KVR Audio

Uncle E · Post by **Uncle E** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:26 pm

bailees7irish wrote:What is the harm in sampling something that has a copyright if, in fact, you are not selling it. The law is that you cannot use it for your own personal tracks?? That seems absurd. Sure, I'm very ignorant when it comes to this subject, so my opinion means squat, but...I just find that stupid. Why would it be an issue for anyone if I wasn't making money off of it?

From a technical point of view, a law with grey area opens itself up to exploitation. For example, with your rationale, nothing could stop someone from saying "I'm giving my music for free, I only charge for the download bandwidth" or "I'm giving the sampled portions of my music for free, I only charge for the portion I created myself." If everyone honored the spirit of laws, we wouldn't need to worry about such ridiculous scenarios coming up. Unfortunately, since people consistently look for loopholes, law makers need to preemptively close them off.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:10 pm

Uncle E wrote:
bailees7irish wrote:What is the harm in sampling something that has a copyright if, in fact, you are not selling it. The law is that you cannot use it for your own personal tracks?? That seems absurd.

It seems absurd and is absurd.

Technically you are violating copyright when you play a CD you borrow from a friend in your car. The CD player in the car needs to make a copy digitally in-memory to apply its filters and so on.

Your friend had a non-transferable "license" to make this copy not limited by first sale doctrine as you might expect it should be.

You however, do not.

Therefore you've violated the copyright on the disc by making countless copies just by hitting "play".

Sendy · Post by **Sendy** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:14 pm

Moby is in the news getting sued over a sample in a track he released 22 years ago

Can you imagine the knock-on-effect if this kind of thing becomes a succesful trend? It doesn't happen so much now (but it still happens), but back then there was so much seedy sampling going on. Look at that in terms of untapped revenue and you've got yourself a neat little career

Faft Dunk and Slatboy Fim begging on the street

It bugs me that the party smiley messes up the line spacing.

bailees7irish · Post by **bailees7irish** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:53 pm

Sendy wrote:Moby is in the news getting sued over a sample in a track he released 22 years ago

Seriously? I'm going to have to Google search that. I never liked Moby's music and I think he comes off as a pompous ass, so I must admit that I find a twisted joy in the thought of him having to pay huge royalty sums and court fines...but that's ignorant as hell considering my general stance on sampling.

bailees7irish · Post by **bailees7irish** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:54 pm

Sendy wrote:It bugs me that the party smiley messes up the line spacing.

Random, but amusing.

bailees7irish · Post by **bailees7irish** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:55 pm

Uncle E wrote:
bailees7irish wrote:What is the harm in sampling something that has a copyright if, in fact, you are not selling it. The law is that you cannot use it for your own personal tracks?? That seems absurd. Sure, I'm very ignorant when it comes to this subject, so my opinion means squat, but...I just find that stupid. Why would it be an issue for anyone if I wasn't making money off of it?
From a technical point of view, a law with grey area opens itself up to exploitation. For example, with your rationale, nothing could stop someone from saying "I'm giving my music for free, I only charge for the download bandwidth" or "I'm giving the sampled portions of my music for free, I only charge for the portion I created myself." If everyone honored the spirit of laws, we wouldn't need to worry about such ridiculous scenarios coming up. Unfortunately, since people consistently look for loopholes, law makers need to preemptively close them off.

Very true, Uncle E.

bailees7irish · Post by **bailees7irish** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:00 pm

aciddose wrote:
Uncle E wrote:
bailees7irish wrote:What is the harm in sampling something that has a copyright if, in fact, you are not selling it. The law is that you cannot use it for your own personal tracks?? That seems absurd.
It seems absurd and is absurd.

Technically you are violating copyright when you play a CD you borrow from a friend in your car. The CD player in the car needs to make a copy digitally in-memory to apply its filters and so on.

Your friend had a non-transferable "license" to make this copy not limited by first sale doctrine as you might expect it should be.

You however, do not.

Therefore you've violated the copyright on the disc by making countless copies just by hitting "play".

See, s__t like this makes my brain hurt. These laws are just asinine. I understand that the original laws were created with good intentions, but just like the U.S.'s War on Drugs, it quickly spirals out of control into complete and utter irrational chaos... Okay, maybe it's not that serious, but still...
I wish things would regress back to the way it was in the 80s when one come sample the hell out of anything and it was considered art, spawning an entirely new genre.....

bailees7irish · Post by **bailees7irish** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:02 pm

sprnva wrote:I'd still love to know how Girl Talk can fly in the face of everything mentioned in this thread and hasn't been sued into oblivion. Here's a couple of examples for anyone unfamiliar. This album is from 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trmacqG9uKA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3rbXfFW66M
Obvious samples, obviously no clearance, yet being sold on CD/download. We're not talking amateur youtube mashup here. You can buy this (and his other CDs) on Amazon and elsewhere right now if you feel so inclined.

Is it enough to just say "I don't claim ownership of this music"?

