A few thoughts I'd like to share with you...

[declassified]

How it came to this:
I'm 18 years now and I've been taking piano lessons for the past eight years. About three years ago, I started listening to blues music and at about that time I figured I could make my "own" music. I'd just sit on the piano and press random notes of the blues scale . Blues wasn't in the charts or in the youth magazines, but that didn't matter. From the day I first played my "own" blues, my piano abilities began to degenerate to a certain degree where I couldn't play Bach and Mozart anymore without introducing a slight amount of swing. When I changed to a different piano teacher and started learning jazz standards, I got to know the 70's jazz-funk era (Herbie Hancock, Roy Ayers, Gary Bartz, etc). When I heard songs from Lonnie Liston Smith and LTJ Bukem on the same compilation I noticed a strong similarity but I didn't know that only one of them was a "real" musician.
One year ago, I got to know the musical possibilites of my computer. I'd just sit on the MIDI keyboard and press keys and partially replace my piano. The only difference was that this time, the keys were triggering (piano) sound files. They weren't made by me but they still sounded like a piano.
When I got to know electronica, I started to recognize sound bits that were stolen from my old jazz-funk songs! As an uneducated fool, the word "thievery" was the first to come to my mind.
Making music with my computer, I came into the persistant demand of drums. I could play melodies, chord progressions and basslines on my keyboard using soundfonts (made by someone else) and VSTi plugins, but since I didn't like synthesized drums, there were only two possibilities: Either get a real drumkit and learn how to play it OR steal them from somewhere.
Note that I didn't mean "steal" as in "to steal something from a store" but rather from an artist's viewpoint. Paying $25 for a drumloop sample CD wouldn't prevent me from using the word "to steal".
After some google research I noticed that there were audio files available for download that had the same names as the old jazz-funk songs. Comparing the audio files to LTJ Bukem's music I noticed that he had stolen his drums! Strangely I had never asked myself how one man could play all these instruments when I listened to Bukem's tracks because his music seemed so similar to Lonnie Liston Smith, from who I know that he was a keyboarder with a real band.
So I was stealing drum rhythm someone else had played. Was it still my music? Could I put my own name as the author of the song? Of course not, but everytime I listened to LTJ Bukem's music I felt that he could.
Thinking about it, every thought seemed to lead to another question. I won't mention my whole line of thoughts here (can't remember it) but I came to the following conclusion:

(1) I am not the only creator of my tracks. Never. Even if I don't explicitly steal something from someone using a sampler, I'm still deliberately influenced by any sound I have ever heard and I will neccessarily include this influence into my songs.

(2) Re-read (1). Above I mentioned the differenct between artistic "to steal" and the law term "to steal". While sampling (copyrighted material) may be forbidden or at least heavily restriced by the law, after all there is no law that restricts or forbids thoughts or influence.

(3) Isn't any artist including influences from any sound he has heard before (from some more than from others)? If so, it can't be of any interest whether he is including these influences by sampling sound bits from his musical predecessors and putting different sources together this way or whether he is creating "his own" melodies, chord progressions or basslines as a result or mixture of every sound he has listened to before. If he is sampling, the variety of things he does with his samples can be compared to what we call "unique" or "personal" style of artists.

(4) Once the artist doesn't claim anymore that he is the only creator of the music he makes he is allowed (from an artistic, now from the law's viewpoint) to sample a phrase of any length as long as the following applies:
a.) The artist he samples from agrees with my viewpoint of artistic ownership. He will most likely be grateful that his music is revived and further developed. As long as the sampling artist doesn't claim that he is the only creator of the music he makes and as long as he doesn't earn any money from it, the artist that is sampled from will not suffer from any kind of theft (money or honour).
b.) He (the sampling artist) would allow others to do the same he did with his music, as long as they don't claim to be the only creators of "their" music, either.
c.) Anything a sampling artist does can be justified by the "categoric imperative" (don't know exactly how it's called in english) by Immanuel Kant.

(5) When I distribute a record in the future I will most likely label it as if it was a compilation (=mix) compiled by me.

(6) When I distribute the record, perhaps I'll include a booklet in which any sample I used is names and the original author of the sample is credited. Of course this would restrict me from giving the record to an unlimited audience, so I'm not yet 100% sure about that.

(7) When I distribute the record, I will not earn any money from it. Fortunately I live with my parents and I don't have to earn money through music. Unfortunately, there are others who have to.

(8 ) Point #7 leads to the following problem: Once the artist earns any money by his music, these points don't apply anymore because people would shamelessly copy other artists' work by the pursuit of money, without taking care of point 4c.

(9) The artist needs to survive. Thus, he either needs a job apart from his musical activities OR some kind of subvention from the state.

(10) Subventions and communism have one thing in common: They get exploited by people. Everyone is egoistic to a certain degree and wouldn't sacrifice his wealth for the sake of community.

Again, I want to make clear that I don't want to force anyone to think the way I do. I'm just posting this because I need a solution for the problem that evolved.

