[RD] Morals of enjoying works made by people who have done bad things

[Zelig]

That fixed term agreement is itself still an asset. I don't see why it should be special when it comes to the question "is it reasonable for someone else to seize this", nor have I seen a coherent case for why it should be.

I haven't seen a coherent case for why the public shouldn't be able to grant conditional IP rights.

 

[Patine]

I haven't seen a coherent case for why the public shouldn't be able to grant conditional IP rights.

There have been coherent, and very good, cases, presenting here, by several posters. The fact that you, subjectively and in your opinion, reject them outright as having coherence does not make them objectively and in fact lacking all coherence (you're thinking like Mussolini again). Also, considering you're making a proposal to change established laws and conventions to your personal point of view, the burden of argument is on your shoulders.

 

[Hygro]

If you say so. I just think if you're sampling melodies, riffs, or even individual sounds that other people have created by actually performing them in some way, then it seems fairly reasonable to say you don't have the right to commerically profit from that unless you've done something genuinely transformative. And if it really is transformative or genuinely creative in its own right then it shouldn't need to rely heavily on any specific sampled section. If it can't then that implies you're just quoting, not transforming.



Are they licensed to use thos samples though?

Licensed or not (generally it is, but producers and engineers be publicly swiping each other’s drum hits unlicensed all the time) it’s separate your creativity point which is what matters. You’re peeling an onion here. Should the creator of the piano get royalties for every song with piano? How transformative does something need to be? Who judges? How do we foster an environment for making transformative music? Quantity drives quality in these things, should we punish failures or dissuade attempts?


What kind of music do you listen to?

 

[Zelig]

There have been coherent, and very good, cases, presenting here, by several posters.

The only one you presented was a literal fallacy.

 

[Hygro]

@Manfred Belheim

I got someone to find the copypasta for me, I think you'll enjoy this.

 

[Patine]

The only one you presented was a literal fallacy.

How so? Just DECLARING it such means absolutely nothing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@Manfred Belheim

I got someone to find the copypasta for me, I think you'll enjoy this.

View attachment 519220

Loser. Someone invented drums to begin with, and you and your goats are just peeing all over their rights. You need to just go beat on things with sticks until you find your own sound.

 

[Nexlev]

I don't subscribe to this ethical premise, I fear that it can lead to a "year zero" mentality when taken to the extreme. I won't be purchasing any R Kelly products now that I "know" but it doesn't change the way I feel about his music. Jerry Lee Lewis is one of my favorite Country artists and he was an ahole on many levels

Edit: creative people in general tend to have a tenuous relationship with rules and boundaries, in my experience. Zero tolerance approaches therefore come with serious opportunity costs to humanity

 

[Patine]

Loser. Someone invented drums to begin with, and you and your goats are just peeing all over their rights. You need to just go beat on things with sticks until you find your own sound.

Considering drums are classified as a "prehistoric innovation developed in parallel, co-terminus, but separate and distinct occurrence across numerous cultures", you should get this credit?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Considering drums are classified as a "prehistoric innovation developed in parallel, co-terminus, but separate and distinct occurrence across numerous cultures", you should get this credit?

Just because we can't identify them we should trample upon their intellectual property rights?

 

[Lexicus]

There is a point where people do bad enough stuff I have trouble enjoying their art, but I don't know what it is. Like I still listen to Tupac, maybe because I don't know whether I believe the allegation(s) against him and he's dead anyway, but I have trouble listening to Nas now ever since I read about how badly he abused Kelis.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Should the creator of the piano get royalties for every song with piano?

Are they still alive?

I guess if the piano was invented today it could possibly be patented and then sold under licence, which would only last 20 years or so. Plus a piano is not a creative work, not a work of art. And if someone built their own piano, no-one should be able to just come and legally take it from them.

That's kind of like peeling an onion and finding an orange inside.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

That's kind of like peeling an onion and finding an orange inside.