It can't be because he's making new work from samples of other peoples music because we all know the stories of artists getting sued for one little uncleared sample. Or are those days over now? I haven't been keeping track lately.

I'd really like to get to the bottom of this.

I'd like to know, sprnva. I've been considering trying to contact him to ask him, but I haven't looked into how to get in touch and I wonder if he'd even respond.
This is what pisses me off about laws: how is it that one man is exempt from it but another is not? I just can't wrap my head around it...

bailees7irish · Post by **bailees7irish** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:04 pm

trimph1 wrote:easier route. Just DIY without applying uncleared stuff. sheesh

Sheesh? Lol. How about maybe you read what has been said throughout the thread? I already touched upon the DIY subject at least once or twice...sheesh.

bailees7irish · Post by **bailees7irish** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:05 pm

SampleScience wrote:
bailees7irish wrote:
dune_rave wrote:The solution is simple: don't use samples. Use synths (Synths has samples too but that's OK).
+Use existing midi files and change their notes

Really - what about "midi sampling"?
Sure I can do that...in fact, I've been considering recreating all the old worn out tape and vinyl samples I want to use in future tracks and trying to recreate them all with synths and VSTs...but imagine how much time that would take!! I mean, I only have so much time in a day.
It takes a lot of time, believe me!

bailees7irish · Post by **bailees7irish** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:07 pm

jancivil wrote:
bailees7irish wrote:
ZenPunkHippy wrote:It's pretty simple IMO ...

Do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home.

Performing live in public or releasing music out in the real world, pay your respects by observing copyright laws and getting clearance for the samples.

Peace,
Andy.
It's simple if a.) you're a millionaire or if b.) you just don't use any uncleared samples.
Unfortunately, neither of those are viable options for me, so...I guess I'll have to claim fair use if/when the time comes.
I'm not a millionaire. I have never used 'uncleared' samples. I have used things like thunderclaps off of Freesound with attribution. It never in my life occurred to me to slap other people's recorded music together instead of making my own music. I don't know what being a millionaire has to do with it unless you have had this modeled by rich assholes that buy their way out of litigation.

What's missing in your original post is whether or not you present this music to the public in some way as your own. IE, without specific attribution where there is a CC type of license you agree to, or without permission where the person that actually made the music, or even just made some sounds has specified their permission is required. Now that you're still talking after seeing 'do as you like in private', it appears you don't restrict yourself to that?

You may want to look up the language where Fair Use is deemed appropriate and even legal. This, copyright - By Permission Only - is too hard for you to respect? How does that work, do you feel entitled to someone else's property out in the world? Even if it's never going to be shared, some people will want to be compensated for THE USE OF: Their work. Their investment, their time. But no, it's yours now somehow.

Should you feature something at the Youtube and get caught, 'Fair Use' is no slam dunk. You lose disputes, you lose your account.
Not using uncleared samples is NOT VIABLE for you? Jesus. Grow up some, see if you don't like standing on your own two feet for a minute.

I was with you up until that last asshole comment at the very end.
I'm grown up, thanks.

My feelings on this matter aren't swayed whatsoever by your immature dig, I can assure you. Keep trying if you'd like, though.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:08 pm

Jancivil's opinions on these sorts of subjects are reliably narrow-minded, unthoughtout knee-jerk appeals to emotion.

I'd rather stick with the original intent of the law rather than discuss irrelevant "moral" aspects which in my opinion seem constructed with the intent to detract from the core issue.

Uncle E · Post by **Uncle E** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:03 pm

bailees7irish wrote:These laws are just asinine. I understand that the original laws were created with good intentions, but just like the U.S.'s War on Drugs, it quickly spirals out of control into complete and utter irrational chaos...

In this case, it's not that the law has spun out of control, it's that the lawmakers haven't revisited them to update them for the current state of technology. It's the complete opposite of your analogy.

I wish things would regress back to the way it was in the 80s when one come sample the hell out of anything and it was considered art, spawning an entirely new genre.....

Back then, people sampled everything and then gave all their royalties to the copyright holders after. You can behave in exactly the same way as musicians did in the 80s, you'll simply not make any money on your music (just like musicians in the 80s). btw, I'm pretty sure this is why Dre used so few samples on Chronic 2001, strikingly distinct from the original Chronic album that was all samples.

SODDI · Post by **SODDI** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:35 am

Or just be brave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QCTk8_f ... 83D74002EE

BertKoor · Post by **BertKoor** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:35 am

sprnva wrote:Obvious samples, obviously no clearance

How come you're so sure the samples aren't cleared? Sample clearance is a private contract, it doesn't need to be printed on the liner notes of the track. There's no way for you to know, unless you have contact with either the sampled or the sampling artist. And even then, it could be their management or label handles that kind of stuff.

bailees7irish wrote:The law is that you cannot use it for your own personal tracks??

Nope, private usage is not forbidden by any law. Publication (with or without charging money) however is.

Copyright?