Sample Police

[do_androids_dream]

All that aside, here comes my disclaimer: Don't do it, it's illegal and therefore bad!

I submit that it isn't bad because it is illegal. It is illegal because it is bad. Copyright is a basic, fundamental human right, and abridging that right is always bad.

there's no such thing as a truly original idea so I don't think anyone has exclusive rights over anything.

What a glaring puddle of sophistry.

I have to agree with JJ, sorry.

good golly. Well, whether you think it's sophistry it's a view held by many, many creative types I've met over the years. I had to clear 4 samples for an album I had released about 10 years back and each artist expressed that exact view above - no money or contracts were exchanged with any of them. Philosophical idealism maybe but not sophistry at all.

[jancivil]

All that aside, here comes my disclaimer: Don't do it, it's illegal and therefore bad!

I submit that it isn't bad because it is illegal. It is illegal because it is bad. Copyright is a basic, fundamental human right, and abridging that right is always bad.

there's no such thing as a truly original idea so I don't think anyone has exclusive rights over anything.

What a glaring puddle of sophistry.

I have to agree with JJ, sorry.

I agree with JJ as well. I think a person that argues 'no such thing as a truly original idea so I don't think anyone has exclusive rights' never originates anything, it's the argument of a thief. I edited, as on second thought 'sophistry' gives too much credit, it will only seem to make sense to a certain sort of person. It's too ignorant to be all that tricky.

[do_androids_dream]

it's the argument of a thief.

Hmm.. that's a bit of a strawman. Many forward thinking folks (Eno for one) are speaking up for more culture sharing - that's really what I'm talking about.

[jancivil]

Well, whether you think it's sophistry it's a view held by many, many creative types I've met over the years. I had to clear 4 samples for an album I had released about 10 years back and each artist expressed that exact view above - no money or contracts were exchanged with any of them. Philosophical idealism maybe but not sophistry at all.

"it's a view held by many" is more fail. That's called argumentum ad populum. Again, on second thought "sophistry" is a bit generous. It's a poor man's sophistry, in other words. It seeks to deceive via devices that on the surface seem to make sense.

I have no interest in your anecdote, it doesn't make anything about this actual notion any better.

There are clearly different ideas in the world. You may not encounter any, which seems bizarre to contemplate if not impossible, but the logic that an _idea_ has to be "truly" original in order for the composer to enjoy any exclusivity in law, it's not right to protect one's actual composition, is so entirely absurd, it's laughable. Even where there is an idea that is more or less common currency, people do actually combine them in novel ways. I'm amazed to have to even point this out. But if you get away from totally derivative forms in music you will find uniqueness and new ideas.

[jancivil]

it's the argument of a thief.

Hmm.. that's a bit of a strawman. Many forward thinking folks (Eno for one) are speaking up for more culture sharing - that's really what I'm talking about.

The actual statement I replied to was absolute: <there never is a truly original idea, so one cannot enjoy exclusive rights>. My rhetoric there is what it is, I did not need any strawman. It applies to an actual statement. If you're going to work to deceive via this cute premise ('no truly original idea exists', as if a fact) justifying 'no exclusive rights', that is the ideation of someone that wants someone else's property for nothing.

This new statement is another statement, isn't it.

[do_androids_dream]

It's a poor man's sophistry, in other words. It seeks to deceive via devices that on the surface seem to make sense.

That's not a poor mans sophistry - that IS sophistry whether you split hairs into 'devices' or not. I'm not trying to deceive btw. I'm a bit baffled as to how you think I am.

As to the rest of your post - ok, we hold different views.

[jancivil]

What IS a sophistry is to move from the absolute statement re 'idea', which must be "truly" original for copyright to be reasonable, to you cleared four samples and everybody was fine with no reimbursement. The premise 'truly original' is a suspect premise. One looks at the argument and you're begging the question, the outcome 'no copyright should be' results in the premise 'no possibility of the truly original'.

[_al_]

always this same argument, and always the 2 sides giving no midway.

well here's my opinion. i think we have to decide, do we want to allow people in this day and age to be able to earn money from intellectual property? do we want people to be able to own something that they spent maybe years creating?

if the answer is yes, then i think we have to just suffer the fact that just because the internet makes it so easy to get what we want, we have to accept, that the laws are there for a reason.

