Who Will Be The First To Sue Girl Talk Over Music Samples?
from the taking-bets? dept
A few weeks back when we mentioned that the musical act Girl Talk was releasing a new album using the pay what you want model, one element we didn't dwell on was the fact that Girl Talk's genre might be best described as "mash up music." That is, Greg Gillis, the guy who is Girl Talk, takes samples from tons of songs and mixes them together to create something totally new. While there may be some who disagree, listening to Girl Talk, I find it difficult to believe that Gillis is any less of a musician than the musicians he samples -- he's just playing a different kind of instrument.But there's a big question -- whether or not Girl Talk's albums are legal or are they basically massive copyright infringement cases. If Gillis were to actually go around licensing all the snippets he samples, such an album would be impossible to make -- showing (yet again) how copyright would act as disincentive for creation rather than incentive. So far Gillis hasn't actually been sued, though that seems unlikely to last. On the positive side, some big name musicians interviewed in a recent Wall Street Journal article about Girl Talk sound much more honored than litigious to be included on a Girl Talk album. However, with over 300 samples used on the album, there's almost certainly going to be a few who get upset. The article, for example, suggests that the woman in charge of the copyright for the band the Guess Who is planning to go after Girl Talk, noting that: "We'll chase it down. What more can you do?" Well, actually, there's plenty more that you can do -- such as recognizing that no one who hears the music on Girl Talk is going to see that as a replacement to the Guess Who's album -- and, if anything, it might entice new fans to the original.
But, eventually a legal battle is going to pop up -- and while Gillis and his label are banking on "fair use" claims to protect them, the history of court cases on this particular question have shown the courts (wrongly) seem to count nearly any sample, no matter how minor to require a license. This has created a small industry of "sample trolls" getting the rights to various songs (often via very questionable means) and then suing anyone who samples just a few notes from it. It seems quite likely that sooner or later someone is going to go after Gillis for this. And, while it's nice that some artists are honored by Gillis's use of their music, that probably won't stop others from suing. Luckily, Gillis has at least one big supporter in Congress -- and perhaps a lawsuit against him will help bring this issue to the attention of lawmakers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, fair use, girl talk, greg gillis, samples
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
whats the worst that can happen...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Have you actually listened to his music?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I haven't heard about this artist before, and I'm in love after listening on myspace- I love mashups.
At the same time, there's a lot of snippets I'm interested in now and want to buy- songs I'd never have heard otherwise. Because of these songs, other artists are getting free advertising and I'm much more apt to purchase their music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Labels usually foot the bill
In this case the album is being released by Illegal Art. Ninja Tune which was founded by sampling legends Coldcut was notorious for releasing crazy sample mashups before it was even called a mashup. Their approach in recent years has been to tone down the sampling and use more live instruments which i guess signals the idea that they were getting sued a bit.
The Avalanches released Since I Left you in 2000 which featured a billion samples. Not sure how that was received or how much of it was cleared.
There's another band a few years ago that released another sample-heavy album which released first in the UK, but the North American copy got held up because the distributor had to make sure everything got cleared first. I believe it was a delay of about a year. does anyone know what band i'm talking about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Simple. His new album's getting a lot more press due to the pay-what-you-want business model, so a lot more people are talking about him. More people talking = more people listening = more likely that a money-grabbing has-been will decide to sue instead of seeing the opportunity to regain interest in the songs that were sampled.
I've seen plenty of cash-in compilations of songs sampled by Daft Punk, Fatboy Slim, Moby, etc. so the argument that this could be a very good thing for the sampled artists rings true. Unfortunately, that depends on the artists being intelligent and forward-thinking enough to recognise this, which God knows isn't always the case...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Here is a link to purchase the album (for free if you want):
http://74.124.198.47/illegal-art.net/__girl__talk___feed__the__anima.ls___/
And here is the method to his music, after seeing this it is hard to say he is "stealing" music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KykbPtRb0K4
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Girl Talk
Let's get this straight: He takes samples of music written and recorded by musicians, turns it into his own product... THEN GIVES IT AWAY TO PROMOTE HIS LIVE GIGS!!!! The original musicians get NOTHING and Girl Talk, a One Man Show with little or no overhead, rakes in the $$$$$!!!! Pretty Sweet Deal! The guy's a genius. Screw the musicians!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fair use
But how long can he afford to fight lawsuits brought on by the RIAA, other record labels, and other bands? Does he have the money to defend against the almost-endless appeals which the RIAA will certainly file? And will he enjoy scheduling his life around court appearances?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I love mashups. i love sampling, having grown up on "real" hip hop and other forms. and i know that the future holds for no one, but is there a listing of all the samples used in his project? if not, how is it of use to the "original" aritst? there is a difference between artist and artistic.
i'm not sure i consider many of the ableton live armed pseudo-producers, artists. what they do is artistic, but people have started lowering the bar for what constitutes an artist, when it suits them. I, being a full time artist, would be pissed if this cat made a track out of my music without (a) asking me (b) crediting me (c) compensating me, even if its only a general principle payment of $3 out of a gross of, say, $400 total profit. it is not cool. I charge money to play on peoples projects. someone taking my work without so much as a "hey, i really dig your stuff...could i use some of it in a track?" is just wack, and trying to cloak it as a new media revolution is bullshit. and to make tracks out of someone elses music, THEN, give it away as if it is yours without the pre-mentioned prerequisites, is theft, and purely artistically stunted. sorry if that does not fit within the p2p "art wants to be free" ethos.
here's a concept; if you want to be safe, go get the software/hardware/instruments, learn to play them well, learn to record, learn to write and arrange, record it, have it mixed and mastered, THEN give it away as much as you want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Girl Talk
Other than a ton of free promotion -- often to fans who otherwise would not have heard their music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He is compensating you. He's providing you a ton of free promotion, introducing you to new audiences, and getting people to think about your music in a different light.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i tell you what?! I'm gonna download his music, add a cowbell, rename all the tracks and say they're mine...and sell the as pay what you want. i'm sure he'll love all the free promotion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
sorry, but after listening to the stuff, it sounds like what happens when you get ableton live LE with your m-audio sound card; you get cd's of stuff you like and you start experimenting so you can learn your way around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The very POINT of fair use is that you shouldn't have to ask. If every bit of fair use required asking, it would be a HUGE inhibitor to new content creation.
i tell you what?! I'm gonna download his music, add a cowbell, rename all the tracks and say they're mine...and sell the as pay what you want. i'm sure he'll love all the free promotion.
