of crap that can’t possibly exist anywhere outside of .
After sampling became a thing, and very successful at that, after artists and labels became millionaires and huge ones at that - they’ve created and pushed some moronic laws that say it’s illegal to sample more than 6 seconds, less is totally fine.
This is how such laws got created, it’s completely off the wall for control and profit motives.
Just think about it, unlike back in early hi[p-hop era and 90s electronics, now:
You record a song with some major record label (all rights reserved, armies of lawyers bla bla bla)
I’m as independent musician sample your song’s guitar for more than 6 seconds straight in my core genre that i sell on my webpage or through youtube, because i really like that guitar lick but my full track doesn’t even sound like the original. Just sample, no attribution, no copyrights because that’s ridiculous to some punk.
You / label can sue the living crap out of me, well pretty much with all the same outcomes as that youtube propaganda video i’ve posted before outlines.
That’s insane.
Same goes for youtubers, even educational videos where people teach say a guitar - will be demonetized and blocked if you’ll play anything like original songs for more than those 6 seconds in a raw. Yes, even if you play that guitar personally afterwards and it will be super-obvious that it’s guitar-teaching video.
I strongly suggest to listen to Rick’s case, coz he have testified before USA senate.
Just to find out he’ll still get blocked for that ridiculous crap afterwards
Fair use is , seriously.
P.S. btw absolute most of his major musicians friends, and i mean it, just look at his channel guests - are in total agreement with how insane that is, not the labels mafia though.
The problem with fair use is the fact that you need to go in court for proving that its is in fact fair use. Lots of people don’t fight for they’re right because of that.
Example i follow a girl on twitter that was making drawing inspired by a french game Dofus. She was sharing them on the same platform. Ankama the company behind Dofus, sent her a cease and desist last week. She had to delete all her drawings. Look like deleting the account was faster than fighting in court.
OK, it seems like he’s dealing with specific artists that have said, “don’t use our stuff, period”. Maybe that’s dick-ish. Then again, I don’t know why they’d take such an extreme stance. Here’s how I’d see “fair use”…
MC Hammer writes, “Can’t Touch This” and sells the song. It’s very clearly sampling Rick James. Rick James should get a say in that, and maybe a piece of the revenue.
.
Some dude on YouTube post a video on how to play “Mr. Bojangles” on guitar and is clearly not making a profit other than, perhaps, advertising his skills as a teacher…That’s Fair Use, or should be. if the author, Jerry Jeff Walker or his estate is really that butt-hurt about it, I guess they can block it.
.
Radiohead writes the song “Creep”. The opening is musically very close to The Hollies, “Air that I Breathe”. It’s not really clear if that was intentional. That’s a trickier question for me. No one would confuse the two songs, and yet, The Hollies did successfully sue Radiohead over it.
.
Lawyers tend to eff things up…
@petsam Sorry, I missed your question in the torrent of new posts. I’m not avoiding it intentionally.
Value is not some magical substance that is embedded in stuff. Nothing by itself has any value. Value is what people subjectively assign to stuff based on their virtues. So it is more correct to say: “I value X” than to say “X has value”. All value is subjective.
There exists a competing theory of value that is demonstrably wrong (and taking it seriously has caused much death and suffering), and that is the labour theory of value. It basically states that work done by humans is the source of value. This can easily be disproved: you can dig a hole 10 times and fill it back up: you’ve done a lot of hard work, but nothing of value was created. Also diamonds, they are valuable not because they are difficult to extract from the ground – a pebble can exist deep underground next to a diamond and take just as much hard work to extract it, but when extracted nobody will care about it.
When it comes to original ideas, yes, they are valuable to some people.
But just because we find something valuable, does not mean we own it. People I love and respect, I find valuable, but that doesn’t mean I can own people.
Ownership implies certain property rights. Specifically, when I own something, that means I have the following four rights:
The right to possess it.
The right to use and consume it.
The right to exclude others, who do not own it, from possessing or using it.
The right to give it to someone, either lend it, or permanently transfer ownership over it (in full or partially).
Property rights are the solution to the problem of scarcity. It is a fact of nature that things are scarce. You and I cannot use the same scarce resource at the same time for different purposes. Therefore, if we want to do so, a conflict over the possession and use of that resource arises between us. Since we are civilised people and realise that it is not to our benefit to solve this problem as savages, using violence, we agree to respect each other’s property rights: I respect your property, and in turn, you respect my property, and we do not have to fight. We agree that you own X if:
You have acquired it through original appropriation, that is, you were the first one to ever possess it or use it (hence, it wasn’t acquired in a conflict).
