May I see your evidence that they aren’t learning?

“Cutting and pasting pictures from magazines is just playing – it might give the parents something to hang on the refrigerator but it isn’t helping the child learn to create art. It’s encouraging laziness and lack of creativity, and it’s teach the child that they’re “entitled” to take other people’s property and appropriate it as their own.”

Copyright does not establish property, copyright establishes a limited right to a work.

“The fact is that you CAN make video/audio collages for you own amusement – that’s permitted under copyright law. What you CAN’T do is publish them, use them commercially or publicly, or claim the images as your own work.”

Why can’t you publish them free so that others can see your interpretation?

“Part of the problem is the corruption of the concept of “sharing”. Sharing on a one-to-one basis, in person, between close person friends or family members, FOR PRIVATE USE is one thing. So-called “sharing” over the internet with hundreds or thousands of strangers is an entirely different matter – that’s illegal distribution. And in most cases is poses unfair competition to artists who in most cases (a handful of stars to the contrary) are struggling to make a living. Over the last decade there has been a 45.3% decrease in people making a living as musicians.”

I refer you to Chapter Five of the book “The Case for Copyright Reform” by Christian Engström, MEP, and Rick Falkvinge.

First, please look up “analogy” in the dictionary.

Second, understand I was talking about non-commercial use.

Third, understand I was talking about non-commercial use, and that “remix” was used in a broad sense. I agree with preserving the moral right of the author to be attributed to derivative works.

Fourth, the public domain is shrinking. Prior to 1800, the US had 28 years maximum copyright. Over the next two decades it was extended to life plus seventy years. By extending copyright terms, the public domain will eventually disappear. I am saddened that I will be dead before I can legally release a (free downloadable) cover of a Beatles’ record, despite wearing out two tapes of Sgt. Pepper’s by the time I was 12.

Again, non-commercial use, not plagiarism.

Also, look up “copyright infringement”. Infringement is not theft, it’s infringement.

If you don’t like what’s on the radio, don’t listen to it, as I generally don’t. Instead, explore the vast wealth of Creative Commons music that is infinitely more appealing (to my ears anyway).

Why shouldn’t you be able to paint a moustache on a copy of the Mona Lisa?

Perhaps people will learn how to use the tools by practising with them?

And again, you’re talking about the market. I am not. I am talking externally of the market, where there is no commercial incentive. Nice strawman argument, but sadly misses the mark.

Cutting and pasting pictures from magazines is just playing – it might give the parents something to hang on the refrigerator but it isn’t helping the child learn to create art. It’s encouraging laziness and lack of creativity, and it’s teach the child that they’re “entitled” to take other people’s property and appropriate it as their own.

The fact is that you CAN make video/audio collages for you own amusement – that’s permitted under copyright law. What you CAN’T do is publish them, use them commercially or publicly, or claim the images as your own work.

Part of the problem is the corruption of the concept of “sharing”. Sharing on a one-to-one basis, in person, between close person friends or family members, FOR PRIVATE USE is one thing. So-called “sharing” over the internet with hundreds or thousands of strangers is an entirely different matter – that’s illegal distribution. And in most cases is poses unfair competition to artists who in most cases (a handful of stars to the contrary) are struggling to make a living. Over the last decade there has been a 45.3% decrease in people making a living as musicians.

Nearly all modern music is played on the evenly tempered scale developed in the Middle Ages, popularised by J.S. Bach, which in turn is based on work by Pythagoras and Aristoxenus. Everyone using modern instruments have been relying on the genius of Bach and even Pythagoras for centuries. The relations between different tones and chords has been thouroughly explored by a multitude of composers and everything since is a reference to their work.
Remixing has been a part of visual art for a century. The Dadaists used collages, mash-ups and ‘ready-mades’ as a critique of modernity. Picasso was inspired by tribal art from Africa.
Music has even deeper traditions of copying and improving on previous works. Jazz was ‘invented’ by poorer black musicians who could afford only one score of popular tracks, so they learned the basic melodies then “Jazzed” it up, improvising around the original melody. The basis of hip-hop is playing the dancebreaks from popular songs on 2 turntables back and forth to extend the length of the break.
At what point does a creative work become something new? At what point do you declare something copied?
Finally how many actual composers could put together something as awesome as this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JBAxkZun3s&feature=related

In most cases, sampling in hip-hop is simply an attempt to use an instantly recognizable hook or melody from an established hit to grab a ready-made audience for a rap that would otherwise have little to distinguish it from the vast numbers of other rap creations flooding the market. Let’s face it, since rap by definition has no melody of harmony, and most of the rhythmic elements of various raps within the same sub-genre are extremely similar, there is very little to distinguish one from another – so many rap artists cannibalize the popularity of a per-existing hit song. This is essentially plagiarism, not creativity.

“By pulling apart a car and putting it back together again, you might learn how a car works. You might decide not to put it back in the same order. You’ve “remixed” the car. Sometimes it might produce good results (improved mileage, for example) and sometimes it might not work out. Should we prevent people who have the time and inclination from pulling apart songs, films and stories and putting them back together? You learn by emulation, just like Walt Disney took the stories of the Grimm Brothers and told them in a different way (musical animation).”

First, music is not mechanics.

Second, most legitimate remixes are licensed and legal. Many artists are happy to license their music to be remixed for different markets. That’s an artistic collaboration, and the original artist can control who is involved – speaking as an artist I would not want my music butchered by zillions of untalented mediocrities – it’s a desecration.

