903: What's Yours is Mine

[blu]

Matt really bugged me in Fridays show. He talks over people and when we feels like his point isn't getting made/or is stupid then he just calls people names. Keith was a simpleton from PA, and Chemda was too busy doing pirouettes to learn about the Indians. But I know fuck me because it's a free show and I am not allowed to have an opinion.

The thing that Matt was talking about crimes or attrocities that occur in more modern times hit harder then those that happened in earlier centuries... Ummm duh! The populations that were alive during those events would have mourned/reacted then. If your Grandmother dies today does that mean that her death had more influence to you than when your great grandmother died to your relatives then? I know thats a muddled point but still...

And FTW Nazis are way worse! I loved how Matt said that the prisoners 'could' have rebelled and gotten away... Geez I wonder why they didn't try that? Maybe because the will to live was seen as an act of rebellion. In Auschwitz 700 prisoners tried to escape, 300 were successful. Just saying that the conditions were created in such a way that it became nearly impossible for anyone to have the strength/courage/will/ability to escape.

Just my 0.02.

[GFP]

Originally Posted by Keith

Of course accomplishments have to do with the evilness of a person or people. My brother Ken once wished everyone was dead. Is he the most evil?

I'm going assume he didn't act on that wish, therefore didn't really want everybody dead... so no, he is not the most evil....

In my opinion, if you're going to evaluate a person's "evilness" you not only have to take their actions but also motivations into account..

[Sexy_Potatoe_with_an_E]

You know you have to pay for samples when you use them in your music. Tradition or not, it is absurd to say that your creation isn't yours. It IS yours and it is up to the artist to decide whether or not he wants someone else to use his music.

For example! In the song Hot Dog by Limp Bizkit, Fred Durst says:

"you wanna fuck me like an animal
you LIKE to burn me on the inside
you like to think i’m a perfect drug
just know that nothing you do will bring you closer to me"

While the lyrics aren't even a direct quote fron Nine Inch Nail's song Closer, it was similar enough and just enough so that Limp Bizkit HAD to give writer's credits to Trent Reznor and pay him royalties. The song was done to pay homage to NIN, of course this is what started the fued between the two bands.

Quite obviously the SONGS ARE COMPLETELY different entities meaning COMPLETELY different things, but when you borrow someone's words/melodies/samples. YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM CREDIT.

This is why we have quotation marks. If the melody is the same, Coldplay is obligated to compensate Joe Satriani. Plain and simple.

There are actually people who are paid by record companies to listen to your song to make sure you haven't stolen any samples.

[brizzlewizzle]

I find it virutally impossible to believe that no one in cold play, no one in the recording studio, none of the guitar techs had heard this satriani song before, thats very hard to swallow.

I sometimes think Matt is just trying to piss people off, he can't really believe the words he is saying can he? I'm sure if someone "paid hommage" to one of his movies, and it became a huge hit he would be slightly pissed.

[Kupotek]

You cannot take a movie and redo it shot for shot without permission.
End of fucking story. People in the States who do remakes of Japanese horror need to get RIGHTS.

It does matter if you steal the melody, it was enough to sue Vanilla Ice for stealing the fucking bass line of Under Pressure.

He was SUED and he LOST.

The Coldplay song not only sounds exactly the same but it even puts weight in the exact same places.

The part in the Satriani song appears twice in the song, it's the HOOK.
Who can say Coldplay didn't know the song existed? When I listen to the song by Coldplay it doesn't even FEEL like a Coldplay song, it really doesn't.

Listen to Coldplay's other works and it this sounds like a completely different band.

[EllaMacFarlane]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

The same could be said about Arabs. They take years to decide how to kill the people they're going to kill.

except that the nazis were taught civilized behaviour and were brought up to be polite to other people, not to hit their friends, etc. the arab extremists (not that im defending their actions) never knew that there are other options other than violence, and that makes it easier for me to understand why they are terrorists. i mean, how can people grow up to be something else, given their education? the same cant be said about the nazis.

