[randomStuff]

"we own up to the fact that remixing is a big part of the creative culture ... something that is true of the US as well, but isn't as universally acknowledged" ever wonder why American rap music only samples for 30 seconds, let me give you a hint if they went longer than that they would have to pay a royalty. Most artists have accepted and worked creatively within this confine. As for "isn't as universally acknowledged"; according to wikpedia a higher percentage of people in Brazil can't read than America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_r... this leads me to believe your point is moot.

[pessimizer]

There's no 30 second rule for sampling - IIRC the limit to sampling is how many people you want to negotiate a composition credit with. That's why newer music that uses popular samples usually just sounds like an annoying remake of a song that was good enough already. This creates an image in the public mind that people who sample aren't very creative at all, just turning up the bass and shouting over old songs.

During the golden age of rap (aka the only reason rap entered worldwide mass consciousness), the music would be stitched together from half a dozen or more manipulated and overlaid samples of songs, often of sub-second length. After a few high profile lawsuits, rap was neutered into the type of party pop where it would be considered notable that samples were less than 30 seconds.

Listening to, for example, a Bomb Squad produced song from the era, you could have previously been familiar with every single song that went into the production, yet be hard put to spot more than one or two.

I'd liken the situation to trying to write a program in a world where there's a billion libraries that you can use, but for each one you have to share 25% to 75% of the profit from the program with the owner of the library. In addition, these billion libraries would be criss-crossed with a million patents, assuring that you can't simply reimplement the functionality without running into the same problem.

</why I stopped listening to rap in 1995>

[malandrew]

What I meant was that if you ask the average Brazilian, even those that are much older, you'll see a greater acknowledgement that remixing content is considered fair use culturally and popularly. In the US, there is just as much remix culture, but it's not culturally or popularly considered fair use by a large percentage of the population. In the US, most people would be like, "they used 5 seconds of another song in their remix, they need to pay royalties!", whereas in Brazil, most people would be like, "Srsly?"

[malandrew]

I don't see what literacy rates has to do with remixing except when literary works are involved.

If anything a low literacy rate probably means that people are less exposed to the concept of "droit d'auteur", a concept internationally established at the Berne Convention by the literary elite in France (victor hugo, et al).

The concept of copyright is largely grounded in written works. If anything the recorded music industry was one of the first to challenge "right of the author". The sheet music industry was up in arms when recorded music became mainstream.

I also get the impression that writers are generally more likely to be adamant about copyright that musicians. When you are producing 4 minute songs versus 200 page tomes, there is a much greater chance that whatever work you are producing will demonstrate elements of the works that influenced the author.

[generateui]

You don't need literacy to remix. Video or music can be remixed creatively without the need to read or write.