Main Forums >> Recording Techniques
        Print Thread

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Sampling - theft or creative re-use?
      #500164 - 11/08/07 05:44 PM
I came across this short documentary on You Tube:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mBfkFNpknI

It's a one-sided argument for the pro-samplers. I would like to have seen the argument put for those who have had their work copied, and especially from those who have sued.

The documentary strives very hard to convince us all that copying someone elses work is okay. I'm not sure that it succeeds for me.

There is the question of "extent" which is only alluded to in the documentary, and which I think should have been explored further. One commentator states that if an artist samples a snare drum from a Rolling Stones record, should the Rolling Stones be entitled to 100% of the remix royalties? Unfortunately, the documentary does not explore the query any further. That's a shame, because if there is a justification for sampling without obtaining consent, everything must come down to the extent of the music being sampled.

It's an interesting documentary nonetheless, whatever your views on this controversial subject.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
ghellquist



Joined: 09/09/04
Posts: 628
Loc: Stockolm, Sweden
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500166 - 11/08/07 05:51 PM
What contriversy? The "bling-bling" rappers like burning a lot of money. They clearly make them somehow. So, clear the samples or rerecord them. Simple as that!

Gunnar


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: ghellquist]
      #500169 - 11/08/07 05:53 PM
Quote ghellquist:

What contriversy? The "bling-bling" rappers like burning a lot of money. They clearly make them somehow. So, clear the samples or rerecord them. Simple as that!

Gunnar





Okay, but what do you think about the documentary. Did it win you over? If not, why not?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
John Willett
Sound-Link ProAudio


Joined: 07/03/00
Posts: 12454
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500173 - 11/08/07 06:17 PM
Sampling is theft - full stop.

If you sample it should be done with credit given and fee paid.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
dementedchord



Joined: 27/08/06
Posts: 319
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500180 - 11/08/07 06:29 PM
total bullshit... if they could write something... we'll actuall i'm not sure that they would... intellectually dishonest..... is it less plagaristic because it's a snippet??? not for me... just more dumbing down as far as i'm concerned...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: John Willett]
      #500181 - 11/08/07 06:31 PM
Quote John Willett:

Sampling is theft - full stop.

If you sample it should be done with credit given and fee paid.





John, I agree with you. What did you think of the documentary?

Towards the end, the documentary seemed to be striving after a change in the law, whereby the "extent" of the copying is taken into account. Is this an argument that you think has any merit? Is the sampling of one snare drum hit substantively the same as sampling a melody line? Should the law be applied in the same way regardless? If so, how could it effectively be policed (on the basis that you'd probably never know where the snare drum came from anyway)?

Does it make any difference that the hip-hop chaps in the documentary were using vinyl records only for scratching "textures" and were not at all interested in playing or recording the actual melodies on the records?

Is there any point whatsoever in my trying to create a sensible debate on this subject, or is it simply going to turn into a mono-sylabic, pavolovian-knee-jerk-response "all sampling is theft" tread?

Watch the documentary. It is not, as far as I can tell, about the blind (or bland) copying of music, rather the reuse of music to add textures to original songs.

Or is it all the same thing?

We all know what the law says. The documentary pays lip service to the current laws on copyright. Does the law need clarifying in order to differentiate between different types of sample usage? Or is all use to be considered illegal?

Constructive comments, please!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: dementedchord]
      #500183 - 11/08/07 06:34 PM
Quote dementedchord:

total bullshit... if they could write something... we'll actuall i'm not sure that they would... intellectually dishonest..... is it less plagaristic because it's a snippet??? not for me... just more dumbing down as far as i'm concerned...





Excellent comment. But what did you think of the documentary?

Is there merit at all in any of what you saw/heard?

Is "scratching" the same as simply copying a loop and playing it back as the main back-bone of a track?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Steve Hill
member


Joined: 07/01/03
Posts: 13141
Loc: Oxfordshire
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500185 - 11/08/07 06:51 PM
Sampling a single snare drum hit is not just dumb, it's lazy. Even I can hit a snare drum once, record it, and process it to come up with the desired sound. So why nick say Charlie Watts doing it?

From that point we move to more than one hit, but really it's still lazy. I have never seen any musical merit in it because of this (for me) insuperable objection.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
table for two
active member


Joined: 24/03/02
Posts: 5902
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500192 - 11/08/07 07:07 PM
Shortest route to where ever.



Brief :

Want a 60's drum sound that sounds elemental with matching ambience.
Suitable bassline played by a funked up jazz rock mutant.
Keys from a far out dude called Zeus.



Realisation:

Dang haven't got the skills nor the musicianship to do dat.
Nor the talent, nor gear, nor the recording techinques.



Result:

*Bling*
I know ... I'll sample.
Hey thats creativity right ...
I mean I've just gotta find the exact groove and the exact bassline and the exact keys from hundreds of records.
Man that takes rare skill.
Then I gotta chop it up and glue it all together.



Man so glad I went to kindergarten to learn how to cut n paste ... with Pritt Stick ...
That reminds me ... time for a sniff.




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
John Willett
Sound-Link ProAudio


Joined: 07/03/00
Posts: 12454
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: table for two]
      #500196 - 11/08/07 07:12 PM


Got it in one.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
audioartist



Joined: 08/09/06
Posts: 505
Loc: herts
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve Hill]
      #500205 - 11/08/07 07:25 PM
they argue that sampling is more about stealing the sound than the musical ideas

but i think if the sampled piece is longer than a bar in length that constitutes stealing a musical idea and should be paid for

whereas a sample less than a bar is more like stealing a sound, so should that be paid for?

im not sure...

sounds exist in nature, so should be free but musical ideas dont so should be paid for...

tricky subject

its like, if a man is photographed walking down the street and that picture is put in an art gallery and sold for £10,000

should the man receive anything? the law says no and that by leaving your house you have no expectations of privacy

so by publishing your music, isn't that similar?

just my two cents


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: audioartist]
      #500208 - 11/08/07 07:33 PM
Quote audioartist:

...if a man is photographed walking down the street and that picture is put in an art gallery and sold for £10,000

should the man receive anything? the law says no and that by leaving your house you have no expectations of privacy

so by publishing your music, isn't that similar?




All the man has done is to have light bounce off him... we all do that as long as the sun's up.

The composers and performers on the other hand did somewhat more than that... so there's no similarity.

If we all made music whenever light bounced off us you'd have an argument... and I don't mean JMJ's laser keyboard.

But strictly speaking sampling (without a license) is not theft... it's infringement.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: John Willett]
      #500215 - 11/08/07 07:44 PM
If musicians had the same attitude to chord sequences as a lot of engineers and producers seem to have to sampling - namely "screw you buddy!" - then no music would ever get written for fear of infringing copyright. Certainly, whoever came up with the 12 bar blues sequence would be pretty rich...

Why is using a small fragment of a recording a cardinal sin, yet ripping off a chord sequence considered fair game? What makes the intellectual property of an engineer worth more than that of a composer?

In addition, has anyone ever tried clearing copyright for anything? Maybe not exactly the same, but I recently tried contacting a book publisher to see if I could get permission to use a quote from a book as a band name. Weeks later and no reply.

The failure to introduce fair use laws for sampling had a hugely negative effect on hip-hop and other sample based genres, ensuring that the only artists who could continue to sample legally were those artists on the labels with the clout and finance to clear each and every sample. To quote Naomi Klein in No Logo:

"When Beck, a major-label artist, makes an album parked with hundreds of samples, Warner Music clears the rights to each and every piece of the audio collage and the work is lauded for capturing the media-saturated, multi-referenced sounds of our age. But when independent artists do the same thing, trying to cut and paste together art from their branded lives... it's criminalized - defined as theft, not art."

Copyright laws on sampling at the moment serve only to create a look-but-don't-touch culture. Regardless of the morality of 'stealing' samples (steal? does it magically disappear from the original record or something...), consider the power of music making to bring meaning and purpose to people's lives, combined with the popularity of sampling in 'urban' music.

Surely it is more beneficial to society as a whole, that sampling is tolerated to some degree, than to render this form of creativity illegal (or at least prohibitively expensive) to the vast majority of musicians?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
__
Who's never been here


Joined: 28/11/02
Posts: 6263
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500230 - 11/08/07 08:01 PM
I'm not anti sampling, it's just another art form and theres nothing intrinsically wrong with this kind of collage - you can't un-ring the bell. I am however for paying and giving credit to the original artist.

Matt Black sums it up for me, and makes the strongest case for the against free usage [appropriation] camp. He says, "a good appropriated sample has those two qualities. It has a good quality of it's own, and it has a strong reference that evokes cultural resonance aswell."

Thats the whole problem. These guys arent searching through a load of old never hasbeen disks looking for a decent sound because they don't have the resources to record the sound themselves. One could argue all the usual arguments about copyright theft if they did just that, but one could also be a little bit more forgiving because they would just using whats around to make something new - that would be to me a true and innocent collage, using things which have been shown over time to have little value in retrospect, a bit like going through a skip.

However, they arent just looking through the skip, they are looking through the french windows and eyeing up the silver.

A good appropriated sample has those two qualities. It has a good quality of it's own, and it has a strong reference that evokes cultural resonance aswell.

This means that they are taking something far more important and valuable than just a sound, they are looking first for a good sound, one that is well played and recorded and works in the context of their track. Now i don't know about you, but ive slaved for hours to play and record something 'just right', yes its just a little flick or the finger that nails it just so, but it can be a lot of work and blood sweat and tears, and it can be instantly recognisable on a successful record, which brings the next point....

A good appropriated sample has those two qualities. It has a good quality of it's own, and it has a strong reference that evokes cultural resonance aswell.

Thats the real sh!tter afaic. What goes into that? How much work, good will, promotion, longevity, skill, tears, broken marriages, addictions, life even, goes into giving a sound a strong cultural reference? It's like peeling off someones face and then shagging their missus! Slapping their trading name on your record cover and promotional material and 'being them'. To me its the worst kind of theft because they arent just stealing a thing, they are stealing along with it the things that make the thing great in the first place.

And as we know, once a sample of any length has been used on a successful record, its grafted into the public consiousness, and it takes something away from the original.

I say okay, use it if you must, but get permission and pay. And, give the original artist[s] the right to withdraw their permission when they hear your finished piece.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Steve House



Joined: 25/06/06
Posts: 65
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500232 - 11/08/07 08:03 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

...
Surely it is more beneficial to society as a whole, that sampling is tolerated to some degree, than to render this form of creativity illegal (or at least prohibitively expensive) to the vast majority of musicians?




As far as I know, no one is trying to making the use of samples illegal. They're simply saying if you DO use them, the original creators deserve to be compensated for their contribution. If a band sells a record would it be fair that only some of the musicians get paid? Likewise, if you release a song that could not exist in that form except for the contribution made by the person whose work you have sampled - you couldn't have made the song the same way without the existence of the sample you used, in other words - does that person not have a right to share in the rewards?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500242 - 11/08/07 08:18 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

Copyright laws on sampling at the moment serve only to create a look-but-don't-touch culture.




Only for 'artists' who are unable to make their own art.

Quote Happyandbored:

Surely it is more beneficial to society as a whole, that sampling is tolerated to some degree...




Whoever wrote this needs to get out more. Sampling is everywhere...

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: __]
      #500246 - 11/08/07 08:33 PM
Quote ow:


I say okay, use it if you must, but pay.




It begs the question, if you're so concerned about your work being misused, why release it to the public at all?

Sampling doesn't necessarily have to be free, but there does have to be an easy and above all, affordable way of registering those samples. Otherwise copyright is no longer protecting the rights of the majority of musicians, but is in fact censoring them.

You make the point that a good sample has a "cultural resonance" - of course, that's the point! It's not particularly about making good-sounding records on the cheap, but more to make the links in the listener's mind where there were none before. All art builds on past creativity to some degree (Lessig: Free Culture), surely it's more important in this case to protect an entire form of creativity, than the rights of a few over-protective musicians?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
fletcher



Joined: 01/05/05
Posts: 1219
Loc: london
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500247 - 11/08/07 08:33 PM
Interestingly you can't copyright a chord sequence.

Just to add to this argument, some artists careers have been saved/extended by virtue of being popular sources of samples - George Clinton for example. They don't mind so long as they get the credit.

Also sometimes (it is rare I admit) I like a track that has been built on a loop more than the original - Angie Stone's "Wish I didn't Miss You" uses an O'Jays songs intro where the original isn't that memorable.

Musicians have always pinched things in the past - listen to Rod Stewarts "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" then go find a copy of the best of Bobby Womack (I forget which track) and you will find the main string line might as well have been sampled.

Personally I'm bored stiff with it, but I'm just as bored of all programmed drums - I want to hear a drummer again. Being a musician I really appreciate when the engineer gets a good drum sound - hope you all get enough practice at micing those drums these days

Is it that easy to wade through records until you find a few samples that will make a good track? I don't think I would have the patience for it. There is probably an element of hit and miss I guess.

The main music to suffer from this is soul/funk music (please don't call it urban). This is because creating those old time grooves isn't easy - those bands were hot! They could groove in a way no bunch of session musicians ever will, and to me thats the problem - when was the last time a "band" of this genre got a record deal? It's too easy to sample and get some teeny bopper to sing on top of it.

So for me I don't think the artist suffers much when their old work is sampled (it can keep them hip a while longer), rather it is music as a whole suffers as it takes away the chance for the new grooves to ever get played or developed.

Sampling itself can be artistic though - well at least as artistic as an Andy Warhol painting.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500251 - 11/08/07 08:39 PM
I was interested in the comments of one of the black hip hop artists featured in the documentary, who said that he and other poor kids used samples as their instruments. They couldn't afford to buy all the gear to make the sounds that they wanted to make their records, so they "borrowed" those sounds from other artists.

Again, the artist was not interested in copying the melodies, or the catch-lines in any of the songs, but wanted to use the textures as instruments over which to place his own songs.

Have a look at this:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvxNdhZXpI4

The musician here is using samples, but he is not simply looping those samples, rather he is using them as textures to create a new song. Even the vocal sample that he uses has been changed, so that not even the original melody is used. Also, the phrasing of the words is used to create a completely different vocal phrase.

Is this theft? Is there absolutely no case to be made out for this type of usage?

And if you are of the opinion that there is no case, can you, at the very least, admit that this is art? Does it being art justify the use of the samples?

What's the difference between this type of sampling (creative use of sounds) and Andy Warhol's exact copying of Campbell's soup tins? Who is the greater thief?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
fletcher



Joined: 01/05/05
Posts: 1219
Loc: london
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500255 - 11/08/07 08:44 PM
Andy Warhol


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve House]
      #500260 - 11/08/07 08:55 PM
Quote Steve House:

Quote Happyandbored:

...
Surely it is more beneficial to society as a whole, that sampling is tolerated to some degree, than to render this form of creativity illegal (or at least prohibitively expensive) to the vast majority of musicians?




As far as I know, no one is trying to making the use of samples illegal. They're simply saying if you DO use them, the original creators deserve to be compensated for their contribution. If a band sells a record would it be fair that only some of the musicians get paid? Likewise, if you release a song that could not exist in that form except for the contribution made by the person whose work you have sampled - you couldn't have made the song the same way without the existence of the sample you used, in other words - does that person not have a right to share in the rewards?




I don't think you really read my post properly. I did not say anywhere that artists shouldn't be paid for samples. Remember, I pointed out my own problems in trying to get permission to use a quote from a book? There is no system in place for quickly clearing copyright.

If a whole form of creativity (maybe one that some people don't like, but a lot of people do) is rendered inaccessible because it is either too difficult or too expensive to clear copyright, then that is wrong. However, If the result of an alternative system is lower revenue (not necessarily none) for the sampled artist, then so be it. That is better than wiping out a whole artform before it's even got off the ground. As it is at the moment, you'll find it very difficult to even talk to the right person about clearing the sample anyway. What about the rights of those musicians to be creative in their chosen way?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #500267 - 11/08/07 09:06 PM
Quote Rob C.:

Quote Happyandbored:

Copyright laws on sampling at the moment serve only to create a look-but-don't-touch culture.




Only for 'artists' who are unable to make their own art.

Quote Happyandbored:

Surely it is more beneficial to society as a whole, that sampling is tolerated to some degree...




Whoever wrote this needs to get out more. Sampling is everywhere...




But specifically we're talking about sampling of copyrighted sounds and the degree to which those samples are protected under law. Whether people get away with it in real life is irrelevant.

Re: Only for 'artists' who are unable to make their own art.

