Sample whatever you want!

[vurt]

as long as i got a case of stella i wouldnt mind

hmmm ill bear that in mind.

[djsubject]

The distribution company? Im confused, what do they have to do with clearing samples?

if this statment dose not relate to legal matters then i'm off to re release take that

oh & my 1820m works lovley with the 1,81 drivers thank you for asking

allso it took you longer to find i had re quoted my quote to cleare up that i did not mention any thing to do with your statment quoted in this post

childish? me?

ya dahm right cant you tell by my bad spelling i'm only 12

but hay, like all bitches i know, you will allways think you have won

so congrats dood

[Reverse Engineer]

now these http://mike.oncs.net/chaos.html guys know how to take the piss when sampling.

Check out No.20 - Apocalypse Wow!

[whyterabbyt]

if this statment dose not relate to legal matters then i'm off to re release take that

Erm, so arent you contradicting yourself? First you say there's nothing about legality in your statement now you're saying there is.

You really should try reading your own posts y'know.

no where in there do i mention legal stuff

oh & my 1820m works lovley with the 1,81 drivers thank you for asking

Like I give a shit.

allso it took you longer to find i had re quoted my quote to cleare up that i did not mention any thing to do with your statment quoted in this post

Oh great, now you're devolving into gibberish. Again.

childish? me?

ya dahm right cant you tell by my bad spelling i'm only 12

I just thought it was your IQ.

but hay, like all bitches i know, you will allways think you have won

And like all the usual fuckwit gobshites your too dumb to realise that I did.

so congrats dood

Thanks. Coming from you its completely irrelevant but at least you get too feel all warm and fuzzy about it. ...

[P.T.]

The rabbit's habit (trick)of quoting people line by line assures that everything they have said is taken out of context. He can then answer just that taken out of context line and seem to be engaging in honest debate.

In a thought out argument a statement in one line may be referring a statement a few lines away to form a fully made point. By quoting each line seperatly that logical link is broken and so by answering line by line the rabbit is actually using a technique that is quit deceptive. It looks so honest and straight forward, but is in fact very deceptive.

[soulkraka]

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....

So lets see...

we have one guy who simply got a cease and letter, and yet everyday there are dozens, if not hundreds, of songs being released by labels that contain uncleared samples and somehow you think have proved me wrong? Again, I said "sued" in my original statement, not a cease and desist or other legal implication. After all, vurt just had to remove the song from his site. He was not required to appear in court. Big difference.

You still havent shown me any examples of someone being sued that is in the category I described. An indie artist thats selling 500-1000 copies.

It may very well be that companies are becoming wiser to this, and thus sending out C and D letters to muicians such as vurt. This is what I was hoping to talk about.

Since you obviously like to nitpick lets see if you agree with this: Lets change the "no one" in my original statement to "there is a 99.9999999999999999999% chance that you will not be sued or suffer other legal implications"

[The Chase]

In the genre of DnB, it's a dog-eat-dog world when it comes to sampling. Many producer (most?) sample anything they can, so you have to cover shit up in your music!

The only samples that I would leave recognizable are those that I got off of sample CD's that I know are cleared.

[hollowsun]

The basic premise of this thread is true - if you are sampling stuff from other people's music and using it in your own creations that go no further than your own little studio or iPod, you're fine... no harm in that whatsoever -it's just a bit of fun for you.

However, where I don't agree is that if you 'release' this material in any way whatsoever. As soon as you do that, you are potentially open for no end of trouble whether it's as an MP3 on your website for your friends to listen to or as something you distribute (even for free) to be played at clubs, whatever. Basically, it can be construed that you are:

A) Likely to profit from the exploitation of that sample

B) Exploiting the original copyright holder's work, name, trademark and/or reputation to enhance your own career and/or product sales.

Yes... you might get away with it - but you might not!! The very least you might receive is a C+D order (but don't ignore this - a C+D order is a precursor to serious legal intent!) or you might get slapped immediately with a massive bill (or all proceeds taken away from you so that you earn nothing even it hits the charts and/or gets airplay!).

Of course, I am sure that there are many examples where people have got away with it and the copyright transgression has slipped by unnoticed but is that a risk you want to take?!

Such is the amount of money involved now that some organisations employ people whose sole job is to scour the internet looking for copyright infringement (including -- possibly/probably -- forums such as this!). If they find one, they may pounce immediately with a C+D order or slap you a bill immediately or, more cynically, they may wait to see what becomes of the 'product' and if it shows any signs of success, then they will move in and (literally) wipe you out because, quite frankly, you don't have a legal leg to stand on. In your defence, you can explain in detail how you transformed what you sampled into something new but the fact is, you took someone else's work without paying for it or asking permission to use it. Bottom line!


