Why today's copyright law doesn't work with today's music
Lately I've encountered great videos and a book on sampling, remixing and music mashups.
If you're under age 30, or probably 40, you probably already know what "sampling," "remixing" and "music mashups" mean. If you're like my parents though, you may have never heard these terms.
- Sampling - using a piece of recorded music in another piece of music.
- Remixing - taking a song's constituent parts and mixing them together differently to create a new song.
- Mashups - combining multiple recordings into a new recording.
These three techniques are the basis of entirely new forms of music that have emerged over the past 30 years, including hip-hop, house, jungle and trip-hop. Aided by digital technology, these techniques have enabled artists, producers and DJs to make music that has crashed headlong into copyright law.
Theft, laziness and other criticisms
When someone samples, are they "lazy" as some producers believe? That was my mom's initial take. My counter, and the point raised by others, is that it seems to me that it is a lot easier to cover a song (which is legal, even if no permission is granted) than it is to make an entirely new song with samples (which is illegal if there is no permission granted to use the samples). I can think of a lot easier ways to make music than by combining dozens or hundreds of samples into one song.
Another initial reaction is that sampling, remixing and mashups are "stealing." My reaction: in art, what is theft? Is sampling more of a crime than rock 'n' roll stealing from the blues? Is it worse than the blues stealing from old spirituals? Decades ago Andy Warhol remixed visual art. Why is that legal?
U2's Bono says "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief" in "The Fly" from Achtung Baby.
I think that samping, remixing and mashups are part of a natural evolution in music. It's not theft; it's creativity. Copyright law needs to evolve to accomodate these new art forms. It is completely arbitrary that remakes are legal while remixes are tangled in lawsuits.
Generational change?
I think that it may be inevitible that attitudes about music will change going forward and that the law won't be too far behind. Children pissing off their parents' with music goes back at least 100 years. It probably goes back farther than that.
My grandparents upset their parents off with jazz and swing dancing (mingling of genders, close contact).
My parents upset their parents with rock 'n' roll. My mom says that her parents said that they, "couldn't understand the lyrics".
My generation embraced sampled, remixed and mashed up music. This doesn't actually upset my mom. She just thinks it's not very interesting. Fair enough. My dad actually has a sticker up in his office that says "It's not that I'm old; your music really does suck."
I'm sure I'll think some of my kids' music is terrible some day too. Hopefully I can get my own copy of my dad's sticker by then.
Now onto some interesting material I've found recently.
The first...
...is a show that aired on PBS earlier this week (but now available to view online for free) called Copyright Criminals. It explains how "music sampling has brought creative expression into direct conflict with copyright law." It's full of interviews from DJs, producers, critics and entertainment lawyers. They argue over the merits of sampling.
Here's a trailer for Copyright Criminals:
There are a bunch of great questions that emerge:
- Is it "lazy" to use samples as one producer says, or is it art?
- Don't all musicians steal from each other?
- How long should copyright extend?
- Why is it okay to cover a song note for note without permission, but not okay to use a five note sample without permission?
- Should it be so prohibitively expensive to clear samples?
- Are we better off as a society now that albums like Paul's Boutique and 3 Feet High and Rising are impossible to make legally?
- The visual arts sample from each other all the time. Why is it okay there, but not in music?
It's definitely worth checking out. See it online here: http://video.pbs.org/video/
This second...
...video is a fascinating look at the history of one six second drum break and how it's been used in different sampled records over the last 30 years. This one six second clip is the basis for entire sub-genres of music!
A good book...
...I've recently read Ripped: How the Wired Generation Revolutionized Music, by Greg Kot, music writer for the Chicago Tribune and Rolling Stone, devotes some of the best parts to samping, remixing and mashups. This book goes really deep on this subject. It also does a great job of covering the shifting business environment of the music industry. He talks about Prince's business model, Radiohead's flexible pricing and Metallica suing their fans. He also talks about how the music industry works, why we hear certain music on the radio and how online blogs are changing music. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the business, politics and law of music.
What do you think?
What do you think about sampled music? Is it legitimate art, or is it theft and laziness?
Do you love Girl Talk? Did you download The Grey Album?
How should people get paid?
Will things eventually change?
How could it work?
