Remixing

Also Creative Commons

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

34 Replies - 1572 Views - Last Post: 08 December 2009 - 06:13 PM

#1 ccubed  Icon User is offline

  • It's That Guy
  • member icon

Reputation: 159
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,402
  • Joined: 13-June 08

Remixing

Posted 02 December 2009 - 09:39 PM

So, as a spin off of the Piracy thread, let's talk about something else.

I just recently watched RIP! The remixers manifesto. I'm wondering what people's opinions are on this topic? Is remixing really illegal? Should a remixed pay ~4billion dollars just to play 26 songs and not even in their entirety? Or is it okay for remixers to exist?

Moreover, what do you think of countries that have fully adopted Creative Commons, such as Brazil. And do you think that the US needs to rethink its trade policy in this respect?

My opinion is that remixers change what they use in such a way as to make it new. It has always been the case that people reuse old things. Almost every song, if not all, has been remixed. The Beetles did this, ACDC has done this, The Verve did this and so on down the line. These people didn't break laws, they didn't cause harm to the creator, they created something new. And yet, by copyright standard, it's illegal.

Is This A Good Question/Topic? 0
  • +

Replies To: Remixing

#2 no2pencil  Icon User is offline

  • Dic Head
  • member icon

Reputation: 5163
  • View blog
  • Posts: 26,830
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Re: Remixing

Posted 02 December 2009 - 09:49 PM

Without remixing, where would R&B artists be?

Quote

I just wanna put my perspective on it

Untalented fucks.

It's one thing to remix like the Beastie Boys or Pop Will Eat Itself did in the 80's. But it's ultimately not up to the artist if their material is allowed to be used, it's up to the record company that owns the copy right to the material. & that's just sad.

So, it is what it is. I just sort of turn my head the other way when someone's material is getting raped. There isn't anything I can do except pretend that I didn't see it.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#3 modi123_1  Icon User is offline

  • Suitor #2
  • member icon



Reputation: 8890
  • View blog
  • Posts: 33,338
  • Joined: 12-June 08

Re: Remixing

Posted 03 December 2009 - 08:35 AM

View Postccubed, on 2 Dec, 2009 - 10:39 PM, said:

And do you think that the US needs to rethink its trade policy in this respect?

Copy rights to music is part of the USA's nation-to-nation trade agenda?

View Postccubed, on 2 Dec, 2009 - 10:39 PM, said:

they didn't cause harm to the creator, they created something new. And yet, by copyright standard, it's illegal

They didn't cause harm - that's the new standard of what is legal or not? Additionally they *DIDNT* create anything new... by their own admission they took something that already existed and changed a low beat or cut a few words out.

@ccubed in general.. well what about the Vanilla Ice & David Bowie controversy? Who hasn't seen the clip of V.Ice explaining how his song is different since Bowie's song? "His is dum-dum-da-dum-dum... and mine is dee-dee-da-dee-dee". What?!

What do you mean every song is a remix?

Here's another example of where the argument started completely ignores the rights of the creators and their right to control their distribution of their created arts.

View Postno2pencil, on 2 Dec, 2009 - 10:49 PM, said:

So, it is what it is. I just sort of turn my head the other way when someone's material is getting raped. There isn't anything I can do except pretend that I didn't see it.

What - are you trying to kill me this morning? God I think I almost drowned when I was taking a drink of water then started laughing as I hit this line.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#4 ccubed  Icon User is offline

  • It's That Guy
  • member icon

Reputation: 159
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,402
  • Joined: 13-June 08

Re: Remixing

Posted 03 December 2009 - 10:42 AM

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 07:35 AM, said:

View Postccubed, on 2 Dec, 2009 - 10:39 PM, said:

And do you think that the US needs to rethink its trade policy in this respect?

Copy rights to music is part of the USA's nation-to-nation trade agenda?


Copy rights in general are part of our trade agenda.

As of 12 years ago, They stopped trying to sell physical goods and instead turned to 'intellectual property.' The problem is that we offered all the other nations a contract where if they wanted to sell their cheaper made products they had to agree to the copyright laws of America. Guess what? They didn't play our game. Our trade deficit tripled in the first 2 years. Consequently, this is also why everything you buy is outsourced. It's cheaper go to china than have to pay 10 or so patent holders in the US because you use their idea to build your product.

Random Fact: Did you know SOMEONE owns the patent to this idea: 'Clock with Alarm function.'

