Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Fabrizio Nahum]

The Robert Taylor possessions aren't in the public domain.
They are his possessions and are considered private property.
Whereas music or literature etc are published and become part of the "public
domain" and are open to the public.

Who is Robert Taylor anyway? Does he have a fit bird??

fab.


- Original Message -
From: "Ian Cheshire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Robert Taylor'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'jurren baars'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <313@hyperreal.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 5:12 PM
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


> ok can I steal your unique personal pocessions in your house then? can I
> steal you partner? would that please you and you'd be happy about
that..ahhh
> how sweet of you. thnaks
>
> everyone, go round to Channel four and ask for Robert Taylor and then
follow
> him home and take what is his and make it yours cos after all There is a
> school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
> domain it belongs to everyone.
>
> yipee!
>
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 August 2002 17:05
> To: 'jurren baars'; 313@hyperreal.org
> Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > the point is that james newton created
> the original piece; it's his work, so he has the right to do with it what
HE
>
> wants.
> Does he really have that right?
> There is a school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
> domain it belongs to everyone.
>
> _
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily
> represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
> stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and
intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Michael Lees]

Again I'll emphasise the point. Numan didn't mind them reusing his work 
because he was given credit and more than likely it'd increase his 
sales. I've lost count of the number of posts on here where people will 
ask about where a certain sample came from and then go and buy the 
original? I know I've done that before. It's not just about getting 
money for the actual use of the sample but having your name printed on 
the record/CD. Publicity if you like.


That's the issue here I think, not whether you should be allowed to 
sample or not.


--
Mike

Ian Cheshire wrote:

well basically like Robert says everything can be sampled, so nothing is
safe, whether they have to pay or not.. I also agree with some pionts that
the Webmaster from Submerge raised. if my old work was down and out then
yeah re-work it man and see how it sounds now.. like Gary Numan did with
Cars ,he loved it and really did not mind that Armin and Sugar babes nicked
it, maybe sometimes we all need to be that free and easy with our music.I
mean lets not forget music is like history it just keep on repeating itself.

Maybe father hood is making me clam down more,  lets all be free and loving
people , sharing the wonders of life :)
-Original Message-
From: Jongsma, K.J. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 August 2002 09:50
To: 'Ian Cheshire'; 'Williams, Howard'; 313 (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


Oh please the Jaguar case was completely different!

Sonny wanted to license Th Jaguar from UR, send multiple faxes to UR and UR
told Sonny that they where not interested in a deal with Sonny. So Sonny
just coppied the whole track and released it with a lot of references to
Jaguar, they stole the complete track after they could not get the original
track, Beasty Boys just sampled 6 seconds from a track, how many House and
Techno artist don't sample 6 seconds and loop them i think the list is about
endless

[EMAIL PROTECTED]




this is true.. The Jaguar sample was not asked for by Sony, so
would this be classed also as a free piece of music to have?

Robert your comments please..

-Original Message-
From: Williams, Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 August 2002 09:32
To: 313 (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


313,

bit late on this one - how do you guys n gals see this in 
relation to the
oft maligned Jaguar rip off scenario? i've not heard the 
beasties lift of
this six second sample so i can't comment on that 


do the two scenarios even begin to compare?

in the case of Jaguar, any right minded folk should obviously 
side with UR


it appears not so clear cut with the beasties, i'm just 
curious where the

line is being drawn,

H

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:06:36 -0400
To: "Brian 'balistic' Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: David Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: "Thomas D. Cox, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should 
not be copied,

disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an
intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any
attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
DISCLAIMER

De gemeente Almelo aanvaardt voor haar medewerkers geen enkele
aansprakelijkheid voor eventueel onjuist, onrechtmatig of 
ontoelaatbaar geacht gebruik van e-mail (inclusief bijlagen).


Dit e-mail bericht is door de gemeente Almelo gecontroleerd op
de aanwezigheid van eventuele virussen. Wij kunnen echter geen
garantie afgeven dat al onze e-mail berichten volledig virus
vrij zijn. Het is daarom verstandig uw binnenkomende e-mail 
berichten zelf op de mogelijke aanwezigheid van virussen 
te controleren.

--

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
Mike

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~mhl/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Ian Cheshire]

well basically like Robert says everything can be sampled, so nothing is
safe, whether they have to pay or not.. I also agree with some pionts that
the Webmaster from Submerge raised. if my old work was down and out then
yeah re-work it man and see how it sounds now.. like Gary Numan did with
Cars ,he loved it and really did not mind that Armin and Sugar babes nicked
it, maybe sometimes we all need to be that free and easy with our music.I
mean lets not forget music is like history it just keep on repeating itself.

Maybe father hood is making me clam down more,  lets all be free and loving
people , sharing the wonders of life :)
-Original Message-
From: Jongsma, K.J. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 August 2002 09:50
To: 'Ian Cheshire'; 'Williams, Howard'; 313 (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


Oh please the Jaguar case was completely different!

Sonny wanted to license Th Jaguar from UR, send multiple faxes to UR and UR
told Sonny that they where not interested in a deal with Sonny. So Sonny
just coppied the whole track and released it with a lot of references to
Jaguar, they stole the complete track after they could not get the original
track, Beasty Boys just sampled 6 seconds from a track, how many House and
Techno artist don't sample 6 seconds and loop them i think the list is about
endless

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


> this is true.. The Jaguar sample was not asked for by Sony, so
> would this be classed also as a free piece of music to have?
> 
> Robert your comments please..
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Williams, Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 August 2002 09:32
> To: 313 (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> 
> 
> 313,
> 
> bit late on this one - how do you guys n gals see this in 
> relation to the
> oft maligned Jaguar rip off scenario? i've not heard the 
> beasties lift of
> this six second sample so i can't comment on that 
> 
> do the two scenarios even begin to compare?
> 
> in the case of Jaguar, any right minded folk should obviously 
> side with UR
> 
> it appears not so clear cut with the beasties, i'm just 
> curious where the
> line is being drawn,
> 
> H
> 
> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:06:36 -0400
> To: "Brian 'balistic' Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: David Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "Thomas D. Cox, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 313@hyperreal.org
> Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
> recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential
> information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should 
> not be copied,
> disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an
> intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any
> attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

--
DISCLAIMER

De gemeente Almelo aanvaardt voor haar medewerkers geen enkele
aansprakelijkheid voor eventueel onjuist, onrechtmatig of 
ontoelaatbaar geacht gebruik van e-mail (inclusief bijlagen).

Dit e-mail bericht is door de gemeente Almelo gecontroleerd op
de aanwezigheid van eventuele virussen. Wij kunnen echter geen
garantie afgeven dat al onze e-mail berichten volledig virus
vrij zijn. Het is daarom verstandig uw binnenkomende e-mail 
berichten zelf op de mogelijke aanwezigheid van virussen 
te controleren.
--

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Williams, Howard]

i'm just just playing Devil's Avocado in this next question : so it would be
fine to lift six seconds of Jaguar and loop in a tune?

H



-Original Message-
From: Jongsma, K.J. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 August 2002 09:50
To: 'Ian Cheshire'; 'Williams, Howard'; 313 (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


Oh please the Jaguar case was completely different!

Sonny wanted to license Th Jaguar from UR, send multiple faxes to UR and UR
told Sonny that they where not interested in a deal with Sonny. So Sonny
just coppied the whole track and released it with a lot of references to
Jaguar, they stole the complete track after they could not get the original
track, Beasty Boys just sampled 6 seconds from a track, how many House and
Techno artist don't sample 6 seconds and loop them i think the list is about
endless

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


> this is true.. The Jaguar sample was not asked for by Sony, so
> would this be classed also as a free piece of music to have?
> 
> Robert your comments please..
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Williams, Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 August 2002 09:32
> To: 313 (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> 
> 
> 313,
> 
> bit late on this one - how do you guys n gals see this in 
> relation to the
> oft maligned Jaguar rip off scenario? i've not heard the 
> beasties lift of
> this six second sample so i can't comment on that 
> 
> do the two scenarios even begin to compare?
> 
> in the case of Jaguar, any right minded folk should obviously 
> side with UR
> 
> it appears not so clear cut with the beasties, i'm just 
> curious where the
> line is being drawn,
> 
> H
> 
> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:06:36 -0400
> To: "Brian 'balistic' Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: David Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "Thomas D. Cox, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 313@hyperreal.org
> Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
> recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential
> information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should 
> not be copied,
> disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an
> intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any
> attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

--
DISCLAIMER

De gemeente Almelo aanvaardt voor haar medewerkers geen enkele
aansprakelijkheid voor eventueel onjuist, onrechtmatig of 
ontoelaatbaar geacht gebruik van e-mail (inclusief bijlagen).

Dit e-mail bericht is door de gemeente Almelo gecontroleerd op
de aanwezigheid van eventuele virussen. Wij kunnen echter geen
garantie afgeven dat al onze e-mail berichten volledig virus
vrij zijn. Het is daarom verstandig uw binnenkomende e-mail 
berichten zelf op de mogelijke aanwezigheid van virussen 
te controleren.
--

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended 
recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential 
information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should not be copied, 
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an intended 
recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all 
copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Jongsma, K.J.]

Oh please the Jaguar case was completely different!

Sonny wanted to license Th Jaguar from UR, send multiple faxes to UR and UR
told Sonny that they where not interested in a deal with Sonny. So Sonny
just coppied the whole track and released it with a lot of references to
Jaguar, they stole the complete track after they could not get the original
track, Beasty Boys just sampled 6 seconds from a track, how many House and
Techno artist don't sample 6 seconds and loop them i think the list is about
endless

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


> this is true.. The Jaguar sample was not asked for by Sony, so
> would this be classed also as a free piece of music to have?
> 
> Robert your comments please..
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Williams, Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 August 2002 09:32
> To: 313 (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> 
> 
> 313,
> 
> bit late on this one - how do you guys n gals see this in 
> relation to the
> oft maligned Jaguar rip off scenario? i've not heard the 
> beasties lift of
> this six second sample so i can't comment on that 
> 
> do the two scenarios even begin to compare?
> 
> in the case of Jaguar, any right minded folk should obviously 
> side with UR
> 
> it appears not so clear cut with the beasties, i'm just 
> curious where the
> line is being drawn,
> 
> H
> 
> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:06:36 -0400
> To: "Brian 'balistic' Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: David Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "Thomas D. Cox, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 313@hyperreal.org
> Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
> recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential
> information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should 
> not be copied,
> disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an
> intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any
> attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

--
DISCLAIMER

De gemeente Almelo aanvaardt voor haar medewerkers geen enkele
aansprakelijkheid voor eventueel onjuist, onrechtmatig of 
ontoelaatbaar geacht gebruik van e-mail (inclusief bijlagen).

Dit e-mail bericht is door de gemeente Almelo gecontroleerd op
de aanwezigheid van eventuele virussen. Wij kunnen echter geen
garantie afgeven dat al onze e-mail berichten volledig virus
vrij zijn. Het is daarom verstandig uw binnenkomende e-mail 
berichten zelf op de mogelijke aanwezigheid van virussen 
te controleren.
--

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Ian Cheshire]

this is true.. The Jaguar sample was not asked for by Sony, so
would this be classed also as a free piece of music to have?

Robert your comments please..

