question about glitch and copyright stuff

[kritikon]

And....

Using samples gives you intertextuality and reference. You can get a range of different vocal characters. You can get a range of different instrumental characters, come to that. The fraction of a second will have the 'sound' of a whole other recording setup - we're only used to hearing the sound of one studio at a time, so this gives you a slight jar. I might not have the time or money to buy and record a gong, a trumpet and a harpsichord just because I want to use a 0.1 second sample of each. I might like the sound of the old vinyl recording. Something in the sound of the sample might inspire me, rather than vice versa. Using a sample rather than trying to recreate it gives me more time to work on other elements of the composition.

And finally, there are a whole lot of things that we do because we're idle. We buy bread rather than baking our own. We have cars with power steering, or bikes with well pumped up tyres. We put our bags down if we're standing around for any period of time. Noone has produced a compelling moral argument against any of these, just as noone has produced a compelling moral argument against using extremely short samples, so I'll continue to do that too.

I don't have a problem with that. And you can use samples if that's how you like to work. But if you do, then seek permission. Quite often you won't even get charged. A simple credit on the sleeve is all it can take - is that going to be so arduous?

We're talking commercial here - if all you're doing is your own music for your own amusement, then sample all you like. If you're doing it commercially, I'd say you're an idiot to use uncleared samples if there's any chance it's recognisable. If it's not recogniseable than go ahead - but you still take a risk, because if you do become rich and famous and someone you work with spills the beans...you can rest assured someone out there will want their pound of flesh, and credit to them for chasing uncleared theft of their work.

If you're all for freedom of using others' sounds, then you can put it into practice when your material is out there and you can let anyone sample it. But whatever you feel about your own freedom, it is still irrelevant to you using others work.

And as for the contextual references of different studio sound etc - don't you even consider the fact that the band you sampled from has paid their own money for that studio time, and your sampling has ripped that off? Labels don't "give" studio time to any band. That band pays for it, whether out of advances or royalties, and it is all recoupable by the lable. Ripping it off is reaping benefit from someone else's wallet.

I'm not going to get off my high horsey. Sampling without clearance is either theft of music and/or theft of paid studio time. If you want the reference of the sound of a $10,000/hour studio - some other poor f**ker paid that to get that sound. The label didn't pay it - the artist did. "But I'm not using their music, I'm just using their sound..." It IS their music and they paid for their sound. You didn't.

[Amberience]

You're not even listening to me. I'm not questioning legality, I was challenging you on:

If it's only small snippets that are so small that they're unrecognizable - get off your fkucing arse and create your own sound sources

That is what I was refuting. You're intimating that we should create those snippets of sound ourselves, which would undermine the entire point of glitch music and the art of sampling in general.

[Amberience]

Oh, and I have gotten permission for nearly all the samples I've used. Sometimes it's not worth the effort. That is the reality of the world.

[DWb]

If you're all for freedom of using others' sounds, then you can put it into practice when your material is out there and you can let anyone sample it. But whatever you feel about your own freedom, it is still irrelevant to you using others work.

Creative commons is a wonderful thing...

And as for the contextual references of different studio sound etc - don't you even consider the fact that the band you sampled from has paid their own money for that studio time, and your sampling has ripped that off?

No it hasn't. I normally get annoyed by the 'it's not stealing if I didn't physically deprive them of a copy' justification for illegal mp3s, but in this case it actually works.

The band / record company paid for the studio because they wanted to make a record that sounds better, and so (hopefully) sells more. If I then use a sample with that studio ambience, I haven't prevented that from happening. They haven't lost anything, and I (and my legion of adoring fans) have gained something. It's not a zero sum thing.

Copyright isn't a basic moral principle - it's a compromise. In exchange for certain limitations on how I can reuse other people's content, and thus on how I can go about producing content, it makes it easier for me to make money out of it, and thereby gives me more incentive to create. But it's only worth having, and worth (the general public) paying to have it enforced, if it benefits the general public by making more, better quality content available to them.

Excessive restrictions on sampling don't achieve this.

[foosnark]

You're not even listening to me. I'm not questioning legality, I was challenging you on:

If it's only small snippets that are so small that they're unrecognizable - get off your fkucing arse and create your own sound sources

That is what I was refuting. You're intimating that we should create those snippets of sound ourselves, which would undermine the entire point of glitch music and the art of sampling in general.

I don't agree. Here's a neat article on glitch music which pretty much sums up my feelings on it. It's not particularly necessary to sample someone else's work, scratch someone else's CD etc.

Certainly the drive to build off of other peoples' work isn't as strong in glitch as it is in breakbeat or hiphop. If you did, the point wouldn't be to use their music, but rather an artifact, something that wasn't an intentional creation. You might be creating that artifact artificially by only sampling a few ms from their music, but you're still not grabbing a whole riff and using it in the way it was originally intended.

