Sample Police

[bigcat1969]

Do we need rights for creators, yes absolutely. That drives creation and allows artists to eat.
Have these rights been twisted beyond belief by the corporate system. Well a case in point. Virtually all Old Time Radio is firmly in the public domain by act of congress, to simplify a long story... A judge in California used twisted logic involving allowing long dead scripts that were never protected to now be copy-protected and public domain radio shows to be declared derivative works. Now audio works that have been public domain since the 30s and 40s are back under copyright. The goal is to make everything in public domain produce money for business, ask Mickey Mouse about such things if you don't believe me. Everything given away aka public domain is money out of the pocket of big business.

Stealing a digital sample, while against the law and something to be avoided in my opinion, is not the same as stealing food. Food is a single item that can only be consumed once. A digital sample by its nature is consumed repeatedly. This is why I make and give away digital instruments and not actual instruments. I can't afford to give everyone a 'real' piano because it costs money to make including raw materials, cost of tools to manufacture (pro rated) and workers time, etc... The cost of a digital piano the time involved, the media it is recorded on and once finished only a small bandwidth cost is required for each piano. The piano is not 'consumed' by each user.

[jancivil]

Well, the goalpost is shifted to whatever is convenient to promote the notion "Liberate Digital Samples" it seems to me. So, shall we proceed with a definition? A whole album released in any format we can access with a computer is a digital sample; the same things apply, it's experienced over and over as such and reproducing it is a simple matter of a copy as opposed to something 'real'. So is this object, through these criteria subject to be liberated? A fragment of a work, or a recording of even a single note, is not essentially a different consideration, I don't think.

We seem to be at cross-purposes. I'm not really saying more than this: a creation can reasonably be deemed to have an actual creator, an owner with rights.

Now, it appears that the situation of a real piano, since it can't be copied so easily, implies that the cost of creating a piano samples library vanishes. I think someone that created that library can legitimately assert that they may at least recoup their investment by doing business, and even have a right to profit by their labor and investment. So that argument doesn't persuade me.

"Everything given away aka public domain is money out of the pocket of big business." I'm aware of entities re-upping copyright to milk more money out of PD items. That's a separate subject, isn't it? I expect you agree really, that the situation of excesses of profiteers is not enough to make copyright a bad practice in itself.

[Doug1978]

Do we need rights for creators, yes absolutely. That drives creation and allows artists to eat.
Have these rights been twisted beyond belief by the corporate system. Well a case in point. Virtually all Old Time Radio is firmly in the public domain by act of congress, to simplify a long story... A judge in California used twisted logic involving allowing long dead scripts that were never protected to now be copy-protected and public domain radio shows to be declared derivative works. Now audio works that have been public domain since the 30s and 40s are back under copyright. The goal is to make everything in public domain produce money for business, ask Mickey Mouse about such things if you don't believe me. Everything given away aka public domain is money out of the pocket of big business.

Stealing a digital sample, while against the law and something to be avoided in my opinion, is not the same as stealing food. Food is a single item that can only be consumed once. A digital sample by its nature is consumed repeatedly. This is why I make and give away digital instruments and not actual instruments. I can't afford to give everyone a 'real' piano because it costs money to make including raw materials, cost of tools to manufacture (pro rated) and workers time, etc... The cost of a digital piano the time involved, the media it is recorded on and once finished only a small bandwidth cost is required for each piano. The piano is not 'consumed' by each user.

Good points bigcat1969.

RE: your previous point though that ''Oddly copyright is a basic human right that shouldn't be abridged...''
I don't know if you're being ironic or not (it's hard to deduce irony on the internet), but copyright has never been a basic human right.
I could spout on, but this article states it better than me:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121 ... ight.shtml

As for the OP's question, I wouldn't imagine the sample police are much of a problem if you don't have much cash and you do a reasonable job of disguising the sample.
The history of music is littered with plagiarism and nicked samples after all - including by some of the best known musicians.