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 07:35 AM, said:

View Postccubed, on 2 Dec, 2009 - 10:39 PM, said:

they didn't cause harm to the creator, they created something new. And yet, by copyright standard, it's illegal

They didn't cause harm - that's the new standard of what is legal or not? Additionally they *DIDNT* create anything new... by their own admission they took something that already existed and changed a low beat or cut a few words out.


You've obviously never heard good remixes.

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 07:35 AM, said:

@ccubed in general.. well what about the Vanilla Ice & David Bowie controversy? Who hasn't seen the clip of V.Ice explaining how his song is different since Bowie's song? "His is dum-dum-da-dum-dum... and mine is dee-dee-da-dee-dee". What?!


What about it? So he took Bowie's song and changed the pitch, it's not new. He didn't do anything artists before him haven't.

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 07:35 AM, said:

What do you mean every song is a remix?


Name me a modern song and i'll give you the history of it back to the original creator and the 20 or so artists that have copied it up through today.

Like The Verve's Song, Bittersweet Symphony.


View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 07:35 AM, said:

Here's another example of where the argument started completely ignores the rights of the creators and their right to control their distribution of their created arts.

View Postno2pencil, on 2 Dec, 2009 - 10:49 PM, said:

So, it is what it is. I just sort of turn my head the other way when someone's material is getting raped. There isn't anything I can do except pretend that I didn't see it.

What - are you trying to kill me this morning? God I think I almost drowned when I was taking a drink of water then started laughing as I hit this line.


Did you know that for a mash-up artist to operate they'd have to pay 4.3 billion dollars on average for 26 songs? Did you know only ~1.2% goes to artists? So don't give me that crap. Artists don't get the money and they're not the ones suing people.

But, hey, let's do it your way. I mean, it's working isn't it? Warner Brothers makes over a billion a year just on Happy Birthday alone. Oh yeah, they own that copyright. Next time you sing Happy Birthday, remember, you're stealing!

This post has been edited by ccubed: 03 December 2009 - 10:44 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#5 modi123_1  Icon User is offline

  • Suitor #2
  • member icon



Reputation: 8890
  • View blog
  • Posts: 33,338
  • Joined: 12-June 08

Re: Remixing

Posted 03 December 2009 - 02:49 PM

View Postccubed, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 11:42 AM, said:

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 07:35 AM, said:

View Postccubed, on 2 Dec, 2009 - 10:39 PM, said:

And do you think that the US needs to rethink its trade policy in this respect?

Copy rights to music is part of the USA's nation-to-nation trade agenda?


Copy rights in general are part of our trade agenda.

As of 12 years ago, They stopped trying to sell physical goods and instead turned to 'intellectual property.' The problem is that we offered all the other nations a contract where if they wanted to sell their cheaper made products they had to agree to the copyright laws of America. Guess what? They didn't play our game. Our trade deficit tripled in the first 2 years. Consequently, this is also why everything you buy is outsourced. It's cheaper go to china than have to pay 10 or so patent holders in the US because you use their idea to build your product.

Random Fact: Did you know SOMEONE owns the patent to this idea: 'Clock with Alarm function.'


They? They who? The US? Record companies?

I am certain most countries signed on the Berne Convention... and the TRIPS... and the handful of other silly named treaties enforced by the WTO. Let alone the face you can patent in the US and patent elsewhere. If you want to get paid then you have options.



View Postccubed, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 11:42 AM, said:

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 07:35 AM, said:

View Postccubed, on 2 Dec, 2009 - 10:39 PM, said:

they didn't cause harm to the creator, they created something new. And yet, by copyright standard, it's illegal

They didn't cause harm - that's the new standard of what is legal or not? Additionally they *DIDNT* create anything new... by their own admission they took something that already existed and changed a low beat or cut a few words out.


You've obviously never heard good remixes.

The good or bad scale is irrelevant.



View Postccubed, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 11:42 AM, said:

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 07:35 AM, said:

@ccubed in general.. well what about the Vanilla Ice & David Bowie controversy? Who hasn't seen the clip of V.Ice explaining how his song is different since Bowie's song? "His is dum-dum-da-dum-dum... and mine is dee-dee-da-dee-dee". What?!


What about it? So he took Bowie's song and changed the pitch, it's not new. He didn't do anything artists before him haven't.

That doesn't make it right. It highlights the fact if remix people were to provide a substantial change I could almost get behind the concept... since such a minor change is viewed by folks like you as 'new music' then sorry Charlie.




View Postccubed, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 11:42 AM, said:

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 07:35 AM, said:

What do you mean every song is a remix?


