Good Copy Bad Copy - What Constitutes Fair Use?

I'll first say, that if you are correct in saying the public performance of a song is copyright infringement, then I think something has gone wrong somewhere.

I guess then, since parody is covered and protected under copyright law, I fail to see why remixing wouldn't also be allowed. If anything, remixing a song is an advanced parody. Just an example

Originally Posted by http://www.dictionary.com

parody - 3. A burlesque imitation of a musical composition.

Couldn't you then loosely say that chopping up a song to your own tune is a grotesque rendition of the original art, or perhaps say that the mix mocks the dignity of the original source, thus loosely associating it as a parody?

Not that it matters, I can't see why the law would permit parody but not remixing a song. Both fall under the same principles, that is taking an original work and morphing it into something else. Perhaps there should be a modification to fair use to allow for remixing?

Teamed up with Brady, 'sup.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

The industry, if it adapted, would make more money than they now.

They bitch that piracy is ruining their income (which is untrue). To help stop piracy, they could make other options available to the consumers.

But why do you care? I mean, do you go into 4 page diatribes about every company that you feel doesn't do business well?

Anger against the labels has nothing to do with suppressing art because, as we already established, the musicians themselves have as much or more to blame for signing the contract.

You aren't being forced to buy music from the major labels, so that can't be it. You already established you have alternatives, that the labels have competitors.

Who cares why they are bitching about crimes being committed? If someone steals $300 from my checking account, I shouldn't have to explain why I'm taking the guy to court. And no one should be able to tell me that $300 isn't a big deal and that I shouldn't care about it, that it doesn't really hurt me.

I mean, I really don't get at all where you are coming from on this.

Originally Posted by KrazyTaco

Perhaps there should be a modification to fair use to allow for remixing?

Well, OK. But no one can get mad at the RIAA and the labels for that. That's something people should take up with their Congresspeople, not the businesses.

Quote:

Teamed up with Brady, 'sup.

ONLY ON PAY-PER-VIEW

Quote:

I fail to see why remixing wouldn't also be allowed. If anything, remixing a song is an advanced parody. Just an example.

Not really. Re-mixing takes somebody else's property (or your own), re-arranges it, throw in some additional compositions or phat beets, and claiming the end result as your own.

If the re-mix was made with the consent of the artist and/or the label, then proper credit is given. When permission and credit have not been acquired or given, it's plagiarism.

The reason a re-mix is different from parody, is because parody will use practically the same song, so that the listener intrinsically knows what property is being parodied. While it's still possible to recognize the source material in a re-mix, it's not being used for the purposes of parody.

Quote:

Couldn't you then loosely say that chopping up a song to your own tune is a grotesque rendition of the original art, or perhaps say that the mix mocks the dignity of the original source, thus loosely associating it as a parody?

Well, no. Your definition states burlesque, not grotesque.

Quote:

burlesque -
–noun
1. an artistic composition, esp. literary or dramatic, that, for the sake of laughter, vulgarizes lofty material or treats ordinary material with mock dignity.
2. any ludicrous parody or grotesque caricature.
3. Also, bur·lesk. a humorous and provocative stage show featuring slapstick humor, comic skits, bawdy songs, striptease acts, and a scantily clad female chorus.
–adjective
4. involving ludicrous or mocking treatment of a solemn subject.
5. of, pertaining to, or like stage-show burlesque.
–verb (used with object)
6. to make ridiculous by mocking representation.
–verb (used without object)
7. to use caricature.

A re-mix does not factor in to the definition of burlesque.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

But why do you care? I mean, do you go into 4 page diatribes about every company that you feel doesn't do business well?

The diatribe is more about the companies and their misplaced accusations. Pirates aren't ruining their businesses - they are.

Quote:

Anger against the labels has nothing to do with suppressing art because, as we already established, the musicians themselves have as much or more to blame for signing the contract.

It says a lot about a band when they sign a major contract. At least in my view. I don't know about yours.

I am not angry with the labels so much as I am frustrated with the idea that they're accusing pirates of running them in the red when it's just not so. Maybe if they could evolve with a changing market, they could cash in on the internet instead of whining about it and suing people.

Quote:

You aren't being forced to buy music from the major labels, so that can't be it. You already established you have alternatives, that the labels have competitors.

Absolutely right. I pirate. Just like you do. But that's apparently "wrong" with no gray area (which I still find lol, Brady).

I'm just saying man; if they opened their eyes and stopped beating a dead horse, they could make a hell of a lot more money. Focus elsewhere. The money isn't in suing the people like you or I who share music on the internet. (Because that is, afterall, what we're doing. We share music on the internet. As far as I know, no one around really charges for pirated CDs, right? Just as an aside.

Quote:

Who cares why they are bitching about crimes being committed? If someone steals $300 from my checking account, I shouldn't have to explain why I'm taking the guy to court. And no one should be able to tell me that $300 isn't a big deal and that I shouldn't care about it, that it doesn't really hurt me.

