question about glitch and copyright stuff

[kritikon]

Yes, but it's still irrelevant that you're not harming the originator of the music. If you don't get permission, you're still infringing their rights.

And that's a big point...permission. It's so easy to assume you won't get permission and therefore just sample away. Permission to use samples is often really not that difficult, and often costs absolutely nothing. It's the effort of getting them cleared that seems to be a hurdle for some samplers. Ain't that sad? And the other hurdle is some samplists don't want to pay even a small part of any profits they may or may not make to the originator...well that's not any goodness or social crusading..it's greed plain and simple.
So the choice is the originator has greed and wants to make money out of their own hard work (by charging for sampling of their work)
Or the samplist has greed and wants to make money out of someone else's hard work.

Out of those 2 types of greed, I prefer the former - at least they made all of their own music. And as said by someone else here - there is never only one option of having to sample somebody else's work to get a particular sound. There are hundreds of ways of achieving a particular sound usually. Sampling is just the easiest.

Personally I think you should clear all samples for commercial use, as is the law. I know the reality is that if it's going to be completely unrecognisable, then clearance won't be sought. I don't have to like it though, and nobody should be proud of doing it.

[DWb]

Yes, but it's still irrelevant that you're not harming the originator of the music. If you don't get permission, you're still infringing their rights.

Do you mean 'rights' in a legal sense, or in the sense of 'basic human rights'? Because I really don't feel that sampling someone's music is on the same level as, say, depriving them of their freedom of speech or right to live free from fear of violence. It was written into the law in the interests of society as a whole (cf the US constitution, for instance), and IMO those interests aren't best served by a restrictive copyright regime.

And the other hurdle is some samplists don't want to pay even a small part of any profits they may or may not make to the originator...well that's not any goodness or social crusading..it's greed plain and simple.

Not any more than it's greed not to pay the guy who made my bass or wrote my VSTs or the bloke down the street who I've never met any part of the profits. If I make a fat stack of cash off a record, then I could give it all to the cat sanctuary or I could keep it and roll around naked in it. I probably would donate some to writers of donationware VSTs that I'd used. If someone set up a donationware-esque thing for samples then I might donate to that if I felt that the sample had been particularly important. But I wouldn't want to have to go through every bloody sample source on every track checking that they don't want any money (and possibly then have to rejig the whole track to be slightly less good if any of them do) just in case it turns out to be a surprise hit, or have to argue with their heavy lawyers later about the fine points of musicology and why the ten sample sources on the track don't deserve 20% of the profits each.

[kritikon]

But I wouldn't want to have to go through every bloody sample source on every track checking that they don't want any money (and possibly then have to rejig the whole track to be slightly less good if any of them do) just in case it turns out to be a surprise hit, or have to argue with their heavy lawyers later about the fine points of musicology and why the ten sample sources on the track don't deserve 20% of the profits each.

Exactly what I've been saying. Nobody can be bothered to be honest and do it the decent way. It's just easier. It's just easier to use warez too.....

[DWb]

But I wouldn't want to have to go through every bloody sample source on every track checking that they don't want any money (and possibly then have to rejig the whole track to be slightly less good if any of them do) just in case it turns out to be a surprise hit, or have to argue with their heavy lawyers later about the fine points of musicology and why the ten sample sources on the track don't deserve 20% of the profits each.

Exactly what I've been saying. Nobody can be bothered to be honest and do it the decent way. It's just easier. It's just easier to use warez too.....

It's not the same as warez use for reasons I explained above and that you didn't bother to refute before insinuating that it was again.

And as I said in the first place, yes it is easier. Yes I am lazy. I don't feel that not clearing a sample is in any way dishonest or not decent or in any way against my moral principles because it doesn't harm the originator, and because I'm not trying to pass anyone else's idea off as my own - I'd be more than happy to credit samples if the legal situation made it safer to do so. And if something is easier to do, enables me to create music in the way that I want, and does not contradict my moral principles (or result in me getting sued), I'll do it.

I'd also go so far as to say that these particular moral principles (don't deprive the samplee of the income from selling the tune that the sample came from, don't claim it was your work when it wasn't) are pretty similar to the ones that copyright law should, in a world where it's not written by large corporations trying to squeeze everything they can get out of anyone they can get it out of, be based on.

[tetraplan]

Yes, but it's still irrelevant that you're not harming the originator of the music. If you don't get permission, you're still infringing their rights.

Then again, using the sample without permission may be the point.

Groet, Erik

[Amberience]

Yes, but it's still irrelevant that you're not harming the originator of the music. If you don't get permission, you're still infringing their rights.

Then again, using the sample without permission may be the point.

Groet, Erik

Thanks for saying that...

y'know this reminds me of the joke Bill Hicks made... "woohoo! Government sponsered rock and roll! Woohoo! We're partying now!"

For whatever reason, some people (and I include myself) like to rock the boat. Sampling without permission is only an extension of this.

I very much doubt Aldous Huxley would care that I'm sampling his voice to prove points he made.

However.. if you're gonna sample Guns and Roses, you deserve to be f**king sued

[Amberience]

at least they made all of their own music. And as said by someone else here - there is never only one option of having to sample somebody else's work to get a particular sound. There are hundreds of ways of achieving a particular sound usually. Sampling is just the easiest.

If you can show me how to synthesize the sound of Shakespeare's penis entering his dear wifey, then sure, I'll synthesize it.

On the charge of them making their own music... WRONG. Without the people in the past making music, their music would not have come about.

Without Mozart, I would not have been able to compose any of my music.

So yes, our predecessors deserve acknowledgement - something money doesn't even enter into.

[shamann]

If you can show me how to synthesize the sound of Shakespeare's penis entering his dear wifey, then sure, I'll synthesize it.

Wait a minute, you ripped a sample of that somewhere?

[tetraplan]

if you're gonna sample Guns and Roses, you deserve to be fkucing sued

Dunno, sounds like something V/Vm would do. Then again, it's not unlikely V/Vm would get sued over it.

Groet, Erik