-Original Message-
From: Williams, Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 August 2002 09:32
To: 313 (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


313,

bit late on this one - how do you guys n gals see this in relation to the
oft maligned Jaguar rip off scenario? i've not heard the beasties lift of
this six second sample so i can't comment on that 

do the two scenarios even begin to compare?

in the case of Jaguar, any right minded folk should obviously side with UR

it appears not so clear cut with the beasties, i'm just curious where the
line is being drawn,

H

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:06:36 -0400
To: "Brian 'balistic' Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: David Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: "Thomas D. Cox, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should not be copied,
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an
intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any
attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Williams, Howard]

313,

bit late on this one - how do you guys n gals see this in relation to the
oft maligned Jaguar rip off scenario? i've not heard the beasties lift of
this six second sample so i can't comment on that 

do the two scenarios even begin to compare?

in the case of Jaguar, any right minded folk should obviously side with UR

it appears not so clear cut with the beasties, i'm just curious where the
line is being drawn,

H

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:06:36 -0400
To: "Brian 'balistic' Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: David Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: "Thomas D. Cox, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended 
recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential 
information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should not be copied, 
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an intended 
recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all 
copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[David Powers]

Okay, well I have to ask, how many of us have 12"s with uncredited 
samples?  Probably almost everyone here.  I think there is some slight 
hypocrisy in making the Beastie Boys bad guys cus they are rich and Mr. 
Newton a good guy cus he claims he might go bankrupt.  The Beastie Boys 
usually use samples in a fairly original way, and they haven't broken 
the law, according to the US court system.  So, outside of some alien 
ethical standard (and capitalism is certainly not ethical), how can one 
judge that Beastie Boys are doing something which is somehow wrong?  I 
really fail to see how a six second flute sample represents some horrid 
stealing of Mr. Newton's property.  I think restrictions on samples 
should actually be loosened, that would only benefit the electronic 
music community, as many producers excel in the creative use of 
sampling.  As for the ones who excel at Not-so-creative sampling, and 
make a lot of money, I don't see what can be done, make quality material 
and don't worry about how rich pop musicians are getting.  If you want 
to sell out, just sell out, but don't expect to get rich as an artist in 
some little niche genre that most people don't get.


The bottom line is, if there is a bad guy in this case, it is the "big 
record labels", but what's new about that?  I doubt the Beastie Boys are 
directly involved in this, besides when they originally sampled the song 
years ago, and as for Mr. Newton, the Beastie Boys apparently contacted 
HIS record label.  So was it unethical for Mr. Newton's  label to give 
permission?  Maybe, but then again, isn't that the reason for owning 
your label, your own recordings and recording right, and all aspects of 
it?  Because we all know the major labels don't have artists interests 
at heart.  I'd say that techno is about being strong and self-reliant, 
building a following, finding ways to survive.  NOT about expecting to 
win within the mainstream system (esp. the courts) where we know the 
game is not balanced in favor of independants and small players.  It 
would be nice to change things to be more equitable, but for now we live 
in a corporate-capitalistic system, it seems like any idea of some more 
FAIR or JUST situation would have to imply some kind of change. 
Complaining that the Beastie Boys are "stealing" within the current 
system is somewhat misleading.  It is the job of the courts to decide 
what is stealing in this cases and apparently they have decided.


/dave...cyborg k
***
Okay, if you are still interested in hearing more of my opinion, 
following are some more comments related to Mr. Prince's post.


Actually playing music IS manual labor.  I know, I do it for a living. 
Hauling around gear and setting up equipment is not fun, it is 
definitely manual labor, but that's what being a musician IS.  Skilled 
labor.  Live performance, not just the production of a round little 
commodity that people can play in their homes.  This is how musicians 
have typically survived; the idea of a musician who creates music and 
doesn't perform is relatively new, really something that probably 
developed this century (and composers often conduct their works even if 
the don't "play" instruments per se.)  Only in our advanced capitalistic 
system with its extreme division of labor would the idea of a 
non-performing musician come up.


I By the way. I write "classical" new music (string quartets, tangos, 
etc.) and I don't expect  to make money on royalties (ASCAP seems like a 
joke if you aren't some big name).  I don't think you can expect to make 
much money doing that kind of serious creation.  It is nice if artists 
can find ways to make money, but I don't believe our economic system is 
very conducive to this.  I often arrange pieces for big bands or other 
ensembles, this isn't manual labor, but I don't charge for the idea 
behind what I'm arranging (it isn't my pieces) I charge for the time and 
effort i put in to making an arrangement that fits people's needs.  That 
is still LABOR (although not manual).  The rights of performance and 
royalty still go to the original composer which the performing group has 
to take care of.  As for original music, the primary ways to make money 
would be to sell my own CDs, (not expect to make a living off of 
royalties on CDs someone else sells), sell scores, write original music 
on commision, and perform or direct performances of my own works.  Only 
if I am enough of a business person to sell my own scores or CDs, which 
are actual physical commodities, do I really feel I am being paid for 
something other than my labor.


I wouldn't venture to make the comparison to visual art, I think it's 
inherently a different medium and has rather different issues involved. 
 However, I would venture to say that  the value of a painting at least 
has a connection with the fact that it took some type of skilled labor 
to create it.


/dave


Brian 'balistic' Prince wrote:


Tuesday, August 13, 2002, 1:31:26 

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Thomas D. Cox, Jr.]

-- Original Message --
From: Robert Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>Look at folk music - who gets credit/royalties for writing the
>melodies/lyrics?  No-one - everyone lifts tunes from everywhere 
and no-one
>is bothered. It's just the precious jazz musos  and greedy fatcat 
lawyers
>and popstars who get annoyed about it.

actually, a great number of jazz tunes are compiled in the "real" 
book, or in a "fake book" which doesnt contain some of the tunes 
in the "real" book and theyre all considered standards which many 
musicians play. the idea of owning a sound is stupid. the idea of 
caring makes no sense unless youre doing it for money. when i put 
my first tunes up on the web in MP3, anyone who wants can sample 
them, take them for free, whatever. making money from music like 
that is ridiculous, IMO. getting paid for live gigs is cool, why 
not go gig some more?

tom 


andythepooh.com


 
   

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Tristan Watkins]

I think there's one point that must be made in all of this. *you know* the
Beastie attorneys stretched this case out for aeons (this is about "pass the
mic" afterall, a song that's - what, 10 years old???), so they could get
this kind of compensation. Seems to me that is abhorent. It sucks that
anyone would have to pay that much money *just to find out* if they could be
compensated for the use of their music by people who got paid very well for
using it without permission. It's one thing if the guy loses this case - I'm
not even trying to debate that - but to assume his lawyers would stretch it
out for years on end, generating those kinds of fees is absurd. This is
legal f*ckery of the worst kind.

Of course, I could have these details all wrong, but from what I've read so
far, that seems the most likely explanation.

Tristan


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[:P]

yeah, well the "all music is free" hippy mentality sounds great until you
work hard on a track, send it out and later find that someone ripped it off
and released it (has happened to me)

so maybe look at both sides of this... the beastie boys could throw him some
cash, they are not hurting for money.  if they took the sample, they of
anyone should know what they need to do to make things right.  I really
really really like the beastie boys, but they know the rules... they wouldnt
be happy with someone taking 6 seconds of audio from them without
permission...

6 seconds is a lot of audio information.  I trip out about taking samples a
tenth of a second long sometimes... I think samples are great to extract
formants from and whatnot, without using the actual audio

-Joe


- Original Message -
From: "Robert Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'David Powers'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "jurren baars"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "313" <313@hyperreal.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 4:26 PM
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


> Look at folk music - who gets credit/royalties for writing the
> melodies/lyrics?  No-one - everyone lifts tunes from everywhere and no-one
> is bothered. It's just the precious jazz musos  and greedy fatcat lawyers
> and popstars who get annoyed about it.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Powers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:13 PM
> To: jurren baars; 313
> Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
> Looks like I get to play devil's advocate.  Okay, how is this for an
> opinion: copyright is completely outdated and someday if humans evolve
> it will entirely disappear.  The free exchange of information of all
> types is essential to human progress.  The idea that information can be
> owned or contained creates inherently absurd situations, because the
> category of property is not adequate to the realm of ideas and
> information anyway.
>
> Furthermore:
> In classical music, John Zorn has written extremely interesting pieces
> that seem to be almost entirely collages of previous works of classical
> music, however these pieces certainly deserve to exist and have artistic
> merit, regardless of the intentions of the previous composers.
>
> In jazz music, it is common to quote a phrase from another song in one's
> solo: an intentional misuse of the original composer's melody.  This has
> always been accepted as artistically valid.
>
> It seems to me that sampling is just one step further from these
> accepted practices.   I say, let people sample their hearts out!  The
> real issue is that artist's are not very well off in the dog-eat-dog
> world of capitalism, if all artists had the chance to make an adequate
> living, I feel that copyright would be irrelevant.
>
> As for Mr. Newton's case, it's unfortunate if his record company did not
> have his rights in mind when the Beastie Boys contacted them.  However,
> does he own the "mechanical recording rights", because that seems to be
> what is under dispute.  It is unfortunate that US copyright law has a
> bias towards traditional western notated music, BUT, why should Mr.
> Newton be so surprised at this.  It would seem to be common sense.  The
> copyright generally covers anything that can be and is NOTATED,  not so
> much the concrete realization of a piece.  It's no use blaming the
> BEASTIE BOYS for this,  they did not write the laws.  If there was a
> score with those specific multiphonics notated, then that would be
> covered.  And, after all, the truth is it's quite possible that segment
> represented Mr. Newton picking up his instrument and improvising for six
> seconds, it's not really a phenomenal amount of his life's work or
> something.  As to his court fees, well I feel bad about the guy, but
> think of it this way, the BEASTIE BOYS did not break the law, and yet
> they have now spent $500,000!  Of course they can afford it, but legally
> that isn't really the point.  Anyway I certainly hope Mr. Newton does
> not go bankrupt, but legally he seems to be on shakey ground.
>  /dave AKA cyborg k
>
> jurren baars wrote:
>
> >> Come on don't be so dramatic about this, i think there are thousands of
> >> lawsuits like this going on right now. This is the 21th century be
> >> >ready to
> >> get sampled to death. It wasn't really smart of that Hewton guy to
> >> get >this
> >> case so big he is facing bankruptcy, the whole e-mail is a bit to
> >> >dramatic,
> >> oh i am loosing my house over this well if you don't have the money

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Robert Taylor]

Look at folk music - who gets credit/royalties for writing the
melodies/lyrics?  No-one - everyone lifts tunes from everywhere and no-one
is bothered. It's just the precious jazz musos  and greedy fatcat lawyers
and popstars who get annoyed about it.

-Original Message-
From: David Powers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:13 PM
To: jurren baars; 313
Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


Looks like I get to play devil's advocate.  Okay, how is this for an 
opinion: copyright is completely outdated and someday if humans evolve 
it will entirely disappear.  The free exchange of information of all 
types is essential to human progress.  The idea that information can be 
owned or contained creates inherently absurd situations, because the 
category of property is not adequate to the realm of ideas and 
information anyway.

Furthermore:
In classical music, John Zorn has written extremely interesting pieces 
that seem to be almost entirely collages of previous works of classical 
music, however these pieces certainly deserve to exist and have artistic 
merit, regardless of the intentions of the previous composers.

In jazz music, it is common to quote a phrase from another song in one's 
solo: an intentional misuse of the original composer's melody.  This has 
always been accepted as artistically valid.

It seems to me that sampling is just one step further from these 
accepted practices.   I say, let people sample their hearts out!  The 
real issue is that artist's are not very well off in the dog-eat-dog 
world of capitalism, if all artists had the chance to make an adequate 
living, I feel that copyright would be irrelevant.

As for Mr. Newton's case, it's unfortunate if his record company did not 
have his rights in mind when the Beastie Boys contacted them.  However, 
does he own the "mechanical recording rights", because that seems to be 
what is under dispute.  It is unfortunate that US copyright law has a 
bias towards traditional western notated music, BUT, why should Mr. 
Newton be so surprised at this.  It would seem to be common sense.  The 
copyright generally covers anything that can be and is NOTATED,  not so 
much the concrete realization of a piece.  It's no use blaming the 
BEASTIE BOYS for this,  they did not write the laws.  If there was a 
score with those specific multiphonics notated, then that would be 
covered.  And, after all, the truth is it's quite possible that segment 
represented Mr. Newton picking up his instrument and improvising for six 
seconds, it's not really a phenomenal amount of his life's work or 
something.  As to his court fees, well I feel bad about the guy, but 
think of it this way, the BEASTIE BOYS did not break the law, and yet 
they have now spent $500,000!  Of course they can afford it, but legally 
that isn't really the point.  Anyway I certainly hope Mr. Newton does 
not go bankrupt, but legally he seems to be on shakey ground.
 /dave AKA cyborg k

jurren baars wrote:

>> Come on don't be so dramatic about this, i think there are thousands of
>> lawsuits like this going on right now. This is the 21th century be 
>> >ready to
>> get sampled to death. It wasn't really smart of that Hewton guy to 
>> get >this
>> case so big he is facing bankruptcy, the whole e-mail is a bit to 
>> >dramatic,
>> oh i am loosing my house over this well if you don't have the money 
>> to >go to
>> court then don't go! I really don't hope we have to discuss every 
>> >sample
>> case on this list.
>
>
> hmm, yes sampling is everywhere, but the point is that james newton 
> created the original piece; it's his work, so he has the right to do 
> with it what HE wants. but he should also have a saying in what he 
> doesn't want to have happen with his work [that's basically what 
> copyright is for] so when someone else uses his work he should get 
> aproval of the original author, the mere fact that this doesn't always 
> happen, but that doesn't make it right! how would you react if someone 
> samples one of your all time 313 classic pieces and turns it into the 
> cheesiest record ever and makes a uge profit out of it, it's not about 
> the money, you as an artist would feel violated, the rip off is 
> everything you are against, and you're not even gettting recognition 
> for the original work, doesn't feel so good does it?
>
> jurren
>
> _
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&

Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[David Powers]

Looks like I get to play devil's advocate.  Okay, how is this for an 
opinion: copyright is completely outdated and someday if humans evolve 
it will entirely disappear.  The free exchange of information of all 
types is essential to human progress.  The idea that information can be 
owned or contained creates inherently absurd situations, because the 
category of property is not adequate to the realm of ideas and 
information anyway.


