Is Boom Bap legal?

[chaosWyrM]

No, it isn't.

yes...it is.

"In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_C ... ted_States

im not sure what you think is going on in there...but thats a pretty large portion of what they do.

[chaosWyrM]

Plaintiff owns rights to source of samples, this makes samples unauthorized derivatives.

User received license from those without the right to license.

See here: https://torrentfreak.com/cnn-cbc-sued-f ... eo-150813/

The user can be notified that their own work is an unauthorized derivative.

This sets up a situation in which those holding the rights to the source material have standing against both the distributor of the product and the user who produces anything with the product.

This can go before a judge. Whether or not the user has a valid defense is another question but once you need a defense I'm afraid you've officially been sued.

that only shows they have standing for the samples they claim are theirs. now tell me how they plan to show standing for single one shots which could have come from anywhere.

this case is dead in the water because they wont be able to prove that the samples are theirs.

were talking about this particular library...not any old sample.

[aciddose]

I'm not going to argue with you about what it means and what the consequences of circular reasoning are in the end.

It means quite simply: they have the ability to define that which defines themselves, therefore they define themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_T ... nstitution

It does not say anywhere in article three "the supreme court shall do whatever wants".

Obviously the intention of article three was not to allow the court to define or interpret the meaning of the clauses which grant it power and limit those powers.

You ought to know that legal terms carry different meaning than "plain english".

"Interpret" in this case does not mean "define".

[aciddose]

now tell me how they plan to show standing for single one shots which could have come from anywhere.

Look it up yourself. I thought you're the know-it-all expert?

[chaosWyrM]

now tell me how they plan to show standing for single one shots which could have come from anywhere.

Look it up yourself. I thought you're the know-it-all expert?

im not the one trying to bring a suit...you are...onus is on you. youre asking me how to kill a law suit before it goes to trial...

you filed a suit...i challenged standing...you can prove standing for your samples (obviously)...but you still have to show you have standing for the samples i used...ball is in your court.

[chaosWyrM]

and calling me a "know it-all-expert" is a bit of a pot/kettle scenario...dont you think?

[aciddose]

No, you're asking me to give you legal advice.

If you want that information hire your wife.

I'd request some research on cases pertaining to "one shot samples" and what the requirement is. (Hint: you don't need to prove the sample is actually the same.)

[chaosWyrM]

No, you're asking me to give you legal advice.

If you want that information hire your wife.

I'd request some research on cases pertaining to "one shot samples" and what the requirement is. (Hint: you don't need to prove the sample is actually the same.)

im not asking you for anything, especially legal advice, though you do seem quite happy to give it out a lot.

(hint: its usually pretty inaccurate ::edit:: perhaps biased is a better word)

[aciddose]

Well if you're so convinced you can't be sued, why argue?

You should apply your arguments when you are sued and see if they work.

Try it out. Grab some notable samples that are obviously taken from a source you don't have the rights to use. Create a derivative work with enough exposure to allow those holding the rights to become aware of it in time. (Note, there is no limit here. The limit starts at the point they become aware, not the point at which you begin infringing.)

See what happens.

You know, the easy way to see what might happen is to look at what already happened. Simple google search might do you well.

[chaosWyrM]

Well if you're so convinced you can't be sued, why argue?

You should apply your arguments when you are sued and see if they work.

Try it out. Grab some notable samples that are obviously taken from a source you don't have the rights to use. Create a derivative work with enough exposure to allow those holding the rights to become aware of it in time. (Note, there is no limit here. The limit starts at the point they become aware, not the point at which you begin infringing.)

See what happens.

You know, the easy way to see what might happen is to look at what already happened. Simple google search might do you well.

i wasnt arguing anything. i was pointing out the continued practice of people stating things that arent the case. which is just about every time this stupid subject comes up.

for what its worth...your little try it out scenario isnt at all what were even talking about, why even say it?

and i dont need to do a google search, i have a pretty decent lawyer on permanent retainer, shell let me know if i shouldnt do something.

