Our Impact & Purpose

We believe creators have the right to sample released music, video content, and voices within a clearly defined and limited scope. Copyright law is a recognizable framework—so we also believe every creator holds an absolute and inalienable right not to have their unreleased works stolen, exploited, or taken advantage of in any form. We also believe in the criminality of the piracy of an entire work.

Problems

  1. There is no reason to believe that what is written was enacted in a constitutional manner, which would require a majority decision made in communion with the Creator. This claim will never be accepted on faith alone. Are we to believe that copyright's roughly 80,000 words and 500,000 characters are the very word of God? That did not happen.
  2. Side matters—such as whether radio stations should be required to do more than simply pay for the music they play—are enough to trigger serious debates about rights. Radio generates leads, millions of plays, enormous exposure, and what amounts to free advertising for artists. At some point, one has to question whether every assumption we make about copyright and compensation is really true. Imagine an artist whose video existed only on YouTube. Then MTV, MuchMusic, and other networks began airing it. Their album was distributed through the usual label channels, and radio stations began buying and playing their music. That exposure could have made the artist’s entire career. In that situation, the businesses using the copyrighted work aren't simply taking value from the artist—they may also be creating tremendous value for them.
  3. It doesn't take a million more brain cells to admit "As it stands, with what you have, this is a no vote."
  4. Creators are handed AI, which is taxed, and told they might be sued for using it.
  5. Beat makers hide behind artists "possibly" pardoning them, because they may get a license fee out of the system. However, artists who lease these beats are anything but protected, and may be sued. The licensing fees are outrageous. Only "doctor" sized incomes can pay the fees. Artists must lease these beats to have a career, or even hobby.
  6. Our art scene is already thriving on sampling and wishes to do so. No one listens, the legal system is Russian Roulette. We're living under bully first laws.
  7. Young people should not be deterred from making beats, games, or arts, just because of talent. They should not be deterred from making rap songs. And their only property and assets should not be the risk or cost.
  8. Government argues definitions, but they don’t decide whether sampling is a crime or not. What they really decided is who gets to sample, who gets to take, and who gets left out. They sit back and tax the mess. They tax AI companies, they tax the court fees when they are sued, they tax the artists that sue them, and they tax the PROs. They tax the streaming platforms we all use together. Any arguement they use to justify keeping Suno in operation MUST be applied to us all.
  9. AI companies cannot ask thousands of artists for the ability to license their work for training, there isn't enough time for the correspondence, and a startup couldn't possibly afford the fees. They want the tools, but won't permit them. Why allow a single bully out of a crowd? If the argument is some people can do this, we get stuck with what? Google's crummy work, and some image AIs? Consider what Suno and OpenAI are doing for the world.
  10. If an artist steals a phrase of music and you later sample or rewrite that phrase, the thief can still sue you. If copyright law were truly constitutional, shouldn't their content be removed instead? You might as well tell a shoplifter if they hawk the wares a certain way it's not an offence. Playing 5 notes on a stolen sample protects the previous thief and offers them compensation rights.
  11. Lawyers are too eager to capitalize on judges siding with the law without weighing in on right or wrong, true or false, or whether their countrymen are validly treated. Judges always side with the law, proving a complete disregard for society's rights and revealing the fruit of unconstitutionality. It's too easy for companies or individuals to profit, even if they know this law is false. I don't even have to believe in copyright to profit.
  12. You could earn a full living to sustain one's wellbeing simply sueing artists who track out your smaple library on Beatstars. Apparently you can contribute as little as five notes on a mainstream sample.
  13. Artists are more capable than ever of making their own way, making them less reliant on large publishers. Independent music artists are topping the charts, and indie games are available on consoles. The need for absolute protection is less prevalent for the majority of society. We can't sit around and wait for Nintendo or Penguin, and we shouldn't. Artists can sell at the same rate, and keep climbing, even if someone else shares in their content.
  14. There are so many e-books, games, and creative works in existence that it would make little difference if Link and Pikachu were sitting in a café, sharing a conversation over coffee, within one work among millions. The thought of a young author—or any creator—being sued over such a transformative use is far more troubling.
  15. To top it all off, there is the sheer ignorance required to allow the lawsuit in the first place. Why should I have to participate in harm against myself and others simply to function in society, and then be expected to treat that harm as irrelevant in court? If I have to pump gasoline to get to the courthouse, I am contributing to pollution. If I take a taxi, I am shifting that same burden onto a driver who also has to make a living within the system. Pollution itself causes death, illness, and environmental destruction, and when that harm is knowingly inflicted on others, it is understood as a form of crime. So where is the counterclaim for the harm we are effectively required to participate in every day? The deepest corruption, from a governmental standpoint, is not simply causing harm—it is constructing a system around that harm and then ignoring the truth about its consequences. Where is our defence?

Reforms

All transformative work will be legal. Using musical notes in a new production will not be illegal. Drawing a single famous character in your collection of drawings released in a book would not be illegal. Quoting an author would not be illegal. Sampling recordings will not be illegal. Members of the AI community will have full download and release rights.