Furthermore:
In classical music, John Zorn has written extremely interesting pieces 
that seem to be almost entirely collages of previous works of classical 
music, however these pieces certainly deserve to exist and have artistic 
merit, regardless of the intentions of the previous composers.


In jazz music, it is common to quote a phrase from another song in one's 
solo: an intentional misuse of the original composer's melody.  This has 
always been accepted as artistically valid.


It seems to me that sampling is just one step further from these 
accepted practices.   I say, let people sample their hearts out!  The 
real issue is that artist's are not very well off in the dog-eat-dog 
world of capitalism, if all artists had the chance to make an adequate 
living, I feel that copyright would be irrelevant.


As for Mr. Newton's case, it's unfortunate if his record company did not 
have his rights in mind when the Beastie Boys contacted them.  However, 
does he own the "mechanical recording rights", because that seems to be 
what is under dispute.  It is unfortunate that US copyright law has a 
bias towards traditional western notated music, BUT, why should Mr. 
Newton be so surprised at this.  It would seem to be common sense.  The 
copyright generally covers anything that can be and is NOTATED,  not so 
much the concrete realization of a piece.  It's no use blaming the 
BEASTIE BOYS for this,  they did not write the laws.  If there was a 
score with those specific multiphonics notated, then that would be 
covered.  And, after all, the truth is it's quite possible that segment 
represented Mr. Newton picking up his instrument and improvising for six 
seconds, it's not really a phenomenal amount of his life's work or 
something.  As to his court fees, well I feel bad about the guy, but 
think of it this way, the BEASTIE BOYS did not break the law, and yet 
they have now spent $500,000!  Of course they can afford it, but legally 
that isn't really the point.  Anyway I certainly hope Mr. Newton does 
not go bankrupt, but legally he seems to be on shakey ground.

/dave AKA cyborg k

jurren baars wrote:


Come on don't be so dramatic about this, i think there are thousands of
lawsuits like this going on right now. This is the 21th century be 
>ready to
get sampled to death. It wasn't really smart of that Hewton guy to 
get >this
case so big he is facing bankruptcy, the whole e-mail is a bit to 
>dramatic,
oh i am loosing my house over this well if you don't have the money 
to >go to
court then don't go! I really don't hope we have to discuss every 
>sample

case on this list.



hmm, yes sampling is everywhere, but the point is that james newton 
created the original piece; it's his work, so he has the right to do 
with it what HE wants. but he should also have a saying in what he 
doesn't want to have happen with his work [that's basically what 
copyright is for] so when someone else uses his work he should get 
aproval of the original author, the mere fact that this doesn't always 
happen, but that doesn't make it right! how would you react if someone 
samples one of your all time 313 classic pieces and turns it into the 
cheesiest record ever and makes a uge profit out of it, it's not about 
the money, you as an artist would feel violated, the rip off is 
everything you are against, and you're not even gettting recognition 
for the original work, doesn't feel so good does it?


jurren

_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Neale, Bennett]

perhaps you should check out what he's done before
calling him a 'washed up artist'. the guy has been
scoring films for a while and still does.  i highly
doubt he is trying to 'cash out' out over this issue
because his record in '78 didn't make any money.  

B

-Original Message-
From: webmaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:46 AM
To: 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


er...i think this is kinda crazy mainly because it's only a 6 second
sample...I think this guy probably didn't make much money on his record that
he recorded in 1978 and is looking for a cash in from the beastie boys.  One
thing I would say is hell he should have teamed up with the beastie boys and
possibly worked with them rather than trying to sue them.  I would be kinda
flattered if I was a washed up artist and someone dug back in the crates and
found something in my music that they liked and wanted to sample.  Heck even
if I was well known in my day rather than trying to make some dough by
sueing in court I think it could have been handled in a more amicable way
which I feel ultimately would have paid off in the long run.  People that
get mad and sue artists for sampling their work to make another artform are
only looking to get paid.  that's the bottom line.  They see an artist doing
good off of the sample and figure hey i can get some money from this guy.
Now if the Beastie boys were some Underground group this guy wouldn't be
bitching...


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Robert Taylor]

yes - that's the point I was trying to make, only more articulate and
concise!

-Original Message-
From: webmaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 5:46 PM
To: 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


er...i think this is kinda crazy mainly because it's only a 6 second
sample...I think this guy probably didn't make much money on his record that
he recorded in 1978 and is looking for a cash in from the beastie boys.  One
thing I would say is hell he should have teamed up with the beastie boys and
possibly worked with them rather than trying to sue them.  I would be kinda
flattered if I was a washed up artist and someone dug back in the crates and
found something in my music that they liked and wanted to sample.  Heck even
if I was well known in my day rather than trying to make some dough by
sueing in court I think it could have been handled in a more amicable way
which I feel ultimately would have paid off in the long run.  People that
get mad and sue artists for sampling their work to make another artform are
only looking to get paid.  that's the bottom line.  They see an artist doing
good off of the sample and figure hey i can get some money from this guy.
Now if the Beastie boys were some Underground group this guy wouldn't be
bitching...


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[webmaster]

er...i think this is kinda crazy mainly because it's only a 6 second
sample...I think this guy probably didn't make much money on his record that
he recorded in 1978 and is looking for a cash in from the beastie boys.  One
thing I would say is hell he should have teamed up with the beastie boys and
possibly worked with them rather than trying to sue them.  I would be kinda
flattered if I was a washed up artist and someone dug back in the crates and
found something in my music that they liked and wanted to sample.  Heck even
if I was well known in my day rather than trying to make some dough by
sueing in court I think it could have been handled in a more amicable way
which I feel ultimately would have paid off in the long run.  People that
get mad and sue artists for sampling their work to make another artform are
only looking to get paid.  that's the bottom line.  They see an artist doing
good off of the sample and figure hey i can get some money from this guy.
Now if the Beastie boys were some Underground group this guy wouldn't be
bitching...


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Robert Taylor]

The guy who runs that website also runs this other website: 
http://boomselection.net/
He is of the school of thought mentioned earlier, in fact he thinks all
music should be free for everyone.
There are several interviews/essays in the archives discussing this in
detail, but I haven't had the time to find them.
He has lots of intriguing things to say about sampling and the music
industry, so check it out.  I will try and post the relevant URL when I get
the chance.

-Original Message
From: Ian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 4:59 PM
To: Michael Lees
Cc: The Music Institute
Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


On 8/13/02 11:57 AM, "Michael Lees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If someone had the time and not a lot to do :). It would be interesting
> to find out what would happen if you took every beastie boys song cut
> them up into 6 second clips a distributed them on the net??

Probably something along these lines:

http://www.base58.com/spec/

A few Beasties tracks in these mash-ups.
-- 
im


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Jayson B.]

They advocate it, but at the same time don't want to reveal
their sources for fear of other hip hoppers swiping the same loops or
discovering the secret weapons of their record collection :)




I can't stand the concept that if i bought a record, i therefore have the 
right to keep it 'secret.'


In the same vein, i also don't like it when i dj covers up the label of a 
track they bought and they wont tell me what it is.



tangent?


_
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Ian]

On 8/13/02 11:57 AM, "Michael Lees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If someone had the time and not a lot to do :). It would be interesting
> to find out what would happen if you took every beastie boys song cut
> them up into 6 second clips a distributed them on the net??

Probably something along these lines:

http://www.base58.com/spec/

A few Beasties tracks in these mash-ups.
-- 
im


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Ian Cheshire]

now that sounds interesting, cos then you use the court case they won
against
themoh the irony of it all.  So  surely if one Judge rules in favour
she'd have to do
the same for other creator, so then they can't lose! :0)

-Original Message-
From: Michael Lees [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 August 2002 16:57
Cc: 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


If someone had the time and not a lot to do :). It would be interesting 
to find out what would happen if you took every beastie boys song cut 
them up into 6 second clips a distributed them on the net??

Ian Cheshire wrote:
> " but they should have at least given credit to the
> author."
> 
>  by george they should of!what a load of brass monkey's!
> 
> oh copyright there sorry BB's I'll send you some cash for using it :0)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Leidy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 August 2002 16:43
> To: Ian Cheshire
> Cc: 'Robert Taylor'; 'jurren baars'; 313@hyperreal.org
> Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>everyone, go round to Channel four and ask for Robert Taylor and then
> 
> follow
> 
>>him home and take what is his and make it yours cos after all There is a
>>school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
>>domain it belongs to everyone.
>>
> 
> 
> alright, i know you're joking here, but just wanted to clarify because I
> think there is a case to be made for this school of thought.  you are
> talking about stealing someone's personal belongings- this has always been
> against the law and has nothing to do with copyright issues. the issue is
> when created works are distributed to the public, how the public is
> allowed to use those works.
> 
> there is a good 30 min speech wrapped in an 8meg flash file by Lawrence
> Lessig (author and Stanford Law Professor) promoting this school of
> thought here:
> http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/
> 
> and more info on what Lessig is up to at
> http://lessig.org
> 
> Regarding the Beastie Boys thing- I agree with the last few posts- there
> may be nothing wrong with their use of the work in a new and (arguably)
> original context- but they should have at least given credit to the
> author. I think many hip hoppers have a sort of hypocritical stance on
> sampling. They advocate it, but at the same time don't want to reveal
> their sources for fear of other hip hoppers swiping the same loops or
> discovering the secret weapons of their record collection :)
> 
> pete
> 
> 
>>yipee!
>>
>>
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: 13 August 2002 17:05
>>To: 'jurren baars'; 313@hyperreal.org
>>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>the point is that james newton created
>>
>>the original piece; it's his work, so he has the right to do with it what
> 
> HE
> 
>>wants.
>>Does he really have that right?
>>There is a school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
>>domain it belongs to everyone.
>>
>>_
>>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
>>http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>>
>>
>>-
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not
> 
> necessarily
> 
>>represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
>>stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and
> 
> intended
> 
>>solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
> 
> addressed.
> 
>>If you have received this email in error, please notify
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>>-
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>-
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


-- 
Mike

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~mhl/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Michael Lees]

If someone had the time and not a lot to do :). It would be interesting 
to find out what would happen if you took every beastie boys song cut 
them up into 6 second clips a distributed them on the net??


Ian Cheshire wrote:

" but they should have at least given credit to the
author."

 by george they should of!what a load of brass monkey's!

oh copyright there sorry BB's I'll send you some cash for using it :0)

-Original Message-
From: Peter Leidy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 August 2002 16:43
To: Ian Cheshire
Cc: 'Robert Taylor'; 'jurren baars'; 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?





everyone, go round to Channel four and ask for Robert Taylor and then


follow


him home and take what is his and make it yours cos after all There is a
school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
domain it belongs to everyone.




alright, i know you're joking here, but just wanted to clarify because I
think there is a case to be made for this school of thought.  you are
talking about stealing someone's personal belongings- this has always been
against the law and has nothing to do with copyright issues. the issue is
when created works are distributed to the public, how the public is
allowed to use those works.

there is a good 30 min speech wrapped in an 8meg flash file by Lawrence
Lessig (author and Stanford Law Professor) promoting this school of
thought here:
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/

and more info on what Lessig is up to at
http://lessig.org

Regarding the Beastie Boys thing- I agree with the last few posts- there
may be nothing wrong with their use of the work in a new and (arguably)
original context- but they should have at least given credit to the
author. I think many hip hoppers have a sort of hypocritical stance on
sampling. They advocate it, but at the same time don't want to reveal
their sources for fear of other hip hoppers swiping the same loops or
discovering the secret weapons of their record collection :)

pete



yipee!