[aciddose]

Yes it is what I was talking about. Clearly you don't understand what I was referring to at all.

If you're just going to say "you can't be sued if ..." and list a huge list of criteria to narrow it down to a pin-head that's fine.

You are 100% full of shit to say can you be sued: "no."

Yes you can.

"Well it isn't going to go before a judge because there is no standing."

Yes it will, yes there is standing. If there wasn't standing (criteria not met, rights not owned) why do you think I'd try to claim there was? Clearly I'm only referring to cases where those criteria are met.

What really bugs me is if the legal situation were as you claim there would be no way to protect one-shot samples, period!

I could take the original samples from drum machines or keyboards (d-50, m1, fairlight, etc) and sell these with no liabilities or concerns at all.

Is that true?

If it isn't true, what makes you think that taking it another step, placing it in a song or loops or whatever else suddenly means the copyright no longer applies?

You're also ignorant of the fact that in the case of even "one-shot" samples that "an ordinary individual would recognize as the same" there are very specific criteria used based upon existing case-law that determine whether a work incorporating such samples is infringing.

I'm sure all the big name producers waste tons of money paying lawyers to negotiate sample clearance when they don't actually need to. Is that what you're saying?

Do you seriously think it would be difficult for people to recognize the 909 hi-hat sample?

What about pizzagogo from the D-50 ?

Bambutrem from the M1?

The difference with these sounds is that it would be difficult for them to argue infringement in any case other than where they are used in another instrument.

Now what about James Brown yelling something from one of those tracks? If it's just a one-shot its all cool, right?

Nobody would ever notice, even if they did notice they couldn't ever "prove" the sample was actually James Brown and so it would be no big deal, right?

If you honestly believe that you stand to make a lot of money. Throw on some old records (only the most famous ones with the best sounds) and sample them. Sell the samples, put them in a plugin or whatever. They're just "one-shots" right?

I mean when someone uses bit-torrent to download an mp3 or whole album it comes in short chunks usually a fraction of a second. So using your brilliant legal reasoning you should set up shop defending these people hosting/uploading those files with the argument "they were only one-shot samples" that they actually made copies of.

In fact forget about copyright applying to anything digital, it's all just made up of single bits strung together in a long line and nobody owns "1" or "0" now do they?

[chaosWyrM]

Yes it is what I was talking about. Clearly you don't understand what I was referring to at all.

clearly youre the one who doesnt understand what i was referring to. you responded to me...not the other way 'round.

If you're just going to say "you can't be sued if ..." and list a huge list of criteria to narrow it down to a pin-head that's fine.

You are 100% full of shit to say can you be sued: "no."

Yes you can.

im not sure how many ways i can explain this. saying "yes you can get sued for xxxx" is entirely meaningless without context. anyone can be sued for anything at anytime. in the context of this library under the circumstances we were talking about, no one is ever going to get sued. in a purely insane literal sense...yes you can...because you can be sued for anything...in a real word practical sense...no you cant.

"Well it isn't going to go before a judge because there is no standing."

Yes it will, yes there is standing. If there wasn't standing (criteria not met, rights not owned) why do you think I'd try to claim there was? Clearly I'm only referring to cases where those criteria are met.

youre f'ing kidding right? people sue other people all the time every day when they know damned well they have no case.

What really bugs me is if the legal situation were as you claim there would be no way to protect one-shot samples, period!

that isnt what i said at all. i never said any such thing. i said they would hard pressed to protect these one shots. not all one shots. dont put words in my mouth.

I could take the original samples from drum machines or keyboards (d-50, m1, fairlight, etc) and sell these with no liabilities or concerns at all.

Is that true?

If it isn't true, what makes you think that taking it another step, placing it in a song or loops or whatever else suddenly means the copyright no longer applies?

again youre putting words in my mouth. please point to where i ever made the claim that copyrights didnt apply. for a guy who wants to appear so legal minded...you seem to not pay attention to words very well.

