Samples by Spe3d

[Genetic_Junk]

thanks for the update Spe3D. Look forward to your new site.

[Spe3D]

Having two sampling Peters will get confusing! At first I thought SampleStream was Spe3d moonlighting

This is really cool Pet3r

DSP

You could be right there Thank you DSP

I think this is a great idea Peter...

The best way to do this IMHO!

If Im ever lucky enough to do something commercial and use these, its really not difficult to drop you a mail and chat to you about it!

Best of luck with these!

Dave

Thank you Dave , I had a feeling this might be the best road for this kind of sample, its good to read that others think so too

Having two sampling Peters will get confusing!

they're actually conjoined twins

More like spe3d's a bit nutty when it comes to creating a new website

Thanks for the answer Peter

Cool, cheers kara

thanks for the update Spe3D. Look forward to your new site.

Thank you Genetic

Best regards,

Peter

[JerGoertz]

I guess my problem with the "no commercial use" clause is that you are "giving the samples away for free", yet we can't use them as freely as we would be able to, say, samples from a CM magazine cover disc, which allows you to use them royalty-free in any derivative work.

The ability to ask the sample owner for permission is "okay", I suppose, but I don't want to start a song for fun (noncommercial) using these samples and worry about, "If I get this to a point where I might consider selling it, I'll then have to worry about licensing the samples or rework with other samples." I'd rather just know that the sample licenses allow me to do whatever I want with derivative works from the outset.

Thanks for offering these and I don't mean to sound like curmudgeon, but I just don't like that clause, so I'll pass.

I was interested until I read that the Creative Commons license doesn't allow commercial use. Bummer.

Any particular reason you use this license scheme?

I thought it was pretty cool JerGoertz - it was a grilla post here that brought my attention to the simplicty of implemeting it, and a tee boy request, due to the fact I don't allow 'any' of my past 'free' samples to be altered or distributed – however some are royalty free – but I cannot please everyone.

The Commons license says this in short

You are free:

* to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
* to make derivative works

Under the following conditions:


Attribution. ---- You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.

Noncommercial. --- You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

Share Alike. --- If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.

It also says

* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.

However this bit applies to the commons licensed samples.

• Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

So if you have a really cool commercial project that could use one or more of these samples – contact me about it and I will consider if a cost would be involved or if it would be free.

Seems fair to me. its a share alike license, why is that a Bummer? what would be a better option - I sample stuff, record, edit and host them, give it to you all for free, you then make money with the samples? - would that not be a Bummer for me?!!


Best regards,

Peter

[JerGoertz]

Seems fair to me. its a share alike license, why is that a Bummer? what would be a better option - I sample stuff, record, edit and host them, give it to you all for free, you then make money with the samples? - would that not be a Bummer for me?!!
Peter

Suppose it depends on what it means to you to "give something away for free".

I don't mean that sarcastically, it's just that other people could see it differently.

[duncanparsons]

Having two sampling Peters will get confusing! At first I thought SampleStream was Spe3d moonlighting

This is really cool Pet3r

DSP

You could be right there Thank you DSP

It was the way you've replied to the post using both pseudonyms that made me question; but re-reading it makes sense how SS answered.



DSP

[SampleStream]

Seems fair to me. its a share alike license, why is that a Bummer? what would be a better option - I sample stuff, record, edit and host them, give it to you all for free, you then make money with the samples? - would that not be a Bummer for me?!!
Peter

Suppose it depends on what it means to you to "give something away for free".

I don't mean that sarcastically, it's just that other people could see it differently.

Well - I don't know what to write - I should not even bother posting samples at all really I guess - as no matter what, there is someone who wants more than what is offered - I am amazed, and confused at the same time by this kind of stuff.

[SampleStream]

I guess my problem with the "no commercial use" clause is that you are "giving the samples away for free", yet we can't use them as freely as we would be able to, say, samples from a CM magazine cover disc, which allows you to use them royalty-free in any derivative work.

The ability to ask the sample owner for permission is "okay", I suppose, but I don't want to start a song for fun (noncommercial) using these samples and worry about, "If I get this to a point where I might consider selling it, I'll then have to worry about licensing the samples or rework with other samples." I'd rather just know that the sample licenses allow me to do whatever I want with derivative works from the outset.

Thanks for offering these and I don't mean to sound like curmudgeon, but I just don't like that clause, so I'll pass.

Well the last bit of the lic says any of these conditions can be changed if you contact the creator - but I guess stuff is just too complex these days. In short ‘it’s not free enough for me’

I have said all I need to, It makes me re-think what the future is going to be regarding any samples I have posted - or in fact what I am going to do.

Maybe I can do totally free samples, but have a membership only at either site for downloading samples that are 'royalty free' only – this will then at least cover the hosting costs, and some of the time involved in sample acquisition.

