From ninphil Sent Thu, Sep 10th 1998, 23:58
From ninphil Sent Thu, Sep 10th 1998, 23:58
>How can Negativland make a claim on a sample of something they apparently >*sampled* from someone else w/o permission? Perhaps it would have been >ethical of SST (who aren't known for that) to give the group part of the >proceeds but given Negativland's flippancy towards people who try to get >royalties for samples, its laughable that they would complain. They ended up >on the other side of the issue and got screwed. > >Also, I was under the impression that Negativland did not have any rights to >the material they released on SST. Someone correct me if I am wrong. > >I hate to be so negative towards these fellows but they are really asking >for it. IRONY: my understanding of the Negativeland gripe is not that they are peeved that SST got 1000 bucks and cleared a sample without their permission , but that major groups/ high profile labels have no hassels from the RIAA for sample infringement...Negitiveland is simply pointing out the irony that it's easier for labels like astralwerks/emi to claim fair use than it is for political and cultural activists to. Fair Use is part of the 2nd admendment rights of freedom of speech which is in the constitution to allow for political and cultural commentary (satire ie political lampoons etc). So the argument is why is it ok for coke/pepsi/major labels to use samples but the RIAA will threaten to sue down Negitivelands pressing plant when they are actually doing stuff which is covered as "fair Use." Money changed hands..the capitalist agenda has been met...no one gets sued! They are not whining so much as pointing out the hypocracy which surrounds the commercial music industry. Paying SST for a sample they don't have the right to clear so that coke can spend milions on an ad campaign...that's the irony...no? -phil stealthy not wealthy