Mcleod

“A good composer does not imitate, he steals,"(75) Igor Stravinsky said. If a copyright is a crime then we all should be in jail. There is many ways, along with everything, to get around these "Copyrights". It is provided within Mcleod of proof of some ridiculous material covering those thoughts and ideas. This article inspired me to find out more about the real "copyrights", does that mean I should cut a check to Mcleod for not stealing his work on telling everyone how ridiculous these terms are? Mcleod helped explain many examples and experiences within our society we may be unaware of, but mostly in the music industry. The artists aren't the victims, the others listening are.

Within Mcleod the more I read the more I was frustrated with the way our industries work. We can't be artist if we can't be influenced or inspired. It is impossible to say I completely made this up on my own. When is the last time that some painter didn't look at lights or images outside to be inspired? Or even with music stars singing, do they give a check to all there experiences and ex boyfriends/girlfriends? I mean it can get as ridiculous as having to have a letter from an artist confirming their permission to sing their song in my car as I drive! Last I knew that was called to be a good fan, not a copyright criminal! I want to know of someone who doesn't think of something else by hearing a song or even a remix of that song. I just believe someone wants to get rich, not worry about crimes. All the copyright material says, "I want to be the only one," but instead everyone truly hears, "I want to be an original until you can pay me more to forget about it!" Which when Mcleod talked about the arrangements with some of the songs and getting a license to perform them just made me understand our copyrights to a whole new level. I always knew somewhat of the main copyright laws, but never followed them completely. To me this whole idea of copyrights has got out of hand.

It seems to be taken over our head, “The cost
seems to have no relation to the use—if we have to pay five grand
apiece for each sample, not to mention legal fees for getting all the
paperwork signed, we’ll end up spending more than ten percent of
our recording budget for less than nine seconds of sound," (86).
This quote from Mcleod's article points out the numbers and terms used to focus on whats the "right" way to go about using ones materials. That makes me bring my next example of the new DVD Disney movies being put out and changed or added too from the original VHS tapes. What the heck!!! For the last how many years people knew those songs and grew up with those memories! Now it is just OK to change such a classic because someone has a bigger checkbook? I think that some things should just be an original and somethings should be an inspiration to add to something else. Its knowing the difference that America doesn't sometimes understand. Its all $$$$$$$! I understand that money can buy a lot, but in copyright terms, not memories. Sometimes as humans we seem to over look the gift that has truly happened. The "I have a dream," that once changed the world or the "Happy Birthday to you song," that every one can sing since they were 2. These songs, movies, sayings, or actions were some how apart of something monumental, now just to seem to be apart money. Even through Mcleod discusses the 4 terms of "fair use" withing the copyright act I still feel like we have been defined instead of heard.