00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

Kiler91 just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

To Steal or Not to steal?

1,407 Views | 12 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic

There was an interesting discussion starting toward the end of another post "Stolen Video Game Music” and before it got locked up I was intrigued to see where it was going to end up. Now, of course, I don’t condone stealing, but I think the idea is interesting enough to explore that is “What should be the role of music in this world?” Before you jump the gun and answer like some scared police officer, let me elaborate a little bit by giving you the context to what I mean.
Although he likes to troll a bit, @SnowTeddy has an interesting point which should be explored even further. He stated, "Vaporwave is to liberate the commodity and oppression of toxic music culture, the so called 'originality'. Nothing is original. Not even your so called genius composition. The whole purpose of vaporwave is to protest the consumerism and capitalism, the parasites that ruined music itself.

Now take out the genre Vaporware, and just put “music"in its place. @deckersan has the viewpoint, which a lot of us have, that is to value the artist’s work financially and with respect as to leave the rights of the artists in their control, but I don’t think Snowteddy’s viewpoint is merely a "political ideology” as deckersan has put.
I think the idea goes much deeper than that which I would agree with in a philosophical perspective. It seems if one does their research that composers ranging from Beethoven, Chopin, and all the way to Philip Glass, they would say music is something that comes from outside of oneself. And that genius in an ancient greek perspective was not from within, but rather that one merely has genius as opposed to being one.
Now, I could take Chopin’s quote out of context in trying to say that money shouldn’t be our focus in writing: "I'm a revolutionary, money means nothing to me.” But of course money is important because we all need to eat. However, I also find it silly that an artist would be all consumed about their work as if it’s the greatest thing anyone has ever heard and in return would be so possessive in controlling how others treat it. Take Disney for example in the many stories they would borrow from and presuming that they were the sole original creators by slapping a long copyright on those works so that others can not borrow from just as Disney did before them. And if one finds their music to be “stolen,” that’s a good sign that their music is getting recognition. It seems to be the curse of the successful, the rich, and famous that is they will always find others using their music in ways that they would not approve of. For example, if someone bought and paid for my music, credited me, and used it for a white supremacy propaganda video, I certainly would not approve of it, but one cannot control such usage if it became a popular piece. It seems that if a piece of music would ever achieve such status of recognition, the music really doesn’t belong to the artist but rather to the collective universe-- if I were to take such a romantic view on it.

I haven’t made up my mind personally as I find pros and cons for both viewpoints in how to treat music. Of course, one should credit and support the artist financially whenever possible, but one could go to the extreme of continued copyrighting a music long after one’s death. It’s a funny thought in how possessive people can be especially when it comes to the intangible. But we must all realize that eventually we will leave here the same way we came, and to merely let things possess us is futile. As Edgar Allan Poe once alluded to even with a tighter clasp in our hand the grains of sand will still slip through our fingers. And now Eminem is making a bold move by selling shares of his music to the public. Click here for reference.

I’m really just interested in reading people’s thoughts about the matter and how they personally view music on whether its more of a profit, charity, or consumer mentality when it comes to listening or writing music. And feel free to use as much rhetorical devices in your arguments, especially Ad hominem as that would make this a more interesting read, imo.

TL;Can’t R? well here’s a fun video

Response to To Steal or Not to steal? 2017-09-26 22:18:44


Music without the meaningless copyright restriction doesn't devalue music itself. Whether your music is being traded with money or any means of exchange, are no difference. When you turn music, a universal knowledge, into private properties, it automatically loses the meaning of art. Creativity is universal and owned by no one. The value of art exists as long as there is still a single human understand its meaning, because other creatures except human themselves cannot understand the creation, or even what is creativity.

And to copyright this, meaning you are ripping its value to your own so-called originality's pseudo value to profit off the hard works of billions humans developed the theories and sciences of it before you were even formed into a molecule. That's completely arrogant, ignorant, selfish, immoral, uneducated and crime of humanity to claim what's rightfully belonged to human civilization, and not your own.

In short, music is the property of no one, and the cradle of knowledge for every living person ever walked this planet.

Response to To Steal or Not to steal? 2017-09-26 22:23:00


Also I'm not against people selling their music, I'm against people using copyrights to control other people's freedom of intellectual.


Alright, I'll bite. I think your thoughts are best summarized as follows:

"Music belongs to everyone and should not be controlled by (the economic incentive of) a single individual."

I think a lot of this argument is based on fallacies. Why would copyrighting something remove any artistic value of the piece? In my opinion: If you created it, you own is, unless you sell all the rights related to said product. This applies to physical goods, so I don't see why it wouldn't apply to intellectual property as well.

Sure, in the end, nothing is 100% original. However, it is the combination of musical elements that makes the final piece unique, thus making it subject to ownership.