Go for it. I'm sure he'd be thrilled.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Well, when God/Allah/the Grand Poobah wakes up and puts you in charge of what qualifies as music, then we'll listen to you. In the meantime, we'll listen to what the market says -- and they seem to like what he's done, and recognize that they like the "different light" he cast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
you made a point about all this supposed free promotions...where? the point is is that he is making a living off other peoples music. seems to be alot of that happening these days; people who can't/dont create their own thing...they simply recombine the output of real artists and call it theirs...and then sell it. even creative commons stipulates varying useage concepts, based on how the artist wants their art used.
when i play on peoples songs, i get listings in the credits....THAT is promotion, evn though it is not my song. having my playing on someones track with no mention, does me no good, but i'm sure people enjoy the stolen bits.
The copyright office says;
i completely understand and make use of the concepts of scarce and infinite goods, and have used samples in productions and all that, but jacking others peoples art without so much as a sample listing and where they come from, is disrespectful ESPECIALLY if you create an album completely composed of it.
and your "Huge inhibitor of new content creation" statement is just stupid. solution; LEARN TO CREATE CONTENT, NOT JUST REPURPOSE OTHERS CONTENT. cut and pasting other peoples stuff then making a living from it and calling it fair use is WACK.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If you don't think that nearly all content creation is repurposing the works of those who came before you, you haven't paid much attention...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Finally, An Artist S
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Finally An Artist Speaks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Finally An Artist Speaks
We hear from real artists all the time. Some agree with us, some don't. I'm not sure what point you're making.
That is, someone who has spent time, money, sweat and tears to create original music and use it, I bet, support his/her family.
And you don't think others on this site don't spend money, sweat and tears creating content? What the hell do you think I do all day?
So Girlie Talk would piss me off too. Go get 'em Simon!
Luckily, we live in a world where pissing you off isn't against the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
now, you have a climate in which people think that music itself, not just digital files, but the actual music and musical skill, is worthless. now, rather than learn to play instruments(including software ones), or do studio sessions to "repurpose" the art from the point of view of art, it is done from the point of view of video game playing. did you know that even large tours dont want to take musicians out on tour anymore?! they record great musicians ina multitrack session beforehand, then play back the protools multitrack while cheaper/prettier/less-{whatever} cats mime onstage. this i know from experience. it all relates. it is the purposeful devaluation of my art...or rather the purposeful devaluation of the actual artists while the "presenters", which used to be primarily the artist, benefit.
and when musicians finally realize than music is no longer something that they can make a decent living from (which many have already done) they will do it as a hobby (which has happened ALOT), or go where it is still art (which is what i did when i moved to berlin, and i am very happy), and/or they will cut and paste what is laying around, and say it is their because they grew up on presets, napster, and a sense of entitlement that they dont really have to work for anything, and we see where that attitude has gotten us.
let me be clear. cats like girl talk can do what they want. I have made chopped up sample stuff and played it out too. i believe he should be able to do that. sometimes you can hear something that is interesting. but I also knew it was not mine. i knew it was a link in a lifelong chain of learning to create art. too many cats are getting too boldwith other peoples works and i believe that they need to realize that if you are going to release in a globally distributed, pubilicized, format, you should be willing to pay royalties to the artists, who make a living off said royalties, and to list all of the sources of samples. otherwise, you're headed for a serious and earned headache down the road.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Really? Not where I'm looking. Everywhere I look, I see people valuing music even more, by seeing what else can be done with it. Girl Talk is *increasing* the value of the music he samples, by showing how much more can be done. That's fantastic.
rather than learn to play instruments(including software ones), or do studio sessions to "repurpose" the art from the point of view of art,
This isn't supported by the facts: such as that instrument sales are at record highs. The easy availability of music is encouraging more people to become musicians.
did you know that even large tours dont want to take musicians out on tour anymore?! they record great musicians ina multitrack session beforehand, then play back the protools multitrack while cheaper/prettier/less-{whatever} cats mime onstage.
That may be true of lame megastar pop bands, but that's not what's happening among most bands.
it is the purposeful devaluation of my art...or rather the purposeful devaluation of the actual artists while the "presenters", which used to be primarily the artist, benefit.
I don't see how you can say this is the case. You need to look beyond the pop stars.
and when musicians finally realize than music is no longer something that they can make a decent living from (which many have already done)
Yet, we're seeing more people than ever before making their money from music.
we see where that attitude has gotten us.
Yes, a ton of new music, more easily available to everyone. How can you say that's a bad thing... unless you're a protectionist who liked the old model 'cause there was less competition.
but I also knew it was not mine.
That's right. You cannot own sound.
i believe that they need to realize that if you are going to release in a globally distributed, pubilicized, format, you should be willing to pay royalties to the artists
Even if doing so means LESS music? I don't see why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Really? Not where I'm looking. Everywhere I look, I see people valuing music even more, by seeing what else can be done with it. Girl Talk is *increasing* the value of the music he samples, by showing how much more can be done. That's fantastic
Is that right? Well, its obvious that you are so busy *not* making music that you don’t understand how this game actually works. He is increasing the value of the concept of theft as a means to make money, NOT in the art that he is stealing. It increases HIS value, not that of the component artists that his stuff is based on.