Yes well, Whoever wrote this needs to get out more. Sampling is everywhere...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: fletcher]
      #500273 - 11/08/07 09:15 PM
Quote fletcher:

Interestingly you can't copyright a chord sequence.





And the reason you can't copyright a chord sequence is because lawmakers realise that to do so would make it near impossible for musicians to make music - at least legally!

In a perfect world, ditto sampling.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
ghellquist



Joined: 09/09/04
Posts: 628
Loc: Stockolm, Sweden
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500284 - 11/08/07 09:32 PM
There are two different copyrights here really.
- the song (music and lyrics): copyright goes to the composer and stays for 75 years after the last composer is dead. (normally not the problem here)
- the sound (the actual recording): copyright is generally 50 years after it was first released to the public. (generally what is called samples)

There are legal details to this, but to keep it very simple - ask for permission to use the sounds before you release the songs to the public. If you cannot get permission or the price is wrong, rerecord it. Nothing is hindering any creative process here, it is only hindering the commercial process. Two different things.

Gunnar

Edited by ghellquist (11/08/07 09:34 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: ghellquist]
      #500288 - 11/08/07 09:51 PM
RE:
Nothing is hindering any creative process here, it is only hindering the commercial process. Two different things.

Rubbish! How can a musician earn a living or even get his/her work to a public audience, if he runs the risk of getting sued? Of course it is hindering the creative process.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
hollowsun



Joined: 20/01/05
Posts: 5582
Loc: Cowbridge, South Wales
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500307 - 11/08/07 11:19 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

Rubbish! How can a musician earn a living or even get his/her work to a public audience, if he runs the risk of getting sued? Of course it is hindering the creative process.



Rubbish! It's always been thus even before sampling was introduced to the masses - write a song or a melody that bears too close a resemblance to another published work and you run the risk of legal action under grounds of plagiarism (see George Harrison). Sampling other people's music to use as the foundation for your own is plagiarism writ large.

But it's not unique to the music world either. If I wrote a book called 'Barry Totter and the magician's cloak', the tale of a young orphan boy who discovers he has magic powers and has to go in search of a legendary wizard's cloak, I would get short thrift from Bloomsbury - and rightly so - especially if I had copied and pasted text from JK Rowling's books and made some changes. Do you think I'd stand a cat in hell's chance if, in court, my defence was "Well m'lud - I did have to do a lot of creative work to make the text fit my plotline"! Bollox! I would be sued big time for plagiarism, use of IP and for capitalising on a well established 'brand' and exploiting it to my commercial advantage and financial gain.

I simply don't get this application of 'sampling' - sampling someone else music and wittering over the top of it is, to me, no more creative than me drawing a moustache over a photocopy of the Mona Lisa or running Hockney's 'Bigger Splash' through some Photoshop plug in and calling it 'my own'.

I respect the skill of a good turntablist (but don't understand the appeal given that it all sounds so clichéd now) but that's a different discipline and very different to sampling whole sections of a well known song and adding your own bits. That's just a kind of 'urban karaoke' with attitude.

I was listening to some Kanye West recently and it was all primarily samples of other people's music over which he rabbitted on about motherf'ker nigger ho's and shizzle. I don't see a lot of 'art' or skill in that - in fact, I see absolutely none.

In fact, all I see is a fairly talentless individual capitalising on the 'brand' and the ''cultural resonance" of well-known songs and their creators (not to mention the stupidity of the record companies that release it, the video/radio stations that play it 24/7 and the gullibility of the people who buy it).

I don't see how you can say that copyright protection is hindering an artist's creativity when the processes he employs to make 'music' (ahem) is not creative to begin with.

But if people are going to do it, they must pay for the use not of a chord sequence or a riff or a melody but for the use of a copyrighted phonographic recording and composition. And if they can't afford that.... tuff shizzle.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: ghellquist]
      #500308 - 11/08/07 11:22 PM
Quote ghellquist:

There are two different copyrights here really.
- the song (music and lyrics): copyright goes to the composer and stays for 75 years after the last composer is dead. (normally not the problem here)
- the sound (the actual recording): copyright is generally 50 years after it was first released to the public. (generally what is called samples)





You're missing the point. With compostion, it is perfectly ok to rip off the chord sequence for a track. Hence why TV documentary makers can and often do hire musicians to make sound-a-like versions of well-known tracks, rather going through the long, drawn out and considerably more expensive process of gaining the rights to the original music. The amount of protection to the composition given by law is limited, because if it wasn't then the damage both to musicians and the music industry would be considerable.

Why should the protection granted to recordings not be similarly restricted in order to preserve other sections of the industry and other forms of creativity? The fact is that it is not easy or cheap to clear a sample, let alone a hundred. Often, it is difficult even contacting the copyright holder, let alone coming to an agreement! Where as this maybe great for the sampled musician's ego - "only I have created this sound, no one else is allowed to use it no matter how much I force it into the public arena!") - it is bad for creativity as a whole, as a human activity for us all to share in.

Ideally, I would like to see a system where by if you release a track comercially which contains samples you do not have to ask permission first. However, you are legally obliged to declare all copyrighted samples and resigster them. A percentage of royalties set by the regulating body, NOT the copyright holder, is then taken and distributed evenly to the owners of those samples. That way people are still making many from samples but any money is proportional to income. Perhaps such a system could be integrated with the MCPS or PPL?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Steve Hill
member


Joined: 07/01/03
Posts: 13141
Loc: Oxfordshire
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500309 - 11/08/07 11:24 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

Quote ow:


I say okay, use it if you must, but pay.




It begs the question, if you're so concerned about your work being misused, why release it to the public at all?




That's just silly, you also need a release - consent from the existng copyright holder. You can't just plunder it and say "here's your cheque, I've done you a favour, now go away and shut up".

Try sampling e.g. some instantly recognisable Beatles hook or something, and see if any label will touch you with a bargepole. They know the clearance will never, ever, be forthcoming. And why shouldn't the Beatles be able to veto their work being use to accompany (say) some brain-dead thug extolling the virtues of using guns to kill people? Yoko Ono might be expected to have strong views on that subject.

Respecting people's intellectual property is no different to resisting the temptation to burgle their house.

Quote Happyandbored:

Rubbish! How can a musician earn a living or even get his/her work to a public audience, if he runs the risk of getting sued? Of course it is hindering the creative process.




This is not about sampling. Copyright infringers have always been liable to being sued. Do something original and you won't get sued.

If you can't do something original you are not a musician and not worthy of the name, or the pay.

It really is that simple.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Edited by Steve Hill (11/08/07 11:34 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: hollowsun]
      #500316 - 11/08/07 11:41 PM
With respect, Hollowsun, you are looking at a very specific end of the market and IMO the shite end of the market. Most sampling that goes on, you wouldn't even know that it had happened, even if the artist had used extremely well-known sounds. That's because the samples are used as textures.

One of the things that I love about Kontakt or my VariOS is that I can load up a sample and effectively use it as an oscillator. I can change its frequencies, its formants, its tempo. I can add filters, lfos and fx. You wouldn't know what it was that I was using. It's just a sound.

Should that be illegal? And if you answer "yes" then how are you going to police it? A direct comparison with the original track and what I produce with it will reveal two completely different tracks. There has been a form of copying, but its not the type of copying anticipated by our antique copyright laws.

There are some great artists out there making some fantasticially original music, using oscillators taken from other artists work. Not because they particularly want to, or because they are lazy, or because they lack the talent to create their own music. Quite the contrary, in fact, they have immense talent, wonderful musical vision, and a great ear for music. The stuff they write is original. The main (if not the only) reason they use samples is because they can't afford a whole load of synths, guitars, drums, mixing desks, outboard gear, etc. And they haven't had the breaks in life to enable them to learn the instruments (which they can't afford, in the first place). But they can afford a MPC1000 and some second hand records that no one else will probably ever listen to anyway. But with such simple tools, they create original works.

They borrow sounds to create their own music.

Where there is an out and out copying of someone elses work, set up as loops and used as the backbone of a track, I agree with you, it is usually shoddy. Some of these tracks are little more than very poor remixes, usually with a catchy bit of the original tune loops and sped up with stupid mickey-mouse vocals, and a very dubious "rap" line interspersed.

I'm not talking about that type of rape theft. That's the type of sampling you appear to be criticising, and I don't really think you are going to have many people who will disagree with you that permission should be sought for clearance of those samples.

But what about where the lines are blurred? What about those many many occasions where the sampling artist is merely using sounds as textures? Surely the original artist suffers no damage there! Why should the law seek to compensate him? What is so illegal in what he does, when Andy Warhol's blatent photocopying of soup tins is deemed art?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: hollowsun]
      #500325 - 11/08/07 11:59 PM
Re: .. tuff shizzle.

See that kind of attitude comes across to me as a little arrogant and pretty selfish. Not you personally, but that approach in general.

We're not really talking about the plot-lines for books and Harry Potter doesn't strike me as a particularly orginal piece of fantasy anyway. However, I actually think you're wrong there - copyright law doesn't protect ideas and I suspect that that extends to characters and plot-ideas. I may be mistaken here, but it's difficult to imagine the Tolkien estate giving permission for 'Bored of the Rings' - as far as I'm aware, paradies are exempt under fair use. The Tolkien Estate did indeed succeed in forcing Gary Gygax, creator of the Dungeons and Dragons, to change several of the characters names in the game - "hobbit to halfling, ent to treant, and balrog to Type VI demon (balor)[!]" (wikipedia), but the descriptions of the creatures themselves were strangely familiar. It was basically Lord of the Rings the role play game. A total rip-off of Tolkien's work in roleplay game form, but some people love it... The point is that Gygax ripped off Tolkien and created something new that means a lot to a small minority of slightly strange people. If copyright laws affecting literature were as draconian as recording copyright, Gygax would have got his arse sued and it's likely that a whole creative industry would have got struck down in it's prime.

Once again, this concept of limited copyright exists in print as well as in music publishing, why not recording?

You say that you "don't get sampling", which is fine, but a lot of people do. Why make it more difficult for them than it already is? Don't they have the right to make music in a meaningful way too?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
hollowsun



Joined: 20/01/05
Posts: 5582
Loc: Cowbridge, South Wales
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500332 - 12/08/07 12:48 AM
Quote Happyandbored:

You're missing the point. With compostion, it is perfectly ok to rip off the chord sequence for a track.



There is no copyright or intellectual rights to a chord progression or a scale or arpeggio or even 'style'.

This, for example, is extremely creative:



This is not (IMO):



That's just blatant, unoriginal bollox designed to use and exploit a "cultural resonance" to give credence to a piece of sh!t masqueraded as 'art' created by a marketing charlatan as are (IMO) other such examples ... such as this:



Quote Happyandbored:

Ideally, I would like to see a system where by if you release a track comercially which contains samples you do not have to ask permission first.



Not gonna happen because as well as wanting to protect their IP, compositional and performance rights, artists will also want to protect their 'brand image'.

Under your scheme (unapproved usage with a royalty percentage due by default), someone could (for example) take a section from the Pet Shop Boys' 'West End Girls' and use it as the foundation for a toxic anti-gay rap (which wouldn't be the first time!). The PSBs, their record company and publishers would not sanction that.

Furthermore, how would you fix default percentages and who would determine 'usage' in any given record? Some sampled snippet may represent just 1% of a record ... or could be 95% responsible for its worldwide commercial success.

As I see it, you are trying to defend the indefensible. Sampling in this context is 'theft' of IP and copyright and exploitation of brand image, etc.. Be prepared to pay for the privilege of exploiting someone else's creativity and talent and 'brand' in your music if you want to but don't protest with some faux concept of a repression of creativity. It's a lame argument that has no legs morally or legally.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
hollowsun



Joined: 20/01/05
Posts: 5582
Loc: Cowbridge, South Wales
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500333 - 12/08/07 01:08 AM
Quote leslawrenson:

With respect, Hollowsun, you are looking at a very specific end of the market and IMO the shite end of the market.



But a very profitable one.

Quote leslawrenson:

One of the things that I love about Kontakt or my VariOS is that I can load up a sample and effectively use it as an oscillator. I can change its frequencies, its formants, its tempo. I can add filters, lfos and fx. You wouldn't know what it was that I was using. It's just a sound.

Should that be illegal?



That IS a very different argument, Les. And I have no strong opinions on it to be honest and would even veer towards some degree of acceptance in principle.

But where does one draw the line?

Sampling something, regarding that as an oscillator waveform and totally transforming and mangling it using modern DSP with skill and knowledge (or even serendipity) is one thing; routinely shoving it through a phase shifter, flanger or lowpass filter - or just using it as is looped over which you witter and claiming it as 'your own work' is another. I am sure you understand the distinction.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve Hill]
      #500334 - 12/08/07 01:09 AM
Re: That's just silly, you also need a release - consent from the existng copyright holder. You can't just plunder it and say "here's your cheque, I've done you a favour, now go away and shut up".

Well no you can't. I'm arguing that you should be able to, that it is actually damaging to music (albeit a genre music you don't respect), that copyright is enforced to this degree.

Re: Try sampling e.g. some instantly recognisable Beatles hook or something, and see if any label will touch you with a bargepole. They know the clearance will never, ever, be forthcoming.

That's exactly my point! You may not like the idea of someone sampling the Beatles, but it's precisely the result of that, that most of us can't do that in any meaningful way.

Re: your Yoko Ono/animal rights example -
The issue of moral rights is a tricky one, but it needs to be weighed up: How often is anyone likely to do that for any reason other than comedy value? What does music as a whole stand to gain and lose with less draconian copyright laws? In fact, the BBC are already allowed to use whatever music they like in their shows, thanks to blanket license agreement* with the PRS/MCPS. This resulted in lots of complaints from Cliff Richard when some of his music got used without his permission in the BBC3 comedy 'Monkeydust'. If you like Monkeydust, you will likely find this very funny. (* incidentally, this agreement does not extend commercial side of the BBC, so when the series was released on DVD, the music was replaced.)

I think it shows a lack of humour on Cliff Richard's part, no one is forcing him to watch it and I strongly doubt any of his fans are going to bother to watch the show. Personally, I would love my music to be misused this way, even in support of causes I despise. I would be happy that my music would be reaching an audience who would otherwise never hear it and hopeful that whatever message contained in my music would seap into their minds, along with whatever vile cause it was being used to promote.

However, the point is why is it deemed okay for the BBC to do this, but not the rest of us?

Re: Respecting people's intellectual property is no different to resisting the temptation to burgle their house.

It's pretty different I think. If I 'steal' your chord pattern you still have your song; If I 'steal' your recording of a snare drum, you still have your recording; if I steal your snare drum, then unless you're a pretty exceptional drummer, you're shafted. Also burglary, if my memory serves me right, implies theft with violence, so you'll also get a good kick in from me...

Re: This is not about sampling. Copyright infringers have always been liable to being sued.

Erm, yes, it is about sampling. That's what we're talking about. Just to clarify, I was also talking about *changing the law* so that certain *copyright infringers* would *cease to be* copyright infringers. I've pointed out many examples where copyright is restricted in order to protect aspects of creativity, why not with sampling too?

Re: Do something original and you won't get sued.

Or, rip off the chord pattern from a Stranglers song, as the Manic Street Preachers did a few years back with 'If you tolerate this...' and don't get sued. It seems strange how 'theft' is ok for a rock band, but not for a hip-hop artist... This really is a case of law not keeping up with technology.

Re: If you can't do something original you are not a musician and not worthy of the name, or the pay.

Of course, it is fine for artists with the label support and money to clear all their samples - they're heralded as geniuses, they deserve the pay... The rest of us are thieving scum.

I don't understand how using samples automatically makes an artist's work unoriginal. This is getting away from what we're really talking about, as obviously copyright isn't an issue here, but most modern keyboards are PCM sample-based. So if someone uses a keyboard, they're incable of creating original music? Your argument doesn't really follow.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Mark Knutson
member


Joined: 25/03/03
Posts: 134
Loc: Minnesota, USA
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: John Willett]
      #500336 - 12/08/07 01:42 AM
Quote John Willett:

Sampling is theft - full stop.

If you sample it should be done with credit given and fee paid.




Agreed, not a complex issue. I'm not going to watch the video, but if one hopes to get paid for their creative efforts while stealing the creative efforts of others, that is the height of hypocracy. And the courts have agreed, from what I have read.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Les



Joined: 22/02/05
Posts: 1235
Loc: Alloa flat, studio and rural/u...
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500337 - 12/08/07 02:03 AM
I havent viewed the docu, but one thing about the "sampling is theft" argument has always confused or bewildered me.