You're also ignorant of the fact that in the case of even "one-shot" samples that "an ordinary individual would recognize as the same" there are very specific criteria used based upon existing case-law that determine whether a work incorporating such samples is infringing.

im not ignorant of that at all. you however seem entirely ignorant of the fact that i never said the use of one shots wasnt infringing.

I'm sure all the big name producers waste tons of money paying lawyers to negotiate sample clearance when they don't actually need to. Is that what you're saying?

no. i said no such thing at all even remotely.

Do you seriously think it would be difficult for people to recognize the 909 hi-hat sample?

i have no idea. what im telling you is that whether or not they recognized it...it would near impossible to prove it violated any copyright.

What about pizzagogo from the D-50 ?

again...prove it violates a copyright. seriously...think a little. lets say i sampled pizzagogo...used it in a song and got sued. why wouldnt i just go out and buy a d50 (theyre pretty cheap)? now i didnt sample it...i played my own d50. law suit squashed.

The difference with these sounds is that it would be difficult for them to argue infringement in any case other than where they are used in another instrument.

then why even ask? were not talking about that. were talking about people being sued because of a sound on a song/album.

Now what about James Brown yelling something from one of those tracks? If it's just a one-shot its all cool, right?

Nobody would ever notice, even if they did notice they couldn't ever "prove" the sample was actually James Brown and so it would be no big deal, right?

what are you talking about? this isnt even the same subject.

If you honestly believe that you stand to make a lot of money. Throw on some old records (only the most famous ones with the best sounds) and sample them. Sell the samples, put them in a plugin or whatever. They're just "one-shots" right?

again...different subject entirely, weve already established that this could very well land someone in trouble.

I mean when someone uses bit-torrent to download an mp3 or whole album it comes in short chunks usually a fraction of a second. So using your brilliant legal reasoning you should set up shop defending these people hosting/uploading those files with the argument "they were only one-shot samples" that they actually made copies of.

In fact forget about copyright applying to anything digital, it's all just made up of single bits strung together in a long line and nobody owns "1" or "0" now do they?

wow dude...now youve gone over the deep end.

your basic misconception here seems to revolve around you thinking i said somewhere that one shots are not protected by copyright...which i never said.

ok...im done with this nonsense...say what you will. im out.

[arkmabat]

The dimension films studio lost a case by using a 3 note guitar sample I believe.

[Aloysius]

I think the problem with this topic (for me at least) is trying to stay on topic.

Is it legal? I haven't a clue.
Is it cool? I personally don't think it is.
Will I buy it? Not a f*cking chance.

Bye

[dcough]

Hypotheticals related to US copyright law can be very difficult for even practicing copyright attorneys to answer, so you're bound to get some really interesting results posing one to a forum full of musicians (as can be seen by the more colorful replies here!)

For background, the reason "is this legal?" copyright questions are difficult is because certain areas of US copyright law are not what we call "well settled." This happens when different courts promote different interpretations of the same laws as they are applied to similar facts. Normally when this happens we look to the Supreme Court to resolve discrepancies and provide clear guidance, but, when it comes to copyright, the Supreme Court has arguably further muddied the waters by providing their own less-than-clear interpretations.

All these ambiguities mean that, for certain copyright issues which fall into this unsettled grey area, two skilled lawyers could make reasonable but opposing arguments that something is either permissible or prohibited under copyright law, and depending on factors including the court, the specific judge hearing the case, and the lawyers' powers of persuasion, either outcome could result.

In this specific instance, 99% of competent lawyers would tell you they needed to know more about Boom Bap's sampling methods and the specific samples before they could give you a reasonable assessment of whether the product is "legal" or whether it infringes upon existing copyright owners' rights (aka not legal).

Anyone in this thread claiming to give you a guaranteed result without this additional information is... guaranteed to not be a lawyer