Re: [rumori] outlaw (fwd)

Anki Toner (
Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:33:31 +0100

> ->>->As a 'theory' outlaw, i hold no fears about being sued in practice. i
> ->>->believe i'm using other people's property when i sample, if they ask for
> ->it back, they have every right to do so.

Yeah, let's send them back their work. This is an interesting idea.
Maybe we should send them their own Cds, just to prove that the music is
still there. Or would they prefer MP3s?

> ->>
> ->>what a spineless and confused creature. You evidently don't care much for
> ->>your own art.

Call me a radical but I don't care much if I break the law, either.
First of all, not only laws (and judges) are different in different
countries, but our relation with the laws also seems to vary between
countries. I suspect americans are more respectful/fearful of the law
than us europeans.

Let me remind you also that our two famous cases (Negativland and John
Oswald) were settled OUT OF COURT, but the case that was actually judged
(2 Live Crew) had an unexpected sentence. That's why some are (or seem
to be) trying to get sued, to see whether the law really is like some
fear, or to prove that it is not.

Just because some big corporations want to make us think that laws are
on their side, that is not necessarily so. At this respect there are
some very interesting stories in the book "BOOTLEG (The Other Side Of
The Rercordin Industry)", by Clinton Heylin (1994, Penguin, UK - mine is
a hardback, but I thing there is another edition which I recall seeing
with a different title). Those stories are about how some big
corporations lost in court their cases against small bootleggers who
were releasing live recordings of some big-selling acts. (That never
happenned in America, of course). I highly recommend this book to anyone
interested in copyright.

I am afraid, though, that I just mentioned one of the taboos of this
list, piracy. After all, aren't we "respectable artists", not pirates?
Aren't we trying to establish a limit (call it "fair use" if you want,
admit that the "plunder" part of "plunderphonics" was just a joke -
you'll find yourselves admitting that it was a bad joke, and a terrible
mistake of course), a safe limit within which we can work respectfully,
and then claim we are working without restrictions?

Steev wrote:
> Well, sorry if i've offended you, but the point i was trying to make is
> that if you're an artist, and you really don't care that the law says that
> practicing your art the way you're practicing it is wrong, in fact says
> that if it decides to it can DESTROY your art and fine you and maybe put
> you in jail, then, well, that just seems really contradictory and
> pointless and weak. To not care about what you do to the extent that
> you agree with those who would prevent you from doing it (stating that
> copyright law is okay the way it is), that's just a waste. (that's where
> spineless and confused came from.)

That I know nobody has destroyed any work. I just downloaded all the
"destroyed works". They seemed healthy.

> As for "slightly different opinion"... huh? hello? I would venture to say
> that yours is a RADICALLY different opinion than the prevailing one here.

Does that worry you, Steve? Forgive me if I get personal, but what are
you running the list for? To have everyone agreeing with you?

> Which is not to say you can't voice it, but you've got to expect to get
> some contrary replies. And frankly I don't have much patience for
> arguing with someone who hasnt thought out the rational consequences of
> their statements.

Sometimes it seems like you don't have much patience for arguing,

> just to make the climate even more painfully clear:
> 1. I think it's safe to assume that everyone on this list is on it
> because in some way they are interested in appropriation, recycled
> culture, etc., whatever you want to call it.
> 2. Further, although there are many reasons why one might be interested,
> For the most part, judging from prior discussion, the main ones boil
> down to one or more of the following:
> a) the person is a "fan"
> b) the person is a practioner themselves
> c) the person is studying the subject (as a scholar or whatnot)
> (there may be others, like lawyers from Sony collecting evidence against
> us all, but they have not made themselves known. I tend to not count
> lurkers.)
> 3. For at least the first 2 cases and probably the third, the list member
> would logically be favorably inclined toward THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND
> CREATION of this kind of cultural work.

Do not worry, it will continue to exist. GASK & me will still be doing
it, and Oswald & the Negs too, of course.

What are you so afraid of? I was born under a politic dictatorship (in
Spain), I have seen many ways to fight censorship, and I know that the
worst kind of censorship is self-censorship. I don't know if you are
self-censoring you (Maybe YOU should have some serius thinking about it.
Sometimes it looks like you are not only self-censoring you but also
trying to self-censor the rest of us). On my side, I will try to never
let my fears dictate how my work has to look like.

> 4. Current copyright law is clearly opposed to this type of cultural
> work.

I said it before, it is not so clear. That is just what we have been

> 5. Therefore most people on this list, it is reasonable to assume, would
> favor changes to copyright law, if not society's overall attitude toward
> intellectual property.

That is what I thought when I joined the list. Now I wonder which side
some of you are on. And about society's overall attitude, it might be
more open than you'd think. Of course, I cannot speak for your
neighbourhood, but I look around me and I do not see too many people
respecting copyrights, or being aware of what intellectual property is.

This is a different debate, though, and it should begin by trying to
define what "society" are we talking about: People that buy less than 10
CDs a year but record on cassette or CDr all their neighbours' and have
huge collections of films videotaped from TV? That's the majority here,
but of course they never think about copyright, about copyright laws or
about being doing anything illegal. Traditional musicians who, apart
from (again) having hundresd of illegal tapes of their heroes (and
what's worse, even bootlegs!), spend years trying to copy, note by note,
their playing? Again, these are majority (between musicians). What
society, then? Anyone interested in debating this point?

PS: I hope I didn't offend anyone. I just trying to express myself in a
foreign language.

Anki Toner

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

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.