As some folk have said, we (the generic "we") can often find ourselves unwittingly plagiarising things like chord sequences, and yet, taking a small snapshot from an existing song or some other audio source is considered a bit dubious - even IF clearance is granted and fee is paid.

But what about synth patches? Lets say there's a section in a track that features one sound in isolation played for a short period of time. The samplist thinks "mmm, like that, Im 'avin it", and duly samples it - but if that sound is a factory preset in isolation (ok im nit-picking a bit here I know , but it's just an illustration), it would still, I prsume, require clearance. However, if we were to use the same patch/preset, with, say, the same processing - in our own music - in other words use the original sound - that is ok.

So it seems to be partly an issue of context perhaps? I may (yet again) be talking rubbish, but it's a thought that's hovered around in my head for many years.

Slightly tangential but - how many of us have created some music, and then left it in mothballs (all of us lets face it) - only for something eerily similar to crop up as a release sometime later. Youre then in the position that, if you still like the idea you had, and want to resurrect it in the future - will you be accused of ripping someone else off?

Just some more grist - I know not the answers.

Good thread tho.

--------------------
"If I had all the money i'd spent on drink, i'd spend it on drink". Vivian Stanshall


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: hollowsun]
      #500339 - 12/08/07 02:12 AM
Personally, I thought the Beatles track was just as dull as the other two tracks. So you found two examples of very uncreative sampling, so what? Perhaps it's genius and we're blind to it. I suspect not, but there are better examples out there.

By the way, have you ever heard Cassette Boy?

Re: Under your scheme (unapproved usage with a royalty percentage due by default), someone could (for example) take a section from the Pet Shop Boys' 'West End Girls' and use it as the foundation for a toxic anti-gay rap (which wouldn't be the first time!). The PSBs, their record company and publishers would not sanction that.

So a whole style of music should be rendered illegal to the masses, because there are idiots out there who abuse their freedoms? There are supposed to be laws to deal with incitement. Do you really think it would ever get played on the radio, in light of the outcry last year? It is just as plausible that the Manic Street Preachers *could* right a song that sounds suspiciously like a certain Stranglers song, changing the lyrics to: "So if I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot faggots". Should we tighten up copyright laws on compositions and chord sequences on the off chance that someone could abuse that freedom too?

Re: Furthermore, how would you fix default percentages and who would determine 'usage' in any given record? Some sampled snippet may represent just 1% of a record ... or could be 95% responsible for its worldwide commercial success.

Those are questions for the imaginary organisation which sets up this system... As for percentages, it seems no more or less cock-eyed than the PRS decreeing that 50% of royalties automatically go to the composer by default. Why that specifc figure of 50%? It's an irrelevant criticism to the point I was making, which is that we need a simpler system to deal with copyright clearance. Of course, you could complicate the system to account for these problems. For example, you could insist that musicians give accurate details of the length of each sample used or that musicians not interested in having their music sampled in certain conditions make that aware to our imaginary agency. This is just an idea of how such a system could work, not a definitive solution.

Re: As I see it, you are trying to defend the indefensible. Sampling in this context is 'theft' of IP and copyright and exploitation of brand image, etc.. Be prepared to pay for the privilege of exploiting someone else's creativity and talent and 'brand' in your music if you want to but don't protest with some faux concept of a repression of creativity. It's a lame argument that has no legs morally or legally.

I'm not trying to defend anything. My actions are entirely consistent with my morals on this issue and I have nothing to personally gain from taking this view - I record all of my own samples because I feel that using other people's work would cheapen mine, but that's just my personal opinion. However, I believe that a simpler system for clearing copyright needs to be set up to protect sample-based creativity (no matter how crap you or I think it is). There is a value in music and art which recycles pre-existing material. There are statements which can only be made this way. Likewise, there are musicians who were only fortunate enough to have a deck or computer at their disposal, that didn't receive formal music training from a really young age - they deserve to be able to make and sell music too, even if it is in ways that many of us don't enjoy. This does not mean sampling should necessarily be free! In our imaginary system, perhaps royalties are only due or are charged at a higher rate if the sample is over a certain length? Too little freedom and copyright law has the potential to damage creativity, too much freedom and people will take advantage.

I have already given plenty of examples of cases where laws have been relaxed to ensure creativity is not damaged in a particular way. It is legal for musicians to rip off a chord sequence, it is legal for the BBC to use copyright music in anyway it sees fit, even in ways which violate the composer's ethics, it is legal for Gary Gygax to turn a Balrog into a Type IV demon called Balor that bears a striking resemblance to a Balrog, etc... There are good reasons for these exceptions, just as there are good reasons to relax the laws on sampling. I should reitterate that I am not even necessarily arguing that sampling should be free - if it was made easier to sample and pay some money where it is due, then it would most likely result in an increase in sampling of copyrighted works, which in turn will result in more musicians being paid for samples, and therefore more musicians getting the money they deserve.

Yes, such a system has implications for the moral rights of composers, in which case I refer you to my previous message and ask again, why are you putting it out there in the first place? It's common practise in academic papers to cite a person's comments out of context in order to misrepresent that person's views - should fair use laws be tightened up in this instance?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
hollowsun



Joined: 20/01/05
Posts: 5582
Loc: Cowbridge, South Wales
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500341 - 12/08/07 02:48 AM
Fine....

Steal, nick, lift, 'borrow' whatever you want in the pursuit of your art but expect to hear from a lawyer somewhere along the line.

As for uncopyrightable chord progressions, etc., there's always this:





--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: hollowsun]
      #500342 - 12/08/07 03:03 AM
I made it quite clear that I'm not interested in or condoning illegal sample use - instead, I want the laws relaxed. So hopefully won't be seeing any lawyers, unless of course someone samples me! (joke)

Otherwise, that was excellent!

Reminds me of that other chord sequence, the one from Eno's Big Ship/James' Tomorrow/The Cure - Letter to Elise and a billion other tracks. It was an ongoing joke in my old band, to spot songs with that chord sequence. Think the sequence is kind of similar, but it's only four chords long instead of eight.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Mark Knutson
member


Joined: 25/03/03
Posts: 134
Loc: Minnesota, USA
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Les]
      #500344 - 12/08/07 03:14 AM
Quote Les:

I havent viewed the docu, but one thing about the "sampling is theft" argument has always confused or bewildered me.

As some folk have said, we (the generic "we") can often find ourselves unwittingly plagiarising things like chord sequences, and yet, taking a small snapshot from an existing song or some other audio source is considered a bit dubious - even IF clearance is granted and fee is paid.

But what about synth patches? Lets say there's a section in a track that features one sound in isolation played for a short period of time. The samplist thinks "mmm, like that, Im 'avin it", and duly samples it - but if that sound is a factory preset in isolation (ok im nit-picking a bit here I know , but it's just an illustration), it would still, I prsume, require clearance. However, if we were to use the same patch/preset, with, say, the same processing - in our own music - in other words use the original sound - that is ok.

So it seems to be partly an issue of context perhaps? I may (yet again) be talking rubbish, but it's a thought that's hovered around in my head for many years.

Slightly tangential but - how many of us have created some music, and then left it in mothballs (all of us lets face it) - only for something eerily similar to crop up as a release sometime later. Youre then in the position that, if you still like the idea you had, and want to resurrect it in the future - will you be accused of ripping someone else off?

Just some more grist - I know not the answers.

Good thread tho.




Good points for pondering!

When I was in law school, the professor would give us a rule distinguishing between two things, and then would come up with a hypothetical carefully placed in the middle of the grey area between the two things, and we would debate it furiously like dogs fighting over piece of steak, never realizing (until years later) that there was in fact no clear answer, and we were simply to be able to understand and apply components of the rules.

Well, it would be false imprisonment to lock someone in a closet. Ditto with a stadium, what about a country or hemisphere? What if you locked a closet and said they could go anywhere but there--would that be false imprisonment? Well, why not? You are limiting their freedom of movement... So, where do you draw the line is theoretically difficult but usually intuitively obvious for most cases.

Yes, there is a continuum between creative stealing and not stealing.

So, it is clear that playing a whole nother song and calling it your own is wrong, what if you played only 5 seconds? How about 1/10,000 of a second? Clearly at some point, it becomes ridiculous to protect too small a part of a song. But if its too small to protect, its also to small to be worth stealing, in my mind.

In songwriting, the land of chord progressions, courts have always had to struggle with this, and they make decisions. For instance, Harrison's My Sweet Lord, and She's So Fine--similar but not exact--I thought it was an extremely close case.

So, in my mind, when the sample is recognizable, one is benefiting from the public memory of the earlier song (or the talent of the musician)--this is what I am thinking of--like when samples get recorded into an mpc and played back. When it is sort of used as a wave that gets distorted beyond all recognition, I personally don't see a problem with it, but on the other hand, if its unrecognizable, why use something copyrighted if you're going to distort beyond recognition? Maybe to get some of its mojo?

The reason I don't think paying performance rights on samples from copyrighted works is burdensome is that one can easily make one's own notes. Why sample the power chord from a who song when you can plug an sg into a marshall and make your own? Is it because you could not get it to sound exactly like the original? That's why its protected.

I think if you had a drummer do his own 'amen' break, it would be ok--we don't protect a sequence of drum hits, but the whole reason folks use the original is because it is recognizable, or they can't play drums very well, or don't want to hire a drummer.

I am not against sampling or expressing an opinion on its value as an art form, I am simply saying that it falls within the realm of expression that needs to be paid when you use it in your own work.

Edited by Mark Knutson (12/08/07 03:31 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: hollowsun]
      #500346 - 12/08/07 03:35 AM
Hollowsun: Ha!Ha!


That really just proves what we all know, that there is nothing new under the sun.

The video clip examples you provide further above are exactly the sort of clip that we can all agree are simply a rip off of the original tracks. They fall very clearly on this side of the "copyright vs right to sample" line. I have to express my own particular distaste for that type of music (and, therefore, I accept that I am biased and perhaps blind to its merits, if it has any), but it is clear that these songs have simply taken the "meat" or core of another track, traded off its cultural and emotional context, and cheapened it. The songs are (as I have already argued above) nothing more than poor remixes of the original song.

But what about the use of samples that fall on the other side of the line? What about the use of samples purely as textures within the body of an original work of art?

I think copyright laws need to change to keep up with the times. I think there should be a test based on the concept of recognition. If the new track can be recognised, to a specied degree (or, indeed, to any degree) as the original track, then the samples used require pre-clearance/permission prior to use, and in the absence of such cannot be used. I cannot see why an artist or his record company should want to (or be able to) prevent the sale and distribution of original tracks where there is nothing tangibly recognisable of the original track.

And no one has, as yet, given a reply as to why a hip hop artist should be considered a thief and a charleton for using a copy of someone elses music in his own music, and Andy Warhol should be considered an artist for blatantly glueing photocopies of a famous brand soup tin to a piece of card and sticking it in a frame? Or by simply replicating the iconic image of an actress. It does demonstrate, however, that English law is prepared to make distinctions between art and "the theft of ideas" when it wants to.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Mark Knutson
member


Joined: 25/03/03
Posts: 134
Loc: Minnesota, USA
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500350 - 12/08/07 05:42 AM
As a practical matter, how would a copyright holder know it was time to sue someone for an unrecognizable sample? How could they prove it?

From an aesthetic standpoint, I would never suggest that Andy Warhol did less derivative work than your average hip-hop artist. But, then, I am a bit of a philistine when it comes to appreciating the subtle genius of modern, ready-made, art.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Sir George Martian



Joined: 04/08/07
Posts: 23
Loc: Cyberville
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Mark Knutson]
      #500352 - 12/08/07 06:09 AM
So, a person spends (over time) $7,000 on equipment, $10,000 on lessons, education, and training, 20,000 hours in 10 years of work - and some nose-picker should be able to nick even one note from that player? No, not without permission, and paying. People are cheap and without conscience, but there have always been such jerks. It's just that now there are other jerks trying to condone it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Steve Hill
member


Joined: 07/01/03
Posts: 13141
Loc: Oxfordshire
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Sir George Martian]
      #500357 - 12/08/07 07:21 AM
Quote Sir George Martian:

So, a person spends (over time) $7,000 on equipment, $10,000 on lessons, education, and training, 20,000 hours in 10 years of work - and some nose-picker should be able to nick even one note from that player? No, not without permission, and paying. People are cheap and without conscience, but there have always been such jerks. It's just that now there are other jerks trying to condone it.




That post encapsulates the whole argument.

Changing the law will not happen, nor should it, if doing so would condemn Yoko, widowed by mindless gun crime, to sit back and watch her late husband's work be abused to lend spurious credibility to some worthless piece of sh1t who calls himself a gagsta and thinks guns are glamorous.

Nobody in the mainstream music business advocates any such change in the law. Only the talentless losers who want something for nothing.

And chicks for free, I expect.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Edited by Steve Hill (12/08/07 07:22 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Dan LB



Joined: 28/01/06
Posts: 1007
Loc: Wicklow, Ireland
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500358 - 12/08/07 07:33 AM
Hollowsun: Kanye West is always ripping people off for his own gain. Here's another example of 'his' 'music'! What a load of bollox! I absolutely despise this sort of thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGCSuZWC9yM

On the other hand, I find this to be quite creative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTwxvrSTrvY

and this is just great :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipZ4OTnB0Tk


Dan


EDIT: How do you post videos from youtube so you can actually see them in this post?

Edited by Dan LB (12/08/07 07:53 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Arpangel
active member


Joined: 12/07/03
Posts: 5527
Loc: London
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500366 - 12/08/07 08:34 AM
I have no problem whatsoever with sampling, or "samplists" What I do have a problem with is when people just don't ask for permission, it is up to the owner of the original work to decide if they want their work used in a new context, after all, it may conflict with their own moral, ethical and political beliefs.
And also, if you don't get permission you are effectively stealing their royalties. They created the original idea, so show some respect and ask for permission. My experience is that most people are more than willing to cooperate, all you have to do is ask.

Tony.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
__
Who's never been here


Joined: 28/11/02
Posts: 6263
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500371 - 12/08/07 08:46 AM
Quote leslawrenson:

[why]...Andy Warhol should be considered an artist for blatantly glueing photocopies of a famous brand soup tin to a piece of card and sticking it in a frame? Or by simply replicating the iconic image of an actress....




Graphical artists paint things. They paint apples and bananas and landscapes and churches and faces and animals and furniture.

In fact before the impressionists and surrealists, artists tried very hard to represent their subjects exactly as they appeared, as in a photograph...

...And photography is yet another artform that takes a real subject and presents it in an artistic and creative way.

What Warhol did not do was take the wrappers off 32 tins of Campbells soup and stick them on a canvas and frame them, he painted (albeit after using a bit of silk screening [skething is yo like]) the soup cans, as one would perhaps paint a bowl of fruit.

I'm sure if he had painted a tin of Campbell's soup and represented it as the body of a surreal poisoner sh!tting down the neck of a saint then Campbell's may not have been so happy to get the advert.

But essentially all he did was paint a still life and present it in a way that punctuated the scale he saw in the moves towards the mass consumerism of his time.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
table for two
active member


Joined: 24/03/02
Posts: 5902
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Dan LB]
      #500374 - 12/08/07 08:56 AM
Cheers for that Dan

DJ Shadow is something else.

To post the vids, where it says embedded, copy and paste all of it.



Building Steam With a Grain of Salt is superb too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipZ4OTnB0Tk
Casetteboy is hilarious.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Steve House



Joined: 25/06/06
Posts: 65
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500385 - 12/08/07 09:44 AM
Quote Happyandbored:

Quote ow:


...
Sampling doesn't necessarily have to be free, but there does have to be an easy and above all, affordable way of registering those samples. Otherwise copyright is no longer protecting the rights of the majority of musicians, but is in fact censoring them.

...




Copyright was never intended to protect the rights of the collective. Quite the contrary, it was designed to protect the rights of the individual creator against the abuses of the collective, giving him absolute authority and control over the disposition and uses of the product of his efforts and the exclusive right to derive economic benefit from them for a certain period of time. The rights of the individual who created the music being sampled trumps any wishes of all other musicians taken as a group with regard to his work.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
jellyjim
active member


Joined: 15/05/02
Posts: 2998
Loc: uk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500412 - 12/08/07 10:39 AM
The video only convinces me further that sample based music is a credible art form. Harry Allen from Public Enemy sums it up

"Sampling is like the colour red. It's like asking, is the colour red creative? Well it is when it's used creatively."

