Kraftwerk lose sampling copyright case.

[Aleatoriac]

Good, I don't get paid, nobody should!

Bring down all art! Bunch of CUCKS!

[noiseresearch]

/* static noise */

[highkoo]

You guys are weird.

[bungle]

Yes. There was panic on the streets tonight. It's a real game changer.

Yeah, Alan Tew and his orchestra are running for the hills because their album from 72 that generated zero sales last year has just been sampled by some HipHop act that didn't even make enough money to cover the £75 quid that some vinyl prospector on Ebay charged them for the record from 72 that they sampled.

Kind of funny that the only people who even dream of suing are already drowning in riches too uh.

This ruling
Synth heads - You bastards
Sample heads - Sweet
Everybody else - Who gives a sh*t

How did Afrika Bambaataa go about judicially when sampling from TEE on Planet Rock?

Crossed his fingers and hoped there wasnt a lawsuit.

And this would be KVR for you, somebody who could well turn out to be the US equivalent of Jimmy Saville, and everybody wonders about how he got away with sampling, not how he got away with molesting children FFS (Yes he was one of my heroes, the pr**k)

[murnau]

“The economic value of the original sound was therefore not diminished,” the court said, adding that banning sampling would in effect spell the end of some music styles.”

“The hip-hop music style lives by using such sound sequences and would not survive if it were banned.”

As if there's only Kraftwerk to sample.. ..as said bunch of ******.

[Sparky77]

“The economic value of the original sound was therefore not diminished,” the court said, adding that banning sampling would in effect spell the end of some music styles.”

“The hip-hop music style lives by using such sound sequences and would not survive if it were banned.”

As if there's only Kraftwerk to sample.. ..as said bunch of ******.

Those who make laws often, do not make music....

[Functional]

The top court believes that blocking Pelham's sample would "practically exclude the creation of pieces of music in a particular style".

+1.

No it wouldn't. Anyone is free to play/program the rhythm themselves. If sampling without consent/compensation is allowed, where do you draw the line?

You draw the line in the arbitrary consideration of judges in courts. See, no matter what you do, you'll never be able to draw a good line anyway. Say, for example, if I sample a song but flip the sample over by reversing, looping, pitch shifting and distorting it, where exactly is the line even if the end result will sound nothing like the original?

The judges decided that such a decision would endanger hiphop production and I entirely agree. Those two tracks are quite different from each other.

Oh and I don't sample songs myself. But however, there's plenty of music that I like which is sampled. I wouldn't want Clams Casino, for example, to quit doing music because he would be afraid that he gets sued over his production method.

And I can't also appreciate Kraftwerk anymore for suing hip hop artists over that. That is seriously wicked.

[whyterabbyt]

ee, no matter what you do, you'll never be able to draw a good line anyway. Say, for example, if I sample a song but flip the sample over by reversing, looping, pitch shifting and distorting it, where exactly is the line even if the end result will sound nothing like the original?

The judges decided that such a decision would endanger hiphop production and I entirely agree. Those two tracks are quite different from each other.

Oh and I don't sample songs myself. But however, there's plenty of music that I like which is sampled. I wouldn't want Clams Casino, for example, to quit doing music because he would be afraid that he gets sued over his production method.

yeah, imagine how all that creativity would be utterly destroyed, just by having to get some sort of, oh i dunno, some sort of retroactive permission to use those samples... how has hiphop even survived, when its been endangered like that?

[Functional]

yeah, imagine how all that creativity would be utterly destroyed, just by having to get some sort of, oh i dunno, some sort of retroactive permission to use those samples... how has hiphop even survived, when its been endangered like that?

Sure. You can ask for the permission and go the legal route. Personally I would just start doing something else, because the last thing I would want to include in my production process is the (possibly tedious) task of contacting record companies and the artist him/herself about that. And it seems really silly in the first place. There are two forms, the a priori & a posteriori ones. Let's see how they go;

A priori would be something like this; "Hey, your song is really cool and I wonder if I could sample it just in case I could actually make something workable out of it?"

The a posteriori would go something like this; "Hey, I sampled your song X. I wonder if I could get the permission to release the track? Oh, no? Well, too bad, all those hours spent to create this killer tune are now washed down the drain..."

And even worse is the fact that you'll have hard time sharing your music through the means of vinyl/cd/tape/spotify etc regardless of the fact if you're doing it for profit or not, because they all can be interpreted as being for profit.

One ought to think that capitalism already does enough harm for us. But no, apparently it's so great that it even corrupts musicians or the companies revolved around music. Luckily the judges were smart here. I'd rather have this arbitrary process where they get to evaluate whenever it's blatant copying or there actually is creativity involved. Here you have two tracks that share very little similarity. This is, in fact, very simple case to begin with.

[annode]

If Hutter wants to sue someone he should look to Joe Jackson. What do you think?

[Numanoid]

FTFY

You guys are wired.

Easy on the jolt cola everybody

[Boardwalk]

Das ist ja wirklich ganz toll. Ein bisschen Verrücktheit ist doch immer geil

[skipscada]

"Hey, I sampled your song X. I wonder if I could get the permission to release the track? Oh, no? Well, too bad, all those hours spent to create this killer tune are now washed down the drain..."

So making music without being able to make money from it is pointless? I.e. you make your music only to earn money?

Is that "killer tune" only a "killer tune" because it has other people's input in it?

If someone else's input is essential to the killer-ness of a tune, should they not be entitled to at least some of the money the tune makes? After all, money is the only reason to make music.

[skipscada]

dp

[Functional]

So making music without being able to make money from it is pointless? I.e. you make your music only to earn money?

I already covered your first point when I said that you'll have hard time sharing your music through popular mediums such as spotify or physical disks & tapes, because they can regardless of actual figures be seen as an attempt to profit.

Is that "killer tune" only a "killer tune" because it has other people's input in it?

If someone else's input is essential to the killer-ness of a tune, should they not be entitled to at least some of the money the tune makes? After all, money is the only reason to make music.

Well, there is a problem. You cannot actually formulate a priori laws that are unambiguous and will explain us clearly every time when the killer tune only becomes one due to others input and when the "others input" actually hardly is others input as the original sample was completely flipped out.

So I have a wild idea. We could have something like say, well, I don't know, a system where we would have judges and both parties within the dispute that could informally solve them? I think I've actually seen something like this somewhere. Can't quite remember where or when, but I'm sure that it has at least existed.