Proving use of legally bought samples

[jancivil]

There have been studies that showed piratism has actually boosted music industries sales. Not from the people who are scared back to legal music sales, but by the ones that download the pirated stuff. This phenomenon is already taken into use by such software companies as Microsoft and Autodesk, who offer their products for free to students. Would there be any chance of music industry doing something similar for students? This would seem like a big cut of their profits on paper, but seriously, how many students you think is going to buy the 1000$ sample-library, rather than pirate it from the net for free.

Does the study conveniently ignore the loss of revenue in the firsr place, is that statistic investigated. That whole idea seems suspect to me as given, at any rate. I wonder if the idea of the study was to justify piracy. What studies? Who made them?

If students were offered a legal way to better themselves at music, they'd surely take it. And this would boost the industries sales on the long run...

This argument supposes that there are no other legal ways to better oneself at music. Funny that, I began to better myself at music some thirty-odd years before I had 'a DAW'. Pretty sure I was doing it legally.

This kind of argument smacks of entitlement and seems kind of childish really.

[ChestRockwell]

Always a touchy subject, but, I have to say this.

Disregarding the absolutely unacceptable use of pirated software and samples, it is a fact that we would not have EDM, Techno, House, or whatever you want to call it, because that's how the industry started in the first place.

It's just a plain fact that the entire EDM industry would not exist today had it not been for many pioneers over the decades sampling other peoples music, cutting it up, scratching it up, and mixing it up in many creative ways.

Yes, because of people like, Franky Knuckles, Marshall Jefferson, and Derrick May, 'lifting' samples from vinyl, the House music industry has progressively exploded over the years into the giant money making machine that it is today. (which I might add is also ironic, because there are many people on this forum who make money off of people who create House, Techno, Dubstep, Electro, etc. by selling them software, soundsets, and sample libraries, and even music! They complain about piracy without realizing that the industry that helps put food in their mouths was born from 'piracy' or otherwise known on the streets as sampling, or re-sampling.)

The irony is pretty interesting when you think about it, because there is so much talk of piracy, especially when it comes to sample libraries like Vengeance, that this style of music would never had existed had the same rigid standards been applied back when 'House' music was born.

If somebody sued Derrick May for using an 'ahh' or 'ooh' from an Aretha Franklin song, we wouldn't have Detroit Techno, and I would argue that we wouldn't have Electronic Music as we know it today (especially the big money artist 'remixes' that are so popular now...such as...Katy Perry).

I don't condone piracy but it's kinda funny how the very industry thats making so much money and doing most of the complaining is the the industry that wouldn't even exist had their musical predecessors not 'pirated' a few samples, here and there.

Don't get me started on Hip Hop.

[jancivil]

So far most of what you say is quite self-serving.

What are you trying to imply here?
And why?

in a lateral sort of way you are actually serving as an apologist for piracy. You have been a pirate, yes? You are making arguments such as I just noted. "If music students were offered a legal way to better themselves". It's not so much an intellectually honest argument, you are trying to sway by a type of appeal to the emotion there.

I'm not being mean by observing that is self-serving. I'm not implying, I have noticed that it is. "It smacks of entitlement".

[jancivil]

So far most of what you say is quite self-serving.

What are you trying to imply here?
And why?

what are YOU trying to imply with these rhetorical questions? That's a rhetorical question itself; Note Well, I can see why. You want me to seem mean, a tactic.

Most everyone serves themselves first. You're trying to make your position do something else, justify by rhetoric.

When I was a music student it cost. Seems like a fact of life to me. I would love that it didn't. Talking about making that so is about politics though.

"If music students were offered a legal way to better themselves" they would what, not be forced to break the law and act unethically? Seriously, get off that.

[Meffy]

Go make some music, people. This argument is a heap of horse bone dust with broken bludgeons scattered through it.

[Tubeman]

What about all the hip hop dudes who sampled Clyde Stubblefield's (James Brown's band) drumming and didn't pay him anything?

[darsho]

How can you tell what was bought and downloaded legally and what wasn't?

When I hear a song on the radio, I just can't tell if it was played on a stolen guitar or on a legally purchased guitar.

[Tubeman]

How can you tell what was bought and downloaded legally and what wasn't?

When I hear a song on the radio, I just can't tell if it was played on a stolen guitar or on a legally purchased guitar.

You also can't tell if the guitar was made from illegal woods stolen from third world countries and then sold legally elsewhere.

[trimph1]

Or...the electronics needed to build your amps were not from counterfeiters themselves...

[Tricky-Loops]

Always a touchy subject, but, I have to say this.

Disregarding the absolutely unacceptable use of pirated software and samples, it is a fact that we would not have EDM, Techno, House, or whatever you want to call it, because that's how the industry started in the first place.

It's just a plain fact that the entire EDM industry would not exist today had it not been for many pioneers over the decades sampling other peoples music, cutting it up, scratching it up, and mixing it up in many creative ways.

Yes, because of people like, Franky Knuckles, Marshall Jefferson, and Derrick May, 'lifting' samples from vinyl, the House music industry has progressively exploded over the years into the giant money making machine that it is today. (which I might add is also ironic, because there are many people on this forum who make money off of people who create House, Techno, Dubstep, Electro, etc. by selling them software, soundsets, and sample libraries, and even music! They complain about piracy without realizing that the industry that helps put food in their mouths was born from 'piracy' or otherwise known on the streets as sampling, or re-sampling.)