This isn't supported by the facts: such as that instrument sales are at record highs. The easy availability of music is encouraging more people to become musicians.
As a hobby . and which instruments are at record high sales levels? I am really interested to know. Because from my own obviously limited but trained perspective, I know more and more people who buy musical products and play them for personal enjoyment because the consensus is that there is no real money in it anymore. The bar band circuit, although slowly coming back now after years of the DJ era, is a mere shell of its former glory (but it is coming back). People are increasingly unwilling to place their livelihood in the hands of a devalued music market that thinks it’s ok to not pay for anything. So, instead of going whole hog into this life, they play a little [insert instrument/software of choice] to wind down after work. They want to do it full time but almost all financial incentive is gone and damn near every bit of incentive to create something truly mindblowingly original is definitely out the window because without the corporate sponsors, licensing, or links from aggregator producers who make a living chopping up your art for their own projects, it’s harder to make an impression. Summary; more instruments is because there are loads more cheap easy to use hobbyist equipment out there.
That may be true of lame megastar pop bands, but that's not what's happening among most bands.
Heh? Are you joking? Now I know that you know whats going on. Class project; if you have any connection to any real touring groups that are willing to talk to you off the record, because none of them want people to know this shit, ask them. Dude, I’ve been on tour, and I’ve also been asked, multiple times in the past 3-4 years to sign recording releases and NDA’s so they can record me for tracks that would be used on tour. I would so much rather not be making this kind of thing up. And it is an increasingly common practice, not decreasingly. That is big groups but some of them are not mega and some of them don’t even suck. 1 or 2 are considered to be great. This is the other side of the tracks.
I don't see how you can say this is the case. You need to look beyond the pop stars.
Whats funny is that before I left the US, I busked on the street. Over the years, the only people who actually still buy music fall into 2 categories, that are sometimes one; (1) older listeners who grew up appreciating the value of music (2) those who, thru education by some artists (some artists actually take time on their sites and onstage, to convey how these technologies affect them) understand and financially appreciate the musical statement you are trying to present.
Screw pop stars. I haven’t listened to pop for 15 years or so. I believe that music has to be respected but I also believe that it is my job to educate my audience as to how that should be done. And IMNSHO I believe that this new global network is the most significant concept ever conceived by man. And it has freed musicians from the sponsorhood of royalty, whether that royalty be kings or multinational corporations. But without a system of checks and balances, which is slowly forming and has to include the input of true art (content) creators, people can simply troll the interweb, take other peoples works, and profit from it without any recompense for the artist, which sounds a lot like the old system that we’re trying to get away from.
Yet, we're seeing more people than ever before making their money from music.
Where are your figures concerning the WHO is making all this money? Apple seems to be doing fine as an aggregator. Helps them sell ipods. And if you are savvy enough to get your music placed on a commercial or a game, there a few thousand dollars there. I myself do pretty good, but its because I push my stuff straight into peoples hands, and I can play my ass off. Most artists are not making a living off of creating music. These days if you want to make money from music, you DJ. Dj’s are in high demand. And they still, for one person, make as much or more than some local bands in various markets. But if you can show me something different, no sarcasm intended, please let me know because I will open my mind and differ to your insight.
Yes, a ton of new music, more easily available to everyone. How can you say that's a bad thing... unless you're a protectionist who liked the old model 'cause there was less competition.
First off I don’t believe in competition when I comes to music, unless you are competeing with yourself to be the best representation of you as an artist. And “loads” of music, free or paid for, is wonderful. I think we are living on the cusp of a musical golden age. But building a career from “OTHER PEOPLES READILY AVAILABLE MUSIC” and calling it your own is something that has to be governed, preferably by artists and the people who love what the internet can be. WE-this generation of people-must lay the ground work for what is to be considered fair and just to future generations. If it’s an aggregation/promotion argument, then make a page with links to each of the artists myspace profiles so people can get a sense of the depth of the pieces of this collage work. Don’t just expect people to guess whats there and then call it promotion. MAKE A LIST; since your not worried about getting nicked by the cops over it, “pay” some respect to your sources by mentioning their names some SOMEWHERE…ANYWHERE. Otherwise, its just plagerism.
That's right. You cannot own sound.
But you can and do have rights to the use, and re use of the RECORDING of the sound. There are whole different rules governing the RECREATION of a work. And we are not talking about “sounds” like amon tobin or hank shocklee used…we are talking about whole phrases, riffs, basslines…valid compositional elements. That’s what creative commons was created to help with. But his stuff cant go there because he obviously didn’t ask permission for any of it.
Even if doing so means LESS music? I don't see why.
Hmmm…so more is better? And cheaper is better? Free is I guess much better, huh? Wow, you’re so, like, utopian. So, when I go out this weekend, I should go to the place with the most DJs, who spin the most music and sell the cheapest drinks? That’s better? I guess it’s no use trying to explain quality vs quantity to you.
I’ll tell you what…when I ( and by “I”, I mean musicians here) don’t have to spend MONEY, on food, rent, clothes, equipment, lessons, gear, etc—and make no mistake, it is possible, with the right sponsorship/grants…) I can entertain those prospects, but the world that we actually live in is governed, whether rightly or wrongly, by capitalism; using money in exchange for goods and services. This cat, girl talk, is setting a precedent for circumventing this mechanism, with no viable mechanism in place. As I stated before, if he were to list the artists he sampled, with links to their myspace profiles, it would set a real precedent that he really respects the artists he stole (and it is still stealing unless he asks and/or pays something) from and you, the audience, should check them out. Could you imagine if those that are taking his example seriously did the same? People podcast me all the time. They email me and tell me abou themselves and their podcast and ask if they can use a song. I usually send them a few, so they have a selection. And when it comes out, I am listed, with a link to my web presence. THAT is promotion, AND it is respectful AND it is still free to them. It would be great for everyone and people would be excited to be included on his projects rather than sending cease and desists, especially modern digtal musicians who don’t hold onto the old concepts.