And I've heard it used creatively many times.

There is another important issue here that shouldn't be overlooked. Hip-hop is a musical form largely born of the Afro-Caribbean diaspora of the continental United States. Said diaspora has historically endured significant social and economic deprivation compared to white communities. In the absence of educational, financial and artistic opportunities a "make do" spirit prevails.

Sampling in hip-hop essentially reflects the practice of extending the instrumental part or breaks from records by DJs spinning two identical copies at once and crossfading between the two copies. The first uses of sampling in hip-hop was to create a continuous drum break against which MCs could rap. Point being what some call "theft" was actually born out of necessity. Sampling provided creative opportunities and fulfilled cultural and communal expectations where no other means were available.

I think sample based hip-hop is actually one of the very best examples of a genuinely spontaneous, democratic and creative human art form. That the technology involved creates arguably identical copies of originals involves the legal system is a product of our modern times not the concept or motivation itself.

In that vein, it is also important to consider the inevitable political aspect of sampling. It is the white Harvard educated lawyers of corporate America that want to jump all over the likes of Public Enemy for lifting a James Brown break. The same white corporate America that kept James Brown down in the first place.

At the end of the day what did the likes of Elvis or the Stones really do? They legitimised and sanitised an essentially Afro-Caribbean musical form for white audiences; namely blues and rock'n'roll.

Yes, any artist should be suitably renumerated for any significant use of their recorded material. But equally any artist should be allowed to pull from the entire narrative of their art form in the pursuit of it's development. Furthermore in understanding a process such as sampling you cannot remove it from it's political and social context. And the context in which sampling finds itself in hip-hop is way more important than, and way more interesting than, a rather niave and abstract notion that sampling is theft, theft is bad, therefore sampling is bad.

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

Edited by jellyjim (12/08/07 10:42 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve House]
      #500422 - 12/08/07 11:09 AM
Quote Steve House:

Quote Happyandbored:

Quote ow:


...
Sampling doesn't necessarily have to be free, but there does have to be an easy and above all, affordable way of registering those samples. Otherwise copyright is no longer protecting the rights of the majority of musicians, but is in fact censoring them.

...




Copyright was never intended to protect the rights of the collective. Quite the contrary, it was designed to protect the rights of the individual creator against the abuses of the collective, giving him absolute authority and control over the disposition and uses of the product of his efforts and the exclusive right to derive economic benefit from them for a certain period of time. The rights of the individual who created the music being sampled trumps any wishes of all other musicians taken as a group with regard to his work.




But as I've repeatedly pointed out - but somehow people seem to keep missing in my posts - there are plenty of exceptions in other areas of copyright which don't give absolute control. In my opinion, the rights of the individual should not trump the rights of the group, when that musician's work achieves exposure in the public domain.

There are hundreds of different versions of the song Stagger Lee, with varying degrees of plagairism, yet each unique in their own way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagger_Lee. If copyright in composition and lyrics had been enforced to the same degree as copyright in recording is today, there would have only been one song. Likewise, 12 bar blues would have never existed as a genre. The cost to music and musicians generally would have been far too great, so in this instance copyright does not give absolute control to the original composer.

Would you seriously consider campaigning for the rights of composers to have their chord sequences protected? The video posted earlier was hilarious, but obviously each of those songs sounds completely different when heard in the original context. Try listening to The Big Ship by Brian Eno and Tomorrow by James - yes, the chord sequence is still recognisable, but they still sound like totally different pieces of music.

Regarding everyone's sudden grave concern for Yoko Ono - what would happen if some talentless rock band were to rip off the chord sequence from John Lennon and call it something like "I laughed when Lennon got shot"? The defense of enforcing copyright on the basis of moral rights is a non-sequitur. There are idiots out there doing things which are far more offensive to far greater numbers of people. Most people with any sense realise that they can turn the television or radio off if something offends them.

Regarding the point made about the cost of creating that original copyrighted work - I've stated time and time again that I am not necessarily arguing that sampling should be free. However, the reality is that clearing a sample or any form of copyright is an arduous process. If you had to clear the copyright for every copied chord sequence or bit melody you were influenced by (ripped off), you would be rightly pissed off.

I suspect that all this over-protectiveness over sampling has far more to do with a bias in musical tastes and a lack of understanding of sample based music, than high moral standards and a concern protecting the original creator's work. Otherwise, why are the majority not campaigning as vigorously for the protection of chord sequences?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Dan LB



Joined: 28/01/06
Posts: 1007
Loc: Wicklow, Ireland
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500426 - 12/08/07 11:19 AM
Great post Jim! Well said.

Cheers Table for Two. So just to check I'm getting you right........





Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Mark557



Joined: 05/07/07
Posts: 34
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500428 - 12/08/07 11:25 AM
I didn't watch the clip but I feel that while sampling (in my mind) shows a lack of creativity or "do it your selfedness" and I can't reallly stand to listen to it as long as the proper people are credited and paid for the sample then I don't have a problem with it. That said you'll never get ME to spend MY hard earned money on such collages.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Arpangel
active member


Joined: 12/07/03
Posts: 5527
Loc: London
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Mark557]
      #500433 - 12/08/07 11:37 AM
Mark557, oh well, since I stopped caring I listen to anything ! the best thing I ever done. Proper people ? serious music ? who cares ? Just throw it all in and see what comes out. Music is a dead art form, has been for years, so just sit back and mess around, what have you got to loose, nothing what-so-ever ! And I'm not joking pop-pickers. Its when you think it's all over and you let go that things start to happen again, believe me. Their are NO RULES ! not one, not a single paltry sossidge of a rule, work from the bottom up, not from the top down,and take no prisoners.

Tony.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
table for two
active member


Joined: 24/03/02
Posts: 5902
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: jellyjim]
      #500434 - 12/08/07 11:37 AM
Quote jellyjim:


There is another important issue here that shouldn't be overlooked. Hip-hop is a musical form largely born of the Afro-Caribbean diaspora of the continental United States. Said diaspora has historically endured significant social and economic deprivation compared to white communities. In the absence of educational, financial and artistic opportunities a "make do" spirit prevails.

Sampling provided creative opportunities and fulfilled cultural and communal expectations where no other means were available.

... Public Enemy ...




MOFO respect to Public Enemy, Ganstarr, NWA, Tribe Called Quest, later Wu Tang Clan
for keeping the culture alive, bringing it to a new generation of listeners in a new form
and having a message, trying to make a difference.

They are sadly an exception.

Very sad to say many of the current generation of hip-hoppers have hopped on the hip bandwagon.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Mark557]
      #500439 - 12/08/07 11:43 AM
Yes it's a pretty childish bit of humour, but it makes some people laugh...

It would have taken a lot of time and effort to create that montage and there is no way you could have created the same effect by rerecording the samples - it just wouldn't have been funny.

Point is, none of the Cassette Boy samples were cleared or paid for. There are hundreds of samples in that small clip alone. Since their music is only available on the internet and at small independent music stores, they're unlikely to get any hassle. The reason I've heard of it: it can be and has been, played on BBC radio thanks to that blanket PRS/MCPS license. However, if a system like the one I suggested were implemented, then the artists could be rightfully paid *and* Cassette Boy could release their work on a wider commercial basis. In other words, more musicians, including Cassette Boy and their victims, would receive payment for their work than under the system which currently exists.

Regardless of the law, I don't see Cassette Boy giving up their 'art' any time soon.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
jellyjim
active member


Joined: 15/05/02
Posts: 2998
Loc: uk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500444 - 12/08/07 11:53 AM
@Mark557

Why roll eyes at "collage"? All creativity is collage. It's only in the 20th century and later that we had the means to duplicate (sampling, photography, printing press) rather than merely imitate that the process has become conspicuous. It's that old cliche, if Beethoven were alive today he'd be using the full gamut of tools at his disposal, samplers and sampling included. A friend of mine is a painter in the traditional sense. He paints people in cities, he uses oil on canvass. He loves people like Edward Hopper and Jack Vetrianno. He is in part in his own work trying to emulate or refer to or invoke those masters as well as contribute is own meaning and context. Is that not collage? Is he not in a sense "sampling" the ideas, aspirations and techniques of those before him?

@Arpangel

There's a lot of truth in what you say Tony. I think there's a lot of prejudice towards hip-hop (and I DONT mean RACIAL prejudice I mean musical) I worry that many people simply close their ears to it. There's actually a few debates going on in this thread. The issue of copyright infringement is the least interesting and the least important. The importance of creative processes contributing to the sum total of human culture through the eons is vastly more important than transients such as the prevailing legal climate. Tho again I stress, lift a significant amount of another artists song and they should enjoy any sucesses you might have with it.

@table for two

sadly all genres dilute, commercialise and so on. Hip-hop certainly isn't a grassroots thing anymore. Nonetheless the "bad" hip-hop doesn't devalue the "good" hip-hop. Not that I think you were saying that but some might.

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Sarge



Joined: 06/06/04
Posts: 1228
Loc: Norfolk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500446 - 12/08/07 11:56 AM
Bottom line is if you use something that makes you money you should pay for it and credit the sources. Hell you should credit the sources even if it's not for money.

Have alook at this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_License

What I like about Soundclick is that it gives you the option to specify this on your tracks.

and food for thought.

Google "Boulevard of Broken Songs" an excellent mashup. How can something so wrong be so right


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
nikHz



Joined: 07/06/06
Posts: 212
Loc: London, UK.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500448 - 12/08/07 12:00 PM
Sampling is theft??
Amon Tobin
DJ Shadow
Dust Brothers

--------------------
One good thing about music is when it hits, you feel no pain...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: jellyjim]
      #500450 - 12/08/07 12:01 PM
Re: The issue of copyright infringement is the least interesting and the least important. The importance of creative processes contributing to the sum total of human culture through the eons is vastly more important than transients such as the prevailing legal climate.

Yes, the technicalities of copyright are boring, but I disagree they are the least important factor. It is precisely because there is no fair use sampling provision or easy system for paying royalties for sample use that sampling is defined as theft in the first place. Otherwise, I agree.

Good to see another Trap Door fan - did you ask permission to use that avatar?!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Arpangel
active member


Joined: 12/07/03
Posts: 5527
Loc: London
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500456 - 12/08/07 12:15 PM
The PRS/MCPS have been living in the dark ages for years about sampling, and the computer revolution as whole, I think they should radically re-think the way that they run their organisation, and sort this out once and for all. The only time I had any dealings with those people they gave me no reason at all to think that they were on the side of the musician. Just a bunch of grey haired old jazzers who should try living in the present, not the past.

Tony.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
jellyjim
active member


Joined: 15/05/02
Posts: 2998
Loc: uk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500463 - 12/08/07 12:37 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

Re: The issue of copyright infringement is the least interesting and the least important. The importance of creative processes contributing to the sum total of human culture through the eons is vastly more important than transients such as the prevailing legal climate.

Yes, the technicalities of copyright are boring, but I disagree they are the least important factor. It is precisely because there is no fair use sampling provision or easy system for paying royalties for sample use that sampling is defined as theft in the first place. Otherwise, I agree.

Good to see another Trap Door fan - did you ask permission to use that avatar?!




yeah good point, interesting (the first bit not the trap door bit )

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Arpangel]
      #500464 - 12/08/07 12:39 PM
Re: PRS/MCPS:

I think it's more they're on the side of certain types of music, musicians and certain ways of doing business at the expense of others. Which is a shame, because they are exactly the institutions which have the power to create a way out of this mess that allows everyone to get a piece of the pie.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500474 - 12/08/07 01:03 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

Re: PRS/MCPS:

I think it's more they're on the side of certain types of music, musicians and certain ways of doing business at the expense of others. Which is a shame, because they are exactly the institutions which have the power to create a way out of this mess that allows everyone to get a piece of the pie.




Leaving to one side PPL who are equally involved and in some cases (beats) far more involved....

There is already a "way out of this mess"... it's called licensing.

The system operated by PPL and MCPS to allow as much re-use of recordings as anybody could possibly want is called clearance.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #500483 - 12/08/07 01:32 PM
Did you miss the part about the difficulty of clearing each and every sample in a track containing hundreds of samples under the current system of clearance and licensing? Did you miss the part about the prohibitive cost of those licenses or that fact that major-label signed artists have the power of the label behind them to clear all of those samples, because often it is in fact that label or a subsidiarary who owns them? Did you actually bother to read my own experience of trying to clear copyright (albeit for permission to use a book quotation as a band name) which was met with stoney silence?

There is no reason why a simpler system of clearance should not be introduced - spefically one which does not demand a legal team behind you to implement. Likewise, there is no good reason why sampling royalties should not be charged proportionally to the amount of money a sampled track actually makes. The system as it stands at the moment is nothing more a protection racket for big media, keeping meaningful creative freedom out of the hands of the masses by imposing excessive economic and legal constraints.

Point taken about the PPL though - all these acronyms have kind of turned into one big blur since finishing university a few years back... PPRCPSML or whatever...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500493 - 12/08/07 02:00 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

Did you miss the part about the difficulty of clearing each and every sample in a track containing hundreds of samples under the current system of clearance and licensing?




No.

Quote Happyandbored:

Did you miss the part about the prohibitive cost of those licenses or that fact that signed artists have the power of a label behind them to clear all of those samples, because often it is in fact that label or a subsidiarary who owns them?




No.

Quote Happyandbored:

Did you actually bother to read my own experience of trying to clear copyright (albeit for permission to use a book quotation as a band name) which was met with stoney silence?




You don't need to clear it. It's perfectly OK to quote from books... even for a band name.

Quote Happyandbored:

There is no reason why a simpler system of clearance should not be introduced - spefically one which does not demand a legal team behind you to implement.




Have you looked at the clearance system on MCPS/PRS? No legal team required.

Quote Happyandbored:

Likewise, there is no good reason why sampling royalties should not be charged proportionally to the amount of money a sampled track actually makes.




Why? That would prevent people licensing their stuff as they like. I might want to offer free licenses... why should I have to charge a specified rate? That's the kind of government sponsored rip-off they favour in the USA (compulsory licensing).

Quote Happyandbored:

The system as it stands at the moment is nothing more a protection racket for big media, keeping meaningful creative freedom out of the hands of the masses by imposing excessive economic and legal constraints.




There are problems with copyright and licensing, but you seem fixated by one or two imaginery "injustices" you've read about. Copyright is much more diverse and interesting than that.

I can't understand why you are so desperate to copy other people's stuff. Haven't you got any imagination?

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
tomafd



Joined: 03/10/05
Posts: 3468
Loc: uk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500502 - 12/08/07 02:16 PM
Would anyone find any 'art' in the Cassette Boy stuff if none of the samples was recognizable ? I think not...

The trouble with sample-based music is that the art/enjoyment/whatever we're supposed to get out of it depends entirely on the fact that the listener is supposed to hear/see the joke/point/whatever etc due to their a priori knowledge of the samples involved. It therefore depends entirely on the already accrued status of the music that has been sampled, and therefore the creative energy of the original artist.

I've heard an awful lot of very 'clever' music created this way, but none of it has the sheer emotional punch and straightforward musical quality of truly original music made my people who can play music without having to use material sourced from elsewhere. Even when they're copying other styles or using well-known chord sequences, the way they do it, if they're any good, makes it 'their own' and opens up new territories for others to follow.

I'm sure many people will feel that samplist music is basically doing the same thing, and that there is equivalent originality and musical depth involved in collaging a bunch of recordings, and therefore it should be made easier to do it without difficult licensing procedures. I have to say I'm not one of them... if you really want to make Good Original Music, make your own, from scratch.

It's a lot more fun, for starters !

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Bertyjnr
member


Joined: 06/05/04
Posts: 482
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500504 - 12/08/07 02:17 PM
That there are good arguments for and against really shows there is no definitive cut 'n' dried answer.

My moo beef is, too often sampling is done not for artistic reasons but for fashion's sake and to be 'trendy' or a trendsetter (let alone for commercial purposes!). One may think the use of a sample at a particular point in time is cool (I certainly have), perhaps because the sample is old and gives credentials to the sample manipulator's taste and knowledge of music. But give the song a couple of years and it just sounds plain unoriginal. Which is hardly a surprise. Perhaps this itself means sampling is very much a disposable art form, like a sand sculpture near the tide.

Daft Punk's secrets...



Quote Sir George Martian:

So, a person spends (over time) $7,000 on equipment, $10,000 on lessons, education, and training, 20,000 hours in 10 years of work - and some nose-picker should be able to nick even one note from that player? [...]