-Original Message-
From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 August 2002 17:05
To: 'jurren baars'; 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?








the point is that james newton created


the original piece; it's his work, so he has the right to do with it what


HE


wants.
Does he really have that right?
There is a school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
domain it belongs to everyone.

_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not


necessarily


represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and


intended


solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are


addressed.


If you have received this email in error, please notify
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
Mike

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~mhl/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Ian Cheshire]

" but they should have at least given credit to the
author."

 by george they should of!what a load of brass monkey's!

oh copyright there sorry BB's I'll send you some cash for using it :0)

-Original Message-
From: Peter Leidy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 August 2002 16:43
To: Ian Cheshire
Cc: 'Robert Taylor'; 'jurren baars'; 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?



> everyone, go round to Channel four and ask for Robert Taylor and then
follow
> him home and take what is his and make it yours cos after all There is a
> school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
> domain it belongs to everyone.
>

alright, i know you're joking here, but just wanted to clarify because I
think there is a case to be made for this school of thought.  you are
talking about stealing someone's personal belongings- this has always been
against the law and has nothing to do with copyright issues. the issue is
when created works are distributed to the public, how the public is
allowed to use those works.

there is a good 30 min speech wrapped in an 8meg flash file by Lawrence
Lessig (author and Stanford Law Professor) promoting this school of
thought here:
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/

and more info on what Lessig is up to at
http://lessig.org

Regarding the Beastie Boys thing- I agree with the last few posts- there
may be nothing wrong with their use of the work in a new and (arguably)
original context- but they should have at least given credit to the
author. I think many hip hoppers have a sort of hypocritical stance on
sampling. They advocate it, but at the same time don't want to reveal
their sources for fear of other hip hoppers swiping the same loops or
discovering the secret weapons of their record collection :)

pete

> yipee!
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 August 2002 17:05
> To: 'jurren baars'; 313@hyperreal.org
> Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > the point is that james newton created
> the original piece; it's his work, so he has the right to do with it what
HE
>
> wants.
> Does he really have that right?
> There is a school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
> domain it belongs to everyone.
>
> _
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily
> represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
> stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and
intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Peter Leidy]

> everyone, go round to Channel four and ask for Robert Taylor and then follow
> him home and take what is his and make it yours cos after all There is a
> school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
> domain it belongs to everyone.
>

alright, i know you're joking here, but just wanted to clarify because I
think there is a case to be made for this school of thought.  you are
talking about stealing someone's personal belongings- this has always been
against the law and has nothing to do with copyright issues. the issue is
when created works are distributed to the public, how the public is
allowed to use those works.

there is a good 30 min speech wrapped in an 8meg flash file by Lawrence
Lessig (author and Stanford Law Professor) promoting this school of
thought here:
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/

and more info on what Lessig is up to at
http://lessig.org

Regarding the Beastie Boys thing- I agree with the last few posts- there
may be nothing wrong with their use of the work in a new and (arguably)
original context- but they should have at least given credit to the
author. I think many hip hoppers have a sort of hypocritical stance on
sampling. They advocate it, but at the same time don't want to reveal
their sources for fear of other hip hoppers swiping the same loops or
discovering the secret weapons of their record collection :)

pete

> yipee!
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 August 2002 17:05
> To: 'jurren baars'; 313@hyperreal.org
> Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > the point is that james newton created
> the original piece; it's his work, so he has the right to do with it what HE
>
> wants.
> Does he really have that right?
> There is a school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
> domain it belongs to everyone.
>
> _
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
> stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Robert Taylor]

Agreed. I refer you to Neil Wallace's earlier response.

-Original Message-
From: Michael Lees [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:25 PM
Cc: 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


Even with this school of thought you should credit it as someone elses. 
It's one thing to use someone elses work, it's another to try an pass it 
off as your own (or at least not care if people think it's yours) even 
if it is considered to be in the public domain.



--Mike

Robert Taylor wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>the point is that james newton created 
> 
> the original piece; it's his work, so he has the right to do with it what
HE
> 
> wants. 
> Does he really have that right?
> There is a school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
> domain it belongs to everyone.
> 
> _
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily
> represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
> stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and
intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


-- 
Mike

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~mhl/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Michael Lees]

Even with this school of thought you should credit it as someone elses. 
It's one thing to use someone elses work, it's another to try an pass it 
off as your own (or at least not care if people think it's yours) even 
if it is considered to be in the public domain.




--Mike

Robert Taylor wrote:




the point is that james newton created 


the original piece; it's his work, so he has the right to do with it what HE

wants. 
Does he really have that right?

There is a school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
domain it belongs to everyone.

_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
Mike

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~mhl/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Ian Cheshire]

ok can I steal your unique personal pocessions in your house then? can I
steal you partner? would that please you and you'd be happy about that..ahhh
how sweet of you. thnaks

everyone, go round to Channel four and ask for Robert Taylor and then follow
him home and take what is his and make it yours cos after all There is a
school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
domain it belongs to everyone.

yipee!



-Original Message-
From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 August 2002 17:05
To: 'jurren baars'; 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?






> the point is that james newton created 
the original piece; it's his work, so he has the right to do with it what HE

wants. 
Does he really have that right?
There is a school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
domain it belongs to everyone.

_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Neil Wallace]

:>the point is that james newton created
:>the original piece; it's his work, so he has the right to do with it
what
:>HE wants.
:
:Does he really have that right?
:There is a school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
:domain it belongs to everyone.

Yes but this is usually accompanied by the proviso that then anyone that
freely uses the work must give the same rights for other people to use
theirs (this is definitely the case in open source agreements, copyleft
etc)

And in this case im fairly surely the beastie boys would have something
to say about a high profile artist sampling some of their music and
using it without permission - in fact im pretty sure I heard that they
wont even license tracks to appear on compilations.

Cheers

neil


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Langsman, Marc]

>if you don't have the money to go to court, just shut-up, bite 
>your tongue
>and don't fight back about the injustice

spot the flaw in the legal system ? 


--
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the 
designated recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of 
this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  This 
communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an 
offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an 
official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman 
Brothers.  Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free.  
Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate 
and it should not be relied upon as such.  All information is subject to change 
without notice.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Robert Taylor]

> the point is that james newton created 
the original piece; it's his work, so he has the right to do with it what HE

wants. 
Does he really have that right?
There is a school of thought that once a piece of work is in the public
domain it belongs to everyone.

_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[kataconda]

if you don't have the money to go to court, just shut-up, bite your tongue
and don't fight back about the injustice

IMO, if you can recognise the sample you need to credit it, and if you're
selling enough of that song to be asked to pay compensation you should be
respecting the artists that made your music possible, and give them
something.
kataconda

> Come on don't be so dramatic about this, i think there are thousands of
> lawsuits like this going on right now. This is the 21th century be ready
to
> get sampled to death. It wasn't really smart of that Hewton guy to get
this
> case so big he is facing bankruptcy, the whole e-mail is a bit to
dramatic,
> oh i am loosing my house over this well if you don't have the money to go
to
> court then don't go! I really don't hope we have to discuss every sample
> case on this list.
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[jurren baars]

Come on don't be so dramatic about this, i think there are thousands of
lawsuits like this going on right now. This is the 21th century be >ready 
to
get sampled to death. It wasn't really smart of that Hewton guy to get 
>this
case so big he is facing bankruptcy, the whole e-mail is a bit to 
>dramatic,
oh i am loosing my house over this well if you don't have the money to >go 
to

court then don't go! I really don't hope we have to discuss every >sample
case on this list.


hmm, yes sampling is everywhere, but the point is that james newton created 
the original piece; it's his work, so he has the right to do with it what HE 
wants. but he should also have a saying in what he doesn't want to have 
happen with his work [that's basically what copyright is for] so when 
someone else uses his work he should get aproval of the original author, the 
mere fact that this doesn't always happen, but that doesn't make it right! 
how would you react if someone samples one of your all time 313 classic 
pieces and turns it into the cheesiest record ever and makes a uge profit 
out of it, it's not about the money, you as an artist would feel violated, 
the rip off is everything you are against, and you're not even gettting 
recognition for the original work, doesn't feel so good does it?


jurren

_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[kataconda]

there are far more valid reasons than lost earnings.
something has been created out of love and it has been stolen and abused.
now if the beasties were REALLY worried about the tibetan
buddhists..?

> Artists shouldn't be motivated by money, whether they are sampling other
> people's music or being sampled themselves. I think it is common courtesy
to
> acknowledge your sources and the Beastie Boys clearly haven't been
> professional about this, but I don't think it should ever have got in the
> hands of shyster lawyers whose only motivation is money.  If you're suing
> for money, unless you have genuinely lost earnings, then I think you have
> lost your integrity and the argument.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Michael Lees]

The next step would be to buy yourself one of these...

http://audiovideoone.com/store/p002927.htm

copy mp3 to vinyl and hey presto free submerge tunes.

--Mike

Jongsma, K.J. wrote:

Go to www.submerge.com and download the *free* MP3's from new and upcomming
releases...

Oh of course downloads are free...



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: dinsdag 13 augustus 2002 16:58
Aan: 'Langsman, Marc'; Robert Taylor; 'Ian Cheshire';
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 313@hyperreal.org
Onderwerp: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


Now there's an idea...

-Original Message-
From: Langsman, Marc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 1:57 PM
To: 'Robert Taylor'; 'Ian Cheshire'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
313@hyperreal.org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?



Yeah.. and maybe submerge should start giving tunes away for 
free or at

least cost :P



-Original Message-
From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:40 PM
To: 'Ian Cheshire'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


Exactly - it's all about the Benjamins isn't it?
I hope most musicians don't feel this way about their music, 
as potential

dollar earners as opposed to artistic creations.


Cos hey lets not beat around the bush,,there are few people 
who would sit
back and bite their tongue and see the dollars just running 
away from them



from what they originally created.





-Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 August 2002 13:15
To: 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?



Memo from Alex Bond of PricewaterhouseCoopers

 Start of message text 

Surely the point is that the multi-millionaire Beastie Boys 
are about to
bankrupt the guy, all for the privelege of using HIS music, 
without asking

the right people.

Bit shady on their part, and you would have thought if they 
knew the full
story, you'd have hoped that they'd get their record company 
to stop the

action taken against him.

If, however, they know exactly what's going on, then they're 
bang out of

order and should be strung up.




Robert Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 13/08/2002 13:41:51
To:    "'Odeluga, Ken'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"[EMAIL PROTECTED] Org"

 <313@hyperreal.org>
cc:


Subject:RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

Yes - What is wrong with sampling? Hip hop and many 


electronic forms of


music use it creatively

-Original Message-
From: Odeluga, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


Ha! Is this is serious considered response?



-Original Message-
From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:26 AM
To: 'Neontsetse'; 313s
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


What about the artist's right to sample?
Surely it is ridiculous to award damages to an artist if they 


haven't been


harmed commercially by the sampling?
No one is ever going to buy a Beastie boys record in the 


mistaken belief


that it is a James Newton record.


-Original Message-
From: Neontsetse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:20 AM
To: 313s
Subject: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?




voila





Please distribute to raise awareness and support of this important


Artists' Rights and Cultural Hegemony issue!

-James Newton loses to Beastie Boys: Amicus

support requested!   URGENT
(This story can found at <http://www.jazzhouse.org/lobby.html>)

From: James Newton (renowned jazz musician) --

  For the last two years I have been involved in a 



suit because

the Beastie Boys sampled a part of my composition "Choir" 



and did not

contact me for permission. They did not change in any way 



what they


sampled from "Choir". It begins with the sampled six and a half
seconds and loops in the song over forty times. "Pass the 



Mic'" has


appeared in CD, MP3, LP, and DVD formats.

