KVR Audio

soulkraka · Post by **soulkraka** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:10 pm

lol@whyte

anal, wound up, AND condescending. Someone get this guy a girlfriend already? Are you just having a bad day whyte? Or is this par for the course. Dont worry though , I aint mad at ya.

oxbee · Post by **oxbee** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:12 pm

I am OK with the first post. I know a lot of underground records (especially hip hop) that use large samples of music (I have even in mind one with a soul instrumental with the guy rappin' on!) and that have never been worried for that.
That's just a matter of quantity. If you plan to sell up to say 10 000 copies of an album on a very small scale (small label), who cares really ?

My concern is more on the intellectual aspect of that. We shouldn't use 16 bar sample. That's just a poor job. It's not the debate and that's just my opinion so forget it...

soulkraka · Post by **soulkraka** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:12 pm

vurt wrote:
soulkraka wrote:did vurt get sued? nope. Did dangermouse get sued? nope. In my original post I said "sued", not legal implications, which is much more general.

no but vurt would have got sued had he not removed the offending track from his site

and david attenburough (spelling?) always comes across as such a nice guy

so when did this happen vurt? They sent you a hard copy right? Or just an email?

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:14 pm

djsubject wrote: did you mean that claim?

Oh did you finally read what you were replying to then?

no where in there do i mention legal stuff

So what? That has nothing to do with what I said.

i just said what you CAN get away with!!!

So what? I asked you a question, you challenged me to prove the opposite of something, and I told you it wasnt up to me to prove anything, it was up to you to do so.

You really do seem to have lost the plot here.

if your that consirned about this stuff you wouldent be using samples any way

Yeah, and its up to people to decide for themselves how concerned they are. Thats probably best for them if its an informed standpoint, though, ie one which considers all the possibilities. Not the blinkered 'it cant happen nyah nyah' bollocks that some people would rather stick with.

stop bitching for the sake of it! mr E-MU1820m with 1.2 drivers runs fine using emulator x

So I guess you're 'bitching for the sake of it' in this argument because you're pissed off that I have hardware that works, and you dont. Thats pretty f**king childish.

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:15 pm

probably didnt wanna give me all the publicity

soulkraka · Post by **soulkraka** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:20 pm

vurt wrote:probably didnt wanna give me all the publicity

you probably shoulda just let them sue your ass. you could have milked that situation for all its worth

you know..the whole big guy vs. little thing. The press loves that shit, at least in the US.

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:21 pm

soulkraka wrote:
vurt wrote:
soulkraka wrote:did vurt get sued? nope. Did dangermouse get sued? nope. In my original post I said "sued", not legal implications, which is much more general.

no but vurt would have got sued had he not removed the offending track from his site
and david attenburough (spelling?) always comes across as such a nice guy

so when did this happen vurt? They sent you a hard copy right? Or just an email?

this happened a little over 18 months ago,and while im sure mr attenborough is a lovely bloke he doesnt own the copyright the bbc corperation do(which by the way i even f**king pay for

)

it was just an email,and at first i thought it was someone from hhere taking the piss so i mailed them back of course and it kind of went from there. obviously my home address isnt emblazoned across my site so how would i expect a hard copy? thankfully they were cool about it,even as i said telling me to ask in future.

soulkraka · Post by **soulkraka** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:24 pm

vurt wrote:im sure mr attenborough is a lovely bloke he doesnt own the copyright the bbc corperation do(which by the way i even fkucing pay for )

ya I know

vurt wrote:it was just an email,and at first i thought it was someone from hhere taking the piss

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:24 pm

P.T. wrote:Well, I did say..."or causing the artist/company to lose money." Or don't you think rampant file sharing of entire songs and albums is causing them to lose money?

I think there's always an assumption -- whether it's copying CDs/DVDs, using cracked software, downloading music -- that those who do so would otherwise be customers. That's simply not true. I might easily have a copy of a CD or song that I would simply never buy. Of course, there's no way of actually separating the two in terms of copyright law, but I wouldn't be surprised if a significant amount of "illegal activity" isn't about avoiding paying money for something one wants but rather about taking advantage of an opportunity simply because it's there -- not interested enough to spend money on it, but willing to have it if it's not too much effort.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:26 pm

soulkraka wrote:did vurt get sued? nope.

No he got a legal letter, as far as I understand. Had he not complied with it, he would have been sued.

Did dangermouse get sued? nope.

No he got a cease and desist. Had he not complied with it, he would have been sued.

In my original post I said "sued", not legal implications, which is much more general.

You actually used it within two specific 'points' and not the third, or your opening statement, both of which were phrased more generally. I would say it was not at all clear you were specifically talking about 'being sued' rather than any other legal action.

why do you keep insisting that im getting emotional, or that Im irate?

Your behaviour, and the fact that you brought the topic up.

To me it seems to be the opposite.

Well, of course it does.

Maybe its normal for you to get all hot and bothered while posting on forums.

No, not really.

Arent you one of the drama queens that threatened to leave KVR a while back right?

Nope.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:30 pm

So now we have proof. People who only post tracks with uncleared samples on small sites like KVR will possibly be sued by the copyright holder.

Oh well, we can finish up now; the assumptions of the first post have been disproved; nothing to see here any more, thanks for playing....

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:31 pm

look at it this way,how would you feel if i sampled you and made a couple of grand of it without even sayin thanks?

CypherOne · Post by **CypherOne** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:32 pm

amazed?

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:36 pm

CypherOne wrote:amazed?

...and confused...

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:36 pm

Stupid American Pig wrote:I know nothing is new in music, and that borrowing from ideas is the nature of the art. I just think taking someone elses work and changing it up is not really "writing" music. It is more like remixing(tho that is a talent unto itself).

Borrowing, recycling and altering are, indeed, common to all the arts. Sometimes it's even an homage to the original creator.

Not sure I agree that it's not really "writing" music, because music is the sum of all its elements, and samples can be part of that creative process. It depends on the proportion of original to sampled, and how the samples are incorporated.

This sample licensing rights thing seems to follow the money. When it's small labels, few copies and little or no money, no one cares. But the big five record companies are all about the money.

Sample whatever you want!