Well, I am pretty sure a lot of people care. Especially those who get threats and/or sued or raided by these guys. I mean, fuck. That Danger Mouse guy? He does some good remixes. And so does this Girl Talk person! I kind of care if I never hear original, recycled music again. =/

I don't know about you, but I like the idea of taking something awesome and altering it a little bit, or maybe chopping it up to fit a certain culture. (WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY). Taking little BLIPS (seriously, little blips) from a song or whatever hurts NO ONE.

Quote:

It says a lot about a band when they sign a major contract. At least in my view. I don't know about yours.

Maybe if they burned their bras, would that placate you?

Or perhaps if they Kurt Kobain'd?

Quote:

Absolutely right. I pirate. Just like you do. But that's apparently "wrong" with no gray area (which I still find lol, Brady).

So wait. Because you do it, that makes it ok? That's your gray area?

Hell I've done it, but I'm not going to lie myself and try to justify it by claiming I'm not really hurting anybody. Regardless of whether or not I would have ever bought the music (I wouldn't) that doesn't change the fact that I'm stealing.

Quote:

I don't know about you, but I like the idea of taking something awesome and altering it a little bit, or maybe chopping it up to fit a certain culture. (WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY). Taking little BLIPS (seriously, little blips) from a song or whatever hurts NO ONE.

Nobody takes issue with the awesome nature of the re-mix. They take issue with the plagiarism.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Maybe if they burned their bras, would that placate you?

Or perhaps if they Kurt Kobain'd?

I loathe Cobain. He deserved death. Whiny bitch.

Quote:

So wait. Because you do it, that makes it ok? That's your gray area?

Hardly. I am just saying it's a reality. People will do it - they'll continue to do it. There's really no stopping it. The MPAA has admitted it.

Quote:

Hell I've done it, but I'm not going to lie myself and try to justify it by claiming I'm not really hurting anybody. Regardless of whether or not I would have ever bought the music (I wouldn't) that doesn't change the fact that I'm stealing.

You do it too, then. So you're also a huge hypocrite?

We're stealing - you and I are stealing - about as much as a person steals when they give someone a book to read.

Speaking of books, is it wrong to sell old books you have collecting dust at a yard sale, Brady?

Quote:

Nobody takes issue with the awesome nature of the re-mix. They take issue with the plagiarism.

Do you know what plagiarism means?

Let me quote the dictionary for you:

Quote:

Plagiarism is the practice of "dishonestly" claiming or implying original authorship of material which one has not actually created, such as when a person incorporates material from someone else's work into their own work without attributing it.

These artists give credit, in MOST cases. Now, if you don't give fucking credit, you're a hack. I don't LIKE it when people don't give due credit to an original author or artist.

But I don't think "credit" is monetary reimbursement, necessarily.

I think Cobain was murdered but OK.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

I think Cobain was murdered but OK.

You THINK. Conspiracy theorist. Angsty little baby killed himself. And with Courtney Love as his wife, who wouldn't commit suicide.

With a crazy coke whore like Courtney Love as his wife, who wouldn't be surprised if she killed him for money.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

With a crazy coke whore like Courtney Love as his wife, who wouldn't be surprised if she killed him for money.

You forget Cobain was also a drug fiend. Just as bad as Courtney.

But enough of this crap - more about copyright infringement and defense of evil corporations!

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Speaking of books, is it wrong to sell old books you have collecting dust at a yard sale, Brady?

I think that falls under the same category of selling anything that's intellectual property. You're transferring your right of possession of the material to somebody else and charging them for the service.

Much the same reason I imagine stores don't need the express written consent of the commissioner of major league MPAA in order to sell records.

Of course, you should probably also remember that those e-books you download off of the internet are just as illegal as the movie or album you torrented yesterday.

Quote:

Hardly. I am just saying it's a reality. People will do it - they'll continue to do it. There's really no stopping it. The MPAA has admitted it.

There must've been a point here. I'm not seeing it.

Quote:

You do it too, then. So you're also a huge hypocrite?

It's hypocritical to say that what I'm doing is wrong?

Quote:

We're stealing - you and I are stealing - about as much as a person steals when they give someone a book to read.

Speaking of books, is it wrong to sell old books you have collecting dust at a yard sale, Brady?

Sharing the copy you own does not violate distribution because you own one copy, which you shared. The book you own is a copy of an intellectual property, over which you own discretion of use.

You can't copy the book and sell it, you can't copy the book and share it, because that would violate terms of use, and/or copyright. You can sell the copy that you own, but you cannot make more copies and sell or give them away.

Quote:

These artists give credit, in MOST cases. Now, if you don't give fucking credit, you're a hack. I don't LIKE it when people don't give due credit to an original author or artist.

But I don't think "credit" is monetary reimbursement, necessarily.