Originally Posted by Sexy_Potatoe_with_an_E

Use the poo poo player on the sidebar of the forums.

<3 you gotta love the poo poo player

[rodimusprime]

Originally Posted by Babbling Bryan

That's too black and white. Certainly not all Nazis knew they were systematically destroying a race.

Where can I vote; equally evil?

At first I agreed with Matt. My reasoning was to take a look at my home country during WWII. The Netherlands was occupied by the Nazis for 5 years. During those 5 years, although under inhumane circumstances, the dutch still lived their lives. While Arab terrorists would never let any one live. They'd not even occupy a country, they'd bom it all to dust.

BUT! Then I came to the realization that while the dutch were mostly allowed to live during those 5 years, over 100.000 dutch Jews were being taken to concentration camps.

That's when I started to ask myself; What's the difference between Arab terrorists deciding that all religions except theirs should be killed, and Nazis deciding the Jews should be killed?

Their level of evil is pretty much equal and the difference is not as extreme as either Keith+Chemda or Matt are making it out to be. The Nazis just accomplished more evil (thus far) but at the same time Arab terrorists are all alike, while a group of people that you'd label as nazis were just ignorant and, as Matt B argued, were just playing their part in a war.

Personal conclusion; Arab terrorists are just a smidge more evil then Nazis, because it hits closer to home and there is no arab terrorists that could sympathize with their enemy.

This is all subjective bullshit in my opinion. I think it's more evil to experiment / systematically slaughter a race whether everyone was on board with it or not.

No one ever wonders if Muslim Extremist all agree with the ideology of their leaders. We just assume they all have a collective group think right?

Also it's not like Germany was was taking over countries by playing checkers with the prime ministers. They started a WORLD WAR.

Do we even know what a terrorist uniform looks like?

[scottperezfox]

the whole notion of Intellectual Property is that it can be bought and sold, stolen and given, and most importantly, owned. The issue at hand is when does something become a "derivative" work, and not simply an [unauthorised] copy of the original. The reason why these things go to court in the first place is because they are subject to opinion.

It's a tricky situation in general, and Matt is right that whole system is screwed up. But we have to face the annoying double standard that visual artists like Shepard Fairey have generally been given more wiggle room than musicians like Vanilla Ice. Think of the Warhol images of Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, etc.*— those were derived from photographs, but incorporated into a larger work of art. However, this notion is much more difficult for us to consider with music, (perhaps as a result of 100 years of lobbying from the recording industry).

Everyone acknowledges that the Coldplay tune sounds a lot like the Satriani original, but the question for the courts to consider is whether or not it's a derivative work or a copy. Derivative work requires no penalty, but an unauthorised copy entitles the copyright holder to punitive damages.

The trouble with music as intellectual property, is that it has evolved to where most people consider published music as a commercial property, rather than a work of art — it's more like a magazine article than a painting. Rights, therefore, are more about potential earnings than originality. A grim reality.

[McNally]

On Coldplay's X&Y album, the song "Talk" is built around the main melody of an old Kraftwerk song. Kraftwerk is notoriously unwilling to sample their music, but Johnny Coldplay wrote them a letter in broken german and they agreed.

Since that precedent was set, it seems less likely that Coldplay would try to "get one over" by stealing from Joe Satriani. If they had realized the similarity, it seems like they would have asked him. I'm not sure where I stand on the legalities of it, but based on the past I give Coldplay some benefit of the doubt.

[BadderWorse]

Regarding the monkey-Obama thing. I think wether the president is black or not, the media will still make fun of the political leader who fills the role. Despite that fact, I agree with Keith that this comic strip had to be passed a long chain of command, and it's weird that no-one saw it as inappropriate. Maybe there's a thing with presidents and monkeys... and here you can insert a joke relating president Clinton's big to-do with monkeys