Name me a modern song and i'll give you the history of it back to the original creator and the 20 or so artists that have copied it up through today.

Like The Verve's Song, Bittersweet Symphony.

Nine Inch Nail's Survivalism?



View Postccubed, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 11:42 AM, said:

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 07:35 AM, said:

Here's another example of where the argument started completely ignores the rights of the creators and their right to control their distribution of their created arts.

View Postno2pencil, on 2 Dec, 2009 - 10:49 PM, said:

So, it is what it is. I just sort of turn my head the other way when someone's material is getting raped. There isn't anything I can do except pretend that I didn't see it.

What - are you trying to kill me this morning? God I think I almost drowned when I was taking a drink of water then started laughing as I hit this line.


Did you know that for a mash-up artist to operate they'd have to pay 4.3 billion dollars on average for 26 songs?


Exactly how do you come about this number? You have thrown it out and it makes no sense outside mashup-folk should be slapped in the face with a stinky carp.



View Postccubed, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 11:42 AM, said:

Did you know only ~1.2% goes to artists? So don't give me that crap. Artists don't get the money and they're not the ones suing people.

But, hey, let's do it your way. I mean, it's working isn't it? Warner Brothers makes over a billion a year just on Happy Birthday alone. Oh yeah, they own that copyright. Next time you sing Happy Birthday, remember, you're stealing!


See this is why your arguement is so damn laughable. The percent going to the artist is an irrelevant number. The relevant part is.. and stick with me here... the artists had the choice of who they picked to distribute their music. Their choice. Not yours.. not someone elses.. Theirs. It was *their* music. To sign up for the studio, techs, distribution, touring, promoting, etc that costs money... aka the investment... from the record studio. Could the artist have gone "indie" and distro'd by making the cds themselves, selling the music on the 'net, and so for? Sure.. but they chose to go for the big bucks. They chose to sign away rights to the song for the upfront cost and the connections the record company had. They are the ones who decides how they wanted their creation to be put out. Just because the medium allows for you to hijack their choice doesn't make it right and you should.

re: Happy Birthday..
A billion? Hardly.. I believe the number is more like 2 million.

Additionally royalties for the song are from commerical use... and I vaguely remember some wording about normal circle of family being ok.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#6 ccubed  Icon User is offline

  • It's That Guy
  • member icon

Reputation: 159
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,402
  • Joined: 13-June 08

Re: Remixing

Posted 03 December 2009 - 03:37 PM

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 01:49 PM, said:

View Postccubed, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 11:42 AM, said:

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 07:35 AM, said:

@ccubed in general.. well what about the Vanilla Ice & David Bowie controversy? Who hasn't seen the clip of V.Ice explaining how his song is different since Bowie's song? "His is dum-dum-da-dum-dum... and mine is dee-dee-da-dee-dee". What?!


What about it? So he took Bowie's song and changed the pitch, it's not new. He didn't do anything artists before him haven't.

That doesn't make it right. It highlights the fact if remix people were to provide a substantial change I could almost get behind the concept... since such a minor change is viewed by folks like you as 'new music' then sorry Charlie.


Actually, before TODAY, it was never viewed as wrong.




View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 01:49 PM, said:

View Postccubed, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 11:42 AM, said:

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 07:35 AM, said:

What do you mean every song is a remix?


Name me a modern song and i'll give you the history of it back to the original creator and the 20 or so artists that have copied it up through today.

Like The Verve's Song, Bittersweet Symphony.

Nine Inch Nail's Survivalism?


Ever heard Rob Zombie Dragula?

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 01:49 PM, said:

View Postccubed, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 11:42 AM, said:

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 07:35 AM, said:

Here's another example of where the argument started completely ignores the rights of the creators and their right to control their distribution of their created arts.

View Postno2pencil, on 2 Dec, 2009 - 10:49 PM, said:

So, it is what it is. I just sort of turn my head the other way when someone's material is getting raped. There isn't anything I can do except pretend that I didn't see it.

What - are you trying to kill me this morning? God I think I almost drowned when I was taking a drink of water then started laughing as I hit this line.


Did you know that for a mash-up artist to operate they'd have to pay 4.3 billion dollars on average for 26 songs?


Exactly how do you come about this number? You have thrown it out and it makes no sense outside mashup-folk should be slapped in the face with a stinky carp.


Actually, this particular figure is from a Girl Talk show where they CALLED the companies who owned the music to ask how much it would take to clear the music. Results? 4.3 billion. Once again, very little went to artists.