[jancivil]

It's a poor man's sophistry, in other words. It seeks to deceive via devices that on the surface seem to make sense.

That's not a poor mans sophistry - that IS sophistry whether you split hairs into 'devices' or not. I'm not trying to deceive btw. I'm a bit baffled as to how you think I am.

Any sophistry uses devices that seem reasonable (but aren't) in order to push the notion. That splits no hairs; I'm saying that a better sophistry would be less obvious to detect. So you tricked yourself? How do you arrive at the notion there is no 'truly' original idea in music? You could get out more, I mean if that's your actual take on the wide world of music. See, I find the need for 'truly' original quite suspect. Like there is possibly a 'kinda sorta' original idea...

You do appear to want originality to vanish, in order to serve 'no copyright'. But if you want to argue it, produce rhetoric in support of it the best you do here is sophistry. And, moving from 'no truly original idea is possible' to "I cleared four samples" is moving the goalposts fallacy.

[bigcat1969]

Oddly copyright is a basic human right that shouldn't be abridged, but food and shelter apparently aren't basic human rights and are abridged all the time. Just thinking that occasionally we major on the minor in these capitalist societies that are gradually eating our souls and gradating all art based on commercial value. But back to arguing over who owns what infinitesimal slice of the opiate of the masses we call entertainment...

[do_androids_dream]

It's a poor man's sophistry, in other words. It seeks to deceive via devices that on the surface seem to make sense.

That's not a poor mans sophistry - that IS sophistry whether you split hairs into 'devices' or not. I'm not trying to deceive btw. I'm a bit baffled as to how you think I am.

Any sophistry uses devices that seem reasonable (but aren't) in order to push the notion. That splits no hairs; I'm saying that a better sophistry would be less obvious to detect. So you tricked yourself? How do you arrive at the notion there is no 'truly' original idea in music? You could get out more, I mean if that's your actual take on the wide world of music. See, I find the need for 'truly' original quite suspect. Like there is possibly a 'kinda sorta' original idea...

You do appear to want originality to vanish, in order to serve 'no copyright'. But if you want to argue it, produce rhetoric in support of it the best you do here is sophistry.

Sorry OP for derailing the thread by pushing buttons in reactionary, presumptuous people. As you were.

[do_androids_dream]

Oddly copyright is a basic human right that shouldn't be abridged, but food and shelter apparently aren't basic human rights and are abridged all the time. Just thinking that occasionally we major on the minor in these capitalist societies that are gradually eating our souls and gradating all art based on commercial value. But back to arguing over who owns what infinitesimal slice of the opiate of the masses we call entertainment...

Someone who gets it.

[jancivil]

reactionary, presumptuous

No, in fact I addressed an actual statement you made, there is no presumption needed at all. Is the idea you disagree with, that there are actual things that warrant copyright, so disagreeable to you that the person arguing for it must be reactionary? You made an absolute type of statement, absolving anyone of appropriating someone's idea as though ownership and rights is suspect, and argued for it, and not successfully I think. The need to toss those two words illustrates that.

[jancivil]

Oddly copyright is a basic human right that shouldn't be abridged, but food and shelter apparently aren't basic human rights and are abridged all the time. Just thinking that occasionally we major on the minor in these capitalist societies that are gradually eating our souls and gradating all art based on commercial value. But back to arguing over who owns what infinitesimal slice of the opiate of the masses we call entertainment...

Someone who gets it.

Oh yeah, because two wrongs totally makes a right! This is so good it would work to justify breaking into your neighbor's house and stealing food off her table, wouldn't it.

[jancivil]

Oddly copyright is a basic human right that shouldn't be abridged, but food and shelter apparently aren't basic human rights and are abridged all the time. Just thinking that occasionally we major on the minor in these capitalist societies that are gradually eating our souls and gradating all art based on commercial value. But back to arguing over who owns what infinitesimal slice of the opiate of the masses we call entertainment...

So the sins of the corporate body have damaged us to the extent we have to diminish the poor sucker that wants an even break even daring to think her own creations are her own in this fashion. That's a sad f**king way to be, no doubt.