Third, a cover version is very different from a remix. Cover versions are licensed under the compulsory licensing provision of the copyright act. It’s not the same as plagiarizing a work – the creator is acknowledged and paid.

Fourth, the example of Disney and the Grimm brothers is specious. (1) the Grimm versions themselves were already in public domain. (2) the Grimm stories were themselves retellings of old folk tales that were never covered under copyright.

And yes, we should “prevent people who have the time and inclination from pulling apart songs, films and stories and putting them back together”. Let those people write their own works. That’s not to say their works can’t be derivative – all art is somewhat derivative. But there is a definite difference between derivation and stealing. And it’s not so say an artist can’t include an hommage to an earlier work or artist – but hommage is retelling or allusion, not outright theft.

“At any rate, the idea is to prevent a culture whereby people just passively consume (aka ‘read-only’ culture). ‘Read-write’ culture could be said to include “No Sleep Till Brooklyn” and “(You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (to Party) by Beastie Boys (sampling), as well as Pseudoecho’s cover of “Funkytown,” or Hendrix’s cover of “Johnny B. Goode”. ”

Legal (licensed and paid) sampling is one thing – ripping off another artist just to cop on his popularity is quite another. There’s some hip-hop thing that uses Lou Reed’s “Walk on the Wild Side” to suck people in – when I hear it I immediately get that endorphin blast of recognition of a well loved song – and then the rap starts. I my case the initial pleasure is replaced by immediate rage at being conned. (This isn’t the only rap song that does this, it’s a common technique) However the typical audience member isn’t as sensitive to the issues as I am and takes the bait, hook, line, and sinker. It’s simply a way that not very creative people cash in by exploiting existing great art. It’s despicable.

As to Hendrix’s cover of Johnny B Goode”, it’s a COVER – Hendrix never claimed it was his song. It’s like Virgil Fox playing Bach. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between performing another writer’s work and stealing it.

“I think that personally it would be better to pay for things you could interact than succumb to free streaming.”

But the point is that people don’t want to pay the license fee required to “interact with” the work in that way. If they did they usually are able to. And some artists simply don’t want their work messed with.

” For years people have not had any control over the images and sounds that surround us but now the technology exists for them to modify that stimulus.”

Wrong. People have always had the option of learning an instrument and interacting with the sounds in their environment to their heart’s content. But now some people feel somehow “entitled” to chop other the work of others simply because they feel like it, like a vandal painting a moustache on The Mona Lisa.

You have control over the images and sounds around you IF YOU PUT IN THE WORK REQUIRED TO CREATE YOUR OWN. If you’re a lazy sod who simply wants to play with the product of other people’s hard work, I’m sorry, you don’t have that right.

“Nearly everyone can get access to music or film editing software.”

Unfortunate truth, that – especially since most people steal it. However having access to it and being able to use it in a competent (let alone inspired) manner are two entirely different things.

Let me clue you in to a secret – It’s not a question of access to tools. It’s a question of knowing how to use them. Owning a hammer doesn’t make you a carpenter. Owning a frying pan doesn’t make you a chef. Owning a Porsche 911 might even get you killed if you’re under the delusion you’re a racing driver.

” We shouldn’t take that away, otherwise we will lose the next generation of creators who can’t build their own layer on top of existing works.”

Wrong again. All that unrestricted access to these tools has accomplished is releasing a flood of dross onto the market.

Furthermore it has actually reduced the chances of truly talented, motivated people by eliminating many of the studios which were previously the places where novices received training and mentoring from the masters.

Three months as a junior assistant coffee boy at The Record Plant will teach you more about the process of recording that a 4 year program at Full Sail – or any other “recording school”. And won’t leave you tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Sadly, most of those opportunities for real training are gone.

Pull the other one, it has got bells on!

What you are saying is tantamount to claiming that a 3rd grader’s paste-up collage is of equal merit to a Picasso, Monet, or Miro.

It’s patently absurd.

The paste-up/mashup culture is the culture of childish mediocrity. The definition of “mediocre” is “average” or “common” – what any average yobbo can do.

The definition of “great” is “extraordinary”, “unusual in degree, power, or intensity”, or “being such in an extreme or notable degree”.

The dross excreted by the masses stealing, re-purposing, and regurgitating the work of others is by definition not great, it is not art, and should not be promoted over the work of truly creative individuals.

The work of creative individuals (artists) must be protected from exploitation by such parasites.

By pulling apart a car and putting it back together again, you might learn how a car works. You might decide not to put it back in the same order. You’ve “remixed” the car. Sometimes it might produce good results (improved mileage, for example) and sometimes it might not work out. Should we prevent people who have the time and inclination from pulling apart songs, films and stories and putting them back together? You learn by emulation, just like Walt Disney took the stories of the Grimm Brothers and told them in a different way (musical animation).

At any rate, the idea is to prevent a culture whereby people just passively consume (aka ‘read-only’ culture). ‘Read-write’ culture could be said to include “No Sleep Till Brooklyn” and “(You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (to Party) by Beastie Boys (sampling), as well as Pseudoecho’s cover of “Funkytown,” or Hendrix’s cover of “Johnny B. Goode”. I think that personally it would be better to pay for things you could interact than succumb to free streaming. For years people have not had any control over the images and sounds that surround us but now the technology exists for them to modify that stimulus. Nearly everyone can get access to music or film editing software. We shouldn’t take that away, otherwise we will lose the next generation of creators who can’t build their own layer on top of existing works.