Is he right, /mu/?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
Is he right, /mu/?
yea. artistic ownership is stupid
>>63755802
Only in the case of sampling or when someone does something totally different to the stolen material. If you don't do this you're a collage artist. You can pass it off as an homage but no one will think highly of you.
But I do agree that copyright is restrictive when it comes to music or art in general
>>63755850
shut up
>>63755802
To an extent. There are times when somebody is just ripping somebody else off. Idk where to draw the line legally, but in general, unless it's obviously a straight rip off borrowing is fine.
>>63755902
>legally
who cares
>>63755802
Yeah definitely, most art wouldn't exist if people didn't copy each other
yes
If I was going to write an academic paper and reference another paper, I put a citation in my bibliography. If I was going to produce a song for commercial revenue that sampled another song, I have to contact the label/whomever holds the royalty and pay for clearance.
>>63755802
some one doesn't actually doesn't make art, or music, let alone know anything about it.
>>63756069
Hello, shill!
>>63755902
Blatant ripoffs typically fail commercially.
This is the beauty of capitalism.
>>63756128
encouraging uninspired recycling of music with little or no change to it makes you a shill.
>>63755802
Hi Stefan
>>63755802
I can agree with that.
>>63756158
Nah, it just makes you a fucking pleb if you actually support the hindrance of musical styles achieving their creative terminal velocity.
In a free enterprise system, if you do something first and someone does it better than you, you deserve to fail. Sorry.
>>63756158
>believes in "owning" sounds
lol douche
>>63755861
fuck off lauren, you retarded slut
>>63755861
go fuck yourself tranny you're a disappointment to your parents you gender swapping mentally ill grease loving john travolta le tell me more faggot fucker
>>63756215
success doesn't mean better you knob.
a hack can rip off an unknown and potentially worthwhile artist and screw their career.
>>63756215
Music isn't about who's 'better', it's not supposed to be a competition. Why not enjoy all?
>>63756266
>Why not enjoy all?
that's what looser sampling laws would let people do
>often even whole passages from other works are borrowed
this guy obviously can't even read never mind compose a compelling argument. borrowing wholesale from other works is just outright plagiarism. There's a big differnce between that and allusion. copyright laws aren't perfect but as far as art is concerned it has almost always been a force for good
>>63756251
Maybe in the recording industry of forty years ago. Not so much now. See
>the Internet
>>63756266
>Music isn't about who's 'better'
I'm sorry but from a label perspective and deciding who you're going to support and what bands they tour with, it really is.
>>63756384
>he's never read non-fiction before
>he's never written a paper for an English class
It's called quote citation, dumbfuck. Holy shit.
>>63756023
false analogy
>purpose of academic paper is knowledge and education
>purpose of "a song for commercial revenue" is commercial revenue
>>63756578
Oh my God, you're right! A publishing company doesn't parallel a record label at all. ;))) Books aren't a commercial enterprise industry; they don't make any money! A publishing company doesn't need sustainable cash flow to survive!
Honestly just take your croney bullshit somewhere else. It looks like the majority of posters ITT are sick of it.
Music is equally for knowledge and education as is literature. Please fuck off.
>>63756553
Quote citation for non-fiction/argumentative papers are a totally different situations. The OP is talking about plagiarism from an artistic standpoint, where as persuasive essays/papers are mean to prove a point.
>>63756507
>Maybe in the recording industry of forty years ago. Not so much now. See
>the Internet
okay.
>>63756702
i've never gotten why people are against the concept of just citing samples like you would cite a quote instead of paying for them (i actually hadn't even thought of that parallel before you brought it up, but it's totally valid)
>>63755802
In the case of sampling, yes.
Vaporwave/Nightcore shouldn't exist though, and definitely shouldn't be earning "musicians" money.
>>63756852
Alright then.
lol look at this pic
>>63757042
ID3 tags contain enough character entry for a substantial bibliography. I don't know why this isn't common practice.
>>63757080
why do you care what music people buy?
>>63757159
I think he means more that something that involves "sampling" so heavily like in vaporwave or nightcore shouldnt be something that can be sold
>>63757252
anything can be sold on bandcamp though
>>63755850
>>63755902
>>63756069
>>63756384
Thinking there's any substantial argument for the way copyright litigation functions as it stands besides that it makes the majors money is your mental conditioning speaking.
We're not gonna see the invigoration of a substantial music industry our lifetimes with attitudes like these.
>>63755850
Agreed.
>>63757711
how does the ability to rip off music make it better for musicians?
>>63756153
that's not true. if a popular artist were to steal from an unknown artist, the popular artist would succeed.
>>63758387
any cases of this actually happening or are you just saying things shouldn't change because of ridiculous what-if scenarios?
>>63758387
Claim like that needs some anecdotal evidence.
Yes.
>>63758592
Ironically, when properly applied, principles of capitalism facilitate the medium for unlimited creative potential of arts and sciences in all directions.
The problem we have right now is we literally don't have a music industry.