But he hasn’t, and he doesn’t…he’s an opportunist and a thief in my book.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Getting Down To It
Now for the real issue.
"That's right. You cannot own sound."
Well Mike, until the law changes, that's the ol' copyright law, you CAN own recorded sound and Simon owns his. Just because it can be digitalized to ones and zeros does not change the law. In the United States the way laws are changed is through the legislative process not by mass violations/infringements. I know it's hard when what you want to do violates the law but hey, that's the way the cookie crumbles.
And unless the copyright law does change, eventually everyone will be paying for recorded sound on the internet some way or another. Whether by blanket licensing, added ISP fees or some other method. Just watch and see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Ah, right, when you have no real argument, always resort to an insult, because that makes you much more convincing.
He is increasing the value of the concept of theft as a means to make money, NOT in the art that he is stealing. It increases HIS value, not that of the component artists that his stuff is based on.
Again, this focus on theft is simply incorrect. He has stolen nothing. He is repurposing music, and that may be infringement, but that's not stealing. And, it does increase value for both Gillis and the original artists, whether you like it or not. It is not a zero sum game, as you seem to assume.
As a hobby . and which instruments are at record high sales levels?
The research, which I've pointed to in the past (not going to dig it out again) was for overall musical instrument sales, so I don't believe it was broken out by specifics.
I know more and more people who buy musical products and play them for personal enjoyment because the consensus is that there is no real money in it anymore.
That may be true, but we're also seeing more and more music being released online. So I don't see how that's a bad thing, even if some of the musicians aren't doing it full time.
The bar band circuit, although slowly coming back now after years of the DJ era, is a mere shell of its former glory (but it is coming back).
Yes, it is coming back, and a big part of that is due to the ability to promote a band online.
People are increasingly unwilling to place their livelihood in the hands of a devalued music market that thinks it’s ok to not pay for anything.
What is this "devalued music market" you speak of? Music is valued more today than ever before -- but value and price are two different things. What you are really saying is that fewer money is being spent on recorded music -- which is true. But that doesn't mean that music is devalued or that people don't pay for anything. In fact, live music is experiencing its highest numbers ever. People are more than willing to pay -- it's just a question over what they're paying for. They're less and less willing to pay just to get music. They want to pay for something scarce.
They want to do it full time but almost all financial incentive is gone and damn near every bit of incentive to create something truly mindblowingly original is definitely out the window because without the corporate sponsors, licensing, or links from aggregator producers who make a living chopping up your art for their own projects, it’s harder to make an impression.
And yet, again, more people are making money from music today than ever before. And I'm sorry, but it's pure bullshit to claim that there's no originality in music any more. You may just be looking in the wrong places.
Class project; if you have any connection to any real touring groups that are willing to talk to you off the record, because none of them want people to know this shit, ask them.
Okay. I sent emails to folks I know who are touring musicians (in five separate bands, all independent). I also sent an email to a friend at a record label (an indie) and another who manages a couple of independent bands. Will report back on what I hear -- but in my earlier conversations with them I can't recall the idea of EVER using recorded music while on tour. My guess is that they'll be shocked I would even ask. I hang out with musicians quite often and I've never once heard anyone talking about this. Perhaps it just depends on the type of music you listen to, but the musicians I know focus on connecting with the fans -- and that means actually playing live.
But without a system of checks and balances, which is slowly forming and has to include the input of true art (content) creators, people can simply troll the interweb, take other peoples works, and profit from it without any recompense for the artist, which sounds a lot like the old system that we’re trying to get away from.
Why do you need "checks and balances" when everyone benefits? As long as YOU set up your business model to make sure you benefit from others using your work, you have nothing to worry about. If you choose not to, you have no one to complain about but yourself.
Where are your figures concerning the WHO is making all this money?
This isn't going to satisfy you, I know, but I can't yet reveal my sources on this... I'm working on a bigger project where I will eventually (hopefully) be able to reveal the numbers. I recognize this is an unsatisfactory answer, but I really can't reveal any more at this point. Hopefully soon...
First off I don’t believe in competition when I comes to music, unless you are competeing with yourself to be the best representation of you as an artist.
People have a limited amount of time and attention. Every musician is competing for that attention and time.
I think we are living on the cusp of a musical golden age.
On that we agree... not sure why we then disagree about all these other points.
But building a career from “OTHER PEOPLES READILY AVAILABLE MUSIC” and calling it your own is something that has to be governed, preferably by artists and the people who love what the internet can be.
Do you credit every one of your influences on all of your songs? Do you credit those who taught you your instruments? Do you credit those who first created the instruments you play? Do you credit those who build your specific instrument?
All music is built on the works of others. Not everyone gets credit every time.
If it’s an aggregation/promotion argument, then make a page with links to each of the artists myspace profiles so people can get a sense of the depth of the pieces of this collage work.
Sure, I agree that would be a better solution, but plenty of others are having fun figuring out who the different snippets are from, and it's making them go out and search out the originals. In other words, there's no reason that Girl Talk need to do it when others are doing it for him.
And we are not talking about “sounds” like amon tobin or hank shocklee used…we are talking about whole phrases, riffs, basslines…valid compositional elements.
Where do you draw that imaginary line? And why must it be drawn?
Hmmm…so more is better? And cheaper is better? Free is I guess much better, huh?
