Hartmut Noack wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Shirkey schrieb:
Hartmut Noack wrote:
Why else would I want to protect my IP other than making as much money
as possible from it?
Because i want to keep my personal expressions linked to my name.
That shouldn't be a reason to stop people from using your work and
incorporating it into their own art.
It is not, i licence my stuff CC attribution, sharealike,
non-commercial. So, if you want to use my stuff, go ahead but dont
forget to mention me ;-)
And if you see a chance to make money with it (and i certainly do not
speak about a free beer and a 20 buckaroos or so for a gig, or even
selling a hundred selfmade CDs a year }:-] )
Art transforms over time through the application of skills and knowledge
learnt. If we get precious about other artists incorporating our work
then we are just trying to stop a natural process of evolution. From my
POV that is absolutely 100% pointless.
Well now, this is like some stupid popstar, that does not mention the
musicians, that played his recording on the CD-cover.
That's a big leap to make. I compare it to graphic art like a collage
made up of newspaper clippings or a video of Doublwa or his poodle with
TV speeches edited and juxtaposed to say what they really mean they
start dribbling on TV. In those cases do you really care where the
original media came from? If you have any brains you can work it out anyway.
However, if you want to make money from your art and you want make sure
that others who make money from using your art are forced to share
their profit with you it makes sense to license your work with very
strict conditions.
So if Trent Reznor would take your tracks to illustrate the next Oliver
Stone Movie and would not trow you a single cent (from the some
10thousends he gets for it) and would not even mention your name but
claim to be the sole creator of the soundtrack that would be OK then...
If I had a license that allowed him to do it then that's my problem if
not then I would certainly follow it up and be excited about the
opportunity of getting:
a. associated with Trent Reznor
b. A big studio payout
c. Publicity for my original work
d. The chance to talk about it when I'm in the company of people I need
to impress...
That way you can sue if the money is worth it and keep another industry
ticking over too. Plus you get all the other benefits like being able to
say your suing "XXX" for theft of your art work while your rubbing
shoulders with lesser mortals at the next society event. And if you are
really lucky the person you are suing will be there too and you can get
really artistic and have a drunken fight or break something... I mean if
you are going to have the airs of being and important artist you might
as well revel in it... Right?
Not right, for i would not use the corrupt and stupid "copyright" law to
get my claims in the first place but ask the user of my stuff for some
respect personally without a lawyer involved.
That's a good start but in most cases unlikely to get you any money.
There really is something between the established industry-slavery and
total unawareness of authorship.
True, but how many listeners know the difference between a song crafted
100% without any other artists work and a song that had a couple of
samples incorporated?
For example. How many people would know the name of the Artists Moby
sampled for his signature track? He is very open about it and has full
permission to use it, he even lists the original artist on his CD.
By far the vast majority of people dancing and listening to music have
absolutely no idea of the history of music apart from a couple of
Beatles tracks and a few of their favorite songs.
Getting upset about someone making a remix and not mentioning the
original author is pissing in the wind. It happens constantly in the
music industry and is never going to stop. Most people don't even care
who made the song or where it came from if they can dance, drink or get
laid when it's playing.
On top of that telling other people on this list who have got the balls
to share their work with the community to *effectively* fcuk off until
they make something "Original" is an outright insult.
Anyone who backs up Ron on that one had better get ready to have a
fight, and I use knives so you better be packing!! ;-]
BTW I respect Ron and his work but I am not prepared to let that little
slight go by. tX is a highly undervalued piece of software and anyone
who uses it deserves more encouragement to do whatever the hell they
feel like with it. If a member of this list personally doesn't like
artwork that is made public here then they are free to criticize it but
telling someone to stop doing what they are doing because they are not
original is BS.
I have yet to meet a DJ who has not got a sample in their collection or
has not been heavily influenced by someone else's music to the point of
having a couple of tracks that emulate or borrow heavily from the
"originator". In fact you can't really call yourself a DJ if you don't
have other peoples work in your collection.
In fact I have yet to hear any truly original music being released by
anyone in this community. Should we all just give up now?
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://lau.linuxaudio.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
"Anything your mind can see you can manifest physically, then it will
become reality" - Macka B