I agree in some respects (like I said, not cut 'n' dried!) but your argument would hold more weight if you didn't give the impression the financial outlay is what makes someone's work important. After all - and I'm surprised the discussion hasn't gone down this route already - we don't pay royalties to Adolphe Sax. Or Clavia.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
tomafd



Joined: 03/10/05
Posts: 3468
Loc: uk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Bertyjnr]
      #500507 - 12/08/07 02:25 PM
Quote Bertyjnr:

Perhaps this itself means sampling is very much a disposable art form, like a sand sculpture near the tide.





I couldn't agree more...

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500509 - 12/08/07 02:27 PM
"I can't understand why you are so desperate to copy other people's stuff. Haven't you got any imagination?" Rob C


With respect, Rob, that displays an incredible ignorance of some of the highly creative work undertaken by samplists.

A few of us in this thread have draw a (very clear) distinction between, on the one hand, those samplists who take the meat/core of a track, loop it, and place a (IMO usually very dubious) rap over the top of it, and, on the other hand, those samplists who use samples as textures, or as an adjunct to their own original and higly creative works. This thread has already thrown up some interesting examples of both types of samplist.

I think you are being a little bit argumentative to accuse the poster of being talentless, simply because he might choose, as part of his own creative process to sample someone else's work.

And JellyJim, I loved your argument that focussed on the white exploitation of black afro-american culture. First, it stole their music. Then, it licenced it. Now, it makes them pay to re-use it.

But the great thing about genuine creativity is that it absolutel will find a way of making itself felt. We can, all of us, point to those who abuse any system. Those are whom the law has set out to catch. But, unfortunately, the law is a blunt tool, and in bludgeoning those who deserve to be bludgeoned, it also kills the true innovators.

Thank God for white people the world over that there was no copyright on the blues of black american slaves. Otherwise, Elvis would not have been able to so easily rape their music, and from him, the likes of the Stones and the Beatles would not have been able to hand down to use the very material that the nay-sayers are so jealously trying to protect.

God bless white corporate America! (and the UK, too!)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Bertyjnr
member


Joined: 06/05/04
Posts: 482
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500518 - 12/08/07 02:41 PM
Their? Them? THEY?

So black people are more entitled to sample than white people because of the contributions individual black musicians have made to music? No one race owns music more than any other; it is down to individual contributions. Like most of life, music is based on the evolution of that which has taken place before it.

I find your post as patronising as the idea a white politician who was in nappies during apartheid should apologise for an abhorrent system his ancestors were responsible for.

Fantastic - from sampling to racism!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
tomafd



Joined: 03/10/05
Posts: 3468
Loc: uk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Bertyjnr]
      #500522 - 12/08/07 02:44 PM
Quote Bertyjnr:

Their? Them? THEY?

So black people are more entitled to sample than white people because of the contributions individual black musicians have made to music? No one race owns music more than any other; it is down to individual contributions. Like most of life, music is based on the evolution of that which has taken place before it.

I find your post as patronising as the idea a white politician who was in nappies during apartheid should apologise for an abhorrent system his ancestors were responsible for.

Fantastic - from sampling to racism!




Indeed- the blues would have been a very different music if the original purveyors of the form hadn't been exposed to 'white, western' church music...

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #500527 - 12/08/07 02:49 PM
Re: You don't need to clear it. It's perfectly OK to quote from books... even for a band name.

If that was really true then why are Marillion not called Silmarillion? Why are The Doors not called The Doors of Perception? There are fair use laws for using quotations in academic work yes, but from my reading, these do not extend to using these names effectively as a trade mark in a commercial venture. I'm not quite sure if my musical venture is going to extend much further than a Myspace page at present though, so for the moment I've decided to 'steal' it. The writer is dead with no dependants and the publisher didn't get back to me, so not sure my crime is that big a deal. I'm not too bothered about it, I just wanted to cover my ass, but I would have been happy to pay a *small* fee for the privelege.

Re: the MCPS' clearance service.

They only help you find the copyright holders contact details, it is then up to you to negotiate. Let's say for the sake of argument, it takes a couple of days to clear a sample - even if the license fees are fair, that's going to take a ridiculous amount of time for a piece of collage music which may contain well over a hundred samples. A musician working on their own without a label to support them is not going to be able to do this. This seems wrong in an age where lowering costs of technology are finally allowing musicians to work independently of record label control.

That would prevent people licensing their stuff as they like. I might want to offer free licenses... why should I have to charge a specified rate? That's the kind of government sponsored rip-off they favour in the USA (compulsory licensing).
Because doing so will result in more musicians getting paid for their work, and therefore able to continue with their art in a world where average working hours per week are going up not down. The system at present sets up so many boundaries that many musicians who genuinely want to pay their dues for the samples used cannot, because the prevalent attitude in music has changed from one of sharing and collaboration to one of 'screw you buddy!' and property rights above all else. If you don't want your work in the public domain, don't release it commercially. I think it is wrong for The Beatles to foist their music into the public arena to such an extreme that it is unavoidable, even if you never watch TV or listen to the radio, and then expect everyone to respect that, to look but not touch. I believe part of the crisis in music today is down to the fact that artists are not just competing with a million Myspace users, but also with yesterday's heroes. It is easier for a record company to promote and rerelease a tried and tested classic than develop a new artist. Likewise, I believe it is more important to preserve the social role of music than protect Yoko Ono's feelings.

Regarding free licenses - You already can (Creative Commons) and there's no reason why such a system could not factor that in. I'm not on about forcing people to *not* enforce their rights. I do however, take issue with people that feel they can release something into the public domain and expect the public to treat it like it's an object in a museum. If a piece of music is truly great it will earn that respect from the majority anyway and any imitations will be dismissed.

Re: imaginary injustices.
No, all the examples I've used in my postings are entirely real. I just happen to think that we should be looking to reduce boundaries to music making of all types, that is all. With a few exceptions, I'm no great fan of hip-hop, but I recognise that the point at which it really started to suck was when lawyers started getting involved.

Re: I can't understand why you are so desperate to copy other people's stuff. Haven't you got any imagination?

I actually stated quite clearly in an earlier post that I don't sample other peoples' work. You are making assumptions about my own music making based on my views. However, does this view extend to it's logical conclusion of expecting all musicians to use entirely new, never heard before, chord progressions?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
__
Who's never been here


Joined: 28/11/02
Posts: 6263
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500530 - 12/08/07 02:51 PM
er Les, when did this become a black/white thing? White people sample too and black people make original compositions. How far back will we have to go to settle this particular new branch of the discussion?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Mark557



Joined: 05/07/07
Posts: 34
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Mark Knutson]
      #500531 - 12/08/07 03:01 PM
Like I said, as long as permission is received, money paid and people credited, sample all you want. It is a matter of my personal tastes that you won't find any of it in my collection. It simply doesn't appeal to me. I AM pretty old though...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
tomafd



Joined: 03/10/05
Posts: 3468
Loc: uk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500532 - 12/08/07 03:01 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

They only help you find the copyright holders contact details, it is then up to you to negotiate. Let's say for the sake of argument, it takes a couple of days to clear a sample - even if the license fees are fair, that's going to take a ridiculous amount of time for a piece of collage music which may contain well over a hundred samples. A musician working on their own without a label to support them is not going to be able to do this. This seems wrong in an age where lowering costs of technology are finally allowing musicians to work independently of record label control.






So... new technology makes it easier to

1. use samples of other people's music

2. work independently of record companies

well that's helpful already- and I really don't see why it therefore makes it 'wrong' that's it's still difficult to get clearance to use 100 samples in one tune.

If you want to use 100 samples, that's your choice, and you should have to take on the hard job of getting them cleared. Just because technology makes other aspects about the process easier, it doesn't therefore make it the copright holder's duty to make the rest of it easier for you as well.

BTW- the Beatles didn't foist their music on anyone- people loved it, and they bought it, in huge quantities. This doesn't in any way affect the copyright status of the music, and nor should it.

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
jimdrake
new member


Joined: 29/10/02
Posts: 602
Loc: wherever
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: John Willett]
      #500533 - 12/08/07 03:04 PM
Quote John Willett:

Sampling is theft - full stop.




If someone takes my camera, that is theft. I no longer have the ability to use it. I will also lose any income that is generated directly through using it.

If someone clones my camera, and uses it for whatever reason, that is not theft. I still posses my copy, my life is not directly affected by someone else also having it.

They may take any photos off the camera and pass them off as their own. Bummer. [ ****** ] happens. But still, it will not stop me from continued use of those photos which are still mine. I can still generate income from those photos myself.

Yes, it is annoying when you experience someone benefiting from work that was entirely done by you. It happens all the time in many different ways.

But to call it theft I think is incorrect.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
tomafd



Joined: 03/10/05
Posts: 3468
Loc: uk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: jimdrake]
      #500536 - 12/08/07 03:12 PM
Quote jimdrake:

Quote John Willett:

Sampling is theft - full stop.




If someone takes my camera, that is theft. I no longer have the ability to use it. I will also lose any income that is generated directly through using it.

If someone clones my camera, and uses it for whatever reason, that is not theft. I still posses my copy, my life is not directly affected by someone else also having it.

They may take any photos off the camera and pass them off as their own. Bummer. [ ****** ] happens. But still, it will not stop me from continued use of those photos which are still mine. I can still generate income from those photos myself.

Yes, it is annoying when you experience someone benefiting from work that was entirely done by you. It happens all the time in many different ways.

But to call it theft I think is incorrect.





Hmmm... try heading on down to the bakers and asking for a free loaf of bread or even a free bucket of dough, to make your own. I think they might tell you to f off !

The only reason people nick music (either from p2p for listening use, or sampling for 'creative' use) is because the technology allows them to. This has therefore led to the perception that there is 'nothing wrong' in doing it, and that it's a victimless crime. I reckon the jury is still out, on both counts, but there's no doubt that there's something just a bit iffy about the argument that because technology allows you to do something, doing it is therefore 'right', every time.

BTW- can I have one of your cloned cameras, please ?

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Bertyjnr
member


Joined: 06/05/04
Posts: 482
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500537 - 12/08/07 03:12 PM
Just noticed the ad at the top of the page. If SoS think it's okay, who are we to argue?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Sir George Martian



Joined: 04/08/07
Posts: 23
Loc: Cyberville
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: jellyjim]
      #500553 - 12/08/07 03:30 PM
Quote jellyjim:


There is another important issue here that shouldn't be overlooked. Hip-hop is a musical form largely born of the Afro-Caribbean diaspora of the continental United States. Said diaspora has historically endured significant social and economic deprivation compared to white communities. In the absence of educational, financial and artistic opportunities a "make do" spirit prevails.





Years ago, when blacks were far more disadvantaged than today, they managed to create and dominate the genres of Blues, Jazz, and R&B, using real instruments and analogue tape. Suddenly, they can't play and can't afford instruments? **snort**

People rip off music, movies, and software, because they can. If they could, they would rip off their electricity, rent, heat, taxes, etc. etc., and spend their spare time justifying it. [Bank Robbery: A New Way of Sharing Money.]

Creating a piece of music can take a lot of creativity, work, time, stress, and money. Sampling it takes seconds. It's cheap and easy and free. Of course it's attractive to want to do it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: tomafd]
      #500554 - 12/08/07 03:30 PM
Quote tomafd:


The trouble with sample-based music is that the art/enjoyment/whatever we're supposed to get out of it depends entirely on the fact that the listener is supposed to hear/see the joke/point/whatever etc due to their a priori knowledge of the samples involved. It therefore depends entirely on the already accrued status of the music that has been sampled, and therefore the creative energy of the original artist.

I've heard an awful lot of very 'clever' music created this way, but none of it has the sheer emotional punch and straightforward musical quality of truly original music made my people who can play music without having to use material sourced from elsewhere. Even when they're copying other styles or using well-known chord sequences, the way they do it, if they're any good, makes it 'their own' and opens up new territories for others to follow.





I don't know, maybe you're just not the type of person for who this sort of music is going to gel with, but seriously try some Third Eye Foundation - packs a pretty damn intense emotional punch and is original in the ways you suggest, yet is sample-based. 'Little Lost Soul' is probably the best place to start.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Little-Lost-Soul-Third-Foundation/dp/B00003XA9S/re f=sr_1_1/026-3319665-0462806?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1186931148&sr=8-1

My appreciation for this album has nothing to do with recognising where any of the samples come from - and in fact I don't recognise any of them, I don't really care either. However, it would not have worked, the record would not have had the same feel, if the artist had faked the samples. Faking it is always going to sound different and end up being stamped by the tonal qualities introduced by the artist's own equipment and engineering habits. Part of the actual sound and style prevalent in much sample-based music is this idea of multi-referenced sounds.

There is no possible compromise here, anymore than there would have been if Andy Warhol had painted an original tin of soup with a made up brand -name. It would have communicated an entirely different message. More importantly, it would have felt like a cop out to the actual artist.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Steve Hill
member


Joined: 07/01/03
Posts: 13141
Loc: Oxfordshire
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500571 - 12/08/07 03:48 PM
You persist in the error that a chord sequence's repetition is similar to sampling. They are poles apart.

If you take the opening solo guitar chord of say "A Hard Days Night" it is instantly recognisable. What you are "buying" (or stealing) there is a zeitgeist, a moment in time, that is to do with a room sound, a posh mic, sh1t hot engineers and producers, and one of the most creative bands of all time... all in a 2 second wrapper.

If you use it, you are using it for one reason only. You hope the magic will rub off. Because you are not that good, and never will be.

Nobody is stopping you playing the same chord yourself and recording it. So why do you want to sample it? Because you are, personally, incapable of delivering the rest of the package. There can be no other reason.

Quote Happyandbored:

Did you miss the part about the difficulty of clearing each and every sample in a track containing hundreds of samples under the current system of clearance and licensing? Did you miss the part about the prohibitive cost of those licenses or that fact that major-label signed artists have the power of the label behind them to clear all of those samples, because often it is in fact that label or a subsidiarary who owns them?




It's difficult because the owners of the works have a say. That's the law. Long may it remain so. When Renault wanted to use Bowie's "Space Oddity" for a car ad, he said no. They recorded a (good) cover version and paid their royalties like they should. What's so hard?

Quote Bertyjnr:

Just noticed the ad at the top of the page. If SoS think it's okay, who are we to argue?




The ads rotate so this is hard to answer, but AFAIK SOS only advertise legal sample disks/libraries which are cleared for further use.

I have no problem with sampling.

I have a huge problem with people who think it's a free for all, irrespective of what the law says.




--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Edited by Steve Hill (12/08/07 04:00 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Sir George Martian]
      #500573 - 12/08/07 03:57 PM
Quote :


Creating a piece of music can take a lot of creativity, work, time, stress, and money. Sampling it takes seconds. It's cheap and easy and free. Of course it's attractive to want to do it.




That is bad faith. You are assuming that people who sample only do so out laziness. I know from talking to many sample-based musicians that that is not their motivation at all. Where is your proof to back up your accusations?

It is not easy to use a sampler well anymore than it is to play any other instrument well. Standards of what is considered good usually develop over time depending on many factors including how easy a particular instrument is to play. Sample-based musicians starting today face stiff competition from the masters: Amon Tobin, DJ Shadow, Squarepusher, etc... Perhaps it's easier to make a music on a sampler, I don't see why that is a bad thing, but it sure as hell is difficult to make some which competes with those guys.

Some other thoughts: A difficult melody played on a theremin is perhaps easier to play on a keyboard, for example. Does this mean that someone who plays on Ondes Martinet somehow deserves our scorn for 'devaluing' the sound of the much more difficult to play theremin?

Think about what a sampler actually is for a second - it's not really an instrument in the traditional sense at all, although of course it can be hooked up to a keyboard via MIDI. In reality, a sampler is more of a hybrid compositional and recording tool, where as a regular instrument can only really a performance tool. Where then is the logic in comparing a sample based *composition* on the same terms of a rock band with live, *performing* musicians? It's not that one is better than the other - is an entirely subjective opinion. They are conceptually completely different things!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve Hill]
      #500580 - 12/08/07 04:16 PM
Re: You persist in the error that a chord sequence's repetition is similar to sampling. They are poles apart.

Trying to debate without analogy on any subject is impossible. There are very definite parallels between the two - if there weren't then why are they both considered intellectual property by law? Try rereading my posts.

Re: If you take the opening solo guitar chord of say "A Hard Days Night" it is instantly recognisable. What you are "buying" (or stealing) there is a zeitgeist, a moment in time, that is to do with a room sound, a posh mic, sh1t hot engineers and producers, and one of the most creative bands of all time... all in a 2 second wrapper.

