When is a sample so edited or altered that it is not copyrighted?

[monomaker]

hammer was super freak.

They both feature the exclamation "stop!", which is exactly what they should have done.

[vurt]

hammer was super freak.

They both feature the exclamation "stop!", which is exactly what they should have done.

stop!
collaborate and listen.

well, i cant stop and do those.
pick one, vanilla.

[vurt]

his pet walleroo escaped once.

[thecontrolcentre]

[vurt]

see, without hammer, that meme wouldn't exist.
worth it!

[highkoo]

I was sampling by early 1986 at least.

Oh, what a sad commentary on the world of 1986.
But it is nice to see that you have been able to clean up your creative process since then and develop an artistic drive with more integrity. I guess its that experience that allows you the perspective to talk so much shit to people.

If your opinion is that sampling is morally wrong, period, youre a much bigger c**t than anyone doing it to even those morally wrong degrees.

i did not say sampling was wrong/whatever/blah blah.... maybe learn to read

nothing wrong with sampling at all, as long as you get permission from the original artist and/or pay them for using it if required

You were misunderstood?
You said "those who do are c**ts", Sir.
You did not clarify that it was strictly the legal transgression that was so c**nty in your eyes.

See, its hard to tell with you weirdos. Sometimes, you literally quote the law to shame someone 'stealing' a snare in their bedroom production, and with a straight face imply legal concerns. But other times, its a deeper shaming, of a creative sort. The implication that one is shitting directly on every bit of their artistic integrity by sampling one uncrecognizable bit.
Ironically, either way, it is super c**nty, and obviously pretty removed from reality for 90% of the people making music.

The thread started with a lot of real-world, creative person perspective on this. I think that is what is most useful to people, and to the world. Sampling is a vast thing, especially with new technology. On one end, it is certainly massively c**nty, even when all permissions are paid. Creatively tasteless and awful. On the other side, it can be a part of true high art. We need to explain that to people before quoting them the letter of the law for their bedroom productions.

Imo, a ton of the questions about this come from people who are already doing it, and already have an idea how they "should" feel about it, and are looking for validation.

When someone steals a single drum hit, and gets told they are morally and legally wrong for it, they kind of know thats bullshit. But when someone steals an entire melody and chord progression, they kinda know that might not be cool. Imo when those two people end up asking questions, they should not get the same response, and anyone reading shouldnt walk away having the same opinion on both things.

Sorry for the mess.

[highkoo]

Happy New Year.




Look at that dude.
Doin work!

[AnX]

You were misunderstood?

no, everyone including you knew exactly what i meant. it was just you who decided to be childish

When someone steals a single drum hit, and gets told they are morally and legally wrong for it, they kind of know thats bullshit.

and they also know its stealing, as you pointed out yourself

[vurt]

Happy New Year.




Look at that dude.
Doin work!

so dedicated, even to the point of wearing nappies. not time to take a break from dancing, not even for a shit.

[thecontrolcentre]

[dionenoid]

yup, the reality is, no one is going to spend money on lawyers unless you've made enough money to be worth sueing.

Just wanted to quote again, because it is true. I know from experience, from both sides

[vurt]

pay close attention