  1. Authors would have the right to write any story they can possibly imagine. They could quote from existing works and create new stories inspired by them without fear. We believe that when a creature or character reaches legendary status, it should enter the realm of open literary mythology — the hobbit, the beholder, the orc. Authors should be free to craft new, transformative works using even the most famous characters. Sampling any written work will be legal, if used in a new unique production.
  2. Visual artists would have the right to include minor elements from existing works, as well as full works in new worlds, without penalty.
  3. Producers would have the right to create beats, remixes, jazz reinterpretations, and cross-genre productions derived from existing music. Creators would not be limited by funds and access to low quality content for pay.
  4. Music creators would have the right to use musical phrases and motifs from existing works, as long as the resulting song is considered new.
  5. Lyracists would be able to quote other aritst. I'm pretty sure we can say Bawitdaba, or Can't Touch This, without getting sued.
  6. All creators on all platforms will have access to these basic transformative rights. It doesn't mean there isn't money to be made, or fun to be had, it's just another shift in the market.
  7. Video makers will have the right to all forms of comentary, so long as a lie isn't told on purpose.
  8. All creators will have their work protected from piracy and theft verbatim, including AI artists of all kinds. Even those with single prompt books should not suffer thefts and piracy. All the much more those with extensive work in their product.
  9. Sampling a complete work should be legal, stealing an idea from one's mouth and producing it yourself holds more copyright weight than being the one who came up with it, no matter how creative. We can't even take our OWN idea back.

What proof do they have that their law is from God, rather than written by mortals? What evidence shows it is constitutional, fair, and that they are not stealing from us? There is none. Queen Anne was required to "Let the injustices be done."

YouTube creators deserve their AdSense without losing their income. Some have lost revenue over a simple boom bap drum pattern or a memorial video containing a short music clip. We feel creators have the right to background music and all visual arts. Content creators should not be bullied through copyright enforcement.

We support AI rights to continue sampling the music they have historically sampled and to continue providing transformative creative tools to users, if they desire to do so. We believe individuals have certain rights over their own voice—but within art and creative sampling, much of this falls under a "paparazzi clause."

Every creator's hard work should be protected from duplication. This extends to the AI community. No one wants to have their stories and hard work stolen.

Mission

Our goal is not passive promotion—our mission is active participation in legal reform and creator protection. WCACO stands firm in pushing against industry giants and the systems they exploit.

We aim to:

• Organize global awareness. Creatives worldwide will refuse to purchase from Netflix, Apple TV, Crave TV, iTunes, HMV, or engage with corporate entertainment until creators’ rights are respected. We turn off radio. Free platforms such as YouTube, Tubi, Plex, Spotify in the vehicle can fulfill entertainment needs in the meantime. We want to see every stadium and movie theater empty everywhere until amendments are made. No more bockbuster status for films.

• AI companies that were taken through deception, coercion, or misused legal processes should be fully restored to their original owners, in both ownership and operational freedom, should the owners of these companies desire that change.

• Content creators recieve their AdSense, as their works are transformative. Content ID will be removed or reformed. Uploading hip hop drums costs you're revenue because they invented hip hop patterns. This actually happens. We fear a time when you won't profit because of a basic chord progression.

• Push for modern reforms that reflect the needs of today's creators and consumers.

• AI tools do NOT become or remain walled gardens, unless the original owners desire this change.

• We believe that empty stadiums and silent theatres would force the system to face the truth in a short amount of time.

View our detailed business plan here: strategic plan.

Considerations

• We don't believe major companies that publish in the millions of dollars should be offended by these legal reforms. We think they should encourage it and fight for it. Those that once lobied against us should press the government and lobby for us. If one company shared Chrono Trigger, and another Link, and another Pickachu, imagine the stories that could be told and the profits that could be made. Works are protected through prohibition of piracy and duplicates. It doesn't hurt economy it fosters the ability to build which expands economy.

• This group has no intention of harming independent artists at any level. Our goals are not to shut down open mics, prevent independent artists from performing, discourage support for AI companies, or stop people from enjoying beats, beat-making education, or reasonable streaming. Buying and selling on Itunes should be limited to indie content 100%.

• This group has no intention of dismantling copyright by allowing individuals to recreate products exactly as they are. We are not trying to undermine the uniqueness or individuality of any creator’s work by flooding the market with copies. Our reforms would not affect BMI, ASCAP, or SOCAN in any way or diminish existing licensing systems. Instead, we believe creators should be free to produce transformative works when transformation is an essential part of their creative expression.

• We do not intend to remove ownership of names, images, and personal stories.

• This kind of creative freedom does not harm the economy. A creator could make a Hobbit-style Mario clone and earn from it. Creative freedom strengthens economic stability. Every author would still hold full rights to their own version. Creators will be able to create whatever they want under the sun, and still be the only owner of that creation. "You were freely given, so freely give."

• We hope to see a day when AI creators can take part in all platforms, including Apple Music. Every creator should have a right to a profile. Writing is a high art. Concrete Butterfly or Pocket Full of Demons by Beat Play, are lyrics I loved writing.

• Nintendo doesn’t own Link by themselves—you do. You want Pikachu? Pikachu is yours. Every citizen should have access to the infinite nature of what's created.

• Beat makers' profits would increase as samplers pay for stems. Every beat is uniquely owned, and samplers could respin the drums with their own melodies. Producers would be able to sell sample packs, do exclusive drumming, and have people sample, plus they own the rights to their own unique creation.

Minimum

Sample the underground to mid-level without fear.

A license is not needed for minimal works, even when profit is invovled, tik-tok dancing videos, ect.

Expand the public domain to include re-creations of works from 25-30 years ago.

Community

Help build a thriving forum where creators can share content, build connections, follow WCACO media updates, and collaborate across the globe. The community is the backbone of the movement—and together, we will redefine creator rights in the digital age.

The Revolution

This is a copyright and content consumers revolution. Help us change the industry.