   The law clearly states that to use someone else's 



music one

must contact and receive permission from both the record 



company and

the copyright  owner."Choir" was registered with the 



copyright office

and ASCAP in 1978. My publishing company JANEW MUSIC 



controls 100% of

the rights. The Beastie Boys contacted and received 



permission from

ECM Records, which released my album Axum which they 



sampled in 1992,


and ignored me.

 

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Jongsma, K.J.]

Go to www.submerge.com and download the *free* MP3's from new and upcomming
releases...

Oh of course downloads are free...

> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Verzonden: dinsdag 13 augustus 2002 16:58
> Aan: 'Langsman, Marc'; Robert Taylor; 'Ian Cheshire';
> '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 313@hyperreal.org
> Onderwerp: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> 
> 
> Now there's an idea...
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Langsman, Marc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 1:57 PM
> To: 'Robert Taylor'; 'Ian Cheshire'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
> 313@hyperreal.org
> Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.. and maybe submerge should start giving tunes away for 
> free or at
> least cost :P
> 
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:40 PM
> >To: 'Ian Cheshire'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 313@hyperreal.org
> >Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> >
> >
> >Exactly - it's all about the Benjamins isn't it?
> >I hope most musicians don't feel this way about their music, 
> >as potential
> >dollar earners as opposed to artistic creations.
> >
> >
> >Cos hey lets not beat around the bush,,there are few people 
> >who would sit
> >back and bite their tongue and see the dollars just running 
> >away from them
> >from what they originally created.
> >
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: 13 August 2002 13:15
> >To: 313@hyperreal.org
> >Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> >
> >
> >
> >Memo from Alex Bond of PricewaterhouseCoopers
> >
> > Start of message text 
> >
> >Surely the point is that the multi-millionaire Beastie Boys 
> >are about to
> >bankrupt the guy, all for the privelege of using HIS music, 
> >without asking
> >the right people.
> >
> >Bit shady on their part, and you would have thought if they 
> >knew the full
> >story, you'd have hoped that they'd get their record company 
> >to stop the
> >action taken against him.
> >
> >If, however, they know exactly what's going on, then they're 
> >bang out of
> >order and should be strung up.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Robert Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 13/08/2002 13:41:51
> >To:"'Odeluga, Ken'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
> >"[EMAIL PROTECTED] Org"
> >   <313@hyperreal.org>
> >cc:
> >
> >
> >Subject:    RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> >
> >Yes - What is wrong with sampling? Hip hop and many 
> electronic forms of
> >music use it creatively
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Odeluga, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:28 AM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org
> >Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> >
> >
> >Ha! Is this is serious considered response?
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:26 AM
> >>To: 'Neontsetse'; 313s
> >>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> >>
> >>
> >>What about the artist's right to sample?
> >>Surely it is ridiculous to award damages to an artist if they 
> >haven't been
> >>harmed commercially by the sampling?
> >>No one is ever going to buy a Beastie boys record in the 
> >mistaken belief
> >>that it is a James Newton record.
> >>
> >>
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Neontsetse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:20 AM
> >>To: 313s
> >>Subject: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>voila
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Please distribute to raise awareness and support of this important
> >>> > Artists' Rights and Cultural Hegemony issue!
> >>> >
> >>> > -James Newton loses to Beastie Boys: Amicus
> >>> >
> >>> > support 

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Robert Taylor]

Now there's an idea...

-Original Message-
From: Langsman, Marc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 1:57 PM
To: 'Robert Taylor'; 'Ian Cheshire'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
313@hyperreal.org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?



Yeah.. and maybe submerge should start giving tunes away for free or at
least cost :P

>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:40 PM
>To: 'Ian Cheshire'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 313@hyperreal.org
>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>Exactly - it's all about the Benjamins isn't it?
>I hope most musicians don't feel this way about their music, 
>as potential
>dollar earners as opposed to artistic creations.
>
>
>Cos hey lets not beat around the bush,,there are few people 
>who would sit
>back and bite their tongue and see the dollars just running 
>away from them
>from what they originally created.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 13 August 2002 13:15
>To: 313@hyperreal.org
>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>
>Memo from Alex Bond of PricewaterhouseCoopers
>
> Start of message text 
>
>Surely the point is that the multi-millionaire Beastie Boys 
>are about to
>bankrupt the guy, all for the privelege of using HIS music, 
>without asking
>the right people.
>
>Bit shady on their part, and you would have thought if they 
>knew the full
>story, you'd have hoped that they'd get their record company 
>to stop the
>action taken against him.
>
>If, however, they know exactly what's going on, then they're 
>bang out of
>order and should be strung up.
>
>
>
>
>Robert Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 13/08/2002 13:41:51
>To:"'Odeluga, Ken'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
>"[EMAIL PROTECTED] Org"
>   <313@hyperreal.org>
>cc:
>
>
>Subject:    RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>Yes - What is wrong with sampling? Hip hop and many electronic forms of
>music use it creatively
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Odeluga, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:28 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org
>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>Ha! Is this is serious considered response?
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:26 AM
>>To: 'Neontsetse'; 313s
>>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>>
>>
>>What about the artist's right to sample?
>>Surely it is ridiculous to award damages to an artist if they 
>haven't been
>>harmed commercially by the sampling?
>>No one is ever going to buy a Beastie boys record in the 
>mistaken belief
>>that it is a James Newton record.
>>
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Neontsetse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:20 AM
>>To: 313s
>>Subject: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>voila
>>
>>
>>
>>>Please distribute to raise awareness and support of this important
>>> > Artists' Rights and Cultural Hegemony issue!
>>> >
>>> > -James Newton loses to Beastie Boys: Amicus
>>> >
>>> > support requested!   URGENT
>>> > (This story can found at <http://www.jazzhouse.org/lobby.html>)
>>> >
>>> > From: James Newton (renowned jazz musician) --
>>> >
>>> >For the last two years I have been involved in a 
>suit because
>>> > the Beastie Boys sampled a part of my composition "Choir" 
>and did not
>>> > contact me for permission. They did not change in any way 
>what they
>>> > sampled from "Choir". It begins with the sampled six and a half
>>> > seconds and loops in the song over forty times. "Pass the 
>Mic'" has
>>> > appeared in CD, MP3, LP, and DVD formats.
>>> >
>>> > The law clearly states that to use someone else's 
>music one
>>> > must contact and receive permission from both the record 
>company and
>>> > the copyright  owner."Choir" was registered with the 
>copyright office
>>> > and ASCAP in 1978

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Langsman, Marc]

Yeah.. and maybe submerge should start giving tunes away for free or at
least cost :P

>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:40 PM
>To: 'Ian Cheshire'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 313@hyperreal.org
>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>Exactly - it's all about the Benjamins isn't it?
>I hope most musicians don't feel this way about their music, 
>as potential
>dollar earners as opposed to artistic creations.
>
>
>Cos hey lets not beat around the bush,,there are few people 
>who would sit
>back and bite their tongue and see the dollars just running 
>away from them
>from what they originally created.
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 13 August 2002 13:15
>To: 313@hyperreal.org
>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>
>Memo from Alex Bond of PricewaterhouseCoopers
>
> Start of message text 
>
>Surely the point is that the multi-millionaire Beastie Boys 
>are about to
>bankrupt the guy, all for the privelege of using HIS music, 
>without asking
>the right people.
>
>Bit shady on their part, and you would have thought if they 
>knew the full
>story, you'd have hoped that they'd get their record company 
>to stop the
>action taken against him.
>
>If, however, they know exactly what's going on, then they're 
>bang out of
>order and should be strung up.
>
>
>
>
>Robert Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 13/08/2002 13:41:51
>To:"'Odeluga, Ken'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
>"[EMAIL PROTECTED] Org"
>   <313@hyperreal.org>
>cc:
>
>
>Subject:RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>Yes - What is wrong with sampling? Hip hop and many electronic forms of
>music use it creatively
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Odeluga, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:28 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org
>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>Ha! Is this is serious considered response?
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:26 AM
>>To: 'Neontsetse'; 313s
>>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>>
>>
>>What about the artist's right to sample?
>>Surely it is ridiculous to award damages to an artist if they 
>haven't been
>>harmed commercially by the sampling?
>>No one is ever going to buy a Beastie boys record in the 
>mistaken belief
>>that it is a James Newton record.
>>
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Neontsetse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:20 AM
>>To: 313s
>>Subject: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>voila
>>
>>
>>
>>>Please distribute to raise awareness and support of this important
>>> > Artists' Rights and Cultural Hegemony issue!
>>> >
>>> > -James Newton loses to Beastie Boys: Amicus
>>> >
>>> > support requested!   URGENT
>>> > (This story can found at <http://www.jazzhouse.org/lobby.html>)
>>> >
>>> > From: James Newton (renowned jazz musician) --
>>> >
>>> >For the last two years I have been involved in a 
>suit because
>>> > the Beastie Boys sampled a part of my composition "Choir" 
>and did not
>>> > contact me for permission. They did not change in any way 
>what they
>>> > sampled from "Choir". It begins with the sampled six and a half
>>> > seconds and loops in the song over forty times. "Pass the 
>Mic'" has
>>> > appeared in CD, MP3, LP, and DVD formats.
>>> >
>>> > The law clearly states that to use someone else's 
>music one
>>> > must contact and receive permission from both the record 
>company and
>>> > the copyright  owner."Choir" was registered with the 
>copyright office
>>> > and ASCAP in 1978. My publishing company JANEW MUSIC 
>controls 100% of
>>> > the rights. The Beastie Boys contacted and received 
>permission from
>>> > ECM Records, which released my album Axum which they 
>sampled in 1992,
>>> > and ignored me.
>>> >
>>> > 

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Robert Taylor]

Eloquently put! Can I sample it?

 This is the 21th century be ready to
get sampled to death. 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: robin pinning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Verzonden: dinsdag 13 augustus 2002 14:45
> Aan: 313@hyperreal.org
> Onderwerp: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> 
> 
> >
> > Well, yeah, I see the point, and we would never know why he 
> started court
> > action.
> >
> > The point though, is that the guy stands to lose everything 
> he has, and
> > quite frankly, $500,000 to the Beastie Boys' record co. is 
> nothing really,
> > and bearing in mind they did use his sample, I think the 
> least they could
> > do would be to pay the costs.
> 
> well i think the least they can do is not get into a situation with
> another artist where they run up $500,000 in costs alone!
> 
> still it's got past that now...
> 
> > Remember, he'll still end up with nothing,
> > and they did use a sample from his music to make a vast 
> profit. Big fat
> > corporate mess this one, cos it's unlikely they'll back down
> 
> yeah agreed...very ugly
> 
> > If this was a UR sample or something, and UR were getting 
> sued (and were
> > doing a similar e-mail publicity campaign), then would you 
> say the same
> > thing?
> 
> :)
> 
> robin...
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

--
DISCLAIMER

De gemeente Almelo aanvaardt voor haar medewerkers geen enkele
aansprakelijkheid voor eventueel onjuist, onrechtmatig of 
ontoelaatbaar geacht gebruik van e-mail (inclusief bijlagen).

Dit e-mail bericht is door de gemeente Almelo gecontroleerd op
de aanwezigheid van eventuele virussen. Wij kunnen echter geen
garantie afgeven dat al onze e-mail berichten volledig virus
vrij zijn. Het is daarom verstandig uw binnenkomende e-mail 
berichten zelf op de mogelijke aanwezigheid van virussen 
te controleren.
--

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Jongsma, K.J.]

Come on don't be so dramatic about this, i think there are thousands of
lawsuits like this going on right now. This is the 21th century be ready to
get sampled to death. It wasn't really smart of that Hewton guy to get this
case so big he is facing bankruptcy, the whole e-mail is a bit to dramatic,
oh i am loosing my house over this well if you don't have the money to go to
court then don't go! I really don't hope we have to discuss every sample
case on this list.