Yes, more is better and yes, cheaper is better. I sense your sarcasm, but unless you want to prove the whole of human economic history as being falsified, you're going to have to do better than that.
And, no, this doesn't mean that mass produced products are better than custom made products -- but I'm talking about in the aggregate. We're trying to encourage more music to be produced, because we recognize that out of that more music BETTER music will come out and much of it will rise to the top.
Wow, you’re so, like, utopian.
Actually, I'm not. Not at all. In fact, my whole position is actually focused on being entirely practical, rather than utopian. Utopian solutions are bullshit and they don't work.
But, of course, if you want to bash me, you can always resort to sarcasm that shows you don't want to listen.
It's very convincing.
So, when I go out this weekend, I should go to the place with the most DJs, who spin the most music and sell the cheapest drinks? That’s better?
No, that's actually the opposite of what I'm saying, but if you want to act stupid, that's your choice.
More music is better for consumers to be able to choose from. It's what helps that better music rise to the top. That good music you seem to insist is disappearing.
I guess it’s no use trying to explain quality vs quantity to you.
Not at all. Quality is definitely important over quantity, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm pointing out that from a consumer's standpoint, having more selection is how we guarantee more QUALITY. Competition drives people to be better and to do more to make sure that they can provide a better product.
That's simply historical fact.
I’ll tell you what…when I ( and by “I”, I mean musicians here) don’t have to spend MONEY, on food, rent, clothes, equipment, lessons, gear, etc—and make no mistake, it is possible, with the right sponsorship/grants…) I can entertain those prospects, but the world that we actually live in is governed, whether rightly or wrongly, by capitalism; using money in exchange for goods and services.
If you're so focused on capitalism, why do you use a gov't granted monopoly, such as copyright to support your position?
But he hasn’t, and he doesn’t…he’s an opportunist and a thief in my book.
What has he stolen?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Getting Down To It
That is incorrect. You have rights concerning those sounds, but you do not own them.
Just because it can be digitalized to ones and zeros does not change the law.
Nor am I saying it does.
And unless the copyright law does change, eventually everyone will be paying for recorded sound on the internet some way or another.
Oh, I never said otherwise. In fact, I think that even if copyright law goes away entirely people will pay for the creation of recorded music. I've never suggested otherwise. You seem to have misread what I have written.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ah, right, when you have no real argument, always resort to an insult, because that makes you much more convincing.
Sorry, but sometimes it wakes you up enough too hear things that arent coming from just you. hear and understand what i am saying...dont just read it.
Again, this focus on theft is simply incorrect. He has stolen nothing. He is repurposing music, and that may be infringement, but that's not stealing. And, it does increase value for both Gillis and the original artists, whether you like it or not. It is not a zero sum game, as you seem to assume.
in·fringe·ment
Pronunciation:
in-ˈfrinj-mənt
Function:
noun
Date:
1628
1 : the act of infringing : violation
2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege
The research, which I've pointed to in the past (not going to dig it out again) was for overall musical instrument sales, so I don't believe it was broken out by specifics.
People are enjoying tinkering and playing with music more than ever before. But as far as dedicating ones life to it? Far fewer.
That may be true, but we're also seeing more and more music being released online. So I don't see how that's a bad thing, even if some of the musicians aren't doing it full time.
Released? A release is a whole series of steps that put music onto the market place. People a “posting” a lot of music online. Many are doing it because they must, to remain somewhat relevant in a market that does not value it. but htis point is transitional at present because many steps iin the process are being changed. self mastering, one person labels, etc, so how this plays out remains to be seen. but in general, its is a positive step to have a means of sharing ones art.
Yes, it is coming back, and a big part of that is due to the ability to promote a band online.
It’s coming back because we’ve had 20 years of DJ culture. People have vocally been getting tired of paying $20-40 to go someplace to “see” someone spin records. People want to interact with artists. And the internet is a very very big part of that.
What is this "devalued music market" you speak of? Music is valued more today than ever before -- but value and price are two different things. What you are really saying is that fewer money is being spent on recorded music -- which is true. But that doesn't mean that music is devalued or that people don't pay for anything. In fact, live music is experiencing its highest numbers ever. People are more than willing to pay -- it's just a question over what they're paying for. They're less and less willing to pay just to get music. They want to pay for something scarce.
The devaluation is not because of cats like girl talk, specifically. It is mainly the flooding of the the market by exceptionally crap pop over the last 20 years, and constant reissues of old music instead of more artist development. I believe that people are willing to pay for infinite goods if those goods are “worthy”. And easy to pay for. The technologies are there to do amazing things that are infinitely reproducible but worthy of financial recompense. We, as artists, have to determine what that means individually. But it does mean that the perceived value of music, for reasons as varied as oversaturation to quality control, has dropped significantly. The redefinitions of these values will be an ongoing process, but digital recorded music does not have value to people currently, which means that people are more likely to want to hear it and simultaneously less likely to spend money on it.
And yet, again, more people are making money from music today than ever before. And I'm sorry, but it's pure bullshit to claim that there's no originality in music any more. You may just be looking in the wrong places.
Who said theres no originality? There is plenty of it and it proliferates because of the internet. I said the “financial incentive”. What this cat is doing is not original. There are truly original styles out there. And over time, fans will gravitate towards them thru varying means, some of which will include being cut and pasted into other works. But, (again) taking someones work and “repurposing it” without asking, without credit and without recompense is still theft, plagerism, infringement, bad karma, no-no mojo…whatever semantic terminology you want to use.
Okay. I sent emails to folks I know who are touring musicians (in five separate bands, all independent). I also sent an email to a friend at a record label (an indie) and another who manages a couple of independent bands. Will report back on what I hear -- but in my earlier conversations with them I can't recall the idea of EVER using recorded music while on tour. My guess is that they'll be shocked I would even ask. I hang out with musicians quite often and I've never once heard anyone talking about this. Perhaps it just depends on the type of music you listen to, but the musicians I know focus on connecting with the fans -- and that means actually playing live.
