utah saints revisited...

[Rob Sanner <mailrus!gatech!tlon.mit.edu!rob@uunet.UU.NET>]

let me clarify my previous message; i really am interested in legal/aesthetic
opinions on this.
(btw--i think this sampling issue is a general area 
of copyright law which has been much in contention lately, but since
this IS gaffa, i'll use kate as an example).

suppose an engineer decides to make an extended dance remix of 
cloudbusting.  s/he extends the sproingy parts, maybe adding filler
material from the original sessions which didn't make the album track,
but otherwise leaves the piece intact.  let's call this mix #1.  whose
"creation" is this, kate's or the engineer's?

now the engineer makes another mix, #2, this time actually cutting out the
slower parts, and looping the extended sproingy parts.  whose is it now, 
kate's or the engineer's?

finally, the engineer decides that to really work as a dance mix, 
the loops need to be spiced up with some digital effects, and more
filler material and a heavier beat are needed.  s/he pulls out a synthesizer 
(or hires someone to do it), adding the filler and laying down a nice 
throbbing electronic beat. who can rightly claim to be the author of this 
last mix?

even if we acknowledege a substantial contribution of the engineer's talents
in mix #3, much of the raw material, both the performance and the composition,
are still kate's. surely she is still entitled to remuneration for any sales of 
this piece, and, i would argue, should still retain the artistic right to 
forbid its release if for any reason she dislikes it.

i do not find so great a distinction between the utah saints song 
"something good" and what i have described as cloudbusting dance mix #3.  
this was what i meant by failing to see how this could qualify as a 
"new" work under copyright law.

soo...am i out in left field here, or is this a valid issue??

rob