[jancivil]

I appropriated one or more (I'm not sure, I only know that this one entity sought to shut it down) clips of motion pictures which Warner Group claimed rights to at Youtube. I asserted Fair Use and relied on a known definition of it (duration is not substantial and my use is non-competing) and they released the claim (although my video not available in all areas. But it's still up on Youtube.) If I was profiting by such use, it would be a different matter, I'm sure. And rightly so. They released the claim as soon as they saw my dispute.

[do_androids_dream]

The history of music is littered with plagiarism and nicked samples after all - including by some of the best known musicians.

One could EASILY argue it's a massive (or indeed the only) reason why we have so much diversity in music. It's how everything works - we all nick ideas from all over the place in ALL forms of idea making... and we all benefit. I remember the first time I heard a piece of music of music that had sampled mine - it didn't make me have any cynical, right wing indoctrinated bullshit me me me thoughts - it just brought a huge grin to my face

[jancivil]

I've never had any "indoctrinated right-wing me me me thoughts" in my f**king life. That ideas are appropriated all the time in this general sense does nothing at all to make asserting rights to an actual work something only horrible reactionaries can get behind. That's very reactive and very obnoxious. Your logic is twisted and your ass is on display.

[jancivil]

Additionally 'plagiarism' ought to be a meaningful word, it means the work you presented as your own is not your own. Now, that's a good thing? Whew. Nicked samples, well, none of what I use as a composer has a thing to do with that. If I find I must appropriate a musical idea I would do it by hand. What I do not need to do is be Vanilla Ice nicking the whole lick (Under Pressure) off a record. And I don't really buy that this progresses anything. The failed logic coming from this worldview is such a bad sign.

[t3toooo]

Don't worry,feel free to use anything what you like,If you get a little success they are coming for you.

Or, do it like the more known artists,let the label clear the samples beforehand kinda like a flat rate and you will much more benefit.

[do_androids_dream]

I've never had any "indoctrinated right-wing me me me thoughts" in my f**king life. That ideas are appropriated all the time in this general sense does nothing at all to make asserting rights to an actual work something only horrible reactionaries can get behind. That's very reactive and very obnoxious. Your logic is twisted and your ass is on display.

Mr. Jan Civil. I . Am . Not . Talking . About . You . Personally . You seem to be taking this all very personally. It is not intended that way. It's simply part of a 'discussion'. I am generally referring to the fact that copyright law has been twisted (just like everything else in western society) into cynical profiteering wherever possible. I was simply pointing out in a playful way - to the world - NOT YOU PERSONALLY - that my brain (thank god) doesn't work that way. Is that clear?

[Doug1978]

@do_androids_dream - I agree (though i'm not sure every original musician would be think so!).

@t6toooo - certainly makes good sense for those who think they'll have some success.

[do_androids_dream]

What I do not need to do is be Vanilla Ice nicking the whole lick (Under Pressure) off a record. And I don't really buy that this progresses anything.

Hip hop would not exist without massive plagiarism. All styles of dance music would still be stuck somewhere in late 70's without massive plagiarism. Almost all plagiarism, in art, is simply the spreading and development of ideas. Without it culture would start to die.

The funny thing about 'originality' is that what most people call original is usually just taking an existing idea and changing it by about 0.5%. Did you hear that? He's using an 808 snare in a country track!!! It's so original! When people come along who are TRULY original - who do things that are so alien as to be completely unfamiliar - like say, Autechre or Schoenberg or Curtis Roads or Todd Dochstader or etc. etc. it totally goes over peoples heads for a long time or, even worse, it only gets appreciated years after their death or descent into poverty or something. The point I'm making is that 'original' is usually, actually, totally derivative and highly plagiaristic save for one or two tiny differences to a very well established template or formula. This is what I was talking about earlier in the thread.

[bigcat1969]

Random thoughts.

Interesting discussion. For my professional rep as an instrument maker (if I have such a thing), I've always credited where my samples come from and they come generally from public domain or creative commons sources. The closest thing I did to wrong was to convert the Maestro Piano to Kontakt, which technically I shouldn't have done. But since it has already been done several times, basically it is abandonware, it is free and was always given away free by its creator, I took the risk. So yes I believe that samples belong to the original creator.