No, you just value the work of engineers and producers more than composers. The chord sequence to Tomorrow by James is similarly instantly recognisable as The Big Ship by Brian Eno, so much so it's quite fun trying to sing Tomorrow over the top. What about the composer's time and hard work, isn't there a parallel there? Once again though, you are assuming that less protection means less income from royalties for the sampled artist. Please reread earlier posts.

If you use it, you are using it for one reason only. You hope the magic will rub off. Because you are not that good, and never will be.

Ditto bad faith. You have no evidence that that is the motivation. Reread previous post.

Re: Nobody is stopping you playing the same chord yourself and recording it. So why do you want to sample it? Because you are, personally, incapable of delivering the rest of the package. There can be no other reason.

I've given other reasons, but you've chosen to overlook them.

Likewise, I've said several times, I don't personally like sampling other people's music in my music. The worst I can be accused of based on my postings, is not coming up with an original band name. I could if I wanted to, but I want to use the quote instead, as that particular author has had a big influence on my music and outlook in life. I would hope that it would inspire listeners to then check out that author, in much the same way as film samples on the Manics' 'Holy Bible' got me reading Orwell and Ballard. Call it a lack of imagination if you will, but I'm pretty sure I have a better idea of my motivations than you do.

I don't understand why you are making accusations and judgements about my music (which you haven't heard), based on my opinions on sampling and copyright.


110 IF CLUE=0 GOTO 10.



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500582 - 12/08/07 04:18 PM
"I find your post as patronising as the idea a white politician who was in nappies during apartheid should apologise for an abhorrent system his ancestors were responsible for." Bertyjnr

Eh?! You got all that from my post?

Just pointing out some home truths. I'm sorry that that offends your middle white class over-sensitivities.


"er Les, when did this become a black/white thing? White people sample too and black people make original compositions. How far back will we have to go to settle this particular new branch of the discussion?" ow

er... it hasn't become a white/black thing. I merely make these points as part of a (largely interesting) long thread. Go back and read my earlier comments, and you will find that I have attempted to place the whole argument into the widest possible perspective. The particular comment you are commenting on was in direct reply to JellyJim's argument, and was not intended (neither can it possibly be taken to be) my only view.

I do so hope that this thread will not polarize itself into the usual slanging match between those who say "sampling can be good, it's not all black and white" and those who retort simply by saying "oh yes it is!" Surely that particular pantomime has been played to death?

And no one has come back to me on my suggestion that the copyright laws should be amended to allow for the concept of extent, or a simple test of "recognition." I won't repeat it, as the argument is set out clearly enough above.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500585 - 12/08/07 04:25 PM
"Surely that particular pantomime has been played to death?" leslawrenson


Oh not it hasn't!!


[PS I got in before someone else did].


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Slammer



Joined: 22/06/06
Posts: 12
Loc: UK
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500595 - 12/08/07 04:41 PM
The "is sampling theft" argument seems to get side tracked by artistic factors. The real issue is that practically all commercially released music will have a statement to the effect of:

"All rights of the producer and the owner of the recorded work reserved. Unauthorised copying, hiring, renting, public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited."

If you don't have permission sampling is unauthorised copying. And it is prohibited.

It doesn't become theft when you use the sample, it becomes theft when you take the sample.

Im not against sampling culture, but i do believe in a culture where peoples rights are upheld.

Its not about how long a sample is, or how creative you are with it. You buy a product with certain rights granted to you and others denied.

Unauthorised copying (sampling) is prohibited. It is theft.

I totally acknowledge the impracticality of gaining clearance for audio before it has even entered the sampler for experimentation, and I'm sure every publisher and other owner of rights is happy to extend that courtesy. But putting a piece of someone else's audio into your sampler doesn't make it yours.

You should expect that at some point down the line you should pay your dues.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500596 - 12/08/07 04:42 PM
It's the bit about sampling: "it's not all black and white", which amuses me.

I don't think the race aspect is particularly important today, but I can see the point. Then again, it's not really an issue which is relevant to me, so perhaps it is still important...

Certainly, there were instances during the rise of rock & roll, where the law was used in dubious ways that just so happened to punish afro-carribeans more than whites. The whole payola dispute is worth reading up on, although it's been a while, so I'll leave that for someone else to argue.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500600 - 12/08/07 04:47 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

Re: You don't need to clear it. It's perfectly OK to quote from books... even for a band name.

If that was really true then why are Marillion not called Silmarillion?




That's not a quote from a book, it's the title of a book. Titles aren't copyright... they cannot be used because they represent the work owned by a publisher and use of them could be considered passing off.

Quote Happyandbored:

Why are The Doors not called The Doors of Perception?




That's not a quote from a book, it's another title of a book.

Quote Happyandbored:

There are fair use laws for using quotations in academic work yes, but from my reading, these do not extend to using these names effectively as a trade mark in a commercial venture.




This is nothing to do with copyright exceptions (we don't have "fair use" that's America).

If your band is named after a quotation from a book it's most unlikely to be copyright. When a book is copyright, it is the book and substantial parts of the book that are covered. It would be extremely unusual for any individual phrase in the book to be copyright.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Slammer]
      #500602 - 12/08/07 04:51 PM
slammer, I hear what you say. It sums up what most of the nay-sayers say.

But how can you police it? Easy enough when the sample is recognisable. But what about when it isn't? Would you recognise a single snare drum hit off any particular record?

Or what about a sample of strings (not the melody) that is used, effectively, as an oscillator to create a completely new track, without any reference, at all, to the melody or lyrical (words and music) content of the work from which the sample was taken? How are you going to know that there has been a breach of the law?

Surely, a law that looks at the extent of the sampling or, better still, one that has a simple test of recognition, would be not only a fairer way of adjudicating on such matters, but will also be a fairer reflection on the "evil" that copyright is (in reality) trying to prevent - namely the mere gross reproduction of someone else's ideas!

Is this propostion so totally absurd?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500603 - 12/08/07 04:52 PM
Quote leslawrenson:

"I can't understand why you are so desperate to copy other people's stuff. Haven't you got any imagination?" Rob C

With respect, Rob, that displays an incredible ignorance of some of the highly creative work undertaken by samplists.




Not really Les... unless Happy is one of them... and he claims not to be.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500604 - 12/08/07 04:54 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

Re: the MCPS' clearance service.

They only help you find the copyright holders contact details...




Look again. That is not correct.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Slammer]
      #500607 - 12/08/07 05:00 PM
Quote slammer:

The "is sampling theft" argument seems to get side tracked by artistic factors. The real issue is that practically all commercially released music will have a statement to the effect of:

"All rights of the producer and the owner of the recorded work reserved. Unauthorised copying, hiring, renting, public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited."

If you don't have permission sampling is unauthorised copying. And it is prohibited.

It doesn't become theft when you use the sample, it becomes theft when you take the sample.

Im not against sampling culture, but i do believe in a culture where peoples rights are upheld.

Its not about how long a sample is, or how creative you are with it. You buy a product with certain rights granted to you and others denied.

Unauthorised copying (sampling) is prohibited. It is theft.

I totally acknowledge the impracticality of gaining clearance for audio before it has even entered the sampler for experimentation, and I'm sure every publisher and other owner of rights is happy to extend that courtesy. But putting a piece of someone else's audio into your sampler doesn't make it yours.

You should expect that at some point down the line you should pay your dues.




Repeating what the law already says ad nauseum is not really engaging with the argument. Neither do I recall anyone saying sampling should be free.

If you acknowledge the impracticality of clearance, then how would you make the system better?

Re: Its not about how long a sample is, or how creative you are with it. You buy a product with certain rights granted to you and others denied.

Under the system as it stands at present, yes I agree. However, laws are not set in stone. There *could* be a system in place which gives composers propertorial rights to chord sequences. Thankfully, there isn't. Those laws can be changed, and under them different forms of creativity will live and sometimes die.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500608 - 12/08/07 05:01 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

It's the bit about sampling: "it's not all black and white", which amuses me.





Well... I thought things were becoming a little heated! Nothing like humour to cool the temperature.



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #500609 - 12/08/07 05:09 PM
To quote:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/jun97/sampleclearance.html

Although they won't negotiate a deal between you and one of the majors, they will find out who owns the copyright of any song ever registered, what their phone number is, probably give you a name to contact, and advise you on what you're getting into.

Perhaps the MCPS have changed over the last ten years, but my brief Google search could find nothing to indicate this.

Re: This is nothing to do with copyright exceptions (we don't have "fair use" that's America).
Fair point - ok, so replace "fair use" with those bits of a work that aren't copied by copyright, which you seem to think include the titles of books. This despite several notable examples of band names with variations on various book titles. Why did they change them? Could I really set up a band called 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'? If so, why couldn't Gary Gygax call halflings Hobbits, in Dungeon and Dragons? There is nothing in my copy of the Hobbit to suggest that the name is trademarked and you seem to think it isn't covered by copyright. Perhaps it would be now, but back then? Perhaps the confusion here is all down to differences in UK and US law, who knows?

Regardless, my point for even mentioning the band name problem was to illustrate how difficult it actually is to get an answer from these people, not to get into discussion of the intricacies of copyright in literature.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
jellyjim
active member


Joined: 15/05/02
Posts: 2998
Loc: uk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Sir George Martian]
      #500621 - 12/08/07 05:28 PM
Quote Sir George Martian:

Quote jellyjim:


There is another important issue here that shouldn't be overlooked. Hip-hop is a musical form largely born of the Afro-Caribbean diaspora of the continental United States. Said diaspora has historically endured significant social and economic deprivation compared to white communities. In the absence of educational, financial and artistic opportunities a "make do" spirit prevails.





Years ago, when blacks were far more disadvantaged than today, they managed to create and dominate the genres of Blues, Jazz, and R&B, using real instruments and analogue tape. Suddenly, they can't play and can't afford instruments? **snort**




That's an interesting point actually because the instruments that originated Blues, Jazz and R&B were the instruments of the poor. The piano or organ (pipe or hammond) would have been owned by the local church, ie the community not individuals. Guitars have always been cheap as chips and in one genre at least, jazz, still fight to be considered a "real instrument" at all. Yup many jazzers still regard the guitar as not belonging to jazz. And speaking of jazz it has been observed that the at it's origins, ie ragtime trad/new orleans, it was predominated by brass instruments. Brass instruments were cheap as chips in the decades that followed the American Civi War because of the disbanding of so many military and marching bands.

Quote Sir George Martian:

Creating a piece of music can take a lot of creativity, work, time, stress, and money. Sampling it takes seconds. It's cheap and easy and free. Of course it's attractive to want to do it.




Of course there are lazy uses of samples just like there are lazy uses of the 12 bar blues. To paraphrase Harry Allen, red is just red. Look how Van Gough used yellow for his sunflowers compared to how my mate's 5 year old used yellow to paint a "dog" at school. Be it "yellow" or samples, it's all just tools.

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
jellyjim
active member


Joined: 15/05/02
Posts: 2998
Loc: uk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Sir George Martian]
      #500624 - 12/08/07 05:33 PM
Quote Sir George Martian:

using real instruments and analogue tape




On the contrary, the recording of black American music invariably involved the financial assistance of often more prosperous white businessman.

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
John Willett
Sound-Link ProAudio


Joined: 07/03/00
Posts: 12454
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: jimdrake]
      #500626 - 12/08/07 05:36 PM
Quote jimdrake:

Quote John Willett:

Sampling is theft - full stop.




If someone takes my camera, that is theft. I no longer have the ability to use it. I will also lose any income that is generated directly through using it.

If someone clones my camera, and uses it for whatever reason, that is not theft. I still posses my copy, my life is not directly affected by someone else also having it.




That's not quite correct.

It's more like the Chinese copying products and selling cheap fakes.

It deprives the legitimate manufacturer of income and tarnishes their reputation if people think the fake is genuine.

Illegal and immoral.



--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Arpangel
active member


Joined: 12/07/03
Posts: 5527
Loc: London
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Bertyjnr]
      #500628 - 12/08/07 05:39 PM
Quote Bertyjnr:

No one race owns music more than any other; it is down to individual contributions.




How about all those guys playing the blues, in the Southern States, sitting in rented rooms, not getting a penny for their music, and dieing young.

(Cue music: Eric Clapton, Peter Green, Keith Richards, and a host of other enterprising young men who took the opportunity to indulge a bit of "plunderphonics" themselves.

Tony.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
jellyjim
active member


Joined: 15/05/02
Posts: 2998
Loc: uk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Arpangel]
      #500631 - 12/08/07 05:49 PM
Quote arpangel:

Quote Bertyjnr:

No one race owns music more than any other; it is down to individual contributions.




How about all those guys playing the blues, in the Southern States, sitting in rented rooms, not getting a penny for their music, and dieing young.

(Cue music: Eric Clapton, Peter Green, Keith Richards, and a host of other enterprising young men who took the opportunity to indulge a bit of "plunderphonics" themselves.

Tony.




Blues rock is a great example. Those boys nicked those riffs wholesale and will happily admit to it! But ...

... they added something. Yes the music of the Stones is rooted in the black blues idiom but it'd be foolish to acknowledge they didn't add something of their own to it. What a brilliant idea. Cross the blues with the arrogant pretty boy swagger of swinging London. It sounds fantastic doesn't it?

Now that's a creative use of sampling. And to be frank knowing Keith if he could have dropped in those licks from a sampler rather than have to learn them (not like their hard anyway!) he probably would have. It would have given him more time to do junk and chase girls

It feeds both ways too. It's not just James Brown that gets sampled. Aerosmith/Led Zep/The Shadows being three famous examples.

Anybody recognise the drum break on Bjork's Army of Me? It's Led Zep.

What about musique concrete? The lazy cheats!

Judge music as a whole not by a single aspect of the process by which it is created.

I bet you there's a song in your record collection right now that you listen to and enjoy with a bit of somebody elses song forming it's backbone and you don't even realise.

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Slammer



Joined: 22/06/06
Posts: 12
Loc: UK
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500639 - 12/08/07 05:56 PM
Quote Happyandbored:



Repeating what the law already says ad nauseum is not really engaging with the argument. Neither do I recall anyone saying sampling should be free.

If you acknowledge the impracticality of clearance, then how would you make the system better?






I am engaging with the argument, the fact that I share the same view as what the law already says doesn't make my input less valid. As i am someone who is more likely to have my work sampled than sample somebody else's (and I know people to whom it has happened) I am simply responding to what was asked for in the original post.
OP: "It's a one-sided argument for the pro-samplers. I would like to have seen the argument put for those who have had their work copied, and especially from those who have sued"


I acknowledged the impracticality of clearing before sampling.



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500643 - 12/08/07 05:58 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

Re: This is nothing to do with copyright exceptions (we don't have "fair use" that's America).
Fair point - ok, so replace "fair use" with those bits of a work that aren't copied by copyright, which you seem to think include the titles of books. This despite several notable examples of band names with variations on various book titles. Why did they change them?




Why they changed them is explained fully in my post.

Copyright is not the only kind of IP that is protected by law.

Quote:

...bits of a work that aren't copied by copyright, which you seem to think include the titles of books.




It's not what I "seem to think", it's the way it is.

See page 4 of this pdf.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Steve Hill
member


Joined: 07/01/03
Posts: 13141
Loc: Oxfordshire
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500650 - 12/08/07 06:03 PM
We all seem to be agreed on what the law is.

I have not yet seen a good argument for changing it.

So where does that leave us all? Where we started.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Arpangel
active member


Joined: 12/07/03
Posts: 5527
Loc: London
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Arpangel]
      #500652 - 12/08/07 06:04 PM
Quote arpangel:



How about all those guys playing the blues, in the Southern States, sitting in rented rooms, not getting a penny for their music, and dieing young.


Tony.





Hey ! on reflection sounds a bit like me (apart from the dieing bit) now how about that for a romantic vision ? !

Tony.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #500655 - 12/08/07 06:08 PM
Ah right, I see what I've done now - I misread this line:

That's not a quote from a book, it's the title of a book. Titles aren't copyright... they cannot be used because they represent the work owned by a publisher and use of them could be considered passing off.

specifically the bit where you claim titles aren't copyright, I guess implying that they're trademarked?



Thanks, by the way, for clarifying the copyright law on the book quotation. That had been bugging me.

Obviously, the book titles are poor examples, but this doesn't invalidate my point regarding the difficulty of contacting copyright holders in the first place!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve Hill]
      #500665 - 12/08/07 06:15 PM
Quote Steve Hill:

We all seem to be agreed on what the law is.

