Girl Talk
Feed The Animals
(hear it)

I read about this in the New York Times. The DJ claims that his is an original work, composed of samples Used Fairly since they are short.

But really, the music succeeds precisely because we associate positive feelings with the music we know, and are then drawn into music we don't know yet, which is exhilarating. The unoriginal nature of the music is precisely why it is fun to listen to. The DJ is in the end, not a musician but a DJ. A really great DJ, to be sure, one whose work I appreciate.

The problem is that the owner of a work sets the price of permission for the derivation, and apparently people have a natural fear of allowing derivation, causing them to set the price high. Further, they set the price at a determined level rather than as a percent of profits from the derivation. Even if the cost of deriving was set at 100 percent of profit, most sample-based music would persist simply because it makes no profit.

Setting the percent of profit owed to the originator to be equal to the percent of the work used seems a logical path to follow. As a bonus, creators of ideas would be encouraged to create a greater quantity of desirable ideas, rather than simply repeating a few seconds of successful music. On the other hand, this might cause originators to limit the length of separate works, so further thought is necessary.

Regardless, claiming Fair Use for clearly derivitave works only serves to confuse people.

It's fun to listen to, but I can't say I learned anything of lasting value from it. Good party/dishwashing music.

bb, 7 Aug 08