Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="goregoregoregoregoregore, post: 268133, member: 171852"] I have too strong and extreme opinions about this topic and i'm too much into sampling culture, plunderphonics and dadaist shit, so in order to not create too heated discussions about this i will try to filter myself a bit. I think at the moment a piece of art changes enough so that the messages and intentions of what the original tried to express is different then it has no reason to be called plagiarism. Art should never be supposed to be treated as a commodity but simply as means to expression. People forget that art is based on nature, and is not a natural concept by itself, and not a single aspect of the concept of art itself exist without mimicking something already existing, as opposed to things like ''sound'', ''color'' or ''movement'' for example. Also i agree with what [USER=963]@Yousef[/USER] said. This is a topic not really related to art in itself at this point and more about law. Different artists with different backgrounds, ideologies, cultures and personalities will have totally different opinions about this and will treat a ''plagiarism'' situation very differently. Probably you won't see people into hardcore underground music care in any way about plagiarism as opposed to more mainstream or famous musicians for example [/QUOTE]

Totals may include hidden visitors.