You will have to ask them to speak off the record. I’m sure that if you print names, there will be some angry labels out there. But big touring outfits have been doing it for YEARS longer than you realize, and some groups are actually forced, contractually, to abide by it. Oops…some folks might not be happy if you mention them by name.
Why do you need "checks and balances" when everyone benefits? As long as YOU set up your business model to make sure you benefit from others using your work, you have nothing to worry about. If you choose not to, you have no one to complain about but yourself.
Dude, I’ve done everything from CD and digital releases to loop collections and all manner of little boutique projects, and it is widely agreed that it is without honor to take someone elses stuff without asking. I cant understand how you don’t see that. Yes…it is easy to get music and do what you want, but it is just so not cool, besides the fact that it is still illegal. You would be amazed at how much easier this cat, and others like him’s, lives would be if they don’t be a dick when it comes to using other peoples works. Respect and honor can follow you and stabilize your career, but disrespect will surely have people snapping their fingers trying to remember your name in a few years.
This isn't going to satisfy you, I know, but I can't yet reveal my sources on this... I'm working on a bigger project where I will eventually (hopefully) be able to reveal the numbers. I recognize this is an unsatisfactory answer, but I really can't reveal any more at this point. Hopefully soon...
It’s all good. I really would like to know, no sarcasm intended.
People have a limited amount of time and attention. Every musician is competing for that attention and time.
Competition is for track and field. Art cant be sport, no matter what American idol says. You must blow peoples mind in whatever way you do, but there is no reason why you need to reference anyone else, which is what competition teaches you; that there is scarcity where there is not. The internet is a monument to it. I probably discover 30 new sites a day, because I can. and wierd youtube videos. I love that and I love that each one is unique. The one that compete with each other are so busy trying to hit me with so many ads, I cant enjoy the information I came for.
Sad that this cat cant stand on the value of his own self created productions, but has to use snippets of songs that other artists and labels spent millions of dollars promoting. Interesting.
On that we agree... not sure why we then disagree about all these other points.
The difference in the genome of an ape and a man is something like 3% give or take a couple. But the difference of those few percentage points make the diference between living in a zoo and building one. If we do not sort out the details of how we go forward in this uncharted new world, we risk screwing up badly. That’s why I keep bringing up the themes of honor, trust and respect. The old guard have abused these things for money, but we can not just abuse these things because we throw out terms like infinite and scarce goods. We have to integrate these things into this newly forming methodology. That way, when the lawmakers start poking around, we can have a decent framework already. Otherwise, it’s going to be a big headache.
Do you credit every one of your influences on all of your songs? Do you credit those who taught you your instruments? Do you credit those who first created the instruments you play? Do you credit those who build your specific instrument?
Are you joking? Come on man, don’t be silly. We are talking about directly lifting a piece of copyrighted material and using it in a composition. The question is silly. But just for your information, I was endorsed by the companies who make my hardware and software…I also created the demonstration CD that went out to music distributors when my hardware instrument was released. I actively sought their endorsements because I feel very strongly about the equipment I use. Any more silly questions?
All music is built on the works of others. Not everyone gets credit every time.
*sigh* one more time…learning to play amd perform, in public, Giant Steps or Funky Cold Medina is not the same as lifting a big piece of the copywritten recording, putting it into your work, and calling it yours, without, asking, credit or recompense. Please grasp that this time.
Sure, I agree that would be a better solution, but plenty of others are having fun figuring out who the different snippets are from, and it's making them go out and search out the originals. In other words, there's no reason that Girl Talk need to do it when others are doing it for him.
Well, since we’re already firmly into the illegal aspect of the situation, there is no need to mention it here, so disregarding that for the moment, it is simply not cool. The concept of plagiarism has to be constantly shown to people because it is so easy to do. Just say something you read and say its yours, or at least don’t say its not. And over and over it has been determined to be just wrong. That’s why literary references have bibliographies and notes, to make sure that that one little sentence you referenced, can be credited. Books do it, records do it, websites do it with metadata, why is it so hard for you to grasp that it is relevant in this case also. I know its not “cool” to be so buttoned down, but in the same way that some cd rip on your hard drive from 1999 titled “track 01” is tedious to reference, especially when there are 20 of them, people are not going to go to the trouble of seeking out all that information and there are many people who appreciate having it, espcially since it is an obvious collage work.
Where do you draw that imaginary line? And why must it be drawn?
Because some little buzz sound on a track could be from anywhere, but, “ ALL MY $*%&^’S IN THE HOOD , PUT YA HANDS UP!! “ is a bit more obvious.
Yes, more is better and yes, cheaper is better. I sense your sarcasm, but unless you want to prove the whole of human economic history as being falsified, you're going to have to do better than that.
And, no, this doesn't mean that mass produced products are better than custom made products -- but I'm talking about in the aggregate. We're trying to encourage more music to be produced, because we recognize that out of that more music BETTER music will come out and much of it will rise to the top.
No, out of more opportunity, more and better music will come out and rise to the top. Out of more respect for the art and the artists and the artform, will more and better music come out. Out of aspiring for the best, not the cheapest or the lowest common denominator. If people desire better music, musicians will create better music and become better artists. If people desire cheaper music, they will get people who repurpose music that they themselves cant or wont create, and keep regurgitating themes that play into the scarce goods concept. When artists can produce their art knowing that the 20,000 downloads they got, will equate to enough income to continue creating, they will do it. But if it equates to nothing more than page views they will re prioritize.
