>Here I am, all excited about polishing up my submission for the
>compilation, but I could have found myself a potential stumbling block.
>
>On my track, I use a couple of obscure, but uncleared samples.
First of all, the other people who responded are generally right, if the
distribution is below several thousand and you don't do anyting intensely
critical there is nearly nothing to worry about.
Second, the laws are different in each country and while world trade
organizations are scheming global enforcement as we speak there are not
uniform international laws. I highly doubt that anyone would go through
the trouble/expense of suing someone in Australia for a US or UK project.
Third, I won't go on preaching too long but copyright law (except in the
case of piracy) is about power and money and not art. I think anyone who
is interested in music more than political economy would see the issue this
way and not worry about it. When a lot of money is involved then the
lawyers get involved. I recognize there are people (especially musicians)
who disagree with my civil disobedience tack on copyright so I am offering
friendly artistic advice and not dogma. (Note: the draconian destruction
of Canadian John Oswald's work even though he never made one cent on
"Plunderphonics" brings up the issue of power as well; that is, you can
get in trouble not because of how big your project is but how critical it
is of music commerce).
Jim
"Ideas improve. The meaning of words participates in the improvement.
Plagiarism is necessary. Progress implies it. It embraces an author's
phrase, makes use of his expressions, erases a false idea, and replaces it
with the right idea."
Guy Debord , *The Society of the Spectacle*, ch. 8, sct. 207 (1967; tr.
1977).