Stating the obvious again?

“Look at all the books and songs, most of them are pretty much the same, …”

Did you actually read and listen to every single one of them? You are most likely basing your claim either nothing at all or a biased sample. And no you may not take another person’s word for it.

“… so obviously you can be as unoriginal and boring as you want.”

Nice reflecting of yourself. You are the same as always, (like) malgre.

“You just can’t lift stuff, passages, your thing has to be different to a degree or it’s a direct rip off.”

You assume non-creativity is plagiarism. That’s foolish of you. What if the the similarities were just coincidence? The easiest example of non-creativity not plagiarism is Newton and Leibniz’s simultaneous discoveries of calculus.

“You can’t sample because it’s like plagiarism.”

So all of those who have ’sampled’ music are plagiarizing? Even your ideas of plagiarism is an affront.

“Used to be sampling was interesting but as an electronic musician I think it’s for chumps now, the real challenge is making sounds of your own and playing instruments, not starting out with someone elses beat or melody.”

Declaring that you are an electronic musician at this point is utterly futile in these arguments. If you are arguing subjectively I would have nothing to say, but this is about facts, not fallacies, i.e. opinions.

“Sampling is an excuse for labels and artists to not do anything new. It was exciting once but now it’s boring.”

Subjective garbage.

“Basically, make your own. That’s creative. We obviously haven’t run out of art yet.”

You have quite deluded ideas of creativity and plagiarism. If you haven’t realized, you’ve strayed far from the main topic that weaker copyright encourages creativity, not less plagiarism.

weaker copyright =/= less plagiarsm

Understand?

Haven’t you read the study posted a few months ago? If you’re not going to search for an explanation, nobody will bother doing that just for you, malgre.

“Right now, there are tons of books and songs that are virtually identical, strong copyright and all.”

Is that not the main point?

“Sometimes people are creative and make a new sounding thing, or write a story with a new element, and then everyone copies them.”

Making up stuff with the same random speculations again?

“Copyright doesn’t stop artists from making anything. All it does is makes it so people can’t just publish it without paying the rights holder. In an ideal situation, that;s the person who did the actual work.”

Whoever said anything about stopping “artists from making anything”? This is about creativity, a psychological characteristic of humans.

Are you an artist constantly subject to copyright? If not, then you are just speculating nonsense.

“I mean, just go learn how to play an instrument, sample your own sounds, make up your won story. Sounds creative to me.”

That is not how musicians are born, dumb ass. Your over-simplistic ideas are quite ridiculous.

“I wonder how much the RIAA and MPAA payed this guy to nudge the downloading community in Britain – on the verge of crinializing p2p – to nudge them over to legal downloading. But none of you guys were exactly jumping for joy when Universal announced what you said you wanted for years. That’s becuase it wont be free any more.”

Now that’s the dumbest and ignorant thing I’ve read today: non sequitur and outright lie in the first sentence, idiotic speculation and blatant lie in the second, and a moronic statement in the last.

You are still as imbecilic as ever.

Used to be sampling was interesting but as an electronic musician I think it’s for chumps now, the real challenge is making sounds of your own and playing instruments, not starting out with someone elses beat or melody. Sampling is an excuse for labels and artists to not do anything new. It was exciting once but now it’s boring.

Basically, make your own. That’s creative. We obviously haven’t run out of art yet.

Today’s artists like to borrow from earlier works too. Lots of new music is being made by sampling old music. Though sampling does not cut in on the profits of the artist being samples, current copyright law does not see sampling as fair use. It makes it very hard for someone to sample a song legally. Not everyone can afford to pay the expensive royalties, or waste money in the legal system getting sued. The law creates a chilling effect that could discourage sampling altogether.

In this case, weaker copyright laws with a broader concept of fair use could undoubtedly fuel creativity.