Worrying about using old samples and the legal ramifications...

[Teksonik]

Others being largely property holders that don’t respect the artists they keep enslaved and out of owning their own work, you’re a hoot bro.

You can unsuccessfully try to justify things anyway you want "bro" but it doesn't change what's right and wrong.

I may be a "hoot" but I'm not a thief.

[hoxclab]

Others being largely property holders that don’t respect the artists they keep enslaved and out of owning their own work, you’re a hoot bro.

You can unsuccessfully try to justify things anyway you want "bro" but it doesn't change what's right and wrong.

I may be a "hoot" but I'm not a thief.

You have never sampled a sound in your life? No drum samples, etc?

[BertKoor]

I'm not a thief.

And neither is the musician using uncleared samples in a song that only he himself and perhaps his mother ever hears.

Just for the record, copyright infringement isn't criminal, it's civil. [...] If you violate a copyright, the cops won't come for you, but the copyright-owning party's lawyers might.

[synthgeek]

Copyright and the concept of "intellectual property" are BS and should be thrown on the trash heap of history.

[Teksonik]

I'm not a thief.

And neither is the musician using uncleared samples in a song that only he himself and perhaps his mother ever hears.

Just for the record, copyright infringement isn't criminal, it's civil. [...] If you violate a copyright, the cops won't come for you, but the copyright-owning party's lawyers might.

Pay attention to number 6:

https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/Copyrigh ... lties.html

"The legal penalties for copyright infringement are:

6. The infringer can go to jail".

It doesn't matter who hears it or not. Right is right and wrong is wrong. If I have to explain it to you then i fear you'll never understand.

As someone who has been the victim of IP theft perhaps I have a different perspective.

Everyone should do whatever their morals tell them....assuming they have any.

Ok I've made my point. Nothing you can say will change my stance so I'll wish you all a good night.

[Teksonik]

Copyright and the concept of "intellectual property" are BS and should be thrown on the trash heap of history.

Yet from your site:

IP.png

Don't bother to respond. It won't do you any good. I'm out.......

[synthgeek]

Don't bother to respond. It won't do you any good. I'm out.......

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, cool guy.

[melomood]

I enjoy sampling a tiny bit from a favorite old record,even if it's just one note being hit, processing it,playing it like an instrument etc. A tiny homage to influences. I don't think of it as theft.

[Dasheesh]

Dolly is telling nasx to "keep singing" this morning.

[hoxclab]

Dolly is telling nasx to "keep singing" this morning.

Both are deesgusting

[JeffLearman]

This always gets a lot of confusing posts on KVR

Thanks for your post! That explains the discrepancy between my understanding/recollection and what's actually happening. Also, I agree with your opinions.

[JeffLearman]

I don't need a law to tell me stealing someone else's work is immoral.

 

I know where you're coming from, and in general I agree, and I'll admit I'm being a bit pedantic, but ...

Stealing is based on property rights. Property rights are an example of what are known as "legal fictions," meaning they exist due to law. (That's the original technical meaning of "legal fiction." The term is also used to mean "things which make no sense but exist because of laws," and I'm not using that more common meaning here.)

For a great example of how the legal fiction of property differs from what we might think of as property, consider your body. Legally, it is not your property, because you can't sell it. (Yes, there are complications here, but that's the general drift.)

The bottom line is that not everyone agrees what "property" is. But there are lots of laws, and by and large, they tend to be similar in many countries.

Prior to intellectual property laws (which are relatively recent, compared to physical property laws that go back to the code of Hamurabi), stealing meant taking something away from the rightful owner.  Copying anyone's ideas was not stealing, as it didn't deprive the originator the use of the idea.  There were no laws to keep one artist from copying the works of another artist. So, "stealing someone's intellectual property" is based on laws that define "stealing" and "intellectual property."

Of course, using someone's ideas can deprive them from something: the ability to derive income from the idea.  To promote creativity and technological development, many societies decided to grant a limited monopoly on ideas to the creator, in the form of patents and copyrights, and "intellectual property" was born.  I'm a big fan of this concept.  It's pretty much the only way a songwriter can get paid.  The tricky part of applying this concept is where to draw the line between copying and influence, and IMHO, the drawing of that line should include the idea of detriment/benefit.

For countless generations, artists have benefited from the influence of other artists.  Is that stealing?  (There's a great line, attributed to lots of different people, "Good artists borrow.  Great ones steal."  The idea here is that great artists not only use what they've learned, but apply it in a completely new way so that the germ of the idea can no longer be attributed to the originator.  Is that what we want to prohibit?)

Personally, I applaud the the originators of music like hip-hop who used samples and turned the original clips into something completely different (even though I'm not a fan of that style of music myself.)  In some cases, IMHO, they went too far and copied musical sections without permission.  But in many others they just used sounds, embedded in a completely different landscape and dramatically altered.  in my mind, there's a fuzzy gray line.

Here's another fun example about how strange laws can be. If you play a song but never write it down or record it, it is not covered by copyright (in the US, and I suspect most countries.) Anyone who hears it can play it, record it, and do whatever they want. I bet we'd both agree that someone who hears a song, records it, copyrights it and makes a mint without giving anything back to the originator, is doing something immoral, even though it's not illegal.

My point here isn't to argue that you're wrong, but simply to point out that it's not a simple, trivial issue with a simple answer that everyone should agree with.  There are great arguments across the spectrum, even for those who argue that there should be no IP at all (though I wouldn't want to live in that world; I think songwriters deserve to earn a living.)

Regardless, I applaud you for holding yourself to (perhaps) a higher standard than the law.  Of course, I know you won't be surprised to get pushback if you expect others to hold themselves to that standard.  You have every right to recommend it.  If you cast scorn on those who disagree, well, you'll reap what you sow.

[JeffLearman]

Just for the record, copyright infringement isn't criminal, it's civil. [...] If you violate a copyright, the cops won't come for you, but the copyright-owning party's lawyers might. 

Pay attention to number 6:

https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/Copyrigh ... lties.html

"The legal penalties for copyright infringement are:

6. The infringer can go to jail".
 

Admittedly, my statement was a generalization. So is point 6 above. According to https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq- ... ement.html :

Under certain circumstances, the infringement may also constitute a criminal misdemeanor or felony, which would be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Those "certain circumstances" include what we'd call piracy.  I doubt they include any cases that we're discussing here.  So, I stand by my original statements, along with my caveat about piracy (which you omitted.)  If you use uncleared samples, the DoJ won't be coming after you.
 

[Memsterrr]

Nice to see my post stirred a bit of a discussion, and made a few people cringe LOL. If you're cringing at something I said, because I'm merely expressing myself in whatever way I see fit, then your problem is with yourself, period. Cringe away, please .

I've seen a lot of terms thrown around in this thread, including "morality"... but morality in general is an extremely dubious concept, since it is, by and large, an illusion. And this whole idea pertaining to "ownership" and "intellectual rights" is born from the way society orients itself, rather than something inherent to music itself. Music, fundamentally, has nothing to do with ownership, since it's all serial, and borrowed. To me, music will always be an art form first, and it will always be for the purposes of sharing. Anything else is just a byproduct of our shallow, self-indulgent society.

[elxsound]

The discussion is nice, but yeah... cringe worthy because it was like verbal vomit.

The end result is not bad. Interesting at least.