Development of the Creative Commons Sampling license (or license option)

[d13b <kluppe AT klingt.org>]

hello!

i love this thread because it rises the question whether music/art 
should just happen and possibly change the way we think about IP (as 
negativeland did and mark propagates) - or circumstances have to be 
changed first to make "a different artistic world" possible (as CC and 
david suggests).

both ways run into paradox situations with negativeland and other 
recycling artists being the "heroes of anonymous art without heroes" and 
CC trying to lawfully bypass stupid copyright laws.

doing opensource software and opencontent/CC music for quite a while 
now, i think that a sampling/mashing artist relying just on CC licensed 
material would be a poor thing, but of course everyone should release 
his/her works under such a license, be it to just send another statement 
to the dinosaurs.

which leads me to the conclusion that using everyones sounds for my own 
works without caring about copyrights too much [input-side] and 
explicitly allowing anyone to re-use it [output-side] don't interfere 
too much and won't be a contradiction from an artistic point of view.

regards
d13b



mark / negativland wrote:
> At 10:45 PM +0100 4/20/05, David Meme wrote:
>
> > I wonder what you think 'art' is.
>
>
> Not something I worry about defining too much, actually! I leave that to 
> journalists, academics, and historians to decide. I actually don't even 
> like the word "artist" (even though we use it ion our essays) as it 
> seems to divide people between being "artist's" and "not artists".  At 
> dinner parties I just  say that I'm a guy who likes to make things! :)
>
>
>
>
> > You seem to have a very well developed sense of the romantic artist, 
> > both in yourself and the band (if indeed they agree with your 
> > sentiments). I personally thought that what was interesting and 
> > radical about collage, sampling and mashing was the possibility of 
> > challenging these nineteenth century myths by self-consciously reusing 
> > other people's work (death of the author and all that).
>
>
>
> Those are all aspects of this kind of work, and at this stage I am quite 
> aware of them, but they are not why I do it. Sounds like for you they 
> are (?). I've never cared where a sound came from- my piano, the TV set, 
> out in the street, my guitar, a movie, a telephone call- as long as I 
> like it, have a good idea for it, and my use of it is "transformative", 
> then it's there to be used.
>
> As for that "death of the author" stuff - besides collage itself 
> bringing up those issues, we haven't said who is in our group since 1987 
> (there are 5 or 6 of us at this point), and you cannot tell what we look 
> like in all our publicity pictures! We have made great efforts to *not* 
> cultivate any kind of cult of personality around our work.
>
> Also don't forget- I've been doing this  since I was 16 years old ( I 
> was born in  1962) and had no knowledge of art or history or anything 
> when I began. At that age about all I knew was that war and cigarettes 
> and racism were bad, the president was a crook, and the Equal Righst 
> Amendment was obviously going to become law. But that's about it. As far 
> as cutting up sound, I just  liked doing it. And I had some sort of 
> intuitive sense that we were doing something we weren't supposed to be 
> doing. And that was very energizing. ( I also had teh intuitive sense 
> that trying to be a rock star was a sure fire way to making lousy art 
> and becoming a world class asshole, and thus was to be avoided at all 
> costs).
>
> Those impulses are still a huge part of how and why I work this way. I 
> just like it. And it feels like an effective way to respond to world I 
> live in, it's been very self-educational, it's good self-defense, and I 
> like to make creative work with a multiplicity of perspectives and 
> interpretations. I don't like black and white thinking, and dont like it 
> in art much, either. Collage allows for lost of simultaneous viewpoints.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Building on others in a public way that we in the 20th and 21st 
> > century increasingly seem to have forgotten as we still imagine 
> > artists and musicians sitting in garrets having nervous breakdowns to 
> > be the somehow 'authentic' artists.
>
>
>
> Actually, I kinda think that tired old myth is long dead! Does anyone 
> really believe that anymore??
>
>
>
> >  Indeed linked to the question of copyright, which is *still* largely 
> > justified and legitimated by a claim to an 'author' who needs 
> > protection - when actually it is a huge faceless multinational 
> > corporation.
>
>
>
> Right. It is. Yet, at this point,  many persons with half a  bean brain 
> know that this is the case, doncha think?  It's not too hard to figure 
> out that this country is an empire in decline and is run by  and for the 
> corporate/military industrial complex! So we are up against a lot of 
> power fighting to survive in the face of collapsing paradigms all around 
> them. They will not go down quietly! Resistance, lawsuits and  
> destructive tantrums  (like...er ....wars, for example) are to be 
> expected from these dinosuars. No surprises there.
>
>
>
> > I agree with your comment that CC is a safe world, although for 
> > different reasons. I actually think that the CC somehow, rather like 
> > your argument below, *justifies* the very strong IP protections that 
> > corporations are so hasty to enact and yet have so little evidence to 
> > support. CC in effect privatises the commons, individualises and 
> > fragments it into a thousand little pieces which perhaps can never be 
> > put back together again. The commons (note not necessarily the 
> > 'creative commons') as a project is extremely valuable and I think 
> > politically and socially important in an age where using DRM 
> > protection we could have the nightmarish world where even certain 
> > words are technologically protected - if you don't believe me check 
> > out David Bollier's blog where he talks about coke cola threatening to 
> > sue him for using lower case!  Type microsoft into word and see it 
> > autocorrect you in the correct IP protected trademark format.
>
>
>
> Your points about CC are excellent, and worth further thought. In some 
> ways CC in effect re-affirms the existing system that I would rather see 
> torn down. But, of course, it will not be torn down ( at least not in my 
> life time) so CCs approach is more "real politik", and in one of the 
> parallel univereses we all live in, it's a good thing. In another 
> idealistic and more radical parallel universe, at least the silly one 
> *I* live in much of the time, I am not so sure.
>
>   I sure *dont* agree with your view on my comments  though. Sheesh! I 
> was not speaking about an argument that "justifies" anything( that's an 
> entirely different discussion), but simply about creative practice 
> itself. Can you see the difference? Your comments seem to me to be  
> lumping them all together.
>
>
>
> > The commons is important - but not for romantic artists to start 
> > making claims about muses, inspiration and breakdowns for them to 
> > create 'original' art ex nihilo.
>
>
>
> To me its simple- I am going to make  art if I am inspired to do so. 
> There is nothing "romantic" about this. It's just cause and effect! And, 
> oddly enough, my "original" art is  often made up of others peoples IP. 
> (And I cant think of any art I've ever made because I had some sort of 
> "breakdown". That myth doesnt fit me, or anyone else in Negativland). I 
> am not making art to change you. That's being didactic in my book. And 
> better suited to.....an essay! End of story..........or is it?? Because 
> , paradoxically, if it DOES change you, and it very well might, then 
> that's_ great_. And we *do* write essays. So our work walks a very 
> slippery slope on a very tight rope. It's not easy to do, but for the 
> most part I think we pull it off pretty well.
>
>  
>
>
> > Rather it is important as artists have *always* drawn from the past, 
> > their peers, their cultural environment without having to worry about 
> > some huge multinational or hot-shot IP lawyer sending them a cease or 
> > desist letter. Artists and musicians create from a cultural sphere 
> > that is slowly being privatised and locked-down and the alternative 
> > seems to be copyright and patent pools that only the 'signed' employee 
> > artists will have access to.  In effect proletarianising artists and 
> > musicians at a time when suddenly everyone is talking about creative 
> > economies, information societies and the creative industries.
>
>
>
> Right. So our day to day reaction to this ridiculous situation is to 
> ignore those silly IP laws and rules as much as we can( getting NO 
> BUSINESS actually manufactured was  very hard, though, because it's 
> filled with lawsuit inducing bits all over it, and some of the printers 
> we worked with  freaked out), and just get on with the work making new 
> work. I can't lobby Congress. DOnt have the time or money. And I dont 
> quite want to devote my entire life to this "cause", except for 
> occasional lectures and panels I get to be on. Last week I got to speak 
> about our work to COMPUTERS , FREEDOM AND PRIVACY in Seattle, for 
> example (and of course, our latest release is a huge effort in this area).
>
>
>
> > Sorry to go for so long, but I think we have to be careful about what 
> > we are all doing this for. I personally would hope that we seek to 
> > challenge the crazy out-of-control extension and colonisation across 
> > all of our everyday lives of intellectual property laws, and most 
> > importantly to make sure that when the corporations start playing with 
> > language and making private property equal to intellectual property 
> > *rights* they are not allowed to continue unchallenged. Claims to a 
> > romantic author drawn 'like moths to a flame' are playing into their 
> > hands and the legal justifications they espouse.
>
>
>
> I dont agree, but your point is well put. I am simply discussing what 
> humans do. And some humans like to be contrary! Just like you are right 
> now! :) ;)
>
> I've done a ton of interviews over the last 25 years, and met many of 
> our fans, and only  RARELY do I meet anyone who really gets just how 
> complex and layered our work is. And how full of contradiction it is ( 
> just like real life). I think humans like to reduce things into simple 
> binaries and dualities and put them in boxes. Which I kinda feel you are 
> doing here.
>
> But heck, ya know we are basically both on the same side! Lemme buy ya 
> beer!  (are you in Denver? I will be speaking in Boulder on May 12)
>
>
>
> >  Realising that a shared cultural commons, libre culture, is an 
> > important, indeed crucial part of our lives and needs us to create 
> > culture that we share and share-alike.
>
>
>
> You bet!! Well, read our 15,000 word essay on this subject, and then let 
> me know if you still think we are blowing it! :)
>
> mark
>
>
>
> > David
> >
> > http://www.locarecords.com
> >
> > ---
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20 Apr 2005, at 20:35, mark / negativland wrote:
> >
> > > At 7:40 PM +0100 4/20/05, David Meme wrote:
> > >
> > > > This strikes me as a weird attitude. You are saying that if it were 
> > > > legal to copy and reuse stuff you wouldn't want to.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I wasn't so black and white. I said "it's less interesting".
> > >
> > > > Rather than looking for interesting sounds from all over you seem to 
> > > > be making the odd point that you'll only do it if it causes a fuss - 
> > > > which seems somewhat cynical to me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cynical?? No, we're unrealistic idealists! :) I'd say you sound more 
> > > like a "realist". And I said nothing whatsoever about intentionally 
> > > making a fuss, so be careful not to add things into what I actually said.
> > >
> > > Do you make art yourself?? I am guessing no. If you do, you might 
> > > understand my comments a bit better. My comments were not so  much 
> > > bout being logical or politically effective in making change ( all 
> > > good things, and why we agreed to work with CC to create the sampling 
> > > licence). I am merely expressing the feelings that can lurk behind 
> > > the choices artists make. It's all about what inspires you to create!
> >
> > >  Perhaps you think Negativland are activists first and artists 
> > > second?? If so, you have it all backwards! :) While the activist 
> > > aspect of our work is very important and  clear to us (check out NO 
> > > BUSINESS, our new IP related CD/book project that comes out in late 
> > > May), none of us are about to move to DC! Our first and foremost 
> > > concern is in making good smart art. So, for me, I am not inspired to 
> > > create anything I would like by taking things from NIN, for example!
> > >
> > >  Do I want to make a "mash-up" of David Bowie's music because he 
> > > mounts a big add campaign telling me to? No. ( yet I can still see 
> > > the bigger picture value in having a mainstream artist like Bowie 
> > > promoting the idea of letting folks re-use his stuff). And while we 
> > > have on occasion used stuff from public places like the Prelinger 
> > > Archive, again, it becomes less interesting to use because its so 
> > > widely accessible. We are trying to have a unique voice in how we 
> > > appropriate, so, quite often, the more obscure the better. Does this 
> > > make sense?
> > >
> > > Our "U2" single, the very thing that ultimately led to us being 
> > > involved with CC in the first place, would never be made today 
> > > because, in 2005,  any out takes of a celebrity guy like Casey Kasem 
> > > would be all over the web as mp3s. Back in 1991, this was not the 
> > > case, and hardly anyone had those tapes. So we were inspired to use them.
> > >
> > > While, from an aesthetic angle, the U2 single was it was it was 
> > > because we liked how it sounded, we *also*   did all the stuff  we 
> > > did on that single *precisely* because they all seemed like things we 
> > > were not supposed to do. So it was both things. Art, pranks, 
> > > shit-stirring, activism. Pretty much in that order. It was FUN to do 
> > > it that way!  We were inspired! And we thought it made for some very 
> > > funny and very smart art.  An real all-around spiffy package, if I 
> > > say so myself.
> > >
> > > There will always be a small percentage of artists who are 
> > > dangerously drawn like moths to a flame to do work like that. And, 
> > > historically, it is what moves art forward. In retrospect, I can see 
> > > that that role is essential for a healthy culture, both aesthetically 
> > > and politically.  But it also means that once everyone is doing it, 
> > > and it becomes safe and easy ( the world CC is trying to create) , it 
> > > is automatically not so exciting or inspiring  any more. Does that 
> > > seem to be a bit juvenile of an attitude to have?? Perhaps it is, but 
> > > I don't really think so- if I ain't inspired, I simply ain't makin' 
> > > it. So I gotta be inspired! Following  rules and joining clubs 
> > > doesn't  inspire me too much. That's just the kind of person I am, 
> > > and I'd say all the past and present members of Negativland are cut 
> > > from the same cloth.
> >
> > > >  Additionally, we might as well just have full-on copyright and 
> > > > close down any reuse if we extrapolate your argument.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, but lets not be so binary, okay? My argument is what it is, and 
> > > I wasn't askin' ya to go extrapolatin' it! :)
> > >
> > > >  That way *all* samples would be interesting to you.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hell, yes!!! :) That's been how we have been making music for 25 
> > > years!! Hee hee!! :)
> > >
> > > > I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I think this statement of intent 
> > > > is a kind of pseudo-anti-establishment fight against the system that 
> > > > needs that very system in order to have meaning in your art. In 
> > > > other words, you negate any possibility of radicalism in what you 
> > > > are doing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I can't actually follow what you say in this last paragraph. I don't 
> > > see how we negate anything. Please explain.
> > >
> > >
> > > Negate-ative-landly yours,
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 20 Apr 2005, at 18:55, mark / negativland wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > FYI- in a kind of reply to some earlier posts here, as a long time 
> > > > > collage artist, I can tell you that any media or art out  there 
> > > > > that has a CC license attached to it is automatically less 
> > > > > interesting for us to work with! :)  It's an aesthetic thing. With 
> > > > > a few notable exceptions ( our "U2" being the biggest one), we are 
> > > > > more drawn to things that are quite obscure and harder to find, so 
> > > > > that our "found sounds" are more unique to us and our work. 
> > > > > Anything that is officially up for grabs, like with a CC license, 
> > > > > is also up for grabs to *anybody* out there. So, this makes it less 
> > > > > unique, and thus, artistically, less desirable to work with. And 
> > > > > so, while of course we support this "re-use" attitude ( and 
> > > > > strongly espouse it in our own work as well), it makes the found 
> > > > > things less appealing. For example, I'd never want to do anything 
> > > > > in a million years with any NIN stuff. *Especially* if he made it 
> > > > > available for all to use!  While  we get sampled all the time ( and 
> > > > > of course don't mind if folks do it), it seems like a rather 
> > > > > imaginative way to go- appropriating from folks who appropriate! 
> > > > > Kinda boring, if you ask me!
> > > >
> > > > >  We get asked all the time to make our raw samples available to 
> > > > > people to use themselves, but ( and some of you might be surprised 
> > > > > by this) we have no interest in doing this. Go and find your own 
> > > > > cool samples, ding dang it! Jeez.... :) :) ;)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©
> > >
> > > The truly creative people I know all live lousy lives, never have 
> > > time to see you, don't take care of themselves properly, have weird 
> > > tastes in men/women and behave badly. They don't wash and they eat 
> > > disgusting stuff, they are mentally unstable and are absolutely 
> > > brilliant.
> > >    - Toke Nygaard
> > >
> > >
> > > © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©
> > >
> > > "Radical shifts happen, not through the complacent adjustment of the 
> > > conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of the 
> > > non-conforming few."
> > >   - Martin Luther King, Jr.
> > >
> > >
> > > © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©
> > >
> > > A young girl aged six asked her mom to tell her what she did at the 
> > > university where she went every day. "I am in the art department. I 
> > > teach people to draw and paint," replied her mother. Astonished, the 
> > > girl asked, "You mean they forget?"
>
>
> --
>
>
> © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©
>
> The truly creative people I know all live lousy lives, never have time 
> to see you, don't take care of themselves properly, have weird tastes in 
> men/women and behave badly. They don't wash and they eat disgusting 
> stuff, they are mentally unstable and are absolutely brilliant.
>    - Toke Nygaard
>
>
> © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©
>
> "Radical shifts happen, not through the complacent adjustment of the 
> conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of the 
> non-conforming few."
>   - Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
>
> © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©
>
> A young girl aged six asked her mom to tell her what she did at the 
> university where she went every day. "I am in the art department. I 
> teach people to draw and paint," replied her mother. Astonished, the 
> girl asked, "You mean they forget?"
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-sampling mailing list
> cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling

--
+----------------------------------------------------------+
|   kluppe audio looper v 0.4:                             |
|   http://dieb13.klingt.org/content/projects/kluppe.html  |
+----------------------------------------------------------+