Copyright

1. In your opinion, is sampling a form of copyright infringement? 
Explain your position
- I think that sampling is in no way a form of copyright. I feel like if someone was using mass amounts of time of one song or another that it would be copyright but not just a couple seconds here and there. Many people think that the beat should not be stolen but in all reality someone could make a beat today and tomorrow that exact same beat could be recreated a day or two later. I am sure that there are many instances like this that happen all the time. If i was the one who made this beat or even wrote the song I am sure that i would feel a little different but from the outside looking in i think that it is wrong to consider sampling as copyright.

2. Some people, such as Lawrence Lessig (a founder of Creative Commons), say that technology enables more creativity, others feel that new technology allows musical artist to take the easy route and just patch together pieces of music created by someone else.Where do you stand on this issue? Where do you think the filmmakers stand?
- I believe that you can look at this issue both ways but that both ways are true/not true. Technology allows the artist to make cool sound effects or even to speed the process of making the music together because they could mess up on one single word and instead of starting all over they can just patch it together. Is this lazy? Some say yes it is but most of the people that feel this way are ones who never had the opportunity to use this technology so therefore they could just be a tad jealous. I think that the people that made the film feel as if it is lazy because through out the movie they talk the entire time about how they have never got the credit they think they deserve for all the beats and music that they made. They make a good point about this but its time to move on with life and except the fact that we have technology.

3. Does re purposing a piece of music always have a detrimental effect on the way the original recording is perceived? Does it always cut into the profits of the owner of the original recording? Why or why not?
- When pieces of music are redone there usually is a huge gap in time between the time that the song was originally recorded and the time it was recreated. With this said I believe that yes it can change that was it is perceived but not the profits from the original owner. As time passes the lingo and the way people think is changed.So if a song was written in the older days it could be innocent and sweet but could now be taken by a teenager today as perverted. This fact is sad but its so true. Usually if there is a big time gap there will also not be many people buying the original song. If there are a good bit of people in all honesty it is going to be people who lived in the time period of that song and they are going to care nothing about the new song that is put out.