But that's not what people take issue with. People take issue with the plagiarism, but they don't take issue with the copyright infringement. That's the problem.

Edit:
I wonder, now, what you think of Iggy Pop, Sass?
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/articl...rview-iggy-pop

Quote:

...that's what always annoyed me most about the American alternative/do-it yourself scene when I came up. It was simple. If you were the artist you were supposed to be cool, and the agent was supposed to be a crook, and the manager was supposed to be a creep, and everyone administrating was un-cool and the publicist was cheesy. You know, we all have our roles. But then the DIY guy says I am the guitar player, I'm the publicist, I'm the agent, and I'm the lawyer, too. So I look at the guy, and I'm like, okay, you've convinced me. You're a greedy, cheesy crooked creep with a guitar. Fuck you. I want nothing to do with you.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

They get money sold on each blank CD sold in Canada, not in the US.

Sorry, I don't know if it is true or not, but I have read otherwise online, IIRC. Will look into it some more...

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

"Over-priced media"?? I still see people buying CDs every time I walk into Best Buy, so, obviously, the price is set correctly for the market. I have a feeling the economists who work for these ginormous companies have an idea of what they are doing.

Just because some people are dumb enough to pay $20 a CD doesn't mean it's not over-priced. People are also dumb when it comes to gasoline too, doesn't make them equally "not all there" IMO though.

Either way, Best Buy isn't that over-priced, so, what's your point? Go to a local music store like Sam Goody to see over-priced CDs, or anywhere that is selling the albums at, near or over the MSRP. BB sells at about $10-15 each, the last time I was there, a reasonable price. Selling at $17-20+ is not. Hell, most of the CDs I have seen at $16-20 recently should have been closer to $7-10...

Overall, I remember reading an article on this issue, and yes, they are charging more than they should, even more than they said such media would cost when it first came out years ago. Sheesh, it's the reason why piracy is taking over and their so-called profits keep going down, even though the actual numbers show otherwise. Well, the industry likes to cook the books so to speak.

I will see if I can find some more links, but still, they are screwing over their customers way more than any one downloading online is. Hell, most of the people I know only download because the actions taking place against both legitimate and illegitimate users of their content.

Originally Posted by KrazyTaco

Basically sums up what I'm saying as far as the legality of obtaining the source in the first place. Even if the CD were "Over-priced" though, it's not an excuse to steal the copy.

Well, there is such a thing as price-gouging. If it was okay to go after the gougers during the Katrina hurricane aftermath for over-charging on Gas, it sure as well better be okay to do the same for gougers of CDs and anything else for that matter...

I know the market will determine the price, but at a certain point it's just greed, pure in simple. In the case of CDs, they lied, since the discs were supposed to come down in price, not up. It just goes to show how greedy they are and all the extra costs they put on to the CD to justify their price. It's BS, though I for one do pay it, I'll just screw them over by going to where it's the cheapest for the official CD and will occasionally buy used, if needed. Though, if it gets any worse I'll stop buying music altogether and just enjoy what I already own.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

An artist wants to sell it for $10 and people are willing to buy it for $10. But instead, people make their own copies and sell it for $8. People buy the pirated copies because they are cheaper, the artist makes nothing, despite having a viable market product.

Well, there's a problem with your logic here though. See, that's an actual "reasonable" price, and the people willing to pay $8 would most likely not mind paying the extra $2 to get the real deal. Now, there's some that might, but it's not nearly the amount you insinuate would do so. That, and most pirates seem to use CD-Rs to pirate the music these days, so I'd think that would be a factor for some as well. I don't buy CD-Rs for one! There's no point in doing so since they are less quality than a real CD and many people give out CD-R copies for free anyway...

The only way it might work is if the pirate gave away the music for free, and we know that true "evil" pirates would never do that. Regardless, I don't know many that wouldn't buy the official CD if it was worth buying. Really, if it isn't worth buying, they wouldn't bother with it to begin with. Maybe I just don't hang around pirates too much, since for everyone I know that does steal the music, I know more that don't. Maybe it's just me!

Quote:

If it was okay to go after the gougers during the Katrina hurricane aftermath for over-charging on Gas, it sure as well better be okay to do the same for gougers of CDs and anything else for that matter...

Even though I think by and large price-gouging laws are bullshit....

There is a fundamental difference between gasoline (which people need in order to travel) and CDs, which are a total discretionary product.

I am just saying there's some industries that can get away with fucking people over while many other less powerful people, or businesses would get in trouble, if not getting sent straight to jail over the same type of shit. Basically, I am saying there needs to be some consistency. If it's wrong for the small guy to screw over people, so as well it should be for the cock suckers like the music and oil industry...

Hell, I recall a local contractor doing what the big guys do in their gouging on their prices, yet, who do you think was the one that got fucked over it. BS on all parts, but that is still wrong IMO!