KVR Audio

bernhardtjeff · Post by **bernhardtjeff** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:32 am

i'm listening to some music by oval and reading interviews with him online. music like his is made by taking little snippets of audio from cds and assembling those snippets according to his own taste. are there copyright issues with this? say i take a little tiny piece of sound from a song by aerosmith but it's a piece that's so short no one can recognize it; or say i process it beyond recognition: do i still have to get permission from the aerosmith guys to release a cd using it? or say it IS recognizable but only to die-hard aerosmith freaks who know every aerosmith song backwards and forwards. do i need permission?

FaX · Post by **FaX** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:42 am

If it's taken from a pre-recorded and copyright protected recording it doesn't matter how long or short or how manipulate the source sound is.
Technicly speaking you are still in breach of copyright law ....for what it's worth.

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:45 am

You are supposed to get permission, but listen, one of the well understood facets of glitch is the disregard of ownership of sound - most glitch artists would agree that the idea anyone can own sound is a little rediculous.

I'm willing to bet Oval did not get permission, because lets face it, who is going to be able to recognise sample and subsample samples?

atomic_(no)afro · Post by **atomic_(no)afro** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:45 am

According to the courts, yes. ANY sample regardless of length needs to be licenced.

go here for more info:
http://www.downhillbattle.org/3notes/

ATA

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:05 am

According to the courts, who don't have an ear, a brain, or a ballsack between them.

3*s · Post by **3*s** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:32 am

150 ms sample through a distortion, pitch shifter, and some other wierd effect.

Then played back at you through 64th notes in some crazy multilayered beat.

Who's gonna notice?

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:35 am

Try taking a random song from the Music Cafe - one that's pretty distinctive.

Load up your host, run the file through SIR, use something other than an actual reverb impulse to convolve it.

Do it again and again to the subsequent renderings of SIR. Eventually you get something that sounds jackshit like the original track.

GypsyJazz · Post by **GypsyJazz** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:02 am

That court decision is crazy.
I love this debate.
Technology is cutting across old fashioned ideas of copyright.
The way I understand it....the really crazy thing
is if NWA had got a guitarist in to play those 3 notes ..
that would be OK.
This decision is saying that people actually own the
waveforms they create and other people need to ask permission
(and pay the price if permission is granted) to use that snippet.

In Australia the performing rights association, APRA,(of which I am a member )
has come out against Creative Commons and is advising it's members
not to go down that path.
heheheheh I wonder why?
Maybe they feel their very existence threatened by it?

Bands like The Grateful Dead and Phish have put the lie
to the idea that you need to jealously guard your work
in order to be successful.

Music wants to be free.
just like you and me.

I would be honoured if Oval wanted to use a snippet of mine.
(And I don't even know who Oval is!)

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:09 am

GypsyJazz wrote: Bands like The Grateful Dead and Phish have put the lie
to the idea that you need to jealously guard your work
in order to be successful.

Meaning??

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:11 am

Andrew Vernon wrote:Meaning??

They are both famous for allowing/encouraging fans to record and trade their live shows. The money for them was mostly in the live show and merchandising anyway.

hoffy · Post by **hoffy** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:16 am

what a stupid question.

it always shocks me when someone on this forum makes a post questioning the legality of something no-one will *ever* notice or care about... I can't believe people actually would give a shit! It's your music, do what you want, and if no one is ever going to know you did something a little cheeky (like stealing 10ms of audio), you're simply all the better for it.

atomic_(no)afro · Post by **atomic_(no)afro** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:16 am

shamann wrote:
Andrew Vernon wrote:Meaning??
They are both famous for allowing/encouraging fans to record and trade their live shows. The money for them was mostly in the live show and merchandising anyway.

Well, not according to Jerry's Widow:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/26/gr ... _dead.html

ATA

GypsyJazz · Post by **GypsyJazz** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:25 am

Well.. Grateful Dead let anyone and everyone record their concerts.
resulting in thousands of recordings of various quality floating around.
And they were the biggest live band in the USA for years.

Also they, and their friends were instrumental in forming
The Electronic Frontier Foundation..
http://www.eff.org/

I was certsain PHISH were the same but it looks like
they've changed their mind since they signed
with a major label...
not certain about that...need to do more research.....

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:37 am

atomic_afro wrote:Well, not according to Jerry's Widow:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/26/gr ... _dead.html

Yeah, very sad situation. Goes against everything that happened over the past 30+ years with the band. Don't know what the exact motivation is, but people are crazy when it comes to money.

bernhardtjeff · Post by **bernhardtjeff** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:35 am

what a stupid question.

it always shocks me when someone on this forum makes a post questioning the legality of something no-one will *ever* notice or care about... I can't believe people actually would give a shit! It's your music, do what you want, and if no one is ever going to know you did something a little cheeky (like stealing 10ms of audio), you're simply all the better for it.

sorry for having asked it, then.

question about glitch and copyright stuff