[eduardo_b]

C'mon man.. it's really not that hard to understand. Using short snippets of sound from others work equates to using it in ways it was not intended.

I find this an odd assumption. Using samples is, by definition, part of a creative process that reuses existing sounds in ways that were not "intended." The original intent is not the issue here.

Really, common sense says that using samples of any length for personal use is just fine and no one is going to be sued for doing so. Should said creative work later be released commercially, then the situation changes -- although I tend to believe that it's the record companies, not the original artists, who generally care about the use of samples without permission (and money).

[FaX]

You're not even listening to me. I'm not questioning legality, I was challenging you on:

If it's only small snippets that are so small that they're unrecognizable - get off your fkucing arse and create your own sound sources

That is what I was refuting. You're intimating that we should create those snippets of sound ourselves, which would undermine the entire point of glitch music and the art of sampling in general.

Hmmm yes but if you are only dealing with "microsound" then I'd argue their are many legitimate legal sample sources that will still enable you too achieve the end result.
You can also incorporate custom filed recording and/or found sound design done entirely by you.
You could even totally disintergrate older material of your own and rebuild it in that style if that is how you wish to compose.
The art of sampling isn't just about the source or vinyl lift and if you think it is you are really missing the point of how creative the sampler can be as a tool for highly original sample based composition.
There is a world of sound out there that just needs a recording device and some engenuity on your behalf to be "decon & recon" - structed into anything you want.
Not to mention cheep bambo flutes old kids instruments likle casio's and toy piano's , cheap world instruments and drums , crappy old guitars, the click of a typewriter , spray can fire's recorded compressed and turned into highhats , sliced and diced short wave radio interference etc.
Flip the pages of a telephone book compress, time stretch by 50% , repitch and voila you have a totally new snare etc etc etc.
Record hail or rain on a rooof and rex it.
Then get a rex loop of a drum pattern you like throw the rex file away retain the midi data and use that as a rythmic template for your rex'd "hail or rain" on roof sample.
Hell I could go on for ages.
If the sound you're using is SO OBSCURE why do you need to actually capture it from any said copywritten and prereleased/recorded material ?
So what exactly is the true spirit of sampling too you anyway ?

[Amberience]

Ok. I'm wrong..

[vurt]

if you can still recognise the original sample then it just aint glitch

[atomic_(no)afro]

I don't have a problem with that. And you can use samples if that's how you like to work. But if you do, then seek permission. Quite often you won't even get charged. A simple credit on the sleeve is all it can take - is that going to be so arduous?

We're talking commercial here - if all you're doing is your own music for your own amusement, then sample all you like. If you're doing it commercially, I'd say you're an idiot to use uncleared samples if there's any chance it's recognisable. If it's not recogniseable than go ahead - but you still take a risk, because if you do become rich and famous and someone you work with spills the beans...you can rest assured someone out there will want their pound of flesh, and credit to them for chasing uncleared theft of their work.

If you're all for freedom of using others' sounds, then you can put it into practice when your material is out there and you can let anyone sample it. But whatever you feel about your own freedom, it is still irrelevant to you using others work.

And as for the contextual references of different studio sound etc - don't you even consider the fact that the band you sampled from has paid their own money for that studio time, and your sampling has ripped that off? Labels don't "give" studio time to any band. That band pays for it, whether out of advances or royalties, and it is all recoupable by the lable. Ripping it off is reaping benefit from someone else's wallet.

I'm not going to get off my high horsey. Sampling without clearance is either theft of music and/or theft of paid studio time. If you want the reference of the sound of a $10,000/hour studio - some other poor fcuker paid that to get that sound. The label didn't pay it - the artist did. "But I'm not using their music, I'm just using their sound..." It IS their music and they paid for their sound. You didn't.

Dude, rather than going into great detail about the economics of WHY your are wrong, I'll just sum it up like this:

1. every download does not equal a loss of sale. That's a fact!

2. there is such a thing as "complementary" goods in that a rise in demand for one good, increases the demand for the other. (like ketchup and mustard)

3. It's quite obvious that rather being in direct competition, both the sampled original and the new work that uses the sample are complements to one another.

4. Property rights, like all rights are NOT ABSOLUTE. In other words, sometimes the public good supersedes the exercise of a given right (like the right to control one's intellectual property). So even though the person who owns the copyright to a recording feels that he/she is entitled to property rights, if a gain in social utility is possible by relaxing these property rights to allow for limited sampling (which many who advocate the free-flow of culture believe), then by all means society should do just that, regardless of what the copyright maximalist feels.

My friend, you quite simply lack the knowledge to properly weigh the cost/benefit of sampling in terms of both dollars and social utility. Your clutching to "property-rights" like it was a sacred cow is your ultimate downfall. Yes, protection of IP is important, but only so far as to improve social welfare. Any protection greater than this is detrimental to society, and thus shouldn't be allowed. I find that many IP maximalists are quite ignorant in all things but their own self-interest, and thus should STFU. So that's my advice to you...