View Postmodi123_1, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 01:49 PM, said:

View Postccubed, on 3 Dec, 2009 - 11:42 AM, said:

Did you know only ~1.2% goes to artists? So don't give me that crap. Artists don't get the money and they're not the ones suing people.

But, hey, let's do it your way. I mean, it's working isn't it? Warner Brothers makes over a billion a year just on Happy Birthday alone. Oh yeah, they own that copyright. Next time you sing Happy Birthday, remember, you're stealing!


See this is why your arguement is so damn laughable. The percent going to the artist is an irrelevant number. The relevant part is.. and stick with me here... the artists had the choice of who they picked to distribute their music. Their choice. Not yours.. not someone elses.. Theirs. It was *their* music. To sign up for the studio, techs, distribution, touring, promoting, etc that costs money... aka the investment... from the record studio. Could the artist have gone "indie" and distro'd by making the cds themselves, selling the music on the 'net, and so for? Sure.. but they chose to go for the big bucks. They chose to sign away rights to the song for the upfront cost and the connections the record company had. They are the ones who decides how they wanted their creation to be put out. Just because the medium allows for you to hijack their choice doesn't make it right and you should.

re: Happy Birthday..
A billion? Hardly.. I believe the number is more like 2 million.

Additionally royalties for the song are from commerical use... and I vaguely remember some wording about normal circle of family being ok.


You should go look at Trent Resnor and Radiohead. The record company in Radiohead's case starting suing everyone who remixed it. What did Radiohead do? Released the RAWS of their work. Heh. So much for the record company getting paid.

Trent Resnor and NIN actually released their album the slip online for free too in retaliation.

Still, there's a bigger issue here don't you think? ALL music has been inherently brought on by earlier music. If the music companies top earlier music from being used, what happens to newer music?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#7 ForcedSterilizationsForAll  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Addict

Reputation: 33
  • View blog
  • Posts: 506
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Re: Remixing

Posted 04 December 2009 - 11:44 AM

So because a couple of bands decided to release their music for free, you should be entitled to "remix" whatever you want without paying them for it?

Are you really saying that Survivalism is a remix of Dragula? You'll have to do better than that. Then you go on to say NiN put their music out for free... well if Survivalism is a remix of Dragula did Rob Zombie grant his permission to Trent to distribute it? Does Rob just get fucked in this deal?

Are you saying it's perfectly fine and should be legal for a band to take all the songs written by others, change the key and not have to pay anything for it?

I'd love to see the calculation for how they figured it'd be 4.3 BILLION dollars to do 26 songs. How much are they paying for each song, and how many are they using? Are they having to pay $250,000 for 5 or 6 bars?

All music has been INFLUENCED by earlier music, not directly taken and used without paying for the right to use it.

As for your question of what happens to the newer music if the music companies stop earlier music from being used, it ceases to be formulatic and crappy. It forces out the hacks with no talent. You can say goodbye to Nickelback, and really is that a bad thing?

This post has been edited by ForcedSterilizationsForAll: 04 December 2009 - 11:46 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#8 WolfCoder  Icon User is offline

  • Isn't a volcano just an angry hill?
  • member icon


Reputation: 782
  • View blog
  • Posts: 7,610
  • Joined: 05-May 05

Re: Remixing

Posted 04 December 2009 - 02:49 PM

OK, I've heard way too many good covers and remixes to be able to say quite bluntly that you're full of bullshit and we're going to get into a band flame warz like between Sloth and Neo if you start arguing about what is talent and what isn't.

Even some TouHou remixes are completely awesome songs even though they've been remixed more than I think any artist's song has. And think about it this way, some remixes are way better than the original too. It is a very safe bet that I can find some song that you really love, and then reveal to you that it was a remix/cover of another song. I might even go further to say that despite your stubbornness against remixes, you would even find a few better than the original (of course, having said this, I couldn't actually do it because you would then be able to anticipate that any song I provide is a remix and I wouldn't have the blindness for a reliable trial).

This post has been edited by WolfCoder: 04 December 2009 - 02:54 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#9 no2pencil  Icon User is offline

  • Dic Head
  • member icon

Reputation: 5163
  • View blog
  • Posts: 26,830
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Re: Remixing

Posted 04 December 2009 - 03:00 PM

Quote

Trent Resnor and NIN actually released their album the slip online for free too in retaliation.