[suburban grilla]

Maybe thinking that creative stuff licensed in this way is free is the wrong way to look at it.
It is free in the sense that you don't have to pay in monetary terms, but the cost of using it is that you have to credit or contact the author for permission (which may be given freely in any case). To me, that cost seems like good value.
Works well for complete tracks, but maybe not so well for samples.
I do think there's something cool about the ethos of cc though

[JerGoertz]

Seems fair to me. its a share alike license, why is that a Bummer? what would be a better option - I sample stuff, record, edit and host them, give it to you all for free, you then make money with the samples? - would that not be a Bummer for me?!!
Peter

Suppose it depends on what it means to you to "give something away for free".

I don't mean that sarcastically, it's just that other people could see it differently.

Well - I don't know what to write - I should not even bother posting samples at all really I guess - as no matter what, there is someone who wants more than what is offered - I am amazed, and confused at the same time by this kind of stuff.

Don't take it personally... I was just saying why I, personally, wouldn't use samples with that proviso. If others are cool with that then that's fine. (Although with the reasons I gave I don't find it "amazing" that someone would choose to pass, just as I don't find it "amazing" if someone felt the opposite.)

[JerGoertz]

I guess my problem with the "no commercial use" clause is that you are "giving the samples away for free", yet we can't use them as freely as we would be able to, say, samples from a CM magazine cover disc, which allows you to use them royalty-free in any derivative work.

The ability to ask the sample owner for permission is "okay", I suppose, but I don't want to start a song for fun (noncommercial) using these samples and worry about, "If I get this to a point where I might consider selling it, I'll then have to worry about licensing the samples or rework with other samples." I'd rather just know that the sample licenses allow me to do whatever I want with derivative works from the outset.

Thanks for offering these and I don't mean to sound like curmudgeon, but I just don't like that clause, so I'll pass.

Well the last bit of the lic says any of these conditions can be changed if you contact the creator - but I guess stuff is just too complex these days. In short ‘it’s not free enough for me’

Not too complex, but rather too restrictive, for me personally. I didn't intend to offend you or imply it should be that way for everybody.

Maybe I can do totally free samples, but have a membership only at either site for downloading samples that are 'royalty free' only – this will then at least cover the hosting costs, and some of the time involved in sample acquisition.

You of course are free to charge whatever you see fit & what the market will bear. I don't see a problem with that. As is the case with CM mag samples and other sample CDs, charging upfront for a royalty-free license in derivative works is the way it's traditionally done, and the the way I, personally, prefer it, for the aforementioned reasons. Others are of course free to form their own conclusions about what suits them best.

There, I don't think I can elaborate my position any more clearly. I don't want to get into a protracted flame war over this so I think this will be my last post on the subject.

[SampleStream]

There, I don't think I can elaborate my position any more clearly. I don't want to get into a protracted flame war over this so I think this will be my last post on the subject.

I have always been reactive to anything I do – I get an idea that think might be cool – via feedback discover its not going to work the way I had envisioned – strop about it for a bit – then take the feedback onboard.

No flame war – I just need to re-think what I am going to do for the future re-samples.

Thank you for your input – if you think in this way, I am pretty sure many many others will feel the same – therefore the idea I had wont work, so I need to change it.

[SampleStream]

Maybe thinking that creative stuff licensed in this way is free is the wrong way to look at it.
It is free in the sense that you don't have to pay in monetary terms, but the cost of using it is that you have to credit or contact the author for permission (which may be given freely in any case). To me, that cost seems like good value.
Works well for complete tracks, but maybe not so well for samples.
I do think there's something cool about the ethos of cc though

Cheers grilla , Yep! I think for music it’s perfect, but for samples its not the right move.

Going to think out the alternatives.

[JerGoertz]

There, I don't think I can elaborate my position any more clearly. I don't want to get into a protracted flame war over this so I think this will be my last post on the subject.

I have always been reactive to anything I do – I get an idea that think might be cool – via feedback discover its not going to work the way I had envisioned – strop about it for a bit – then take the feedback onboard.

No flame war – I just need to re-think what I am going to do for the future re-samples.

Thank you for your input – if you think in this way, I am pretty sure many many others will feel the same – therefore the idea I had wont work, so I need to change it.

Okay, cool then. Best wishes for whatever setup you decide to go with.

[JerGoertz]

Maybe thinking that creative stuff licensed in this way is free is the wrong way to look at it.
It is free in the sense that you don't have to pay in monetary terms, but the cost of using it is that you have to credit or contact the author for permission (which may be given freely in any case). To me, that cost seems like good value.
Works well for complete tracks, but maybe not so well for samples.
I do think there's something cool about the ethos of cc though

I too like the sharing vibe of CC & agree it makes good sense for complete tracks.