Re: utah saints

[mcelwee@cc.uow.edu.au (Bennett)]

mailrus!gatech!tlon.mit.edu!rob@uunet.uu.net (Rob Sanner) writes:

>their song, which is getting a distressing amount of airplay up here
>is called, i think, "something good", and is built almost entirely
>around a sample from cloudbusting.

>while catchy, it really burns me that something like this can qualify
>as somehow a "new" composition.  actually, what is the copyright law on
>this; does KaTe have to give permission for the sample?? if not, the piece
>becomes even more execrable IMHO.

She did give permission.
This sort of sample-based track isn't _so_ bad.  It's obvious that most of
the song's appeal lies in the Kate sample, and nobody pretends otherwise.
The Utah Saints are happy (they make money), Kate is happy (she could have
said no), and the rest of us are free to like or dislike the track.  Let's
face it, "Something Good" is a pop-techno track for the rave kids to jump
to for five minutes, nothing more.  Yes, it's unoriginal.  So what?

-- 
== Bennett ================================== mcelwee@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au ==
|             I could never sleep my way to the top,                        |
|             Cause my alarm clock always wakes me right up.                |
=============================================================================