The documentary Copyright Criminals draws a connection between culture and repetition of texts. In fact, the documentary advances that culture is continually created by changing old things, not making new things. They offer evidence such as the long list of Disney movies that are based on stories that are not owned by one person but are part of what the common public considers common culture.
They use this argument to defend the practice of sampling, particularly in the hip-hop world, which is basically using pieces of previous records by other artists in creating new songs.
The people that support sampling see it as a continuation of culture. They do not see the reason in copyrighting sound, when the same sound could be recorded by them and used in the same way. Furthermore, they argue that the steep fees required to be able to use samples of a record don’t go to the artist but to the recording labels. These labels are more interested in dollar signs than in the development of music as a social property.
Their approach is certainly based on Confucian ideals of social relations and on the progress of society as a pathway to personal growth.
Those on the opposite front argue that laws are set for protecting people and it is not right for anybody to take the work of another person and use it for their personal gain, whether that be money or fame. This is a deontological approach, exemplified by a judge ruling based on the Biblical command of “thou shalt not steal”.
One interesting point were the words by artist Clyde Stubblefield as he defended that he got no recognition, and advanced that acknowledgement was more valuable than money. To him, it is a somewhat utilitarian approach where the use of his work by someone else is a minimal cost to the benefit of musical cultural production.
What a super post. As a musician, piano teacher, and Music Theory Online teacher I think it’s important to observe and respect copyright laws. I can sympathize with those that wish to use older recordings to re-create something new, however the original artist must receive their due recognition. On one hand, if we don’t recognize what artists have already accomplished financially, we run the risk of not making enough to live on. Did I really say that? I’m laughing at that comment because it’s already happening. The other side of this to consider is that if artists are relying on previously recorded material then we are not moving forward artistically.
I found this post extremely interesting and I hope you don’t mind if I send some traffic your way to share some of my colleagues and friends.
Roxxane, thanks for your reply. I am sure that with your experience you have probably thought a whole lot about this topic. It is certainly interesting to think of this as another complication for starving artists :-).
The documentary gives examples of late 90s hip hop artists sampling from the late 60s and 70s. I can see your perspective in regards to creativity (or the lack of it), and yet one of the arguments in the movie is that there is no such thing as a fully original idea or creation. Of course, it’s somewhat of a jump from inspiration to direct analog “quotation”. It’s a hard line to draw between one and the other.
May I ask you how you found the blog?