I have not yet seen a good argument for changing it.

So where does that leave us all? Where we started.




Try reading the ones from my posts mine earler. Specifically, the argument that if it was made easier to clear and pay copyright fees, more musicians will earn more royalties as more people will declare their samples and pay for the right to use them. Alternatively, we could carry on with the current system, where musicians either have to risk using the samples illegally, because they have neither the time or money to clear them alone under the present system, or compromise their preferred form of creativity.

Maybe you look down on sampling, but many people don't. How would you like it if you're prefered style of music was threatened in a similar way? Perhaps because certain institutions deemed certain creative processes as being wrong. What if copyright stifled your creativity to such a degree that you were not allowed to use a favourite chord sequence or rip off a certain melody?

I know, through talking to artists affected by these issues, that it is a very real concern. One artist will not attempt to sell a lot of the music he has recorded. The stuff he has worked on for commercial release does not contain copyrighted samples and as a result, the whole style of that music is different. Another artist takes the risk and so far has not been caught. He would like to credit those he's sampled, but can't for obvious reasons. Under a system like the one I was proposing, he would be able to pay a fair price for those samples and give credit where it is due. As it stands at the moment, he feels the law is restricting his creativity, so he ignores it.

You could take the moral high-ground I suppose, but it seems to me much better to enforce a law which ensures more musicians get a slice of the pie (including those whose work is sampled), than one which results in many musicians simply breaking the law.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve Hill]
      #500678 - 12/08/07 06:30 PM
Quote Steve Hill:

I have not yet seen a good argument for changing it.

So where does that leave us all? Where we started.




I agree... although the law and regulation is a moving target, especially in relation to Gowers. This is a BMR summary of what they're doing.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #500701 - 12/08/07 07:06 PM
From the link:

It is an age where the key question remains: How do we ensure creative individuals are paid for their work and that the investors in their talent continue to receive a return on their investment.

It is this part about "investors in their talent" which concerns me. Why is there any need today for a musician to be reliant on an investor, ie, record company? Given that the technology is there to make it possible, why is the focus not on creating a media environment which allows creative individuals to act autonomously? (With the exception of the MCPS of course )


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500715 - 12/08/07 07:18 PM
That isn't just about external record companies... it covers all the interests who invest in various works, including the artists themselves.

If my record company is me I am just as interested in my assets, maybe more so.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500717 - 12/08/07 07:22 PM
"It's more like the Chinese copying products and selling cheap fakes.

It deprives the legitimate manufacturer of income and tarnishes their reputation if people think the fake is genuine.

Illegal and immoral." John Willet



I'd certainly agree with that, where the Chinese manufacturer makes a copy of, say a Fender Strat.

But what about the case where the same chaps takes an actual Fender Strat, dismantles it, and uses some of the components (not all of them), adds them to his own components, and makes a completely different guitar, nothing that looks or sounds like a Strat?

Is there a difference?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500718 - 12/08/07 07:24 PM
Has it got a humbucker in the bridge position?

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
John Willett
Sound-Link ProAudio


Joined: 07/03/00
Posts: 12454
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500719 - 12/08/07 07:27 PM
Quote leslawrenson:

"It's more like the Chinese copying products and selling cheap fakes.

It deprives the legitimate manufacturer of income and tarnishes their reputation if people think the fake is genuine.

Illegal and immoral." John Willet



I'd certainly agree with that, where the Chinese manufacturer makes a copy of, say a Fender Strat.

But what about the case where the same chaps takes an actual Fender Strat, dismantles it, and uses some of the components (not all of them), adds them to his own components, and makes a completely different guitar, nothing that looks or sounds like a Strat?

Is there a difference?




Yes, in your example the person owns the Fender Strat and can do what he likes with it.

OK another analogy.....

You buy a painting from an artist - it is yours, you can put it on the wall, hide it in a bank vault, even destroy it.

What you *can't* do (without permission) is to take a photo of it and use it on a CD cover (for example).

The artist still owns the intellectual property unless specifically transferred to you.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
John Willett
Sound-Link ProAudio


Joined: 07/03/00
Posts: 12454
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #500720 - 12/08/07 07:28 PM
Quote Rob C.:

Has it got a humbucker in the bridge position?




Only if it's a false analogy.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve Hill]
      #500727 - 12/08/07 07:35 PM
Quote Steve Hill:

We all seem to be agreed on what the law is.

I have not yet seen a good argument for changing it.







Let me give you one.

Copyright prevents the copying of someone elses work. There is an argument with the written word as to how many words need to be copied before there is a breach. It is generally accepted that copyright cannot attach to one word (although a single word can be the subject of a trade mark application).

Now, there is nothing to stop you or me from taking a book, pulping it, and using the pulp to make cardboard, which we then, say, turn into packaging for our own commercial purposes.

Let's look at music. Copyright, rightly IMO, prevents the copying (without consent) of someone elses music, and in the context of sampling, that would mean preventing the use of the samplist from copying and using that work in his own work.

But unlike with the book example, the law still applies to my taking a sample and using it in my work in such a way that you would never know from I took it. Notwithstanding that no one knows the law of copyright has been breached, nonetheless it has.

Do you not share with me the sense of the absurdity in this?

The reason for this absurd state of affairs is due to the fact that the law is outdated, and does not take sufficient heed of modern technology, or the way in which some samplists work. To use my earlier example, these samplists want to pulp the book and make something completely different, they are not interested in wholesale copying of anything of substance that might have been written in the book.

Even if you remain of the view that there is no difference in this type of usage, can you at least not see the sense in changing the law so that it does not make a mockery of itself?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500731 - 12/08/07 07:40 PM
The rights in the text are not in the paper (medium) though. They are in the content, the words.

Although you're theoretically correct, I don't know any case where the audio has been mangled beyond recognition and still found out.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

Edited by Rob C. (12/08/07 07:42 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: John Willett]
      #500734 - 12/08/07 07:42 PM
Quote John Willett:



OK another analogy.....

You buy a painting from an artist - it is yours, you can put it on the wall, hide it in a bank vault, even destroy it.

What you *can't* do (without permission) is to take a photo of it and use it on a CD cover (for example).

The artist still owns the intellectual property unless specifically transferred to you.





I can accept your analogy. But let me change the facts slightly.

I take a photocopy of the painting, cut the copy up into very small pieces, so that no one, even the artist, can tell that any one piece is from a copy of his painting, and I take some (not all) of those pieces, paste them onto a piece of card, against in such a way that neither you nor the original artist can recognise the work from which they have been copied, and I then proceed to lay my own work or art on the result, interweaving my work with the textures I have created from copying the painting.

Should I now be held liable for breach of copyright?

And if you answer "yes" how on earth are you going to enforce the law in this particular case?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #500737 - 12/08/07 07:44 PM
Quote Rob C.:

The rights in the text are not in the paper (medium) though. They are in the content, the words.

Although you're theoretically correct, I don't know any case where the audio has been mangled beyond recognition and still found out.





Correct. There is no easy corollary between copyright in the written word and in recorded music. And yet, the same law is applied to each.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #500742 - 12/08/07 07:46 PM
Quote Rob C.:

Has it got a humbucker in the bridge position?








It could well have, Rob.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500743 - 12/08/07 07:46 PM
I can see where you're coming from... but all the different copyrights have different provisions. Some media you can do certain things... others you can't. The world of copyright isn't a set of uniform conditions applied to all media.

Choreography is copyright for example... but not in the same way that a published layout is.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500746 - 12/08/07 07:48 PM
Quote leslawrenson:

Quote Rob C.:

The rights in the text are not in the paper (medium) though. They are in the content, the words.

Although you're theoretically correct, I don't know any case where the audio has been mangled beyond recognition and still found out.




Correct. There is no easy corollary between copyright in the written word and in recorded music. And yet, the same law is applied to each.




It's the same headline law, but the clauses of the act do differ between types of copyright.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #500753 - 12/08/07 07:53 PM
Quote Rob C.:


It's the same headline law, but the clauses of the act do differ between types of copyright.





I totally agree. And the law is there for all to read.

However, the law does not easily take account of the matters that I have outlined. I think it could be clarified to the benefit of all.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Steve Hill
member


Joined: 07/01/03
Posts: 13141
Loc: Oxfordshire
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500759 - 12/08/07 08:08 PM
I'll stick with my earlier example: the opening chord (combined with its production treatment) of say "Hard Day's Night" is so recognisable, even if it is just one strum of one guitar, that it comes freighted with a load of baggage that basically says quality. To use it is to seek to import someone elses quality into your own work.

Some may call that creative; some "cheating" in some way.

Quote Happyandbored:

Specifically, the argument that if it was made easier to clear and pay copyright fees, more musicians will earn more royalties as more people will declare their samples and pay for the right to use them.




You assume musicians only want another source of income. Some value their work enough to say "this is how I made it and that is how I want it to be". They should have the final say (and do).

Quote Happyandbored:

Maybe you look down on sampling, but many people don't. How would you like it if you're prefered style of music was threatened in a similar way? Perhaps because certain institutions deemed certain creative processes as being wrong.




Copyright law has been around 100 years longer than sampling. It seems to me it's up the samplers to fit in with the world as it is (possibly imperfect - what isn't?) rather than demand that everybody uproots the existing system to indulge their foibles. The system has stood the test of time with very few fundamental changes. I see no case for fundamental change now.

The difficulty of clearing samples is recognised, but is a product of there being many copyright holders with different representatives in different countries. And faced with the decision, original artists need to think about whether to say yes or no. You seem to want to deprive them of that right. Nobody said it should be easy.

I have already made the point that real-world, professional musicians quite often find it much easier to re-record rather than sample. I don't have a problem with that.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
John Willett
Sound-Link ProAudio


Joined: 07/03/00
Posts: 12454
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500766 - 12/08/07 08:13 PM
Quote leslawrenson:

I take a photocopy of the painting, cut the copy up into very small pieces, so that no one, even the artist, can tell that any one piece is from a copy of his painting, and I take some (not all) of those pieces, paste them onto a piece of card, against in such a way that neither you nor the original artist can recognise the work from which they have been copied, and I then proceed to lay my own work or art on the result, interweaving my work with the textures I have created from copying the painting.

Should I now be held liable for breach of copyright?

And if you answer "yes" how on earth are you going to enforce the law in this particular case?




But if you do all this, why not create your own samples from scratch.

It is taking someone else's work to make your own easier.

No, it's not enforceable as far as I know; but probably still immoral.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: John Willett]
      #500774 - 12/08/07 08:19 PM
It's probably enforceable by watermarking.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
John Willett
Sound-Link ProAudio


Joined: 07/03/00
Posts: 12454
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #500776 - 12/08/07 08:22 PM
Quote Rob C.:

It's probably enforceable by watermarking.




But the watermark would likely be lost if it was chopped enough.

But then why not do your own from scratch.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Sir George Martian



Joined: 04/08/07
Posts: 23
Loc: Cyberville
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500888 - 12/08/07 10:50 PM
Try rereading my posts.

Try reading the ones from my posts mine earler. (sic)



Thanks, but once was plenty.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Bertyjnr
member


Joined: 06/05/04
Posts: 482
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500890 - 12/08/07 10:51 PM
These analogies aren't very useful. The more interesting (and far away from the original subject) an analogy is, the increasing pointlessness there is of comparing it. Different mediums need to be considered individually.

And to those who feel it's wrong to sample when the original sample is not recognisable: apart from the irrelevance of your view, in the sense the sample-manipulator won't get found out, you've now strayed into the territory of agreeing royalties should be paid to the inventors of musical instruments, etc.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve Hill]
      #500917 - 13/08/07 01:16 AM
Re: You assume musicians only want another source of income. Some value their work enough to say "this is how I made it and that is how I want it to be".

No, I assume that musicians who release their music commercially are in the main, unlikely to turn down an additional source of income.

Re: They should have the final say (and do).

Actually, they don't always have the final say. (see below)

Re: Copyright law has been around 100 years longer than sampling. It seems to me it's up the samplers to fit in with the world as it is (possibly imperfect - what isn't?) rather than demand that everybody uproots the existing system to indulge their foibles. The system has stood the test of time with very few fundamental changes. I see no case for fundamental change now.

The idea that many things are imperfect therefore we should stop trying to improve things is a little odd. On the contrary, much of copyright law as it stands today was largely introduced because of the invention of the printing press. Technological change has always prompted legal change. The system, as many have pointed out, is not always fit for purpose and needs to be overhauled.

But regardless, the changes I'm calling for are hardly radical enough to be defined as "fundamental changes" - A quick to use , easily affordable system of sample clearance based on ability to pay? Quick, kill the commie scum!!!

Re: The difficulty of clearing samples is recognised, but is a product of there being many copyright holders with different representatives in different countries. And faced with the decision, original artists need to think about whether to say yes or no. You seem to want to deprive them of that right. Nobody said it should be easy.

Erm... a lot of people have said that it should be easier. In addition, I'm saying right now, it should be easier.

The difficulty of clearing samples is the result of too much copyright protection and the absence of any form of centralised clearance system. It should be as easy for a small time musician to use a copyrighted sample as it is for the BBC.

To repeat an earlier point you've obviously missed: the BBC are allowed to use copyrighted works without the artist's permission. This is part of the reason why their documentaries are often of such high quality (*). The BBC don't have to waste huge amounts of time and money tracking down rights holders for every piece of music no matter how small, so they can direct more resources into making high quality programmes (well they used to at least...). In other words, the copyright protection provided to individual musicians has been restricted because it benefits the common good. This sometimes allows things that might never have been done: using Cliff Richard in an episode of the critically acclaimed Monkeydust for example. More to the point though, it even extends to the *samples* used in their radio jingles. Why should there be one law for the BBC and another for independent musicians? Why should sampling in hip-hop be rendered prohibitively time consuming and expensive for small-time independent musicians, yet absolutely fine-and-dandy for a massive corporation like the BBC?

Regardless, it is extremely unlikely anyone is going to chose your music to sample or use anyway given the amount of music out there, let alone use it in a way which is offensive. Personally, I like the idea of Cliff Richard being offended. However, in extreme cases - ie, the earlier example of using the music of openly gay musicians in an anti-gay rap record - other laws exist and such a record is hardly likely to garner air-play anyway. You would likely never hear of it to be offended in the first place. What then are you afraid of? Or do you just not want people to sample your records because you hate hip-hop? Should we stop blues and jazz musicians from playing on the basis that their chord sequences are unoriginal?

I understand the issue about moral rights, I really do. In fact, I once held the opposing view! On reflection however, I think, to quote Mr Spock in Star Trek II, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If you do not want your music used comercially, then you should not release it commercially. However, even if we were to continue to protect moral rights under our imaginary new system (giving an option for artists to prevent use in sampling) the fact still remains, that the system for sample clearance as it stands at the moment is too slow and too expensive for many musicians.

Re: I have already made the point that real-world, professional musicians quite often find it much easier to re-record rather than sample. I don't have a problem with that.

And I made the point that for many musicians this is fundamentally a different thing - it sounds different. Compare the most recent Amon Tobin album (created using his own recorded samples) to one of his earlier albums such as 'Permutation' or 'Bricolage', which both took samples from all over the place. These earlier records have a distinctive style in common, which sounds drastically different to the most recent record. Amon Tobin is fortunate to be signed to a well known and relatively large record label that can provide the support necessary to clear those samples. However, this does not mean that copyright laws have not negitively affected him:

From http://www.inthemix.com.au/features/29832/Amon_Tobin_Enter_the_Foley_Room:

"I guess it was a nice recording of that show. Unfortunately a lot of the tracks that I played could not make it onto the final mix because they could not get clearance for them. That’s why there are some weird edits on that CD. Unfortunately a lot of my favourite parts were edited out."

Just because you don't value this form of creativity doesn't mean that everyone feels the same way. It angers me that one musician has the power to say to another "I'm not going to allow you to make the kind of music you want to", whilst being allowed to rip off a favourite chord sequence and claim credit for a whole new song. It annoys me that one form of plagarism his heralded as creativity, and another theft.

--------

(* = not counting Panorama, which is usually utter toss... I wonder how long until that guy ranting on the Scientology episode gets used in a 'choon'.... )

[Edited for structure]


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Sir George Martian



Joined: 04/08/07
Posts: 23
Loc: Cyberville
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500928 - 13/08/07 05:38 AM
Personally, I like the idea of Cliff Richard being offended.