The question that remains, is if some forms of music are more original than others. Is Vaporwave original enough? Personally, I think not, as you're basically copy-pasting an entire song and altering it slightly. Is sampling original enough? I guess that varies per case, which is also why copyright cases are so complicated.

Response to To Steal or Not to steal? 2017-09-27 18:02:41


@SnowTeddy I agree with a lot of that. Through it reminds me of when academia restricts the general public access to knowledge unless one was a student at a certain school. It would appear unbeneficial to a society to prevent the spread of education. Unless you had a political mindset of keeping the masses ignorant. I think that is parallel to how some would like to treat the arts.

@EagleGuard Well “I cannot say that I don't disagree with you.” - Groucho Marx ;p

I’m not going to argue for the sake of arguing, and thank you for your contribution to the discussion. I’m not completely in agreeance to your summarization of my words. I would rather prefer it to be said like this, “music belongs to [anyone] and should not [expect] to be controlled if the art had any impact/significance.” I don’t think copyrighting something removes any artistic value of a piece. I think SnowTeddy was just pointing out that having copyrighted something does not give a piece any more value. I think he’s implying that for the minds of many people that anything with true value has to be copyrighted and if something was free than that thing isn’t worth anything. “If you created it, you own it…” okay, but I’m sure we have all heard before the quote that “great artists steal.” And just because something is made by scratch, is that really us? Or is it simply an accumulation of our inspirations and if thats the case it doesn’t benefit us to advancing our own legacy. You’re right that nothing is 100% original, but my point is, when one thinks about it, the combination of musical elements (often times elements of what was done before) that makes a final piece just makes it silly to think we can merely own it in a selfish manner. Maybe the question is what do we do with this kind of ownership? Should we be selfish by not sharing something if we truly have found a way to create something so groundbreaking? One can do what they want, but I’m not so sure if it’s helpful in any way to the advancement of their music economically. I’m just not sure at a point in someone's career that is nonexistent to start with. I do like the question you propose. I think why the original statements intrigue me is that if one manipulates sound to fit their own language, is it ever completely original? How original does it need to be to make it your own? I view music as an eloquent speech and yet we don’t see people copyrighting their language to another. But then again, if I were to keep the analogy going, we do sell all sorts of literature for profit. And we certainly are a bit possessive to our own words as we never like it when people misquote us. However, when I think of the great speeches in the past, the ones that moved a generation for the better were free.

Response to To Steal or Not to steal? 2017-09-27 20:53:23


At 9/27/17 04:09 PM, EagleGuard wrote: The question that remains, is if some forms of music are more original than others. Is Vaporwave original enough? Personally, I think not, as you're basically copy-pasting an entire song and altering it slightly. Is sampling original enough? I guess that varies per case, which is also why copyright cases are so complicated.

Let's get to personal analysis! (cos I could) Is your cinematic production, original? Or you are basically copy-pasting an samples-made-by-other-people and altering it slightly? By this logic, EDM artists, and even some vaperwave musicians actually make slightly more original production than cinematic musicians, because they actually spent their time changing and altering sounds like synth and its software.

Originality is subjectively relative. Because the constant of space and time in music, that nothing in it is ever original.

Let's take it further! Using a syllogism: Originality should be copyrighted, if nothing is original, then copyright is bullshit.


Thanks for further elaborating your thoughts!

At 9/27/17 06:02 PM, Phonometrologist wrote: I would rather prefer it to be said like this, “music belongs to [anyone] and should not [expect] to be controlled if the art had any impact/significance.”

How would you define 'controlled', though? And when is something deemed to be of sufficient impact or significance?

To use the academia example: Yes, it's great if everyone is able to listen to anyone else's music, just like when everyone has access to scientific literature. That is something I fully agree with. However, what I don't agree with, is taking a piece of music, altering it slightly, and then trying to sell it off as something you own. That would be like taking a scientific article, changing the font and colors slightly, and then putting your own name on the first page, which is considered plagiarism.

At 9/27/17 06:02 PM, Phonometrologist wrote: You’re right that nothing is 100% original, but my point is, when one thinks about it, the combination of musical elements (often times elements of what was done before) that makes a final piece just makes it silly to think we can merely own it in a selfish manner.
At 9/27/17 08:53 PM, SnowTeddy wrote: Is your cinematic production, original? Or you are basically copy-pasting an samples-made-by-other-people and altering it slightly?

In that sense, we should remove authors' names from scientific papers as well, since all they're doing is just rearranging words and letters. Regarding my own music, I would say that the final product as a whole is original enough, and since I legally own the licenses to the samples, it is not considered theft, thus making me the original author of the piece, again, as a whole.

