KVR Audio

Bluze · Post by **Bluze** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:49 pm

Thanks for sharing!
What codec did you use?

rokkon · Post by **rokkon** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:03 pm

ah ok so it's like i suspected.
I guess in case you have the unfortunate luck of landing a big hit, enough people will dissect your work to find every obscure sample to milk

Mr. Tunes · Post by **Mr. Tunes** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:02 pm

I've posted this a few times here but i'm wondering what's the status of all these big name sample cds that are actually sampled from famous breaks? Have those companies gone through the work of clearing those hits for one to use royalty free?

If they have, then my question is if you got caught sampling a break from say James Brown can't you just say you didn't sample the record but you were using a library you thought was royalty free and get off(if you actually bought the library of course)?

Hunter · Post by **Hunter** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:13 pm

Without doubt, pretty much 95% of all drum n bass or break orientated tracks released commercially use 'illegaly' sampled breakbeats, including stuff that's made it into the top 10 in UK charts.

If there were problem with this being illegal, lots of people would have got in lots of trouble. I remember reading an interview with some guy from The Winstons (from which the classic Amen break is sampled form their tune Amen Brother) and he was told that the break from that tune had fed hundreds of other tunes drum tracks, the guy was basically saying it was great that his music was still in use like that and that he wishes he knew who the session drummer was so he could know his playing was all over tha place!

Even that tune by, er who was it, Death In Vegas, that was used in the Guinnes advert amongst others, uses a famous break from an old tune, and I'm pretty sure they didn't get clearance for it, just like every other musician who uses breaks hasn't either.

Whilst I like using a break to add some nice sounding 'realness' to my dnb breaksy stuff, I tend to use individual hits from other sources for the meatiness of the drums.

thanks druidtek will chekc these out next week, is that you from DOA??

Mr. Tunes · Post by **Mr. Tunes** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:20 pm

yeah i hear ya hunter. I'm just concerned with the companies that are making significent funds off of the practise of packaging these breaks/hits. It's one thing to make a new track with the sounds, yet a whole other to have a product dedicated to it(i'm speaking about the $100+ libraries).

Hunter · Post by **Hunter** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:24 pm

Mr. Tunes wrote:yeah i hear ya hunter. I'm just concerned with the companies that are making significent funds off of the practise of packaging these breaks/hits. It's one thing to make a new track with the sounds, yet a whole other to have a product dedicated to it(i'm speaking about the $100+ libraries).

I've never heard any sample CDs so I don't know what they're using as sources, but things like the Amen will stand out like a sore thumb if they are using such breaks. I dunno, if it had been such an issue I'm sure we'd have heard about it by now.

This reminds of me of a post someone made here about Mylo's use of really big famous people's samples in his stuff. Something to do with they were too short to be legally challenged, or they had been changed by fx too much to be classified as straight samples etc. Certainly big artists get away with major sampling of other big artists

spectrum · Post by **spectrum** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:05 pm

Mr. Tunes wrote:I've posted this a few times here but i'm wondering what's the status of all these big name sample cds that are actually sampled from famous breaks?

They are just as illegal to use as if you sampled from the original source. If you get busted, they would too.

It's only legal if they completely rerecorded it from scratch. Then it's not protected by SR Copyright law, since it's obviously a new recording.

Have those companies gone through the work of clearing those hits for one to use royalty free?

Generally speaking, the answer is NO.

if you recognize a sample from a record on a sampling CD, you should NOT use it. Ask the producer in question about it, but most of the time...it's a pretty big risk to take. If the original producer of the sampling CD is not around, not in business anymore or doesn't have any money....YOU will be left to pay the damages in the lawsuit.

It's a bad deal!

If they have, then my question is if you got caught sampling a break from say James Brown can't you just say you didn't sample the record but you were using a library you thought was royalty free and get off(if you actually bought the library of course)?

Only if that was the deal...but I can pretty much guarantee you that no sample CD company has ever cleared a famous break like that before....because what it means is that they would have to have an exclusive right to offer end users to sample it. A record company or owner of the original masters would NEVER allow that kind of unlimited use, unless they were a fool or they asked for a ton of money.....which no sample library producers really have that kind of money.

So buyer beware....people get nailed on this all the time. MANY sample CD companies have had to deal with major legal hassles because of not being careful about this in the past. Just because these cases go on behind closed doors does not mean that they don't happen all the time and that they are a huge mess for everyone involved. They just aren't discussed in a public forum like this one.

Everyone's attitude about this issue is usually "Whatever..." until they get caught, and then they realize what a nightmare it can be.

spectrum

spectrum · Post by **spectrum** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:17 pm

Hunter wrote:I've never heard any sample CDs so I don't know what they're using as sources, but things like the Amen will stand out like a sore thumb if they are using such breaks.

You'll hear that break on many a sampling CD. Apparantly, the Winstons don't care about it at this point. But they could easily have their minds changed by a copyright attorney, once he explains what pursuing this matter would mean to them financially....they would literally and very easily make millions.

I dunno, if it had been such an issue I'm sure we'd have heard about it by now.

Believe it not, not all information about this subject and all the cases have been made public. A great many of them have been settled behind closed doors, so as not to cause embarrasment to the parties involved.

This reminds of me of a post someone made here about Mylo's use of really big famous people's samples in his stuff. Something to do with they were too short to be legally challenged, or they had been changed by fx too much to be classified as straight samples etc.