I believe protecting creators in general is important. I question the unquestioning protection of the rights of non-creator corporations who often seem to pay a pittance for those rights and then exploit them mercilessly well past the logical expiration date. The recent uproar over the massive drug markups would serve to illustrate that I'm not entirely alone in this belief.

I do think that this conversation gets over blown (almost as bad as ILOK threads:), hence my mention of world hunger and homelessness.

Some one the first page said that copyright was a basic right, I was riffing off that. No I don't think it is.

I like to differentiate between theft as it is intended in classical law and 'rights' theft. Corp types like not to differentiate between them. Clearly theft until very recent times was well defined as taking a physical object that wasn't yours (unless you were a tax agent). This modern theft is actually much closer to forgery in certain ways, since multiple copies exist. Saying they aren't the same thing is not the same as saying that theft should both be legal or that digital rights shouldn't be protected.

Music has completely moved away from its origins. Oddly the Youtube availability is moving it back to live performances being more important to musicians as it used to be. Is that really a bad thing? Paying 15 bucks to listen to the one good single on an album was not sustainable. RIAA and Metallica lost 'the you must pay for every note of music you listen to' battle. Anyone else hate Metallic? Oddly virtually this exact same conversation took place 15 years ago in relation to those questions. I wonder what we will think 15 years hence when we review this debate?

[jancivil]

I question the unquestioning protection of the rights of non-creator corporations who often seem to pay a pittance for those rights and then exploit them mercilessly well past the logical expiration date. The recent uproar over the massive drug markups would serve to illustrate that I'm not entirely alone in this belief.

I do think that this conversation gets over blown (almost as bad as ILOK threads:), hence my mention of world hunger and homelessness.

Some one the first page said that copyright was a basic right, I was riffing off that. No I don't think it is.

Well, this has gotten into political ideology. I mind less that it goes to HPC than I mind that I have to eschew addressing the material.

I completely agree with questioning the protection of corporations to do f**k-all. I believe that law in a capitalist economy should favor the little guy, period. In the US, the right-wing grows ever more radical in support of the biggest guys and legislators from that side make the rigged game worse and worse by the day.

Copyright has been around a good while now. I don't get the distinction between stealing tangible goods and stealing IP, per se. If you have made it impossible for someone to conduct their business, the reduction of their livelihood means you stole food off their table. I don't agree at all that taxing is stealing. It's impossible that the person being taxed enjoys no great benefit from the revenue it provides to the commonwealth.

Now if we are dealing in law, we have to make distinctions. For the better good becomes part of the equation. Part of the furor over Trans-Pacific Partnership is placed here. There are entities that want to make generic drugs difficult if not impossible. I don't think you can base law purely to follow the abstraction, 'Property is absolutely inviolable'. I have argued in favor of a certain quality of that type of abstraction, people that create must have a mechanism in which to protect their intellectual property. Drug companies should have some mechanism by which to protect their investment. However the asshole that bought up rights to this pill that cost 13 a pill jacking it up to 7500 should be looking at law that makes that impossible.

So what real public issue crops up if 8Dio asserts their rights and links to torrents sites are removed from google searches? Nobody gon' die behind it.

[bigcat1969]

Thanks for the chat. Sorry to the OP for sliding so far off topic. Gotta be careful about typing too much while watching a college course about the French Revolution. You never know what sans-culottes's rhetoric might come out! Have a good night.

[trimph1]

Oddly copyright is a basic human right that shouldn't be abridged, but food and shelter apparently aren't basic human rights and are abridged all the time. Just thinking that occasionally we major on the minor in these capitalist societies that are gradually eating our souls and gradating all art based on commercial value. But back to arguing over who owns what infinitesimal slice of the opiate of the masses we call entertainment...

Someone who gets it.

Yep. Everything is upside down now...excellent point.

I though the RIAA had something going at one point regarding samples and such. Not sure if program still exists though.