as well he made “Melodies derived from Stock charts, arranged with Microsoft Songsmith
The Billion-Dollar-Song, the most expensive piece of music ever.”
i’m always impressed by the creativity of some protest actions. hopefully it will succeed..
Unfortunately he was turned down: Only Samples longer than 10 seconds need to be registered.
Still, GEMA in .de is ridiculous; they even want to charge you for non-commercial PodCasts etc…
Im glad he failed. What an absolute waste of time.
If he works at GEMA and he knows the system and why it is arcane and stupid , instead of this publicity stunt to get himself well know he should work within trying to make changes and make the system better.
Its far easier to go “This is shit and i can prove it” than it is to go “This is shit and ive got a better solution”
If he dont like it , he should make it better.
If its true that anything less than 10secs isnt counted and he didnt know then hes fucking stupid. He obviously didnt do his homework.
he’s just a member at GEMA (like most producers/bands are), which means he has to register his work there. he’s not working for them. as a normal member, you cannot really change this whole system, if you don’t make it public. and without any creative idea to sell to the media, nobody would recognize you.
he actually has solutions, like e.g. a “culture flatrate”.
in the old register form it says that “borrowed material must be mentioned, no matter how small it may be”, i’m just guessing that GEMA changed the form, searching for more info right now..
As long as hes putting forward solutions as well as highlighting the problem then im all for it. I like to see people making things work better not just pointing out that they dont work.
Seems like GEMA moved the goal-posts (as we English say) just to fuck with his project.
yeah sorry that’s a very English saying . It means changing the rules just to suit themselves.
GEMA probably changed the law to make the guys action redundant.
Already done and already settled out of court. Funny that this was the subject of a TV program in UK just last week.
Taken from WiKi.
In July 2002, composer Mike Batt had charges of plagiarism filed against him by the estate of John Cage after crediting his track “A Minute’s Silence” as being written by “Batt/Cage”. Batt initially vowed to fight the suit, even going so far as to claim that his piece is “a much better silent piece. I have been able to say in one minute what Cage could only say in four minutes and thirty-three seconds.” Batt told The Independent that “My silence is original silence, not a quotation from his silence.” Batt eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed six figure sum in September 2002
Now that IS fucking bonkers. You cant sample nothing !!! I suppose it just down to Mike Batt crediting John Cage which is the only reason people may have been interested in the piece in the first place and therefore probably right that Cage got his cut.
Seems like theres something wrong with artists getting what they deserve when they write something and someone uses it these days.
Id be fucking crazy if i wrote a piece of music and then someone else nicked a bit and started making money.
Seems ok to make money from samples but not from composing.
I wouldnt, as long as they arnt stealing the entier song and its a legitimaly a new peice of artwork. Without the reapropriation of material drum and bass wouldnt exist and what would the world be without dnb ? pretty damn sad thats what !
I still don’t understand how you could possibly cram that many samples into 33 seconds without it sounding like static? In which case, maybe I’ll copyright static. Take that, poor reception. Lol.
I’m surprised people don’t get sued more often for using similar sounding synths n stuff. Or even similar beats…
Bentosan: Yeah im not against sampling or anything. That would be stupid , half the music ive ever listened to wouldnt exist . Im just not down with this Free for all attitude that i sometimes hear.
Peoples work is not the property of just anybodys. You have to give credit to the artist.
The point of the bit that you quoted is that if an artist is not recieving royalties from a tune but someone samples it (and it is the main hook of the song) and is making money then some money should go back to the original artist. The new version would not exist if it wasnt for the original and it is moral wrong if the artist isnt compensated.