That info is incorrect and a common misunderstanding of musician that confuse SR Copyright with Publishing Copyright...which are two entirely different things (one protects the recording and the other protects the composition). If anything in a new recording is recognizable to the original source and you can prove that the new recording derives from the original source via waveform/fft/audio forensic evidence, you have a very easy case to show the court. People don't realize how basic and simple the law is. It's just this:

You cannot duplicate or sample another copyrighted recording for use in a new work without a license/permission from the owner of the recording.

Once it's been proven, then it's a matter of what the damages/settlement/award would be....and this is a much more gray area and subject to much interpretation and negotiation.

The law specify up to $250,000 per instance.

Certainly big artists get away with major sampling of other big artists

That's really not accurate at all. When major artists sample, they have to pay licenses and royalties to the original owner.

Most extreme example?

Puff Dadday paid 100% of all earnings to Sting for sampling and rapping over "Every Breath You Take". That was the deal! Lot's of other cases like that too.

EVERY serious label now makes artists clear every single noize...it's a big deal and it definitely affects artists and producers.

spectrum

spectrum · Post by **spectrum** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:27 pm

Hunter wrote:Without doubt, pretty much 95% of all drum n bass or break orientated tracks released commercially use 'illegaly' sampled breakbeats, including stuff that's made it into the top 10 in UK charts.

That's likely true that there's a lot of illegal use, but a lot of what you are hearing actually does have proper clearance....it's pretty important to the labels now.

If there were problem with this being illegal, lots of people would have got in lots of trouble.

There are a lot of people having trouble with this issue...although it's more with hip-hop than dnb.

Even that tune by, er who was it, Death In Vegas, that was used in the Guinnes advert amongst others, uses a famous break from an old tune, and I'm pretty sure they didn't get clearance for it, just like every other musician who uses breaks hasn't either.

Nope...LOTS of commercial use has proper clearance of samples. I'd say the majority of what you hear these days is legal and cleared....it's far cheaper to have clean product out there than to deal with all the lawsuits and settlements.

Whilst I like using a break to add some nice sounding 'realness' to my dnb breaksy stuff, I tend to use individual hits from other sources for the meatiness of the drums.

Single hits are still recordings too. Less chance of getting caught, but it's still a risk.

spectrum · Post by **spectrum** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:30 pm

rokkon wrote:ah ok so it's like i suspected.
I guess in case you have the unfortunate luck of landing a big hit, enough people will dissect your work to find every obscure sample to milk

That is exactly right.

There are now legions of lawyers who live for the ignorance of sampling musicians. Most of the classic breaks are now owned by these law firms and they just go around and nail everyone whenever they hear the samples. There are a lot of DJs who "trainspot" for these firms too and the information about the source of these breaks is now common knowledge and all over internet.

So it's just easy money for the lawyers to go after artists and labels that can afford to be sued.

stk · Post by **stk** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:45 pm

1c) lawyers are parasitical scum
2c) copyright law is ludicrous, and should be dissolved

my two cents, back to you

sk.

DWb · Post by **DWb** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:27 pm

stk wrote:1c) lawyers are parasitical scum
2c) copyright law is ludicrous, and should be dissolved

Heavily revised, certainly...

Mr. Tunes · Post by **Mr. Tunes** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:44 pm

stk wrote:1c) lawyers are parasitical scum
2c) copyright law is ludicrous, and should be dissolved

my two cents, back to you

sk.

hmmm i dont agree with that. I'm wondering how you'd feel if someone took one of your songs and placed it in a multi-million dollar box office film and you didn't make a penny off of it or get credit? how would you feel? Lawyers with the aid of copyright law will protect you if something of this sort ever happens.

spectrum · Post by **spectrum** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:37 pm

Yeah....check out the history of the subject.

Before copyright, artists and creators got taken advantage of far more than they currently do. Copyright law was the result of hundreds of years of artists and creative people fighting for the right to own their work.

Many people think the following three things are identical and equally "evil":

1. Copyright
2. Record Labels
3. Lawyers

But remember that copyright is actually what gives the artist the right to control and profit from their creation if they so desire. The problem is not copyright itself, but that artists give away their copyrights when they sign with the record labels. It certainly doesn't have to be this way, and smarter artists are now keeping their copyrights.

So let's be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What's more needed is a way to allow the creative use of recordings in new works. Unfortunately, that would require the judicial system to judge the merit or level of creativity involved....and that's an even bigger can of worms than we currently have.

I don't know what the best solution is, but throwing away the concept of copyright is one of the most foolish things that artists could do. After all, under current copyright law, an artist still has the option to give away their work if they want to...and some artists do that.

spectrum

liars&ashes · Post by **liars&ashes** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:11 pm

----I'm sure the new world order will sort out the global copyrights issues soon enough, until then it seems to be sue and get sued if the sample isn't cleared. Personally I just fail to see the ongoing thrill in sampling recognizable stuff, do it twice or three times when yer a beginner, get over it, and move on no ? There are enough cheap and even free, loops and samples now day, that anyone with any talent at all can chop away and make something of their own that sounds top notch. And if not, then may I suggest more time spent practicing your production skills and less time trying to get away with stealing samples and justifying it somehow ? I didn't think so....

Jeff

dnbmassive breaks library