I enjoyed watching "Copyright Criminals" in class last Wednesday. It elaborated on many things that I already knew about and some that I had never though of before. Some of my opinions and positions will we expressed in the answers to the questions below.
1. In your opinion, is sampling a form of copyright infringement? Explain your position.
No, in my opinion, sampling is not a form of copyright infringement as long as the person whose work is being sampled receives payment. If the person does not receive any sort of compensation, then I do not think it is fair. The artists should be honored that someone felt their work was so good, or influential, that they want to use parts of it over again.
4. Does repurposing a piece of music always have a detrimental effect on the way the original recording is perceived? Does it always cut into the profits of the owner of the original recording? Why or why not?
No, repurposing a piece of music does not always have a detrimental effect on the way the original recording is perceived. In fact, repurposing a piece of music would likely have a positive effect on the original recording's perception. For example, in 2003, Kanye West released a song called "Through the Wire."
In this song, he sampled Chaka Khan's song "Through the Fire" that was released in 1985.
Most people already knew Chaka Khan's song, but if you did not, after finding out about it, people listened to it. In addition, when the original song comes on the radio, it feels like you know that song too because you have heard different parts of it before. As a result, people are singing along to songs that they never would have known without another artist sampling the song. Many times, when people figure out that part of a song came from an older song, they download it or YouTube it so they can hear what the original sounded like. This would actually increase the profits of the owner the original recording. In addition, if the song was not that good before, someone else using it is not going to hurt the sales because the sales were not good in the first place.
7. Do legal actions against sampling limit the exposure of artists whose work is sampled or do these actions protect the artists’ interests? Explain why you feel that way.
I feel that legal actions against sampling limit the exposure of artists whose work is sampled. I feel this way because when an artist samples another artist's work, he or she brings popularity to it. If a song is sampled that was once popular, but has since been forgotten about, then that song will regain some popularity. If people never mentioned old songs, sampled old songs, remixed old songs, or remade old songs, then the songs would likely be forgotten about as a whole. Sometimes, when an artist even mentions another song it makes the listener go find that song and listen to it again. Legal actions against sampling are not helping artists; in many ways, they are hindering them.
1. In your opinion, is sampling a form of copyright infringement? Explain your position.
No, in my opinion, sampling is not a form of copyright infringement as long as the person whose work is being sampled receives payment. If the person does not receive any sort of compensation, then I do not think it is fair. The artists should be honored that someone felt their work was so good, or influential, that they want to use parts of it over again.
4. Does repurposing a piece of music always have a detrimental effect on the way the original recording is perceived? Does it always cut into the profits of the owner of the original recording? Why or why not?
No, repurposing a piece of music does not always have a detrimental effect on the way the original recording is perceived. In fact, repurposing a piece of music would likely have a positive effect on the original recording's perception. For example, in 2003, Kanye West released a song called "Through the Wire."
In this song, he sampled Chaka Khan's song "Through the Fire" that was released in 1985.
Most people already knew Chaka Khan's song, but if you did not, after finding out about it, people listened to it. In addition, when the original song comes on the radio, it feels like you know that song too because you have heard different parts of it before. As a result, people are singing along to songs that they never would have known without another artist sampling the song. Many times, when people figure out that part of a song came from an older song, they download it or YouTube it so they can hear what the original sounded like. This would actually increase the profits of the owner the original recording. In addition, if the song was not that good before, someone else using it is not going to hurt the sales because the sales were not good in the first place.
7. Do legal actions against sampling limit the exposure of artists whose work is sampled or do these actions protect the artists’ interests? Explain why you feel that way.
I feel that legal actions against sampling limit the exposure of artists whose work is sampled. I feel this way because when an artist samples another artist's work, he or she brings popularity to it. If a song is sampled that was once popular, but has since been forgotten about, then that song will regain some popularity. If people never mentioned old songs, sampled old songs, remixed old songs, or remade old songs, then the songs would likely be forgotten about as a whole. Sometimes, when an artist even mentions another song it makes the listener go find that song and listen to it again. Legal actions against sampling are not helping artists; in many ways, they are hindering them.
No comments:
Post a Comment