>my argument is making samplin' more cost effective
>for the samplers
>by treating the sample as a "session musician"
>if possible

originality because your attempt to treat a finished work with a copyright as a session musicians playing something won't work because the record you're sampling is an original finished work witha copyright...not an individual playing someting specificlly for the work related to the "session.


>i'm not saying the record is produced, or the maker is a
>producer
>or any of the old splittin' hair arguments
>i'm proposin' a new way to look at the copyright law
>so that samplin' can thrive

we are all very clear what you're saying. The response to what you are saying is that the fact that you want sampling to thrive in this manner is a sign of something very detrimental to music. People lack the originality, and ability to make those original records so they want to simply utilize the work of people who did have the ability and cretitivity and compensate them in a way that classifies the sample based product as being more original than it is.

That mentality manifests a regression in music as an art form, and displays a lack of creativity and ability. You or anyone else who feels that to be unfair are entitled to their opinion...and I understand why they would want to avoid this subject or having to defend their point of view...I totally get that. But if your views cant stand up to contrary points of view...you may need to rethink them.


>and not fall under the heavy costs
>attributed it do the antiquated copyright laws
>and whatnot

The records are dope...they are often classic, groundbreaking records made by artists of great ability..

do something original to stand up to that and stop trying to leach off of what other made...

study how they did it...and do it your way....