That's because Trent Reznor has not released an album worth a shit since the downward spiral. Once he himself heard the new album, he knew he was going to have to give it away for free.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#10 WolfCoder  Icon User is offline

  • Isn't a volcano just an angry hill?
  • member icon


Reputation: 782
  • View blog
  • Posts: 7,610
  • Joined: 05-May 05

Re: Remixing

Posted 04 December 2009 - 03:05 PM

See what I mean?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#11 no2pencil  Icon User is offline

  • Dic Head
  • member icon

Reputation: 5163
  • View blog
  • Posts: 26,830
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Re: Remixing

Posted 04 December 2009 - 03:06 PM

Come on... that album was garbage & you know it. Everyone knows that when an artist "cleans up" they can't write decent material.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#12 WolfCoder  Icon User is offline

  • Isn't a volcano just an angry hill?
  • member icon


Reputation: 782
  • View blog
  • Posts: 7,610
  • Joined: 05-May 05

Re: Remixing

Posted 04 December 2009 - 03:09 PM

It doesn't matter if I agree with you or not (I haven't heard that album), I would probably take your word for it. However, it's still going to be a flamethrower fight with music, talent, and all that stuff. I'm surprised Neo hasn't said something about artists and talent in here yet, now that I'm mentioning it.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#13 no2pencil  Icon User is offline

  • Dic Head
  • member icon

Reputation: 5163
  • View blog
  • Posts: 26,830
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Re: Remixing

Posted 04 December 2009 - 03:14 PM

A friend of mine loves the band God Head. Gag me with a spoon, I know. But it's funny because he hates the beatles, & refuses to listen to anything by them. So on one of their album,s God Head does a cover of Eleanor Rigby, & it's a shitty cover to, because it's EXACTLY the same, they don't even play it at all like their crappy style. & he LOVED it. I laughed & laughed & laughed.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#14 ForcedSterilizationsForAll  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Addict

Reputation: 33
  • View blog
  • Posts: 506
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Re: Remixing

Posted 04 December 2009 - 03:32 PM

This isn't about covers and what is good and what isn't. It's about ccubed thinking people should be able to take music from others without permission or compensation and calling it their own.

If someone wants to remix music from someone else, they need to get permission to do it. If the owner wants compensation for it then they should be paid. It doesn't matter if they want 19 trillion dollars for it, just because someone doesn't want to pay doesn't mean they should be entitled to it.

And yes, some songs have been done better as covers but I'm guessing the artist got permission to do the cover as opposed to just doing it and expecting compensation for it.

If you want remixes and covers to be free, fine I say then I won't pay for your music when I download it.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#15 ccubed  Icon User is offline

  • It's That Guy
  • member icon

Reputation: 159
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,402
  • Joined: 13-June 08

Re: Remixing

Posted 04 December 2009 - 07:25 PM

View PostForcedSterilizationsForAll, on 4 Dec, 2009 - 02:32 PM, said:

This isn't about covers and what is good and what isn't. It's about ccubed thinking people should be able to take music from others without permission or compensation and calling it their own.

If someone wants to remix music from someone else, they need to get permission to do it. If the owner wants compensation for it then they should be paid. It doesn't matter if they want 19 trillion dollars for it, just because someone doesn't want to pay doesn't mean they should be entitled to it.


My point with numbers was the outrageousness. Do you really believe the right to remix a song that costs .99 cents online is worth 19 TRILLION dollars? I would even consider paying the owners up to 1,000 and some percentage of sales, but they don't want that. For 19 TRILLION dollars I better get the rights to the damn song.

However, more realistically, even at 250,000 dollars a song, that's still overpriced just for the right to include maybe a minute worth of a .99 cent song.

But you see, they don't WANT to make profits off these people. What reason could a company have to NOT let someone remix a song when they offer something like 1k PLUS 20% of profits. It's a no lose situation.

View PostForcedSterilizationsForAll, on 4 Dec, 2009 - 02:32 PM, said:

And yes, some songs have been done better as covers but I'm guessing the artist got permission to do the cover as opposed to just doing it and expecting compensation for it.

If you want remixes and covers to be free, fine I say then I won't pay for your music when I download it.


You've been paying for covers a long time. The beatles? They have about 12 remakes of older songs. In fact, the verve's bitter sweet symphony is based off a song based off a beatles song based off someone elses song, etc. Do you think the beatles paid rights?

More importantly, music companies are getting rights to songs they don't own. WB has the rights to happy birthday, as I said before and yet they didn't buy those rights from the original authors.

Also, no one is asking you to pay for remixes. I can get remixes on youtube right now for free.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3