[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: robin pinning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Verzonden: dinsdag 13 augustus 2002 14:45
> Aan: 313@hyperreal.org
> Onderwerp: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
> 
> 
> >
> > Well, yeah, I see the point, and we would never know why he 
> started court
> > action.
> >
> > The point though, is that the guy stands to lose everything 
> he has, and
> > quite frankly, $500,000 to the Beastie Boys' record co. is 
> nothing really,
> > and bearing in mind they did use his sample, I think the 
> least they could
> > do would be to pay the costs.
> 
> well i think the least they can do is not get into a situation with
> another artist where they run up $500,000 in costs alone!
> 
> still it's got past that now...
> 
> > Remember, he'll still end up with nothing,
> > and they did use a sample from his music to make a vast 
> profit. Big fat
> > corporate mess this one, cos it's unlikely they'll back down
> 
> yeah agreed...very ugly
> 
> > If this was a UR sample or something, and UR were getting 
> sued (and were
> > doing a similar e-mail publicity campaign), then would you 
> say the same
> > thing?
> 
> :)
> 
> robin...
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

--
DISCLAIMER

De gemeente Almelo aanvaardt voor haar medewerkers geen enkele
aansprakelijkheid voor eventueel onjuist, onrechtmatig of 
ontoelaatbaar geacht gebruik van e-mail (inclusief bijlagen).

Dit e-mail bericht is door de gemeente Almelo gecontroleerd op
de aanwezigheid van eventuele virussen. Wij kunnen echter geen
garantie afgeven dat al onze e-mail berichten volledig virus
vrij zijn. Het is daarom verstandig uw binnenkomende e-mail 
berichten zelf op de mogelijke aanwezigheid van virussen 
te controleren.
--

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Robert Taylor]

Exactly - it's all about the Benjamins isn't it?
I hope most musicians don't feel this way about their music, as potential
dollar earners as opposed to artistic creations.


Cos hey lets not beat around the bush,,there are few people who would sit
back and bite their tongue and see the dollars just running away from them
from what they originally created.



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 August 2002 13:15
To: 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?



Memo from Alex Bond of PricewaterhouseCoopers

 Start of message text 

Surely the point is that the multi-millionaire Beastie Boys are about to
bankrupt the guy, all for the privelege of using HIS music, without asking
the right people.

Bit shady on their part, and you would have thought if they knew the full
story, you'd have hoped that they'd get their record company to stop the
action taken against him.

If, however, they know exactly what's going on, then they're bang out of
order and should be strung up.




Robert Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 13/08/2002 13:41:51
To:"'Odeluga, Ken'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED] Org"
       <313@hyperreal.org>
cc:


Subject:RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

Yes - What is wrong with sampling? Hip hop and many electronic forms of
music use it creatively

-Original Message-
From: Odeluga, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


Ha! Is this is serious considered response?

>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:26 AM
>To: 'Neontsetse'; 313s
>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>What about the artist's right to sample?
>Surely it is ridiculous to award damages to an artist if they haven't been
>harmed commercially by the sampling?
>No one is ever going to buy a Beastie boys record in the mistaken belief
>that it is a James Newton record.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Neontsetse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:20 AM
>To: 313s
>Subject: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>
>
>voila
>
>
>
>>Please distribute to raise awareness and support of this important
>> > Artists' Rights and Cultural Hegemony issue!
>> >
>> > -James Newton loses to Beastie Boys: Amicus
>> >
>> > support requested!   URGENT
>> > (This story can found at <http://www.jazzhouse.org/lobby.html>)
>> >
>> > From: James Newton (renowned jazz musician) --
>> >
>> >For the last two years I have been involved in a suit because
>> > the Beastie Boys sampled a part of my composition "Choir" and did not
>> > contact me for permission. They did not change in any way what they
>> > sampled from "Choir". It begins with the sampled six and a half
>> > seconds and loops in the song over forty times. "Pass the Mic'" has
>> > appeared in CD, MP3, LP, and DVD formats.
>> >
>> > The law clearly states that to use someone else's music one
>> > must contact and receive permission from both the record company and
>> > the copyright  owner."Choir" was registered with the copyright office
>> > and ASCAP in 1978. My publishing company JANEW MUSIC controls 100% of
>> > the rights. The Beastie Boys contacted and received permission from
>> > ECM Records, which released my album Axum which they sampled in 1992,
>> > and ignored me.
>> >
>> > The case went up for summary judgement one month ago and Judge
>> > Nora Manella of US Federal Court ruled against me!!! She
>> > stated as a fact of law that my music was not original! The six and a
>> > half second sample consists of three sung notes C,Db, C and a held
>> > flute harmonic C2, as a result of the combination of voice, harmonic
>> > and a balanced distribution of each a series of shifting multiphonics
>> > are created. The judge ignored the multiphonics because they weren't
>> > written on the score and said that there are just three notes in the
>> > score which aren't protectable. If you go to the Beastie Boy's DVD of
>> > the piece "Pass the Mic" to signify the song there is only my flute
>> > sample and a drum beat. The judge consistently used European parad

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Robert Taylor]

Artists shouldn't be motivated by money, whether they are sampling other
people's music or being sampled themselves. I think it is common courtesy to
acknowledge your sources and the Beastie Boys clearly haven't been
professional about this, but I don't think it should ever have got in the
hands of shyster lawyers whose only motivation is money.  If you're suing
for money, unless you have genuinely lost earnings, then I think you have
lost your integrity and the argument.

-Original Message-
From: Langsman, Marc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 12:28 PM
To: 'Robert Taylor'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


>I've lost a lot of respect for the Beastie Boys since the todo with The
>Prodigy a few years back and this makes them look worse.  
>However, what were
>Howard's motives for suing? Did he see dollars or was he a 
>genuine outraged
>artist? 

surely either/both of the above reasons are perfectly valid and do not
interfere with his integrity ?? If making music is his livelihood then I see
no reason why he should not sue on dollar grounds - I'd imagine that he'd
feel pretty p1ssed off in both respects though !


--
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
designated recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient
of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  This
communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as
an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial
product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official
statement of Lehman Brothers.  Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be
secure or error-free.  Therefore, we do not represent that this information
is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such.  All
information is subject to change without notice.



Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[J. T.]

I think he's trying to point out that people on the list might have
different feelings if it was UR bein ripped off [not them ripping other
people]..  :]


ahh ok it was worded a little funny.
i missed the people defending the major label i guess...?? wtf?? !




_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Langsman, Marc]

>
>UR wouldnt sample 6 seconds of somebody else's music to form 
>the backbone of 
>a song that they make millions off ofwe all know what UR 
>has been thru 
>themselves getting ripped off by majors, pretty ridiculous to 
>try to imagine 
>a situation in which it is reverse...

I think he's trying to point out that people on the list might have
different feelings if it was UR bein ripped off [not them ripping other
people]..  :]

peace,
Marc

--
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the 
designated recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of 
this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  This 
communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an 
offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an 
official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman 
Brothers.  Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free.  
Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate 
and it should not be relied upon as such.  All information is subject to change 
without notice.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[J. T.]

six seconds?! thats a long sample!! IMO that really does verge on stealing, 
or at least deserving credit as remix/derivative song...you REALLY are 
asking for it to sample something that long without permission and then 
release it on the largest possible scale.


sounds cut & dry to me if it weren't for the big money flexxinas 
alwaysif the situation were reversed and the corp was sueing someone for 
sampling the beasties, of course they'd win, and they'd probably have full 
rights to that person's music in the end too.



> If this was a UR sample or something, and UR were getting sued (and were
> doing a similar e-mail publicity campaign), then would you say the same
> thing?


UR wouldnt sample 6 seconds of somebody else's music to form the backbone of 
a song that they make millions off ofwe all know what UR has been thru 
themselves getting ripped off by majors, pretty ridiculous to try to imagine 
a situation in which it is reverse...


jt

_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[robin pinning]

>
> Well, yeah, I see the point, and we would never know why he started court
> action.
>
> The point though, is that the guy stands to lose everything he has, and
> quite frankly, $500,000 to the Beastie Boys' record co. is nothing really,
> and bearing in mind they did use his sample, I think the least they could
> do would be to pay the costs.

well i think the least they can do is not get into a situation with
another artist where they run up $500,000 in costs alone!

still it's got past that now...

> Remember, he'll still end up with nothing,
> and they did use a sample from his music to make a vast profit. Big fat
> corporate mess this one, cos it's unlikely they'll back down

yeah agreed...very ugly

> If this was a UR sample or something, and UR were getting sued (and were
> doing a similar e-mail publicity campaign), then would you say the same
> thing?

:)

robin...


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Ian Cheshire]

I agree mate..I don't know what RT means.ok so I'll sample Channel 4's
anthem and they won't sue me will they? off course they would, in fact the
guy that wrote
it probably would..

RT I think your being a bit harsh..maybe you should send me a copy of tune
you have done, I'll 
sample massive parts of it, make some cheesy record with it, add some
girlies, make a total mint ( as kids are the buying market) and put two
fingers up to you when you ask for some kickback and say sorry mate this
money's mine..ha ha ha ha.

Cos hey lets not beat around the bush,,there are few people who would sit
back and bite their tongue and see the dollars just running away from them
from what they originally created.



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 August 2002 13:15
To: 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?



Memo from Alex Bond of PricewaterhouseCoopers

 Start of message text 

Surely the point is that the multi-millionaire Beastie Boys are about to
bankrupt the guy, all for the privelege of using HIS music, without asking
the right people.

Bit shady on their part, and you would have thought if they knew the full
story, you'd have hoped that they'd get their record company to stop the
action taken against him.

If, however, they know exactly what's going on, then they're bang out of
order and should be strung up.




Robert Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 13/08/2002 13:41:51
To:"'Odeluga, Ken'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED] Org"
   <313@hyperreal.org>
cc:


Subject:RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

Yes - What is wrong with sampling? Hip hop and many electronic forms of
music use it creatively

-Original Message-
From: Odeluga, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


Ha! Is this is serious considered response?

>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:26 AM
>To: 'Neontsetse'; 313s
>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>What about the artist's right to sample?
>Surely it is ridiculous to award damages to an artist if they haven't been
>harmed commercially by the sampling?
>No one is ever going to buy a Beastie boys record in the mistaken belief
>that it is a James Newton record.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Neontsetse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:20 AM
>To: 313s
>Subject: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>
>
>voila
>
>
>
>>Please distribute to raise awareness and support of this important
>> > Artists' Rights and Cultural Hegemony issue!
>> >
>> > -James Newton loses to Beastie Boys: Amicus
>> >
>> > support requested!   URGENT
>> > (This story can found at <http://www.jazzhouse.org/lobby.html>)
>> >
>> > From: James Newton (renowned jazz musician) --
>> >
>> >For the last two years I have been involved in a suit because
>> > the Beastie Boys sampled a part of my composition "Choir" and did not
>> > contact me for permission. They did not change in any way what they
>> > sampled from "Choir". It begins with the sampled six and a half
>> > seconds and loops in the song over forty times. "Pass the Mic'" has
>> > appeared in CD, MP3, LP, and DVD formats.
>> >
>> > The law clearly states that to use someone else's music one
>> > must contact and receive permission from both the record company and
>> > the copyright  owner."Choir" was registered with the copyright office
>> > and ASCAP in 1978. My publishing company JANEW MUSIC controls 100% of
>> > the rights. The Beastie Boys contacted and received permission from
>> > ECM Records, which released my album Axum which they sampled in 1992,
>> > and ignored me.
>> >
>> > The case went up for summary judgement one month ago and Judge
>> > Nora Manella of US Federal Court ruled against me!!! She
>> > stated as a fact of law that my music was not original! The six and a
>> > half second sample consists of three sung notes C,Db, C and a held
>> > flute harmonic C2, as a result of the combination of voice, harmonic
>> > and a balanced distribution of each a series of shifting multiphonics
>> > are created. The judge ignored the multiphonics becau

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[alex . bond]

Memo from Alex Bond of PricewaterhouseCoopers

 Start of message text 

Well, yeah, I see the point, and we would never know why he started court
action.

The point though, is that the guy stands to lose everything he has, and
quite frankly, $500,000 to the Beastie Boys' record co. is nothing really,
and bearing in mind they did use his sample, I think the least they could
do would be to pay the costs. Remember, he'll still end up with nothing,
and they did use a sample from his music to make a vast profit. Big fat
corporate mess this one, cos it's unlikely they'll back down

If this was a UR sample or something, and UR were getting sued (and were
doing a similar e-mail publicity campaign), then would you say the same
thing?