If you're further interested I recommend the book "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig.

[vurt]

the way i see it,sample theft ie taking a loop from a prerecorded track,this is usually illegal if done without clearance.it is only theft in a legal sense.

ignoring the legality and moving onto artistic morality i suppose you may call it,well if you were just looping that one loop over and over no fx no nothing then no i dont see as you have had any artistic input,if however you mould that loop using slicing,fx whatever and add something to it therefore making your mark then yes you are using a tool to create something of your own.

dismissing the legal side so lets say we used a loops cd copyright free-you wanna just glue tonnes of loops together and call it your own then maybe your hedgin your bets,you use a few of these loops(tools) to add to your composition then carry one.

what i would suggest is that if you do feel this way about it why not list every tool you use?
from synths to samples,as long as you credit people where its due no problem surely?

just some random stoner thoughts after reading through...

[Spe3D]

How it came to this:
I'm 18 years now and I've been taking piano lessons for the past eight years. About three years ago, I started listening to blues music and at about that time I figured I could make my "own" music. I'd just sit on the piano and press random notes of the blues scale . Blues wasn't in the charts or in the youth magazines, but that didn't matter. From the day I first played my "own" blues, my piano abilities began to degenerate to a certain degree where I couldn't play Bach and Mozart anymore without introducing a slight amount of swing. When I changed to a different piano teacher and started learning jazz standards, I got to know the 70's jazz-funk era (Herbie Hancock, Roy Ayers, Gary Bartz, etc). When I heard songs from Lonnie Liston Smith and LTJ Bukem on the same compilation I noticed a strong similarity but I didn't know that only one of them was a "real" musician.
One year ago, I got to know the musical possibilites of my computer. I'd just sit on the MIDI keyboard and press keys and partially replace my piano. The only difference was that this time, the keys were triggering (piano) sound files. They weren't made by me but they still sounded like a piano.
When I got to know electronica, I started to recognize sound bits that were stolen from my old jazz-funk songs! As an uneducated fool, the word "thievery" was the first to come to my mind.
Making music with my computer, I came into the persistant demand of drums. I could play melodies, chord progressions and basslines on my keyboard using soundfonts (made by someone else) and VSTi plugins, but since I didn't like synthesized drums, there were only two possibilities: Either get a real drumkit and learn how to play it OR steal them from somewhere.
Note that I didn't mean "steal" as in "to steal something from a store" but rather from an artist's viewpoint. Paying $25 for a drumloop sample CD wouldn't prevent me from using the word "to steal".
After some google research I noticed that there were audio files available for download that had the same names as the old jazz-funk songs. Comparing the audio files to LTJ Bukem's music I noticed that he had stolen his drums! Strangely I had never asked myself how one man could play all these instruments when I listened to Bukem's tracks because his music seemed so similar to Lonnie Liston Smith, from who I know that he was a keyboarder with a real band.
So I was stealing drum rhythm someone else had played. Was it still my music? Could I put my own name as the author of the song? Of course not, but everytime I listened to LTJ Bukem's music I felt that he could.
Thinking about it, every thought seemed to lead to another question. I won't mention my whole line of thoughts here (can't remember it) but I came to the following conclusion:

(1) I am not the only creator of my tracks. Never. Even if I don't explicitly steal something from someone using a sampler, I'm still deliberately influenced by any sound I have ever heard and I will neccessarily include this influence into my songs.

(2) Re-read (1). Above I mentioned the differenct between artistic "to steal" and the law term "to steal". While sampling (copyrighted material) may be forbidden or at least heavily restriced by the law, after all there is no law that restricts or forbids thoughts or influence.

(3) Isn't any artist including influences from any sound he has heard before (from some more than from others)? If so, it can't be of any interest whether he is including these influences by sampling sound bits from his musical predecessors and putting different sources together this way or whether he is creating "his own" melodies, chord progressions or basslines as a result or mixture of every sound he has listened to before. If he is sampling, the variety of things he does with his samples can be compared to what we call "unique" or "personal" style of artists.

(4) Once the artist doesn't claim anymore that he is the only creator of the music he makes he is allowed (from an artistic, now from the law's viewpoint) to sample a phrase of any length as long as the following applies:
a.) The artist he samples from agrees with my viewpoint of artistic ownership. He will most likely be grateful that his music is revived and further developed. As long as the sampling artist doesn't claim that he is the only creator of the music he makes and as long as he doesn't earn any money from it, the artist that is sampled from will not suffer from any kind of theft (money or honour).
b.) He (the sampling artist) would allow others to do the same he did with his music, as long as they don't claim to be the only creators of "their" music, either.
c.) Anything a sampling artist does can be justified by the "categoric imperative" (don't know exactly how it's called in english) by Immanuel Kant.

(5) When I distribute a record in the future I will most likely label it as if it was a compilation (=mix) compiled by me.

(6) When I distribute the record, perhaps I'll include a booklet in which any sample I used is names and the original author of the sample is credited. Of course this would restrict me from giving the record to an unlimited audience, so I'm not yet 100% sure about that.

