I recognize now that I never should have engaged in this back and forth, and I'm sorry about that. The first time I posted, it was because you mischaracterized what I was arguing because, as you said, you only read the summary of my article in the blog post, above. I don't feel like I'm having a rational conversation with you, and perhaps you are actually a hilarious performance artist. I have no idea. It's quite possible this situation is all my fault, so let's break it off, and I apologize. I wish you the best of luck in life, and take care.
dnball: I made a documentary that told the story of how an inefficient sample licensing system helped change the creative direction of an art form called hip-hop. In order to tell the story for a general audience, I wanted to play examples of the kinds of creative, transformative works hip-hop producers created in the late-1980s -- before this licensing system emerged.
So, in some cases, songs with six samples required me to get permission from up to seven owners (if you count the sound recording side). Some of these individual owners wanted up to $10k for their share of one song. Based on the quotes we were getting back, the estimated costs of clearing the rights for the film would be $2-4 million, which isn't even a possibility for me.
Copyright Criminals contains dozens of brief audio quotes of songs from hip-hop's "golden era," which were essential to play so that the audience could hear how the music changed as hip-hop producers reacted to the constraints of the sample licensing system. I've co-written a book with Northwestern Law professor Peter DiCola that is based on over a hundred in-depth interviews with all the major stakeholders in the sample licensing system. Almost all of them complained that the system was inefficient at best and broken at worst. It's called Creative License, and it will be out on Duke UP early-2011.
As I said in my article, I tried to make a documentary that shows the effects of an inefficient licensing system, but that very same system muzzled my ability tell that story.
And as I also stated in the article, fair use enabled me to tell that story. While you are technically correct in saying that the first amendment doesn't protect copyright infringing speech, nevertheless, first amendment principles have long been a part of fair use case law. On that front, you are either being disingenuous or are uninformed.
Dear dnball, what you are talking about is a conventional joint ownership arrangement where, as you correctly point out, "each joint owner of a copyright has the right to grant non-exclusive licenses authorizing others to use the work even WITHOUT the consent of the other joint owners."
The situation I was describing -- a song embedded with multiple samples -- is different, and DOES require that you acquire licenses from each separate publishing company that owns a stake in that song. I experienced this firsthand, which of course is why I wrote the essay.
Dear dnball, what you are talking about is a conventional joint ownership arrangement where, as you correctly point out, "each joint owner of a copyright has the right to grant non-exclusive licenses authorizing others to use the work even WITHOUT the consent of the other joint owners."
The situation I was describing -- a song embedded with multiple samples -- is different, and DOES require that you acquire licenses from each separate publishing company that owns a stake in that song. I experienced this firsthand, which of course is why I wrote the essay.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Kembrew.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You doth protest too much
I recognize now that I never should have engaged in this back and forth, and I'm sorry about that. The first time I posted, it was because you mischaracterized what I was arguing because, as you said, you only read the summary of my article in the blog post, above. I don't feel like I'm having a rational conversation with you, and perhaps you are actually a hilarious performance artist. I have no idea. It's quite possible this situation is all my fault, so let's break it off, and I apologize. I wish you the best of luck in life, and take care.
Re: Re: Re: Re: You doth protest too much
So, in some cases, songs with six samples required me to get permission from up to seven owners (if you count the sound recording side). Some of these individual owners wanted up to $10k for their share of one song. Based on the quotes we were getting back, the estimated costs of clearing the rights for the film would be $2-4 million, which isn't even a possibility for me.
Copyright Criminals contains dozens of brief audio quotes of songs from hip-hop's "golden era," which were essential to play so that the audience could hear how the music changed as hip-hop producers reacted to the constraints of the sample licensing system. I've co-written a book with Northwestern Law professor Peter DiCola that is based on over a hundred in-depth interviews with all the major stakeholders in the sample licensing system. Almost all of them complained that the system was inefficient at best and broken at worst. It's called Creative License, and it will be out on Duke UP early-2011.
As I said in my article, I tried to make a documentary that shows the effects of an inefficient licensing system, but that very same system muzzled my ability tell that story.
And as I also stated in the article, fair use enabled me to tell that story. While you are technically correct in saying that the first amendment doesn't protect copyright infringing speech, nevertheless, first amendment principles have long been a part of fair use case law. On that front, you are either being disingenuous or are uninformed.
Re: Re: You doth protest too much
The situation I was describing -- a song embedded with multiple samples -- is different, and DOES require that you acquire licenses from each separate publishing company that owns a stake in that song. I experienced this firsthand, which of course is why I wrote the essay.
Re: You doth protest too much
The situation I was describing -- a song embedded with multiple samples -- is different, and DOES require that you acquire licenses from each separate publishing company that owns a stake in that song. I experienced this firsthand, which of course is why I wrote the essay.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Kembrew.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt