Re: [rumori] Yahoo copyright grab

Steev (
Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:54:13 -0700 (PDT)

On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Anki Toner wrote:

>It seems that too many of us are willing to use use everybody else's
>output in a copyright-free way, but not so willing to give away our
>output in the same way.

Ah, what a loaded assertion! and so many begging to differ!

A lot of confusion, a lot of explanations, but i just want to throw in my
two cents as well.

I propose this:
Whatever we're calling this art form we're always talking about,
whether it's sampling, plagiarhythm, appropriation, recycled culture, or
whatnot, let's be clear that's it's NOT the same as "copyright-free"
or "anti-copyright".

What we claim is the right to re-use bits and pieces of other works.
not whole works. That is one fundamental difference. The other is that
the new work must bear the mark of the new (appropriating) artist.
This second point is highly subjective, i admit, but i submit that it's
very important.

>is to state "NO RIGHTS RESERVED" on our records, so anyone can use them
>freely and ever get millionaire with them if they are smart enough. We
>know someone can try to copyright our work, since we haven't, but we do
>not see who would be interested or what for.

you never know....

What i say on my latest release is:
"This work is under limited copyright... the right to freely re-use
portions of these pieces and incorporate them into new works is granted
and encouraged. All other rights are reserved."

I don't think this is being hypocritical in the slightest, since it is
only granting what i have demanded of my sources.

>Another position which we could consider is the "no rights reserved as
>long as any derivative work does not reserve any rights either". Many
>think this is a safer move, but we really do not care much, at the

This is approximately what Richard Stallman and his Free Software
Foundation say in their Gnu General Public License. The GPL actually has
a few more clauses in it to be a little more thorough in preventing people
from taking unfair advantage. ( see - esp. see )

The interesting thing is that what Stallman cares about is USE. not money.
"Free" in this case means "liberty", not "costs nothing". (The english
language is confusing in this respect) Anyway, anyone is permitted to take
a GNU piece of software and incorporate it into a shrink-wrapped
commerical product. But they must release the source code, and they must
allow anyone else to do the same to them. ( And this is exactly what the
commercial Linux vendors are doing.)

This, and the more basic statement of Anki's, are actually great examples
of what could be called a "viral license". They spread. via legal

>I have also seen too many sampling bands (and allegedly intelligent
>people) complain for being sampled (and not being credited, for

tsk, tsk. i think there's a difference between what one thinks is
"considerate" and what one thinks is legally, or even ethically, binding.
I remember Lloyd saying something about the Orb sampling the Tape-beatles
without credit. As I recall, he felt it would have been nice to get some
recognition, but he also said that of course any litigation would be
contradictory to the groups stated beliefs. I've heard Mark Hosler tell
an almost identical tale.

we unfortunately live in a world where being nice and being right are
continually at odds...


Steev Hise, Subversive Radical Hippy Hacker
recycled art site:
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot, stamping on
 a human face, forever."
            -George Orwell

Rumori, the Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at

Home | Detrivores | Rhizome | Archive | Projects | Contact | Help | Text Index

[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Sharerights extended to all.