(7) When I distribute the record, I will not earn any money from it. Fortunately I live with my parents and I don't have to earn money through music. Unfortunately, there are others who have to.

(8 ) Point #7 leads to the following problem: Once the artist earns any money by his music, these points don't apply anymore because people would shamelessly copy other artists' work by the pursuit of money, without taking care of point 4c.

(9) The artist needs to survive. Thus, he either needs a job apart from his musical activities OR some kind of subvention from the state.

(10) Subventions and communism have one thing in common: They get exploited by people. Everyone is egoistic to a certain degree and wouldn't sacrifice his wealth for the sake of community.

Again, I want to make clear that I don't want to force anyone to think the way I do. I'm just posting this because I need a solution for the problem that evolved.

If you're further interested I recommend the book "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig.

So in short – you think its ok to steal, or use, other peoples work without asking them – and if they are dead, even better excuse (forget the record label in this instance) – right?

This is some kind of justification for your own actions – right?

Personally I think it comes down to – do you respect your fellow artist or not?

If you do – for sure stealing their work is not cool

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

[topaz]

was that even an issue here ?

So in short

[trappist]

......I'm getting a headache.

[topaz]

funny I jumped straight to Peters reply

original was something about sampling and piano lessons for 8 years ? dont quite add up, but.

......I'm getting a headache.

[original flipper]

HI

You are being far to superficial here, another avenue might be to consider the tree that went into making your piano - you have robbed mother nature to create a synthetic mechanism which you then prise a sound from - and then have the cheek to call it your own?



Flipper.

[Whoomph]

What about the person who invented (modified) the piano as we know it today,
did he or his family (as I'm sure they're now dead) get any intellectual property royalties for this idea being copied??.

TBH I think it's a case of do on to others as you would like others to do onto you ,and try and imagine if someone "stole" your original idea, or if they plain asked you and offered you a mention/royalty.
so I agree with everything that has been said in the answers to your questions, yes even the headache one.
Plus I never give up on the "everything will never be done"/"there'll always be something new" or at least anew way of doing it argument.I mean look at "the edge" (guitarist for U2) I bet their were people who thought that everything you could do on a guitar was going to sound
a lot like something that had been done before, then this guy comes along admits to BB king in the late eighties that he doesn't know any blues or jazz riffs ( ok so he does now )meanwhile he's been playing guitar in a successfull rock band for ten years previous to this ??????
And IMO and (I do like my jazz) I can't find anyone from before herbie hancock that sounds like herbie hancock and the same with miles davis.
I think sometimes it's not what you play/or use
but the way that you play/use it.

Sorry I don't even know if all of that was on topic,
Apologies in advance , I'm in the middle of trying my shiny new m42 nebula that I won from Algomusic.
need sleep ! must stop playing very cool new synth!!

--

Give to the people affected by the tsunami by buying the resonance cd or the sound design cds,
it's going to take a bit more than paople giving to charity for a few months to help these people.


--

Give these guys some money, get top knotch patches for your fav vst instruments and give to charity at the same time
Click below
http://www.lesproductionszvon.com/
Les Productions ZVON

[WoJ]

There was a discussion on drum loops/sampling and the legality and morality of it all a while back on the forums somewhere...cant find the link tho.

Anywho, its like if two people play the same piano. They are using the same medium to create 2 different tunes, is the piano maker the one who owns whoever uses his piano?? Of course not.

The difficulty in electroicaly produced music is determining when a piece of data becomes the property of one person. Is it one key sample in a soundfont of a piano? Or is it a 30 second drum loop, or a 2 min song???

But say you created a piece that sounded soo similar to another piece somewhere in the world and even uses the same chord sequence and a v.similar melody.(even though you have never heard the other piece in your entire life) Is it your song, are you still allowed to publish it and say its yours??

To be honest i dont realy care....and alot of people never think about using soundfonts..samples...or anything. The majority of people just use them regardless and they never even question about the morality of it all. Nine times out of ten people dont even know if they are breaking any laws when sampling (or even dloading mp3's etc) because the law is so complex and is so unheard of.

WoJ

[declassified]

Thanks for your replies. I'm not able to answer all of them now, but something I'd like to reply to is:

But say you created a piece that sounded soo similar to another piece somewhere in the world and even uses the same chord sequence and a v.similar melody.(even though you have never heard the other piece in your entire life) Is it your song, are you still allowed to publish it and say its yours??

I'm not sure whether I understood you well, but point #4 forbids the artist to claim that the music is "his".

So in short ? you think its ok to steal, or use, other peoples work without asking them ? and if they are dead, even better excuse (forget the record label in this instance) ? right?

No. It's very important that you ask the artist if he agrees with your viewpoint of artistic ownership before taking something from him. After all, I can't expect from other to think the same way I do.
But thanks a lot for pointing to the topic "record labels". I haven't thought of them...how do they properly fit into all this?