Amen Break

Instead of writing about an incredibly interesting subject for my first blog of the year, I am asked to give my opinion on the following paragraphs about the famous Amen Break.
If you never heard of the Amen Break before, I recommend you to click on the following link: bit.ly/1oawfGI.

The first paragraph:

To trace the history of the Amen break is to trace the history of a brief period of time when it seemed digital tools offered a potentially unlimited amount of new forms of expression, where cultural production, at least musically, was full of possibilities by virtue of the ability to freely appropriate from the musical past, to make new combinations and thus new meanings. The story demonstrates that a society ʻfree to borrow and build upon the past is culturally richer than a controlled oneʼ, …
(…)

First of all, it’s true that the electronical break-throughs offered a new perspective for all the Amen break variations. And we heard in the fantastic 18-minute long video that the famous break was cut into pieces to experiment with. But I don’t believe that a society should consist out of the word ‘free’. Okay, I understand that it is easier to spread the word and to be creative with the samples when you can get them for free, but still, I don’t think we should all be ‘give me some peace and love’-hippies. I think that that society isn’t culturally richer thanks to things that you can borrow for free, but it is thanks to the people being creative.

The second one:
But because of various changes to US copyright laws (…), virtually all 20th century cultural output has been locked away from the public domain, barred from sampling, unless one has deep pockets and expensive lawyers.

(…)

It’s not a shame that music is locked away of the public domain in my opinion, because as a well-trained manager I don’t believe in a free world. But there are still some solutions for that, such as Creative Commons. Thanks to Creative Commons, everyone –writers, composers etc. – can decide for themselves whether they want their music to be used freely or not. So they can offer their music for millions or just for some dollars. This should be a choice that every artist should have.

The third:
Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Culture is impossible without a rich public domain.

Here we go again. I don’t believe that overprotecting and underprotecting are both equally bad. In my utopia people would use music and other intellectual property freely, but they would give something in return, such as a part of the money, some recognition, a hamburger … But selfish as we are, we only believe in overprotecting and underprotecting. In paying and steeling. There’s no way in between. And that’s a shame.
But that’s a rant for another blog about us humans in a fucked up society.