But, of course, if you want to bash me, you can always resort to sarcasm that shows you don't want to listen.
Sometimes only sarcasm works. It becomes hard to educate a preacher, when is what you are here with your hi-tech pulpit. Ever try to educate a preacher about anything? It’s HARD. Because it is their job to be the go to guy. They are supposed to be right. But sometimes, they just aren’t or rather they need their scope challenged then broadened so they can adjust their message a bit.
We agree on most of the points; new media is going to win out over old and we need to get on with moving forward, but while we are making up new rules, we need to keep our basic ones or reference ones that have worked for eons, before mass distribution technologies.
No, that's actually the opposite of what I'm saying, but if you want to act stupid, that's your choice.
More music is better for consumers to be able to choose from. It's what helps that better music rise to the top. That good music you seem to insist is disappearing.
Having every song ever created, online and available, is the goal. But there still has to be structure and rules governing how the music is used. If the artist wants you to use his music any way you want, he can go with creative commons. If he does not want you to use his commercial works in another commercial work, then, for the time dictated by the law ( and laws do change) you can not, although you can recreate it, but that’s a different methodology. Aggregates will prevail in the selection of what is iand isn’t worthy of attention, but even the aggregates have rules.
Not at all. Quality is definitely important over quantity, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm pointing out that from a consumer's standpoint, having more selection is how we guarantee more QUALITY. Competition drives people to be better and to do more to make sure that they can provide a better product. That's simply historical fact.
How is quality “guaranteed” by having more selection? More selection is wonderful, in a fair world where people follow the rules and the playing field is level and just. But it does not guarantee quality. Competition drives people to go for what is popular, most of the time. Artist a has a hit with sound (x), then we get 6 months to a year of sound x from everyone looking to make a buck. Then the “competiton gets stacked in favor of those with the connections and the bigger marketing budgets.
The internet is the opposite of this; where a niche artist can focus on NOT competing and just be great for the 500 or so people that dig him and buy his little ditties off his website, and come to his little bar shows. Over time, he may gain a many more fans and they follow his work over years. Having to yell louder than the next artist is not where I hope the internet is going.
If you're so focused on capitalism, why do you use a gov't granted monopoly, such as copyright to support your position?
Sorry, I don’t understand the question.
What has he stolen?
You really are serious huh? You seem like one of those evangelicals who starts to become so zealous that they can’t see the flaws of their position. So I will ask that you reference the past 3 posts to answer this question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You accomplished the opposite. I take you less seriously every time you resort to an insult. It shows the lack of an argument.
in·fringe·ment
Pronunciation:
in-ˈfrinj-mənt
Function:
Yes, infringement, that's what I said. What you didn't explain is how that's theft. The two are quite different and the difference is important.
Released? A release is a whole series of steps that put music onto the market place.
Yes... you seem to be agreeing with me here
It’s coming back because we’ve had 20 years of DJ culture. People have vocally been getting tired of paying $20-40 to go someplace to “see” someone spin records. People want to interact with artists. And the internet is a very very big part of that.
Perhaps we just are involved in different scenes, but I don't see this at all.
The devaluation is not because of cats like girl talk, specifically. It is mainly the flooding of the the market by exceptionally crap pop over the last 20 years, and constant reissues of old music instead of more artist development.
See, I think you're missing the forest for the trees. You keep talking about big acts. I don't care about the big acts, I care about all the interesting stuff happening elsewhere. The people who actually are making a career of it, earning a good living, not as a superstar.
And what we're seeing is the "crap pop" is easily ignored and the quality gets attention. But the nice thing is that the subsegment who enjoys the crap pop still gets it as well.
I believe that people are willing to pay for infinite goods if those goods are “worthy”. And easy to pay for. The technologies are there to do amazing things that are infinitely reproducible but worthy of financial recompense.
The history of economics suggests you're wrong. But, all you need to do is shift your focus a bit. Rather than worrying about how to get paid for the infinite goods, why not focus on ways that spreading the infinite goods for free will make your more money on your scarce goods?
But it does mean that the perceived value of music, for reasons as varied as oversaturation to quality control, has dropped significantly.
You keep saying that, but I can't find the slightest evidence of it. People are listening to more music than ever before, and they're enjoying it more, talking about it more, and experiencing it more. That shows that they're valuing it more than ever. And, I don't see any oversaturation. Thanks to the internet, it's easy to avoid the music you don't like.
The redefinitions of these values will be an ongoing process, but digital recorded music does not have value to people currently, which means that people are more likely to want to hear it and simultaneously less likely to spend money on it.
You're confusing value and price. People value music a lot. They just recognize that the proper price for it may be free. Value and price are different. You value air, but you don't pay for it, for example.
Who said theres no originality?
You said, and I quote: "damn near every bit of incentive to create something truly mindblowingly original is definitely out the window"
From that I took it you meant there was no originality. Now you're saying there is? Can you explain?
What this cat is doing is not original.
To his many fans it certainly seems original. See, that's part of the point. He's been able to capture their attention by doing something original. It's about capturing the attention of fans -- and he's done it. He's successfully competed in the marketplace.
Luckily, we let the marketplace determine that. We don't have you determining what is allowed and what is not based on your own scale of what is and what is not original.
But, (again) taking someones work and “repurposing it” without asking, without credit and without recompense is still theft, plagerism, infringement, bad karma, no-no mojo…whatever semantic terminology you want to use.
The terminology is quite important, because they mean very different things. It's not theft. It may be infringement. It's not plagiarism. It may be bad karma or no-no mojo, but both of those things, by their very nature work themselves out over time.
You will have to ask them to speak off the record. I’m sure that if you print names, there will be some angry labels out there. But big touring outfits have been doing it for YEARS longer than you realize, and some groups are actually forced, contractually, to abide by it. Oops…some folks might not be happy if you mention them by name.