ATA

[atomic_(no)afro]

PS, FLAME ON!

[advaya]

PS, FLAME ON!

OK... You're a dork!

Just kidding... some sensible points in that post there...

Sensibility alone will get you nowhere in life though... You gotta have the looks to back your opinions!

[DWb]

Hmmm yes but if you are only dealing with "microsound" then I'd argue their are many legitimate legal sample sources that will still enable you too achieve the end result.

I'm not quite sure how 'micro' you consider 'microsound' to be (and I was talking about any samples other than actually lifting an entire tune and not changing anything significant), but I would still say that you'd have trouble getting the sudden jerks of invoking a whole musical tradition and culture through a 1 second sample of Lee Perry or Sandy Denny without using the illegal samples.

I agree with you that illegal samples aren't neccessary for creativity, but I would say that they're a very useful tool, make my life a lot easier, open up creative possibilities, and don't harm the original artist, and so it is morally okay (and should be legally okay) for me or a commercial artist to use them. Why deprive yourself of an option just because you have oither options? Do you refuse to play the guitar because of the amazing possibilities of violin, piano and bass?

[kritikon]

I agree with you that illegal samples aren't neccessary for creativity, but I would say that they're a very useful tool, make my life a lot easier, open up creative possibilities, and don't harm the original artist, and so it is morally okay (and should be legally okay) for me or a commercial artist to use them. Why deprive yourself of an option just because you have oither options? Do you refuse to play the guitar because of the amazing possibilities of violin, piano and bass?

Unfortunately I hear those exact same reasons as to why warez are OK too. "Wouldn't buy it anyway", "makes life easier", "don't want to deprive myself of tools others use".
I just don't see any difference.

Dude, rather than going into great detail about the economics of WHY your are wrong, I'll just sum it up like this:

1. every download does not equal a loss of sale. That's a fact!

2. there is such a thing as "complementary" goods in that a rise in demand for one good, increases the demand for the other. (like ketchup and mustard)

3. It's quite obvious that rather being in direct competition, both the sampled original and the new work that uses the sample are complements to one another.

4. Property rights, like all rights are NOT ABSOLUTE. In other words, sometimes the public good supersedes the exercise of a given right (like the right to control one's intellectual property). So even though the person who owns the copyright to a recording feels that he/she is entitled to property rights, if a gain in social utility is possible by relaxing these property rights to allow for limited sampling (which many who advocate the free-flow of culture believe), then by all means society should do just that, regardless of what the copyright maximalist feels.

My friend, you quite simply lack the knowledge to properly weigh the cost/benefit of sampling in terms of both dollars and social utility. Your clutching to "property-rights" like it was a sacred cow is your ultimate downfall. Yes, protection of IP is important, but only so far as to improve social welfare. Any protection greater than this is detrimental to society, and thus shouldn't be allowed. I find that many IP maximalists are quite ignorant in all things but their own self-interest, and thus should STFU. So that's my advice to you...

Why should I waste the effort flaming you for such obvious trolling? TBH I had a good laugh at that. Sample ripping is for the social good? Hahahahaha...good one.


I want to use your computer because it's better than mine. I'm going to make music people will like...therefore it's my right to nick your PC mate. Argument proven.

I think this is the first time I've actually ever written ... LOL.

[DWb]

I agree with you that illegal samples aren't neccessary for creativity, but I would say that they're a very useful tool, make my life a lot easier, open up creative possibilities, and don't harm the original artist, and so it is morally okay (and should be legally okay) for me or a commercial artist to use them. Why deprive yourself of an option just because you have oither options? Do you refuse to play the guitar because of the amazing possibilities of violin, piano and bass?

Unfortunately I hear those exact same reasons as to why warez are OK too. "Wouldn't buy it anyway", "makes life easier", "don't want to deprive myself of tools others use".
I just don't see any difference.

I just don't see any similarity. 'Don't harm the original artist' is the big point. If everyone used warez, then there would be no incentive for developers to spend time and money developing good software.

On the other hand, if lots of people sample (say) reggae records, it doesn't remove the incentive for reggae bands to produce more records. 'Well, I was thinking of producing a new tune and trying to make it into a hit and make lots of money off it, but someone might incorporate a small part of it into a sampledelic mashup, so I've decided not to.' It would only plausibly be an issue if me sampling a Lee Perry tune made people less likely to buy a Lee Perry record. Which arguably does happen, because it increases the number of records that are available for people to buy. But this would occur to a degree that's pretty much negligable, and probably on a scale that would be counteracted by, say, the small amount of publicity it would generate for the original artist among sample spotting anoraks. Or in fact the number of people buying the original records to sample. (This would be better for the original artists if I could credit my samples without fear of getting sued, but I can't.)