Steve

[opia]

I wouldn't get too concerned. If somethings not on a lable then your nearly untouchable - they have to find out what you've done, prove what you did, prove you did it, find you, and then put the whole thing through court - only worth doing if there is money to be made. And I think most of us are broke no?

they can squeeze me if they want to
but they'll only be getting a little rosebud

[JamminFool]

so if you can get away with something, that makes it ok?

neither i nor he said that.

actions speak louder than words.

a stitch in time saves nine

look before you leap

it's an ill wind that blows nobody good

the apple never falls far from the tree

the ocelot flies backwards at dawn

and so on.

oh you forgot:

a thief by any other name is still a thief.

[whyterabbyt]

So lets see...

we have one guy who simply got a cease and letter, and yet everyday there are dozens, if not hundreds, of songs being released by labels that contain uncleared samples and somehow you think have proved me wrong?

Ah right. In your world, even if something is proved to be false for one case, its still supposedly still a universal truth. Okay, whatever.

Again, I said "sued" in my original statement, not a cease and desist or other legal implication.

We already addressed that. Short memory you have.

After all, vurt just had to remove the song from his site. He was not required to appear in court. Big difference.

And what would have happened if he'd not removed it?

You still havent shown me any examples of someone being sued that is in the category I described. An indie artist thats selling 500-1000 copies.

It may very well be that companies are becoming wiser to this, and thus sending out C and D letters to muicians such as vurt. This is what I was hoping to talk about.

That would be why you're still arguing about it happening then. Sheesh.

So go on, then. Explain what'll happen if someone refuses to accede to one of those cease-and-desists then? Talk about that...

Since you obviously like to nitpick lets see if you agree with this: Lets change the "no one" in my original statement to "there is a 99.9999999999999999999% chance that you will not be sued or suffer other legal implications"

Nope, because I dont know what the percentage is. But you're starting to get the idea...

[whyterabbyt]

The rabbit's habit (trick)of quoting people line by line assures that everything they have said is taken out of context. He can then answer just that taken out of context line and seem to be engaging in honest debate.

In a thought out argument a statement in one line may be referring a statement a few lines away to form a fully made point. By quoting each line seperatly that logical link is broken and so by answering line by line the rabbit is actually using a technique that is quit deceptive. It looks so honest and straight forward, but is in fact very deceptive.

Except that its not generally line by line, I prefer dealing with larger contextualised blocks, its just that people start to go off at tangents, and make all sorts of leaps and jumps. And thus its not necessarily a thought out argument. Or a fully made point.

In fact your own statement is pretty 'deceptive' in that it basically makes statements about what 'can' be done, under particular situations, then sums that up as though that is whats being done.

But thanks for your input. It was sweet of you to be thinking of me.

[The Chase]

So lets see...

we have one guy who simply got a cease and letter, and yet everyday there are dozens, if not hundreds, of songs being released by labels that contain uncleared samples and somehow you think have proved me wrong?

Ah right. In your world, even if something is proved to be false for one case, its still supposedly still a universal truth. Okay, whatever.

umm... That was exactly Soulrakka's point, exacpt aimed at you.

[whyterabbyt]

umm... That was exactly Soulrakka's point, exacpt aimed at you.

His point was that he's still right even if there's proof of the opposite of his claim?

Yeah, right. Go and play with your barbies, Chase.

[munchkin]

Ive noticed a lot of people seem to be overly concerned with copyright law here on KVR, as well as other forums such as EM411. Whats all the hoopla about? These types of threads are, for the most, irrelevant IMHO.

Heres why:

1. If your making music for yourself/friends/to post the occasional MP3 on KVR or The Auditorium/to play when you DJ etc etc then it doesnt matter at all what/who you sample. Nobody is gonna get sued over some MP3 file that 50 people downloaded on KVR.

2. If your signed to a small indie and release house, IDM, drum-n-bass etc tracks that sell 500-1000 copies on vinyl then the same rule of thumb also applies. There are house music tracks coming out EVERYDAY that have movie samples, michael jackson samples etc etc. No one is getting sued.

3. If you are involved in musical projects that are destined to sell loads of copies then you wouldnt be discussing this issue on KVR.
You would either (a) be well versed in copyright law already, (b) be discussing this issue with a lawyer, or (c) have already told your record company what samples you have used and they are working on clearing them or possibly "recreating" them a'la Dr Dre or The Go! Team.

Sooooo...in the spirit of keeping things relevant, can someone please tell what the best vst for trance is please.

Well said!