Robert Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 13/08/2002 14:24:50
To:Alex Bond/UK/INF/PwC, 313@hyperreal.org
cc:


Subject:    RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

I've lost a lot of respect for the Beastie Boys since the todo with The
Prodigy a few years back and this makes them look worse.  However, what
were
Howard's motives for suing? Did he see dollars or was he a genuine outraged
artist? I don't think either side come off well in this spat - the "music
business" is dirty indeed - an oxymoron if there was ever one.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 12:15 PM
To: 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?



Memo from Alex Bond of PricewaterhouseCoopers

 Start of message text 

Surely the point is that the multi-millionaire Beastie Boys are about to
bankrupt the guy, all for the privelege of using HIS music, without asking
the right people.

Bit shady on their part, and you would have thought if they knew the full
story, you'd have hoped that they'd get their record company to stop the
action taken against him.

If, however, they know exactly what's going on, then they're bang out of
order and should be strung up.




Robert Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 13/08/2002 13:41:51
To:"'Odeluga, Ken'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED] Org"
   <313@hyperreal.org>
cc:


Subject:RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

Yes - What is wrong with sampling? Hip hop and many electronic forms of
music use it creatively

-Original Message-----
From: Odeluga, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


Ha! Is this is serious considered response?

>-Original Message-----
>From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:26 AM
>To: 'Neontsetse'; 313s
>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>What about the artist's right to sample?
>Surely it is ridiculous to award damages to an artist if they haven't been
>harmed commercially by the sampling?
>No one is ever going to buy a Beastie boys record in the mistaken belief
>that it is a James Newton record.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Neontsetse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:20 AM
>To: 313s
>Subject: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>
>
>voila
>
>
>
>>Please distribute to raise awareness and support of this important
>> > Artists' Rights and Cultural Hegemony issue!
>> >
>> > -James Newton loses to Beastie Boys: Amicus
>> >
>> > support requested!   URGENT
>> > (This story can found at <http://www.jazzhouse.org/lobby.html>)
>> >
>> > From: James Newton (renowned jazz musician) --
>> >
>> >For the last two years I have been involved in a suit because
>> > the Beastie Boys sampled a part of my composition "Choir" and did not
>> > contact me for permission. They did not change in any way what they
>> > sampled from "Choir". It begins with the sampled six and a half
>> > seconds and loops in the song over forty times. "Pass the Mic'" has
>> > appeared in CD, MP3, LP, and DVD formats.
>> >
>> > The law clearly states that to use someone else's music one
>> > must contact and receive permission from both the record company and
>> > the copyright  owner."Choir" was registered with the copyright office
>> > and ASCAP in 1978. My publishing company JANEW MUSIC controls 100% of
>> > the rights. The Beastie Boys contacted and received permission from
>> > ECM Records, which re

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Langsman, Marc]

>I've lost a lot of respect for the Beastie Boys since the todo with The
>Prodigy a few years back and this makes them look worse.  
>However, what were
>Howard's motives for suing? Did he see dollars or was he a 
>genuine outraged
>artist? 

surely either/both of the above reasons are perfectly valid and do not
interfere with his integrity ?? If making music is his livelihood then I see
no reason why he should not sue on dollar grounds - I'd imagine that he'd
feel pretty p1ssed off in both respects though !

--
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the 
designated recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of 
this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  This 
communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an 
offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an 
official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman 
Brothers.  Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free.  
Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate 
and it should not be relied upon as such.  All information is subject to change 
without notice.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Robert Taylor]

I've lost a lot of respect for the Beastie Boys since the todo with The
Prodigy a few years back and this makes them look worse.  However, what were
Howard's motives for suing? Did he see dollars or was he a genuine outraged
artist? I don't think either side come off well in this spat - the "music
business" is dirty indeed - an oxymoron if there was ever one.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 12:15 PM
To: 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?



Memo from Alex Bond of PricewaterhouseCoopers

 Start of message text 

Surely the point is that the multi-millionaire Beastie Boys are about to
bankrupt the guy, all for the privelege of using HIS music, without asking
the right people.

Bit shady on their part, and you would have thought if they knew the full
story, you'd have hoped that they'd get their record company to stop the
action taken against him.

If, however, they know exactly what's going on, then they're bang out of
order and should be strung up.




Robert Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 13/08/2002 13:41:51
To:"'Odeluga, Ken'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED] Org"
   <313@hyperreal.org>
cc:


Subject:RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

Yes - What is wrong with sampling? Hip hop and many electronic forms of
music use it creatively

-Original Message-
From: Odeluga, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


Ha! Is this is serious considered response?

>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:26 AM
>To: 'Neontsetse'; 313s
>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>What about the artist's right to sample?
>Surely it is ridiculous to award damages to an artist if they haven't been
>harmed commercially by the sampling?
>No one is ever going to buy a Beastie boys record in the mistaken belief
>that it is a James Newton record.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Neontsetse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:20 AM
>To: 313s
>Subject: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>
>
>voila
>
>
>
>>Please distribute to raise awareness and support of this important
>> > Artists' Rights and Cultural Hegemony issue!
>> >
>> > -James Newton loses to Beastie Boys: Amicus
>> >
>> > support requested!   URGENT
>> > (This story can found at <http://www.jazzhouse.org/lobby.html>)
>> >
>> > From: James Newton (renowned jazz musician) --
>> >
>> >For the last two years I have been involved in a suit because
>> > the Beastie Boys sampled a part of my composition "Choir" and did not
>> > contact me for permission. They did not change in any way what they
>> > sampled from "Choir". It begins with the sampled six and a half
>> > seconds and loops in the song over forty times. "Pass the Mic'" has
>> > appeared in CD, MP3, LP, and DVD formats.
>> >
>> > The law clearly states that to use someone else's music one
>> > must contact and receive permission from both the record company and
>> > the copyright  owner."Choir" was registered with the copyright office
>> > and ASCAP in 1978. My publishing company JANEW MUSIC controls 100% of
>> > the rights. The Beastie Boys contacted and received permission from
>> > ECM Records, which released my album Axum which they sampled in 1992,
>> > and ignored me.
>> >
>> > The case went up for summary judgement one month ago and Judge
>> > Nora Manella of US Federal Court ruled against me!!! She
>> > stated as a fact of law that my music was not original! The six and a
>> > half second sample consists of three sung notes C,Db, C and a held
>> > flute harmonic C2, as a result of the combination of voice, harmonic
>> > and a balanced distribution of each a series of shifting multiphonics
>> > are created. The judge ignored the multiphonics because they weren't
>> > written on the score and said that there are just three notes in the
>> > score which aren't protectable. If you go to the Beastie Boy's DVD of
>> > the piece "Pass the Mic" to signify the song there is only my flute
>> > sample and a drum beat. The judge consis

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Odeluga, Ken]

Robert Taylor:

>What about the artist's right to sample?
>Surely it is ridiculous to award damages to an artist if they haven't been
>harmed commercially by the sampling?
>No one is ever going to buy a Beastie boys record in the mistaken belief
>that it is a James Newton record.

That is highly skewiff thinking to say the least:

No one buys a Beastie Boys record because they think it's a James Newton
one, very largely because they've never heard of James Newton.

But of course that's not the point.

The point is common courtesy and intellectual property, the fine points of
which I'll leave the lawyers to argue out. But if I was James Newton, I'd at
least want adequate recompense for an idea which I had had, and which was
misappropriated by another. Unless, videoing a Channel 4 programme and
dedistributing it as my own is now an ok thing to do - as if anyone would
want to nick somnambulent crap anyway!

K

>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:26 AM
>To: 'Neontsetse'; 313s
>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>What about the artist's right to sample?
>Surely it is ridiculous to award damages to an artist if they haven't been
>harmed commercially by the sampling?
>No one is ever going to buy a Beastie boys record in the mistaken belief
>that it is a James Newton record.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Neontsetse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:20 AM
>To: 313s
>Subject: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>
>
>voila
>
>
>
>>Please distribute to raise awareness and support of this important
>> > Artists' Rights and Cultural Hegemony issue!
>> >
>> > -James Newton loses to Beastie Boys: Amicus
>> >
>> > support requested!   URGENT
>> > (This story can found at <http://www.jazzhouse.org/lobby.html>)
>> >
>> > From: James Newton (renowned jazz musician) --
>> >
>> >For the last two years I have been involved in a suit because
>> > the Beastie Boys sampled a part of my composition "Choir" and did not
>> > contact me for permission. They did not change in any way what they
>> > sampled from "Choir". It begins with the sampled six and a half
>> > seconds and loops in the song over forty times. "Pass the Mic'" has
>> > appeared in CD, MP3, LP, and DVD formats.
>> >
>> > The law clearly states that to use someone else's music one
>> > must contact and receive permission from both the record company and
>> > the copyright  owner."Choir" was registered with the copyright office
>> > and ASCAP in 1978. My publishing company JANEW MUSIC controls 100% of
>> > the rights. The Beastie Boys contacted and received permission from
>> > ECM Records, which released my album Axum which they sampled in 1992,
>> > and ignored me.
>> >
>> > The case went up for summary judgement one month ago and Judge
>> > Nora Manella of US Federal Court ruled against me!!! She
>> > stated as a fact of law that my music was not original! The six and a
>> > half second sample consists of three sung notes C,Db, C and a held
>> > flute harmonic C2, as a result of the combination of voice, harmonic
>> > and a balanced distribution of each a series of shifting multiphonics
>> > are created. The judge ignored the multiphonics because they weren't
>> > written on the score and said that there are just three notes in the
>> > score which aren't protectable. If you go to the Beastie Boy's DVD of
>> > the piece "Pass the Mic" to signify the song there is only my flute
>> > sample and a drum beat. The judge consistently used European paradigms
>> > to judge my music. An aria from Purcell's "Dido and Aeneas" and Cole
>> > Porter's "Night and Day" were examples of what is protectable. "Choir"
>> > is about four black women singing in a church in rural Arkansas. This
>> > work is a modern approach to a spiritual. As you well know, one would
>> > be hard-pressed to find multiphonic fingerings in most jazz scores,
>> > even when multiphonics are used If I'm writing for a classical
>> > ensemble I'll write out the multiphonic fingerings because of how
>> > notation is used in that culture of music.
>> >
>> > The urgency of this letter is that after unjustly winning the

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[alex . bond]

Memo from Alex Bond of PricewaterhouseCoopers

 Start of message text 

Surely the point is that the multi-millionaire Beastie Boys are about to
bankrupt the guy, all for the privelege of using HIS music, without asking
the right people.

Bit shady on their part, and you would have thought if they knew the full
story, you'd have hoped that they'd get their record company to stop the
action taken against him.

If, however, they know exactly what's going on, then they're bang out of
order and should be strung up.




Robert Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 13/08/2002 13:41:51
To:"'Odeluga, Ken'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED] Org"
   <313@hyperreal.org>
cc:


Subject:RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

Yes - What is wrong with sampling? Hip hop and many electronic forms of
music use it creatively

-Original Message-
From: Odeluga, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?


Ha! Is this is serious considered response?