Patented GMOs, perhaps?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

@Manfred Belheim

I got someone to find the copypasta for me, I think you'll enjoy this.

View attachment 519220

No that's silly because it's conflating "cheating" with "copyright infringement". Yes you could argue that actually being able to play the drums is "better" than programming a drum loop with samples, but if you want to program a drum loop with samples then you can. It's a personal choice and if you like the result, and others like the result, go for it.

 

[innonimatu]

IP has the P in it for a reason, and whatever rulings are made on it shouldn't be arbitrary.

And the I means imaginary. It was arbitrarily made up bullfeathers that had never existed in the history of humanity until the 20th century. There is no good reason whatsoever for governments to be enforcing monopolies on intangible, non-scarce ideas for the alleged benefit of alleged creators, but in reality for the benefit of the traders and exploiters of monopolies.

 

[Patine]

And the I means imaginary. It was arbitrarily made up bullfeathers that had never existed in the history of humanity until the 20th century. There is no good reason whatsoever for governments to be enforcing monopolies on intangible, non-scarce ideas for the alleged benefit of alleged creators, but in reality for the benefit of the traders and exploiters of monopolies.

It seems to be another Philistine who no creativity or product thereof to defend the integrity of and the benefit of the labours that go into it, but a defender of the "rights" of spineless couch potato to be entertained easily and without effort or need to contribute to, or respect, what's entertaining them. I apologize if I find your point-of-view on this, and @Zelig's, and a few other posters here, to be nothing short of repugnant.

 

[innonimatu]

It seems to be another Philistine who no creativity or product thereof to defend the integrity of and the benefit of the labours that go into it, but a defender of the "rights" of spineless couch potato to be entertained easily and without effort or need to contribute to, or respect, what's entertaining them. I apologize if I find your point-of-view on this, and @Zelig's, and a few other posters here, to be nothing short of repugnant.

Don't worry, it's mutual. I find it repugnant when people feel entitled to state-enforced perpetual rents for their past labours. What labour I do, I collect on at the time, and move on to take more later.

 

[Patine]

Don't worry, it's mutual. I find it repugnant when people feel entitled to state-enforced perpetual rents for their past labours. What labour I do, I collect on at the time, and move on to take more later.

But, basically, the point of view you're espousing is you feel entertainment and intellectual property, is the entitlement of the Philistine masses, with no need to show any respect or deference to the creators, or any need to observe the integrity of the creator's work, or even an inherent need for the creator to be rewarded or have a legal say in how their intellectual property is used. This puts, in a legal sense, authors, musicians, or other artistic people in little better position in regards to making a living and having command of their work than Daedalus, Aesop, or Shaharazade suffered under (and, yes, I know the examples are somewhat hyperbolic, but I'm making a poignant statement here).

 

[Lexicus]

you feel entertainment and intellectual property, is the entitlement of the Philistine masses, with no need to show any respect or deference to the creators,

I mean yes I feel this unironically, darn democrat that I am.

 

[Hygro]

Are they still alive?

I guess if the piano was invented today it could possibly be patented and then sold under licence, which would only last 20 years or so. Plus a piano is not a creative work, not a work of art. And if someone built their own piano, no-one should be able to just come and legally take it from them.

That's kind of like peeling an onion and finding an orange inside.

If using a piano to produce a piano sound isn't conceptually infringing on someone's artistry, how would using someone's snare sound in your record? Because it's a literal recording you are copying rather than copying the exact process to get there? I find this distinction to be arbitrary and driven from a legal critique rather than a creative one.

No that's silly because it's conflating "cheating" with "copyright infringement". Yes you could argue that actually being able to play the drums is "better" than programming a drum loop with samples, but if you want to program a drum loop with samples then you can. It's a personal choice and if you like the result, and others like the result, go for it.

Yeah so then you agree that the take of contrasting sampling with original creations is a false dichotomy as presented here

Maybe try writing and performing music rather than sampling other people then.