Well, I heard back from two musician friends and they've never heard of such things. One responded with: "WHA?!?!?!? No, never. Maybe for stadium acts or something but not out here playing clubs." The other just said he'd never heard of such a thing.
Dude, I’ve done everything from CD and digital releases to loop collections and all manner of little boutique projects, and it is widely agreed that it is without honor to take someone elses stuff without asking. I cant understand how you don’t see that. Yes…it is easy to get music and do what you want, but it is just so not cool,
I can see why you'd think it's uncool, but that's not really the point, is it? Who cares if it's cool or not. If it's not, it will come back to bite him. Otherwise, grow up and get over it.
You would be amazed at how much easier this cat, and others like him’s, lives would be if they don’t be a dick when it comes to using other peoples works. Respect and honor can follow you and stabilize your career, but disrespect will surely have people snapping their fingers trying to remember your name in a few years.
Sure. So he'll have to deal with that when it happens. However, you will note that the two musicians quoted in the article do consider it an "honor" to be included on the CD. So, clearly there are folks who disagree with you and recognize how the market is changing.
Competition is for track and field.
On that we fundamentally disagree. Competition occurs in everything. If you don't think you're competing for people's attention, then you're not going to get any.
The internet is a monument to it. I probably discover 30 new sites a day, because I can. and wierd youtube videos. I love that and I love that each one is unique. The one that compete with each other are so busy trying to hit me with so many ads, I cant enjoy the information I came for.
Those 30 sites successfully competed for your attention. The ones that have too many ads FAILED in the competition. But don't mistake the fact that they are competing.
Are you joking? Come on man, don’t be silly. We are talking about directly lifting a piece of copyrighted material and using it in a composition.
Where do you draw the line then? This is a serious question. You have clearly drawn a line between who deserves credit and who does not. Gillis has drawn a different line. Why is yours right?
*sigh* one more time…learning to play amd perform, in public, Giant Steps or Funky Cold Medina is not the same as lifting a big piece of the copywritten recording, putting it into your work, and calling it yours, without, asking, credit or recompense. Please grasp that this time.
Gillis is not calling it "his." He's quite clear that it's built up from those who came before. If anything, that shows a lot more respect for where the music came from than those who merely ignore all their influences.
The concept of plagiarism has to be constantly shown to people because it is so easy to do. Just say something you read and say its yours, or at least don’t say its not.
Well, not that we need to run down that rathole, but my opinion on plagiarism probably would upset you too: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080626/0137261525.shtml
Because some little buzz sound on a track could be from anywhere, but, “ ALL MY $*%&^’S IN THE HOOD , PUT YA HANDS UP!! “ is a bit more obvious.
If the buzz can be from anywhere, then who really cares where it's from?
No, out of more opportunity, more and better music will come out and rise to the top. Out of more respect for the art and the artists and the artform, will more and better music come out. Out of aspiring for the best, not the cheapest or the lowest common denominator. If people desire better music, musicians will create better music and become better artists. If people desire cheaper music, they will get people who repurpose music that they themselves cant or wont create, and keep regurgitating themes that play into the scarce goods concept. When artists can produce their art knowing that the 20,000 downloads they got, will equate to enough income to continue creating, they will do it. But if it equates to nothing more than page views they will re prioritize.
This is not what's actually happening. There is more and MORE niche music being produced, not for the lowest common denominator, but because it's now possible to do so and to find and connect with the fans in those niches -- and to get them to actually hear the music and become fans.
And from that, good business models arrive.
But there still has to be structure and rules governing how the music is used.
Why? If the end result is better for everyone, why does it need that structure? One of the lessons of the internet is that removing that structure and letting it form organically tends to work out better.
How is quality “guaranteed” by having more selection? More selection is wonderful, in a fair world where people follow the rules and the playing field is level and just. But it does not guarantee quality.
Again, history would suggest otherwise.
Competition drives people to go for what is popular, most of the time. Artist a has a hit with sound (x), then we get 6 months to a year of sound x from everyone looking to make a buck.
Only in a world where there is a limited shelf size. In a world with an unlimited shelf space, you get very different results. The problem is that you're judging all of this based on the false world created by these bad rules. You're not seeing where the market actually goes.
The internet is the opposite of this; where a niche artist can focus on NOT competing and just be great for the 500 or so people that dig him and buy his little ditties off his website, and come to his little bar shows. Over time, he may gain a many more fans and they follow his work over years. Having to yell louder than the next artist is not where I hope the internet is going.
We agree 100% here, which is why I don't see why you're disagreeing with me at all. I'm saying the same thing you are. But you don't need rules for this to happen. You need to get rid of the rules so this can happen.
Sorry, I don’t understand the question.
You said the world we live in is governed by capitalism, but you're wrong. The music world is not governed by capitalism, but a form of socialism, where the gov't hands out monopolies to everyone.
You really are serious huh? You seem like one of those evangelicals who starts to become so zealous that they can’t see the flaws of their position. So I will ask that you reference the past 3 posts to answer this question.
It was a serious question. For something to be stolen, something must be missing. I'm trying to understand what you think is missing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i still believe that going into this new era, where everything can be logged and referenced, there needs to be a system for referencing sources, and a fair means of compensating the original creators of works of art without stiffling others artists abilities to make use of existing works. but right now there is a system in place that, although faulty and not up to date with what is envougue and modern, is the law. solution; make a new law that takes into account your position. until that point, deal with the law suits as they come.
great topic. i'm sure this wont be the last time we debate it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I love how one-sided the author of this article is. I would trade the existence of mashup for the protection of regular artists' rights any day. You have to draw the line somewhere, and everyone isn't going to be happy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
and that's a bad thing?
For this product you are proving the opposite point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]