dnbmassive breaks library

[Kriminal]

Puff Dadday paid 100% of all earnings to Sting for sampling and rapping over "Every Breath You Take". That was the deal!

i thopught most of the money went to the mrs of the dead bloke he was sining about....?

[Xenox.AFL]

Well, interesting topic and thanx Eric for all the coments... I know that problem with the (C)opyright specially on Drums and Drumsampels so I made my own ones and never used stuff from other people when I did something which will be released someday, easier for me and easier for the company ofcourse...!

Frank

[spectrum]

Puff Dadday paid 100% of all earnings to Sting for sampling and rapping over "Every Breath You Take". That was the deal!

i thought most of the money went to the mrs of the dead bloke he was singing about....?

It's possible that Sting may have done that...I don't know.

But it's a well known case in the SR Copyright world of where all the revenue went to the original artist that was sampled and not the rapper.

[DWb]

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

Yes.

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.

Also yes. The problem is that if there's any freedom of interpretation in the law then the people who can afford expensive lawyers will always either win or simply intimidate everyone into giving up, but there are a lot of cases where the dividing line between 'creative reuse' and 'blatant exploitation' are very blurred.

Some things I'd really like to see though are
i) legal recognition of something that's currently just a legal ceasefire - namely, use of samples on small runs of stuff, ie things that come out with about enough copies to break even on the pressing costs or are freely distributed by mp3 or both.
ii) at least limited legal recognition for the use of (say) samples with no rhythmic or melodic content (ie single hits) and possibly
iii) an agreed standard fee for something like a drum break or a sample of less than five seconds used less than a given number of times in the case that the distribution goes larger than is covered under i) - thus preventing your tune from getting held to ransom by the original copyright owner, while still letting them make money from it.

I'm actually a bit of a sampling fundamentalist, but the above alterations seem to be a fairly sensible compromise to slightly get a way from the current legal position that makes all sampling in principle evil... i) wouldn't really make any difference to the current situation but would just mean everyone can relax, ii) just seems sensible and iii) would probably result in the samplees making more money, since people would actually use samples and pay rather than either replacing the sample or hoping they get away with it.

Until then, I guess all right thinking people should just use creative commons...

[DWb]

Btw, I think the real classic case is Beats International aka Norman Cook, who apparently loses money on every copy of Dub Be Good To Me after two seperate samplees successfully sued for 100% of the royaties...

[spectrum]

Those are all some really good ideas. I hope that there will become some recognition in the law of sampling as an artform, and that there are some provisions made in the law that allow a limited use for creative purposes. That would be really tough to figure out, but I have a feeling that someday, this will be the case.

[spectrum]

Btw, I think the real classic case is Beats International aka Norman Cook, who apparently loses money on every copy of Dub Be Good To Me after two seperate samplees successfully sued for 100% of the royaties...

Wow!

That's really amazing. It's a good example of why getting caught sampling can be pretty dangerous and costly.

I can see the ad campaign: "PLEASE DON'T BUY THIS RECORD!"

LOL!

[spectrum]

BTW....you guys may have already seen this movie, but it's so appropriate to this discussion:

http://www.nkhstudio.com/pages/amen_mp4.html

Great history!

spectrum

[blortblort]

BTW....you guys may have already seen this movie, but it's so appropriate to this discussion:

http://www.nkhstudio.com/pages/amen_mp4.html

Great history!

spectrum

wow. Absolutely facinating. nice to get the history.
Thanks for this, spectrum.

[rokkon]

another movie that everybody might have already seen
copyright criminals

[Mr. Tunes]

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

Yes, agreed, but the bone i'm trying to pick here is that many people are using sounds they under the impression that are legitimate and legal, and have paid good money for them, yet they really aren't free to use them at all! It's very frustrating.

Thank you Eric etc. for taking the time to respond to this, i'm sorry if this sort of hijacked a thread that didn't mean to address this issue but oh well c'est la vie.

Downloading Copyright Criminals now looks good.
The guy who made the Amen video is a nice fellow btw. Also after seeing it quite a few months ago(almost a year now?), his movie sort of starting getting me thinking about the issue that I brought up in the thread.

[spectrum]

I really like a lot of the points in both films, but I wish someone would do a more balanced documentary that shows both sides of the issue. The Copyright Criminals one in particular only presents one side of the issue...although it is presented very well and makes very valid points.

The current system is also a drag for copyright holders too. I have a good friend that's dealing with a major UK group that has stolen the name of his band, his song, song titles, lyrics AND sampled his original tracks from the 70s with no permission, credit or royalties! When he contacted the UK artist, they were really surprised that he had any problem with it! The bummer for my friend is that for him to get anything out of it means spending huge legal fees upfront to recover the damages....and that's not money he has to spend right now....so he's just basically out of luck while someone else is profiting hugely off of his work.

So there's two sides to this story, and sampling is not always done with a purely "artist/cutural enrichment" point of view.

So that's the dilemma....how to protect the artist's work, and at the same time create an enviroment that is the maximum creativity and respect possible.

Easier said than done!

[tee boy]

I have no problem with sampling, so long as its done creatively. If people are using vinyl as a material to scuplt, then this is fine by me. I dont like people ripping each other off though.

Sampling a few drum hits out of old vinyl breaks, then mashing these up to make some wacky new beats, this is cool. Everyone does it, especially in the soundware biz. But selling the classic breaks for profit is not cool when you're not even bothering to clear them. This is theft, pure and simple.

Norman Cook has made a good living from such theft, so he has nothing to complain about!

TB

[stk]

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

Heavily revised, certainly...

Indeed, very heavily, and not by moneyhungry traumawhores

I'm a big believer in the creative commons.. hopefully this will catch on, and even the rich & famous will remember that they, too, are plagiarising the past.

Also, I will clarify - not all lawyers are scum.. just most of them.

sk.

[stk]

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

well.. The truth of the matter (and I'll go dig up references if you really want me to) is - Copyright law was created to promote innovation. Ie - to say to prospective inventors "no, that has been done, think of something else".

Over the years the timeframe under which something is copyrighted has grown, largely due to lobbying by big businesses.

Many people think the following three things are identical and equally "evil":
1. Copyright
2. Record Labels
3. Lawyers

Well 1 and 3, surely, in that order.
2 is fine, in my experience. The only people get screwed by record labels are too stupid/greedy/in thrall to their need for ego gratification to think twice about what they sign.

My prime grief with Copyright law, as related to music, is this:
We are all fcking thieves. Whether we sample or not, we are reusing past music over and over - it's just the truth.

I draw a distinction between copyright => sampling, and copyright => downloading some track off the net and attempting to sell it. Obviously they are different.
I'm not sure if there is a legal difference between intellectual property and copyright, but there damn well should be.

anyway, there's another, erm, 56c.

cheers, sk.