I want to mash up this sample to make an introduction to my Demo album for my band:
However the author has written "Please do NOT use this sample in any sort of musical production."
He may not want it to be used in such a way, but under the creative commons licence, am I not free to use the sample if he has uploaded it to this site?
I personally would say that regardless of the "Letter of the Law" it is common courtesy to abide by an authors request as regards the use of their work. If you have doubts about interpreting his/her statement, e-mail them and ask for explicit permission.
There is a reason also why the author requests that it not be used in such a manner, which is that it is of a religious nature. It is the Islamic call to prayer, and Muslims find it inappropriate for it to be used in other contexts.
Its a cultural taboo, but why not reach the widest possible audience for your work?
I'm going to go out on a limb and be a bit of a contrarian dink, but a few things come to my mind in a controversy such as this:
1. Why upload a sample to a CC site if it cannot be used in some way other than what it really is? The license itself exists for a reason, and you have to agree to the license to upload a file; It is an explicit act of will.
2. Hopefully Allah does not care at all, but do the Islamic doctrines have anything to say about using technology to 'capture' call to prayer or other sacred sounds? Might not the power of the prayers be already 'cheapened' in some way by recording it?
I'm sure there are many valid answers to these and other questions depending largely on ones' beliefs or lack thereof. I (for one) certainly believe in the power of song and sound, but cannot wrap my mind around a concept of only certain sounds being in some way sacred. Unless of course one means that ALL sounds are of equal sacredness, in which case we are all terrible sinners.
I had a discussion with the uploader of this sound and he or she insists on not using it in music Because it is against the Koran or Quran to mix prayer with other instruments. It is just like that. This is not a matter of reinterpretation of legal stuff or having a debate in order to change someone's mind. The Koran's rules are very clear and we should respect that. It is a pity in a sort of way because the sample is beautiful, for sure.
We can debate it all we want, unless of course one holds the Koran on such high. My first point was academic in all ways, but in the second I wanted to point out that there is something very suspicious in categorizing only certain sounds as holy and untouchable. Perhaps it is that I am not much of a believer in general, but the phenomenon of sound itself (divorced from some kind of 'meaning') is not controlled by religious text, and never will be. Vibrations in air do not know of the Koran's existence.
I'm reminded of the archaism of the Tritone once believed to be the Devil's Chord...
Like it or not, within the context of THIS SITE, the CC license does indeed trump the Koran. But only if leaving the personal respect outside of the equation....
I didn't suggest the original poster use the sample, I do believe in respect for ones' personal beliefs and wishes. But I also expect it to flow both ways and allow dissenting views from all sides.
I understand your point Lonemonk, no worries. I'm not a believer, too, but I can see where the original uploader is coming from. I tried having this discussion but I found that we (uploader and me) were on different planets as far as this is concerned. So while I like these discussions, I also understand that there won't be any resolution because of the intentions and rules as supported by the uploader.
And yes, we may think that vibrations in air are neutral but believers don't.
Agreed on all fronts.
Sam13 is a spammer. He just copied someone else's text to make it look like it's on topic, but in reality, it's just another idiot.
As much as I hate to say so, there need to be captchas but also a limit on the number of posts per minute/hour/day whatever. I got about 100 emails today because I am following so many conversations.
The user called 'access' caused 100% of the updates with the sole exception of your own nemo, and that is the worst trend of all
Alternatively, even if a user is not a sound moderator, let some of the longterm people ban what are obviously spammers. The regular moderators could verify that the community is not being too aggressive, but within minutes everyone here would know who to ban in short order
The sad part is of course that even with multiple regulars it would still become a full time job. 'access' replied to almost every recent convo that is current. So it is a debasement of this community to even allow that shit to happen! Any one of us could have shut him down 24 hours ago