Are you familiar with Gestalt psychology? The core idea here is that the end product is more than just the sum of its parts. I think we should always judge whether or not the final product as a whole sufficiently differs from other products. And yes, that is unfortunately always based on subjective opinions.

At 9/27/17 06:02 PM, Phonometrologist wrote: Maybe the question is what do we do with this kind of ownership? Should we be selfish by not sharing something if we truly have found a way to create something so groundbreaking?

I fully agree that it is great to have free music. That is also why my music is released using a CC license. However, I also believe that it should be artists' own choice of whether or not to do so.

I personally release my music using a CC license, which means at least everyone can listen to it for free and even use it for their own purposes under certain conditions. That doesn't mean other people may download it, alter it slightly, and sell it for profit, though.

Originality should be copyrighted, if nothing is original, then copyright is bullshit

That would be the case if we assumed originality to be a simple, dichotomous variable variable. Personally, I think originality is much more complex than that, making it harder to assess.

Response to To Steal or Not to steal? 2017-09-28 06:52:58


don't rip my kicks please


BBS Signature

Response to To Steal or Not to steal? 2017-09-28 08:59:55


At 9/28/17 06:52 AM, MegaSphere wrote: don't rip my kicks please

too late nerd hahahahaha


p.s. i am gay

Response to To Steal or Not to steal? 2017-09-28 11:33:09


At 9/28/17 03:23 AM, EagleGuard wrote: In that sense, we should remove authors' names from scientific papers as well, since all they're doing is just rearranging words and letters. Regarding my own music, I would say that the final product as a whole is original enough, and since I legally own the licenses to the samples, it is not considered theft, thus making me the original author of the piece, again, as a whole.

Are you familiar with Gestalt psychology? The core idea here is that the end product is more than just the sum of its parts. I think we should always judge whether or not the final product as a whole sufficiently differs from other products. And yes, that is unfortunately always based on subjective opinions.

When you look at the self and its own music, everything is subjective to the self. But when you look at music collectively, as a creation of living species, it's a marvel that not only human can enjoy but plants and animals of any kind. So you want to instigate with science? Let's talk science! Did you know that trees can react to different kinds of sound in their environment? And metal music actually triggers them to grow better than classical music? Or what's so intriguing about bird singing or wolves howling? The animals are aware the sounds they making, and they can change tones in real time, whatever suit their survival instincts.

My point is that even when animals using sound/music itself, there is no concept keeping their creation for the selves. Copyrighting calling shit original something you don't have the guts to understand is the crime of humanity. So I will continue to encourage people to steal and rip music/movie/art/software because it's in our nature's instinct to imitate and use them for the better tomorrow. At least the pirates and warez distributors understand that sharing materials actually saving people's lives by making other's lives better.

In the age of Information, everything is based on sharing, there are close minded people still believing in keeping things you never made for yourselves.

Response to To Steal or Not to steal? 2017-09-28 16:09:16


At 9/28/17 11:33 AM, SnowTeddy wrote: My point is that even when animals using sound/music itself, there is no concept keeping their creation for the selves. Copyrighting calling shit original something you don't have the guts to understand is the crime of humanity.

"Crime of humanity" sounds a bit overkill. Besides, what gave you the idea that people don't "understand" the music they create?

Regardless of semantics, I can understand the argument that all music should be free. Ideally, that would be the case, but people still need to make a living, and they might as well do it by doing something they love. I don't think allowing other people to take that work, claim ownership for it, and then reselling it is the way to go.

So I will continue to encourage people to steal and rip music/movie/art/software because it's in our nature's instinct to imitate and use them for the better tomorrow.
At least the pirates and warez distributors understand that sharing materials actually saving people's lives by making other's lives better.

Well, it could certainly hurt the folks that put a lot of effort into creating said music / movies / art / software. If you can afford it, and you're planning to make money with it, you should buy the rights. Again, if people want to share their stuff for free, I can only encourage that, but these people have to make a living as well.


The idea that some artists really do like having obsessive "control" over their work is still foreign to me. I certainly understand professional artists need some recourse in the rare chance they get cheated out of an income because someone stole their work verbatim, but beyond that I struggle to see over-reaching copyright as reasonable.
If i had to put it simply, I think an artist's power over their work should include what is necessary to provide them enough financial protection for them to continue their work less hindered by economic concerns (needless to say, I do not consider barring one's work after their own death necessary for this), but I draw the line at anything that impedes the creativity of others, which I understand may be a bit of a paradox.

Response to To Steal or Not to steal? 2017-09-30 13:02:50


When I settled with my life I gonna go back to cracking software, maybe even releasing and sharing people stuff on private trackers, sorta like a good idea to prove that copyright is bullshit. I'm gonna pack NGer music into anonymous music package, like Audiojungle but free for all. All with the purpose of trolling and stomping on copyright.