The irony is pretty interesting when you think about it, because there is so much talk of piracy, especially when it comes to sample libraries like Vengeance, that this style of music would never had existed had the same rigid standards been applied back when 'House' music was born.

If somebody sued Derrick May for using an 'ahh' or 'ooh' from an Aretha Franklin song, we wouldn't have Detroit Techno, and I would argue that we wouldn't have Electronic Music as we know it today (especially the big money artist 'remixes' that are so popular now...such as...Katy Perry).

I don't condone piracy but it's kinda funny how the very industry thats making so much money and doing most of the complaining is the the industry that wouldn't even exist had their musical predecessors not 'pirated' a few samples, here and there.

Don't get me started on Hip Hop.

+1

And this is so sad that I could cry every day. Til the 90ies sampling wasn't a crime, it was an ART!! If you sample something today, you'll be considered as a criminal.

BTW, who makes more money? The musicians or the "sample industry"? I would say that the industry FOR musicians makes much more money than the musicians themselves. Because they're not more aloud to sample, the musicians must buy, buy, and buy -- software synthesizers, sample libraries, loops, etc.

I don't need all these zillions of construction kits - most times I want ONE sample, not 400 MB...

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Not exactly the same "type" of samples the OP is talking about, but Cinesamples was awarded a lot of money in a digital piracy suit not too long ago:
http://soniccontrol.tv/2012/03/11/calif ... racy-suit/

IIRC, they used digital watermarking to trace things:
http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... 60#3618160

mgpqa1 thank you for the links to that, I know it is but a drop in the ocean most likely but it is encouraging and it was a very intresting read. Nice one

Re: Cylde...I am not a hip-hop listener or of anything genre wise where samples are reused alot (riffs re-arranged for sure, Sometimes just lifted wholesale...Same thing (almost?) I am not sure, I can and do believe sometimes it is coincidental quite often but other times blatent. Not my call to make though and the copycats get rumbled quickly) but I did for what its worth purchase the Toontrack Music EZX Funkmasters Cyle.S/Jabo.S kits as they sound really good funk or not. I do hope that Clyde saw some money from that at least.

One of the most amusing ones I heard is this one, Not the sort of stuff I listen to alot (Although I am a long time fan of The Flaming Lips personally lost intrest after the excellent 1999 album 'The Soft Bulletin' by them). I have to say when I heard it I was laughing my head off along with Mr.Coyne plus the rest of the band it seems, Going by the looks of the shit eating grin Wayne's sporting in the video at the 'right' moments -

The American rock band The Flaming Lips released a song titled "Fight Test" on their 2002 album Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots. "Fight Test" is musically very similar to "Father and Son," and The Flaming Lips have agreed to pay royalties to Stevens/Islam for "Fight Test" following a relatively uncontentious settlement. The Flaming Lips' frontman, Wayne Coyne, claims that he was unaware of the songs' similarities until producer Dave Fridmann pointed them out.

Yeah right

Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam: He Don't Use Jello

Dean

[highkoo]

Anyone into Erick Sermon?
One of his tracks made me realize why the enforcement of sampling laws on artists is a weird subject.

The intro to this Public Enemy track was sampled hard:

(3/4 of these vids wont play on KVR. Must link out. This world is crazy!)


Like the Amen Break, although not to that extent, this sample is ten times more 'famous' than the original content ever was. I dont know if Chuck D. ever got paid on that one. Parts of it were used a lot. It was in a pretty big electronic track.
He did get paid for this one though-


(Slammin track.. )
Biggie Smalls paid up for using it on Ten Crack Commandments.


Pricey intro!

So, theres this Erick Sermon track...
The sample in question could possibly have been re-recorded by Sermon, so he didnt have to pay, although at a few points it sounds pretty dead on. To make it more confusing what he did, at the beginning he says something about Curtis Blow, and there are also Curtis Blow samples in the track.

Anyway, what he does with the Chuck D. countdown sample is trigger each number under the corresponding number each time it appears in his verses through the track.
I "LOLed" the first time I heard it. I think its great.
At one point he rhymes "2+2=4" and Chucks voice is underneath.
I think that is just great, whether Chuck likes it or not, tbh. Its artistic.



If its re-recorded, its cuz Sermon was scared of Chucks lawyer, and he likely made big effort to make it sound as much like the Chuck sample as possible. Not like Chuck necessarily, but like the sample of Chuck that everyone knows. Good for him for faking it, or getting away with it either way.
Point is though, its not the sound of a human counting that was important there, imo. It was not Chuck that was important. It was that sample that was important.

I admit that this kind of artistic decision is really only likely after generations of 'theft' have already taken place and looped back, but regardless, it makes me wonder what we are doing as a species if by default we limit creativity with law.

If I think real hard, it seems like copyright laws actually punish for stolen profit, not stolen property...
That is weird enough, but our legal system would require proof that the property was stolen. It does not require proof that the profit was even lost, let alone stolen.
Ha, it gets weirder!

[aciddose]

actually under the law in some countries it actually does require proof. maybe not the united states

[highkoo]

Really?
How do they go about doing that?
It is part of the lawyering?

[aciddose]

well i'm really not sure if there is a difference, i don't think so, but i know there are a lot of differences between canada and the united states as far as legal.

it's going to be up to the judge/jury to decide in any case but the requirement is that each side must attempt to prove or disprove a case of unjust enrichment and usually also impoverishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment

says here north dakota has similar requirements.

know any important riaa suits filed in north dakota?

http://museumofintellectualproperty.eej ... s/rio.html

www.google.com/search?q=riaa+north+dakota