You have acquired the item through voluntary transfer of ownership from the previous legitimate owner (hence, there was no conflict involved)
The item was awarded to you in an arbitration process by a mutually agreed upon arbiter as restitution for some wrongdoing committed by its previous legitimate owner (since arbitration was mutually agreed upon in advance, there was no conflict involved).
If such mutually agreed upon rules are respected, there can be no conflict over who gets to use what.
If you think about it, none of this applies to immaterial stuff, like ideas. They cannot be rivalrous. A beautiful work of music can be enjoyed by multiple people at the same time, it is not consumed when used and making a copy of it is trivially easy, especially if it is distributed in a digital format. It is not scarce. By the definition of conflict as mutually exclusive usurpation of some resource, it is trivial to see that no conflict can arise from the use of stuff which is not scarce. The only way to make it scarce is by making a law that hurts you if you use it. That is completely artificial scarcity which creates completely artificial conflicts. Hence, property rights over stuff that is not scarce serve no purpose of avoiding conflict. In fact, as argued earlier, property rights over ideas actually violate property rights over tangible resources.
I’m not inventing anything new here with my arguments. If you study the history of copyright, patents, and other “intellectual property”, you will see that it is a fairly new concept. The world existed much longer without such concepts than with them.
In the absence of copyright, art still got produced, and artists still got credited (and managed to make a living by doing it). Books still got written even when it was allowed to copy them. In the absence of patents, there were still new inventions.
My “solution” is therefore not something new and inventive, it’s simply to return to that time before “intellectual property” as a concept was taken seriously. We have been doing very well without it for millennia. Now it is one of the injustices characteristic of modernity.
Just not faster but cheaper lets not forget you have to have a lawyer which cost money and Even if you win, the company or individuals can appeal the decision keeping you tied up in court. So at best the Fair Act is only for those who can afford to fight to use such things.
You need to factor in the cost of research, cost of trials and everything regulation-wise. It’s still a steal, but just saying it’s not just the cost of manufacturing.
Cost of research is not an ethically valid justification for enforcing a monopoly.
Sure, research costs. And you do it to make money later, that’s fine, too. I have no problem with people making profits. But you shouldn’t have the right to hurt me if I am using the results of your research to help others.
The fact I use the results of your research to compete with you and offer the drug cheaper, thus saving more lives, does not harm you. It only does good in the world.
You are not deprived of your research by me copying it, you are still free to manufacture drugs and sell them. Yes, you have to face competition. It’s not as easy for you to charge as much as you’d like and take advantage of the fact sick people are often desperate. I know you don’t like that, but competition is always a good thing, it raises quality and lowers the cost for the end user. Outlawing competition just because the research was conducted by someone is deeply immoral.
Does that mean that in the absence of patents, there would be no medical research? Not at all. The demand for it obviously exists, and there is opportunity to profit from it, so it will happen one way or the other. Smart people will figure out how to reorganise funding. It would be the same thing as with Free Software projects.
It’s a contract. I create this information with the sole intent to obtain profit. I would not create it otherwise, so the world would not be richer if I didn’t control the access to the results of my work. These are the conditions under which I create this technology/medication/algorithm. The system has its merits because it drives innovation. If there was no incentive (people could not pay for their daily bread) from doing this activity, far fewer would do it.
I would argue otherwise. It actually stifles innovation and is terrible for the advancement of knowledge. Sure it encourages invention of original ideas by a single entity or a single corporation, but it completely outlaws competitive cooperation and building upon the research of others. And this incremental research, by people perfecting and improving upon the inventions of others, is a much greater driving force of innovation than just having original ideas.
Innovation rarely happens in huge leaps of originality, but more often it’s a gradual crawl upwards and patents and copyright only get in the way of that.
Yes, but laws are not contract. They are completely one-sided and binding by force. Some laws are just (like laws that protect property rights), and using force is justified in making sure they are obeyed. But that also makes unjust laws (like patent or copyright) an act of aggression by the government (as well as people benefiting from these laws) against the population.
How can you tell? Do you have insight into all possible alternate timelines and futures that didn’t happen? Just because it wouldn’t be done by one specific big pharma company, doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be done by someone else. If people want it to be done, they can organise and do it. They wouldn’t just sit in darkness and freeze to death, because nobody was willing to invent fire in the absence of having a monopoly granted.
.
, seriously.
