Kraftwerk lose sampling copyright case.

[noiseresearch]

/* static noise */

[BERFAB]

On the other hand, I think Mr Pelham should´ve just made the pattern by himself. It ain´t that difficult, but if you absolutely MUST rip it from somebody elses work, that somebody else should also be paid for it, IMO.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

This. Apparently no one is disputing that the sample in question belongs to Kraftwerk. Why would musicians and other artists champion someone taking someone else's work without attribution or compensation? If you're so bloody talented, create your own stuff. If you don't create your own stuff, there are rules. Follow them.

Regardless of what the courts say, you should be embarrassed that you are incapable of making your own art without nicking a bit of someone else's.

Cheers
-B

[Numanoid]

Kind of weird how the implementation of these rules have changed. At one time sampling was seen as pure theft, nothing artistic about it all

When KLF/JAMs put out their first in small quantity:

The JAMs were ordered to "deliver up the master tape, mothers, stampers and any other parts commensurate with manufacture of the record"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_%28W ... ontroversy

[t3toooo]

Ask politely and pay vs don't ask,steal and argue that stealing is a form of culture?


Btw,nowadays the technology is much cheaper to produce samples,this wasn't the case in the 70's and later on.
Hip Hop started with singing to Vinyl records and evolved to sampling but for most of the artists there were no funds to professionally record drum sets and to pay high talented singers and musicians.
Today a huge amount of samples are available to buy and are affordable.

The question is. Why still use those gorgeous tape saturated,beautifully perfectly recorded production snippets in 2016?



This is not final judgement anyway.

[fmr]

On the other hand, I think Mr Pelham should´ve just made the pattern by himself. It ain´t that difficult, but if you absolutely MUST rip it from somebody elses work, that somebody else should also be paid for it, IMO.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

This. Apparently no one is disputing that the sample in question belongs to Kraftwerk. Why would musicians and other artists champion someone taking someone else's work without attribution or compensation? If you're so bloody talented, create your own stuff. If you don't create your own stuff, there are rules. Follow them.

Regardless of what the courts say, you should be embarrassed that you are incapable of making your own art without nicking a bit of someone else's.

Cheers
-B

Consider there is a loong tradition in european music scene of reusing of other's material by composers, I think this statement is uttely nonsense. Would you say that J S Bach is incapable os making is own art? Yet he did transcriptions of Vivaldi and Albinoni concertos for organ, and presented them as his own (because they ARE his own). Liszt did many transcriptions of Wagner pieaces for piano, and again these are presented as Liszt works. Already in XXth century, Schostakovitch inserted quite extended quotations of one Rossini piece in one of his symphonies, and Stravinsky created an entire work (Pulcinella) based in music from other composers.

So, I think this decision is to reinstate a long tradition that, to a certain degree, reusing music material from other composers may be legal, as long as it's not simply a copy. Unfortunately, music now seems to be all and only about Money.

[noiseresearch]

/* static noise */

[noiseresearch]

/* static noise */

[t3toooo]

My new album consist solely out of Skrillex melodies but i do not use any music/samples he created.

[chk071]

Still remember the old Dr. Dre songs, which not only consisted of the respective sampled passages, but had no own melodies at all. It basically was the Funk/Soul track the samples were from, with rap over it. Not quite a very imaginative, or skilled genre.

[BERFAB]

On the other hand, I think Mr Pelham should´ve just made the pattern by himself. It ain´t that difficult, but if you absolutely MUST rip it from somebody elses work, that somebody else should also be paid for it, IMO.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

This. Apparently no one is disputing that the sample in question belongs to Kraftwerk. Why would musicians and other artists champion someone taking someone else's work without attribution or compensation? If you're so bloody talented, create your own stuff. If you don't create your own stuff, there are rules. Follow them.

Regardless of what the courts say, you should be embarrassed that you are incapable of making your own art without nicking a bit of someone else's.

Consider there is a loong tradition in european music scene of reusing of other's material by composers, I think this statement is uttely nonsense. Would you say that J S Bach is incapable os making is own art? Yet he did transcriptions of Vivaldi and Albinoni concertos for organ, and presented them as his own (because they ARE his own). Liszt did many transcriptions of Wagner pieaces for piano, and again these are presented as Liszt works. Already in XXth century, Schostakovitch inserted quite extended quotations of one Rossini piece in one of his symphonies, and Stravinsky created na entire work (/PUlcinella) based in music from other composers.

So, I think this decision is to reinstate a long tradition that, to a certain degree, reusing music material from other composers may be legal, as long as it's not simply a copy.

I always love history
W

I wasn't aware that the Bach transcriptions of Vivaldi were actually published or publicized during his lifetime. Regardless, to my knowledge, they've always been known as the "Bach transcriptions." That is somewhat less than attribution without credit, no? During that period of time, transcriptions were more of an exercise than anything else. A way for musicians and composers to learn the styles of prior masters. It was not 'stealing.' Certainly not in the sense that we have here, where an actual piece of the artist's work is taken, outright, and incorporated into another's. A better analogy for your transcription argument would be creating an orchestral or marching band arrangement of "Wonder Wall." Everyone recognizes what it is, and (hopefully) credit and appropriate payment will be made.

Cheers
-B

[format edit]

[Numanoid]

So, I think this decision is to reinstate a long tradition that, to a certain degree, reusing music material from other composers may be legal, as long as it's not simply a copy.

+1

Punk is built on three chords, how many different songs can there really be with so few ingredients

So for example when Dead Kennedys ran out of chords, they played the smoke on the water riff at double speed, that's innovation

[whyterabbyt]

Yes it would because a large subculture within Hip Hop is based on sampling. But I would underline that it will be hard to define edge of sampling.When it's actually sampling and when it becomes just plain covering or rephrasing a song??

No, not even slightly, as I already said. None of the relevant laws are based on any notion of 'sampling'. They are based on the reuse or redistribution of recordings or derivations of recordings. Sampling is simply a subset of that. There's nothing hard about that at all.
'Plain covering' has nothing to do with that at all, its an entirely different thing in copyright law.

As you would say 'go and dig' the actual laws.

[Zexila]

Don't know what is more sad, one side sampling freaking drum beat or other making a case out of it.

This sampling trend should stop in 21st century, we basically have everything from full blown symphonic orchestras to some rarest multi sampled instruments on our laptops, there's no excuse to not make your own stuff or use legitimate samples, actually genre suffers from the lack of originality, so yeah, stop sampling and start composing, there's no excuse.

[Chris-S]

Alles nur geklaut.... It's all just stolen....

[murnau]

This court is a bunch of idiots

That not true and disrespectful. Go and dig some keynote arbitrations ...

Yep, exactly. That is what this court members should do.