>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:26 AM
>To: 'Neontsetse'; 313s
>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>What about the artist's right to sample?
>Surely it is ridiculous to award damages to an artist if they haven't been
>harmed commercially by the sampling?
>No one is ever going to buy a Beastie boys record in the mistaken belief
>that it is a James Newton record.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Neontsetse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:20 AM
>To: 313s
>Subject: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>
>
>voila
>
>
>
>>Please distribute to raise awareness and support of this important
>> > Artists' Rights and Cultural Hegemony issue!
>> >
>> > -James Newton loses to Beastie Boys: Amicus
>> >
>> > support requested!   URGENT
>> > (This story can found at <http://www.jazzhouse.org/lobby.html>)
>> >
>> > From: James Newton (renowned jazz musician) --
>> >
>> >For the last two years I have been involved in a suit because
>> > the Beastie Boys sampled a part of my composition "Choir" and did not
>> > contact me for permission. They did not change in any way what they
>> > sampled from "Choir". It begins with the sampled six and a half
>> > seconds and loops in the song over forty times. "Pass the Mic'" has
>> > appeared in CD, MP3, LP, and DVD formats.
>> >
>> > The law clearly states that to use someone else's music one
>> > must contact and receive permission from both the record company and
>> > the copyright  owner."Choir" was registered with the copyright office
>> > and ASCAP in 1978. My publishing company JANEW MUSIC controls 100% of
>> > the rights. The Beastie Boys contacted and received permission from
>> > ECM Records, which released my album Axum which they sampled in 1992,
>> > and ignored me.
>> >
>> > The case went up for summary judgement one month ago and Judge
>> > Nora Manella of US Federal Court ruled against me!!! She
>> > stated as a fact of law that my music was not original! The six and a
>> > half second sample consists of three sung notes C,Db, C and a held
>> > flute harmonic C2, as a result of the combination of voice, harmonic
>> > and a balanced distribution of each a series of shifting multiphonics
>> > are created. The judge ignored the multiphonics because they weren't
>> > written on the score and said that there are just three notes in the
>> > score which aren't protectable. If you go to the Beastie Boy's DVD of
>> > the piece "Pass the Mic" to signify the song there is only my flute
>> > sample and a drum beat. The judge consistently used European paradigms
>> > to judge my music. An aria from Purcell's "Dido and Aeneas" and Cole
>> > Porter's "Night and Day" were examples of what is protectable. "Choir"
>> > is about four black women singing in a church in rural Arkansas. This
>> > work is a modern approach to a spiritual. As you well know, one would
>> > be hard-pressed to find multiphonic fingerings in most jazz scores,
>> > even when multiphonics are used If I'm writing for a classical
>> >

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Robert Taylor]

Yes - What is wrong with sampling? Hip hop and many electronic forms of
music use it creatively 

-Original Message-
From: Odeluga, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org
Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ? 


Ha! Is this is serious considered response?

>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:26 AM
>To: 'Neontsetse'; 313s
>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>What about the artist's right to sample?
>Surely it is ridiculous to award damages to an artist if they haven't been
>harmed commercially by the sampling?
>No one is ever going to buy a Beastie boys record in the mistaken belief
>that it is a James Newton record.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Neontsetse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:20 AM
>To: 313s
>Subject: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>
>
>voila
>
>
>
>>Please distribute to raise awareness and support of this important
>> > Artists' Rights and Cultural Hegemony issue!
>> >
>> > -James Newton loses to Beastie Boys: Amicus
>> >
>> > support requested!   URGENT
>> > (This story can found at <http://www.jazzhouse.org/lobby.html>)
>> >
>> > From: James Newton (renowned jazz musician) --
>> >
>> >For the last two years I have been involved in a suit because
>> > the Beastie Boys sampled a part of my composition "Choir" and did not
>> > contact me for permission. They did not change in any way what they
>> > sampled from "Choir". It begins with the sampled six and a half
>> > seconds and loops in the song over forty times. "Pass the Mic'" has
>> > appeared in CD, MP3, LP, and DVD formats.
>> >
>> > The law clearly states that to use someone else's music one
>> > must contact and receive permission from both the record company and
>> > the copyright  owner."Choir" was registered with the copyright office
>> > and ASCAP in 1978. My publishing company JANEW MUSIC controls 100% of
>> > the rights. The Beastie Boys contacted and received permission from
>> > ECM Records, which released my album Axum which they sampled in 1992,
>> > and ignored me.
>> >
>> > The case went up for summary judgement one month ago and Judge
>> > Nora Manella of US Federal Court ruled against me!!! She
>> > stated as a fact of law that my music was not original! The six and a
>> > half second sample consists of three sung notes C,Db, C and a held
>> > flute harmonic C2, as a result of the combination of voice, harmonic
>> > and a balanced distribution of each a series of shifting multiphonics
>> > are created. The judge ignored the multiphonics because they weren't
>> > written on the score and said that there are just three notes in the
>> > score which aren't protectable. If you go to the Beastie Boy's DVD of
>> > the piece "Pass the Mic" to signify the song there is only my flute
>> > sample and a drum beat. The judge consistently used European paradigms
>> > to judge my music. An aria from Purcell's "Dido and Aeneas" and Cole
>> > Porter's "Night and Day" were examples of what is protectable. "Choir"
>> > is about four black women singing in a church in rural Arkansas. This
>> > work is a modern approach to a spiritual. As you well know, one would
>> > be hard-pressed to find multiphonic fingerings in most jazz scores,
>> > even when multiphonics are used If I'm writing for a classical
>> > ensemble I'll write out the multiphonic fingerings because of how
>> > notation is used in that culture of music.
>> >
>> > The urgency of this letter is that after unjustly winning the
>> > case the Beastie Boys have filed a motion with the court for me to pay
>> > their legal fees of $492,000 after they stole my music. I have already
>> > spent a considerable amount of money for a creative musician and
>> > college professor. This would, of course, send me into bankruptcy, and
>> > I stand a chance of losing my home and all that I have worked for
>> > through the years. If you can spread news of this judgement around, it
>> > will help my cause greatly.
>> >
>> >  The more newspapers, magazines and journals that thi

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Odeluga, Ken]

Ha! Is this is serious considered response?

>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:26 AM
>To: 'Neontsetse'; 313s
>Subject: RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>What about the artist's right to sample?
>Surely it is ridiculous to award damages to an artist if they haven't been
>harmed commercially by the sampling?
>No one is ever going to buy a Beastie boys record in the mistaken belief
>that it is a James Newton record.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Neontsetse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:20 AM
>To: 313s
>Subject: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?
>
>
>
>
>voila
>
>
>
>>Please distribute to raise awareness and support of this important
>> > Artists' Rights and Cultural Hegemony issue!
>> >
>> > -James Newton loses to Beastie Boys: Amicus
>> >
>> > support requested!   URGENT
>> > (This story can found at <http://www.jazzhouse.org/lobby.html>)
>> >
>> > From: James Newton (renowned jazz musician) --
>> >
>> >For the last two years I have been involved in a suit because
>> > the Beastie Boys sampled a part of my composition "Choir" and did not
>> > contact me for permission. They did not change in any way what they
>> > sampled from "Choir". It begins with the sampled six and a half
>> > seconds and loops in the song over forty times. "Pass the Mic'" has
>> > appeared in CD, MP3, LP, and DVD formats.
>> >
>> > The law clearly states that to use someone else's music one
>> > must contact and receive permission from both the record company and
>> > the copyright  owner."Choir" was registered with the copyright office
>> > and ASCAP in 1978. My publishing company JANEW MUSIC controls 100% of
>> > the rights. The Beastie Boys contacted and received permission from
>> > ECM Records, which released my album Axum which they sampled in 1992,
>> > and ignored me.
>> >
>> > The case went up for summary judgement one month ago and Judge
>> > Nora Manella of US Federal Court ruled against me!!! She
>> > stated as a fact of law that my music was not original! The six and a
>> > half second sample consists of three sung notes C,Db, C and a held
>> > flute harmonic C2, as a result of the combination of voice, harmonic
>> > and a balanced distribution of each a series of shifting multiphonics
>> > are created. The judge ignored the multiphonics because they weren't
>> > written on the score and said that there are just three notes in the
>> > score which aren't protectable. If you go to the Beastie Boy's DVD of
>> > the piece "Pass the Mic" to signify the song there is only my flute
>> > sample and a drum beat. The judge consistently used European paradigms
>> > to judge my music. An aria from Purcell's "Dido and Aeneas" and Cole
>> > Porter's "Night and Day" were examples of what is protectable. "Choir"
>> > is about four black women singing in a church in rural Arkansas. This
>> > work is a modern approach to a spiritual. As you well know, one would
>> > be hard-pressed to find multiphonic fingerings in most jazz scores,
>> > even when multiphonics are used If I'm writing for a classical
>> > ensemble I'll write out the multiphonic fingerings because of how
>> > notation is used in that culture of music.
>> >
>> > The urgency of this letter is that after unjustly winning the
>> > case the Beastie Boys have filed a motion with the court for me to pay
>> > their legal fees of $492,000 after they stole my music. I have already
>> > spent a considerable amount of money for a creative musician and
>> > college professor. This would, of course, send me into bankruptcy, and
>> > I stand a chance of losing my home and all that I have worked for
>> > through the years. If you can spread news of this judgement around, it
>> > will help my cause greatly.
>> >
>> >  The more newspapers, magazines and journals that this is
>> > placed in will help. Please inform us of any press that appears so
>> > that we can use it in our legal endeavors. My lawyer, Alan Korn
>> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>), and he can give you the
>> > information of where to send Amicus

RE: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ?

[Robert Taylor]

What about the artist's right to sample?
Surely it is ridiculous to award damages to an artist if they haven't been
harmed commercially by the sampling?
No one is ever going to buy a Beastie boys record in the mistaken belief
that it is a James Newton record.


-Original Message-
From: Neontsetse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:20 AM
To: 313s
Subject: [313] > can you post this to the 313 list... ? 




voila 



>Please distribute to raise awareness and support of this important
> > Artists' Rights and Cultural Hegemony issue!
> >
> > -James Newton loses to Beastie Boys: Amicus
> >
> > support requested!   URGENT
> > (This story can found at )
> >
> > From: James Newton (renowned jazz musician) --
> >
> >For the last two years I have been involved in a suit because
> > the Beastie Boys sampled a part of my composition "Choir" and did not
> > contact me for permission. They did not change in any way what they
> > sampled from "Choir". It begins with the sampled six and a half
> > seconds and loops in the song over forty times. "Pass the Mic'" has
> > appeared in CD, MP3, LP, and DVD formats.
> >
> > The law clearly states that to use someone else's music one
> > must contact and receive permission from both the record company and
> > the copyright  owner."Choir" was registered with the copyright office
> > and ASCAP in 1978. My publishing company JANEW MUSIC controls 100% of
> > the rights. The Beastie Boys contacted and received permission from
> > ECM Records, which released my album Axum which they sampled in 1992,
> > and ignored me.
> >
> > The case went up for summary judgement one month ago and Judge
> > Nora Manella of US Federal Court ruled against me!!! She
> > stated as a fact of law that my music was not original! The six and a
> > half second sample consists of three sung notes C,Db, C and a held
> > flute harmonic C2, as a result of the combination of voice, harmonic
> > and a balanced distribution of each a series of shifting multiphonics
> > are created. The judge ignored the multiphonics because they weren't
> > written on the score and said that there are just three notes in the
> > score which aren't protectable. If you go to the Beastie Boy's DVD of
> > the piece "Pass the Mic" to signify the song there is only my flute
> > sample and a drum beat. The judge consistently used European paradigms
> > to judge my music. An aria from Purcell's "Dido and Aeneas" and Cole
> > Porter's "Night and Day" were examples of what is protectable. "Choir"
> > is about four black women singing in a church in rural Arkansas. This
> > work is a modern approach to a spiritual. As you well know, one would
> > be hard-pressed to find multiphonic fingerings in most jazz scores,
> > even when multiphonics are used If I'm writing for a classical
> > ensemble I'll write out the multiphonic fingerings because of how
> > notation is used in that culture of music.
> >
> > The urgency of this letter is that after unjustly winning the
> > case the Beastie Boys have filed a motion with the court for me to pay
> > their legal fees of $492,000 after they stole my music. I have already
> > spent a considerable amount of money for a creative musician and
> > college professor. This would, of course, send me into bankruptcy, and
> > I stand a chance of losing my home and all that I have worked for
> > through the years. If you can spread news of this judgement around, it
> > will help my cause greatly.
> >
> >  The more newspapers, magazines and journals that this is
> > placed in will help. Please inform us of any press that appears so
> > that we can use it in our legal endeavors. My lawyer, Alan Korn
> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED] ), and he can give you the
> > information of where to send Amicus letters.
> >
> > This decision is a dangerous one that would affect jazz
> > composers and other composers that choose to write in other ways.  The
> > strain on this trial and subsequent rulings have been immense. It has
> > curtailed much of my artistic output because of the seriousness of
> > this situation. This is a time when I have to now ask for your help. I
> > am fighting for my rights and the abilty to express myself in my own
> > and any other cultural perspective that I choose as an artist.
> >
> > Yours in music and freedom,
> > James Newton


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically
stated.  This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify
[EMAIL PROTE