That says more than the several thousand other words you have written on this thread.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500944 - 13/08/07 07:36 AM
Quote Happyandbored:

...the BBC are allowed to use copyrighted works without the artist's permission.




Rubbish. The same law applies to the BBC.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Ronnie Wibbley
active member


Joined: 31/01/02
Posts: 1934
Loc: Stuck behind a tractor.
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500950 - 13/08/07 07:59 AM
Hmmm... four pages in and we're no further on.

I knew I should have read the sweep picking thread instead.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Ronnie Wibbley]
      #500954 - 13/08/07 08:23 AM
I suspected I shouldn't have bothered with either... and I was right.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Steve House



Joined: 25/06/06
Posts: 65
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #500956 - 13/08/07 08:26 AM
Quote Happyandbored:

Did you miss the part about the difficulty of clearing each and every sample in a track containing hundreds of samples under the current system of clearance and licensing? Did you miss the part about the prohibitive cost of those licenses or that fact that major-label signed artists have the power of the label behind them to clear all of those samples, because often it is in fact that label or a subsidiarary who owns them? Did you actually bother to read my own experience of trying to clear copyright (albeit for permission to use a book quotation as a band name) which was met with stoney silence?

There is no reason why a simpler system of clearance should not be introduced - spefically one which does not demand a legal team behind you to implement. Likewise, there is no good reason why sampling royalties should not be charged proportionally to the amount of money a sampled track actually makes. The system as it stands at the moment is nothing more a protection racket for big media, keeping meaningful creative freedom out of the hands of the masses by imposing excessive economic and legal constraints.

Point taken about the PPL though - all these acronyms have kind of turned into one big blur since finishing university a few years back... PPRCPSML or whatever...




You seem to be under the impression that you have some right to use works produced by others for purposes of your own choosing - that your creative desires trump their property rights - and that the system is somehow obligated to make it easy and affordable for you to do so. If it doesn't, that justifies just going ahead and using it anyway. In fact you do not have any rights to another's work other than those they choose to grant you and only under whatever terms and conditions they demand. It's their property and they can do with it what they will -you have no right to any claim to it. On the other hand, they have every right to make it as cheap or as dear as they see fit, to make it easy for you or to make you go to ridiculous lengths, or to deny you any use of it whatsoever. Their intransigence, perhaps even their unreasonablness, does not justify using their work without permission.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Steve Hill
member


Joined: 07/01/03
Posts: 13141
Loc: Oxfordshire
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #500961 - 13/08/07 08:35 AM
Mornington Crescent.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Sir George Martian]
      #500999 - 13/08/07 09:55 AM
Quote Sir George Martian:

Try rereading my posts.

Try reading the ones from my posts mine earler. (sic)



Thanks, but once was plenty.





An excellent and thoroughly constructive comment.

Thank you immensely for your valued contribution.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Sir George Martian]
      #501002 - 13/08/07 10:02 AM
Quote Sir George Martian:

Personally, I like the idea of Cliff Richard being offended.


That says more than the several thousand other words you have written on this thread.






Why have you accredited this quote to me? I never said anything of the sort. That particular statement was made by Happyandbored.

If you are intent on hurling pointless and unconstructive insults, at least please do try to get the right man!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #501003 - 13/08/07 10:04 AM
Quote Rob C.:

I suspected I shouldn't have bothered with either... and I was right.





Then don't. It's very simply, really.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Slammer



Joined: 22/06/06
Posts: 12
Loc: UK
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve House]
      #501008 - 13/08/07 10:10 AM
Quote Steve House:




You seem to be under the impression that you have some right to use works produced by others for purposes of your own choosing - that your creative desires trump their property rights - and that the system is somehow obligated to make it easy and affordable for you to do so. If it doesn't, that justifies just going ahead and using it anyway. In fact you do not have any rights to another's work other than those they choose to grant you and only under whatever terms and conditions they demand. It's their property and they can do with it what they will -you have no right to any claim to it. On the other hand, they have every right to make it as cheap or as dear as they see fit, to make it easy for you or to make you go to ridiculous lengths, or to deny you any use of it whatsoever. Their intransigence, perhaps even their unreasonablness, does not justify using their work without permission.




Exactly.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Les



Joined: 22/02/05
Posts: 1235
Loc: Alloa flat, studio and rural/u...
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #501022 - 13/08/07 10:30 AM
Too many Les's in this lol. Getting confused as which one was being referred to most of the time. I could change my name to Sel perhaps? or Lez?

Sorry, please continue while I continue at the cutting edge of broadcoast news (my desk is next to the office guillotine - sorry )

--------------------
"If I had all the money i'd spent on drink, i'd spend it on drink". Vivian Stanshall

Edited by Les (13/08/07 10:30 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #501032 - 13/08/07 10:49 AM
Quote Rob C.:

Quote Happyandbored:

...the BBC are allowed to use copyrighted works without the artist's permission.




Rubbish. The same law applies to the BBC.




Not rubbish. Although perhaps we are getting a little mixed up between copyright law and the workings of the MCPS/PRS.

Anyway, from:

http://www.musiclawupdates.com/news/previousnewsupdates.htm

"RADIOHEAD OBJECT TO USE OF MUSIC IN ADVERT 31/07/03
Radiohead have threatened legal action against the BBC after the broadcaster used the track 'There There' as the soundbed for a campaign to get UK veiwers to pay their television licence fees by direct debit or bank standing orders.

The BBC have now removed the track from the advertisement. Radiohead's management have said that the group do not permit or licence their music for commercial uses. Usually specific consent is asked from both the songwriter (or music publisher) and the artist (and their label) before music is used In any advertisement. The BBC use a number of 'blanket' licences with trade associations and collection societies such as the MCPS, PRS and PPL (representing music publishers and record labels) and has said it felt that it had acted in accordance with record industry rules."

And from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Dust

"On 8 November 2004, the first series of Monkey Dust was released in the UK on DVD. Several musical substitutions had to be made from the television airing (where the BBC is allowed to play any commercial release without permission), as artists such as Cliff Richard and David Gray would not allow their work to be used on the DVD. Cover versions of the original songs were used instead."

And the MCPS-PRS website: http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/membership/MCPSroyalties/mcpspaymentsch edule/Pages/MCPSpaymentschedule.aspx

"BBC Broadcasting - Monies paid by the BBC for a blanket agreement with MCPS, covering the recording of music into programmes."


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve House]
      #501047 - 13/08/07 11:30 AM
Quote Steve House:


You seem to be under the impression that you have some right to use works produced by others for purposes of your own choosing - that your creative desires trump their property rights - and that the system is somehow obligated to make it easy and affordable for you to do so. If it doesn't, that justifies just going ahead and using it anyway. In fact you do not have any rights to another's work other than those they choose to grant you and only under whatever terms and conditions they demand. It's their property and they can do with it what they will -you have no right to any claim to it. On the other hand, they have every right to make it as cheap or as dear as they see fit, to make it easy for you or to make you go to ridiculous lengths, or to deny you any use of it whatsoever. Their intransigence, perhaps even their unreasonablness, does not justify using their work without permission.




That's right - I believe music stands to lose far more by protecting the rights of the few naysayers. It is a choice whether to release one's music comercially and there are many other aspects of licensing that artists don't have any control over. I happen to think that one creator shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of someone else's creativity, by placing something into the public sphere and then having a hissy fit when someone wants to pay homage to it or parody it - just because they don't understand or are predjudiced against that person's form of creativity. That attitude is arrogant in the extreme and damaging to music.

However, even if we were to include provisions to account for moral rights in a revised system, the fact remains that the licensing system as it stands at the moment is inadequate for today's music making needs.

I've given strong examples of other aspects of music/IP that are not protected from misuse and even illustrated the case of the BBC who are allowed to violate just those rights you are so concerned. If it can be made easy for a large corporation like the BBC, then it should also be so for small-time independent musicians.

You are repeating criticisms which I have already countered, suggesting that you haven't been reading my original posts. Likewise, you seem intent on repeating how the law currently stands, when we are actually debating how those rights and our licensing systems should be improved. Telling me how the law currently stands is not addressing the debate.

Regardless, your statement "it's their property" is very telling. Consider this qoute from Woodie Guthrie from the 1930s:

"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do."

(Notice also that the copyright period is only 28 years... But that is another story and shall be told another time.)

What a sad time for music, that all it is now regarded as is property.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
hollowsun



Joined: 20/01/05
Posts: 5582
Loc: Cowbridge, South Wales
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #501051 - 13/08/07 11:44 AM
Quote Happyandbored:

"RADIOHEAD OBJECT TO USE OF MUSIC IN ADVERT"



Which is why your 'standard', off-the-shelf, use-anything-you-please-for nominal fee scheme won't work and I can see the headlines now:

"RADIOHEAD OBJECT TO HAPPYANDBORED'S USE OF SAMPLES OF THEIR MUSIC IN HIS SONG"

You cannot assume that every musician, writer, publisher, composer is happy to allow their work to be exploited as that usage can tarnish the copyright holder's 'brand' or reputation. For example, if I had written something and some happy-clappy God-squad hip-hopster used it as a vehicle to peddle their 'God is good' evangelism, I would be uncomfortable - I don't want my work associated with that ideology even if I get a few quid from it ... in much the same way as I would be opposed to having my work (and name and brand) associated with some "kill the mofo pig scumbag fuzz bastards and slap yo nigger bitch up" brigade, whatever.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #501054 - 13/08/07 11:49 AM
Quote Happyandbored:

"BBC Broadcasting - Monies paid by the BBC for a blanket agreement with MCPS, covering the recording of music into programmes."




These are standard blanket licenses, in no way unique to the BBC.

Are you seriously suggesting that by breaking its licensing conditions the BBC "is allowed" to do so?

Your facts speak for themselves. The BBC are not a special case.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: hollowsun]
      #501070 - 13/08/07 12:00 PM
I've already countered that argument from several different angles - please read my previous posts.

If you don't want something misused, don't put it out in the public domain. Due to expiring copyright, there is absolutely nothing to now stop the BNP from using a Woodie Guthrie track in a party political broadcast. So what?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
hollowsun



Joined: 20/01/05
Posts: 5582
Loc: Cowbridge, South Wales
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #501079 - 13/08/07 12:13 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

I've already countered that argument from several different angles



Yes.... but not in the slightest bit convincingly.

This thread has become somewhat circular - YOU think that anybody's work is fair game to be used and abused for some token payment by absolutely anyone; others do not.

And YOU consider exploiting someone else's work to be 'creative'; others do not.

And round and round it goes.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #501083 - 13/08/07 12:20 PM
Quote Rob C.:

Quote Happyandbored:

"BBC Broadcasting - Monies paid by the BBC for a blanket agreement with MCPS, covering the recording of music into programmes."




These are standard blanket licenses, in no way unique to the BBC.

Are you seriously suggesting that by breaking its licensing conditions the BBC "is allowed" to do so?

Your facts speak for themselves. The BBC are not a special case.




Where did I accuse the BBC of breaking licensing conditions? I was making the point that they can under their licenses, use material with little or no regard to the artist's wishes. In Radiohead's example they chose to pull the music - they weren't forced to at all. In the case of the Cliff Richard example, it had every right to use that music when it was broadcast on television because of the blanket license. It didn't, it had to ask permission, when it was released on DVD. That is because BBC Video is a commercial company and the MCPS/PRS blanket licenses do not apply.

Whether other organisations now have the same or similar licenses is irrelevant.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #501086 - 13/08/07 12:25 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

Where did I accuse the BBC of breaking licensing conditions?




You didn't. You said they were allowed to do so.

I am coming to the conclusion that you aren't serious.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: hollowsun]
      #501089 - 13/08/07 12:32 PM
Quote hollowsun:

Quote Happyandbored:

I've already countered that argument from several different angles



Yes.... but not in the slightest bit convincingly.

This thread has become somewhat circular - YOU think that anybody's work is fair game to be used and abused for some token payment by absolutely anyone; others do not.

And YOU consider exploiting someone else's work to be 'creative'; others do not.

And round and round it goes.




That's right, I do. Clap, Clap, well done.

How exactly is reminding me that people disagree in anyway advancing the debate?

What is it exactly about each of the numerous examples I've given that you don't find convincing?

It would be fine if posters were actually addressing my counter-examples. However, all that is happening is that the same criticisms are being repeated over and over. I'm getting a little tired of discussing this with people who seem incapable of reading.

You and others are responsible for making this thread circular by not engaging with the actual arguments.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #501092 - 13/08/07 12:35 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

What is it exactly about each of the numerous examples I've given that you don't find convincing?




Well, being wrong so often doesn't help.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #501093 - 13/08/07 12:35 PM
Quote Rob C.:

Quote Happyandbored:

Where did I accuse the BBC of breaking licensing conditions?




You didn't.





Really? Then why did you ask:

Are you seriously suggesting that by *****breaking its licensing conditions***** the BBC "is allowed" to do so?

I'm coming to the conclusion that you are incapable of rational debate or accepting obvious facts when evidence is presented to you.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #501095 - 13/08/07 12:38 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

Quote Rob C.:

Quote Happyandbored:

Where did I accuse the BBC of breaking licensing conditions?




You didn't.





Really? Then why did you ask:

Are you seriously suggesting that by *****breaking its licensing conditions***** the BBC "is allowed" to do so?




It's the "allowed to do so" bit that is wrong.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #501102 - 13/08/07 12:48 PM
Quote Rob C.:

Quote Happyandbored:

What is it exactly about each of the numerous examples I've given that you don't find convincing?




Well, being wrong so often doesn't help.




Now you seem more interested in making smug comments, than actually debating rationally. And you accuse me of not being serious?

If we want to stop this being a circular debate then we need to proceed as follows:

Can everyone please make sure they've read the whole thread carefully, the whole way through and make sure your criticisms have not already been raised by another poster. If a concern has been raised but you don't find the counter-argument convincing, then point out what it is specifically with the counter-argument that you don't find convincing and provide examples and evidence to back up your argument. Make sure someone else hasn't done the same first.

Avoid smug comments. They make you look like a twat.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Steve House



Joined: 25/06/06
Posts: 65
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #501103 - 13/08/07 12:48 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

...
That's right - I believe music stands to lose far more by protecting the rights of the few naysayers. ... I happen to think that one creator shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of someone else's creativity, by placing something into the public sphere and then having a hissy fit when someone wants to pay homage to it ...




That's sort of like saying your car is your private property while you keep it in the garage but once you park it on the street in public view it's fair game for anyone to take and use. In fact they haven't placed their work in the public sphere, they have sold a license to listen to a performance in the marketplace. Quite a different thing.

Quote:

However, even if we were to include provisions to account for moral rights in a revised system, the fact remains that the licensing system as it stands at the moment is inadequate for today's music making needs.



Not inadequate for music making needs, only inconvenient for those who choose to "borrow" other's creativity.

Quote:

...
You are repeating criticisms which I have already countered, suggesting that you haven't been reading my original posts. Likewise, you seem intent on repeating how the law currently stands, when we are actually debating how those rights and our licensing systems should be improved.




What is "improved" is very subjective. There are musicians and publishers who would say "improved" would mean plugging what loopholes currently exist that allow for any free usage at all.

Quote:

Regardless, your statement "it's their property" is very telling. Consider this qoute from Woodie Guthrie from the 1930s:

"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do."




And I applaud Guthrie's attitude and commend other artists in any medium to follow his example. But the fact remains that since he wrote the song, it is the child of his labours and as such it is his right and his alone to choose its disposition, to either make it free to everyone or to charge outlandish fees even to whistle it while walking down the street. His property, his call and no one else has a right to a say in the matter. Mere public performance does not make it public property.

When private property rights become subordinate to public desires, we all become slaves.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
tomafd



Joined: 03/10/05
Posts: 3468
Loc: uk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #501104 - 13/08/07 12:48 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

If you don't want something misused, don't put it out in the public domain.




Well, none of us are going to make any cash that way, are we ? And if we applied that to every single product and patent out there, the whole business of designing something good and making a buck out of it rather falls apart, if everyone is then free to rip off your design.The only reason people do it with other people's music is because it's easy to do so.

I'd agree that it would be a good thing if the whole licensing process was made easier, but I do object to the idea that the whole world of music is basically up for grabs for anyone to sample, and that they have an a priori right to do so which pre-empts the rightsholders right not to have their work used in contexts they object to.

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #501108 - 13/08/07 12:50 PM
Quote Rob C.:

I suspected I shouldn't have bothered with either... and I was right.




To be clear... there is a lot of interesting stuff in this thread, and some well-argued points. Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio is deteriorating.

To be constructive, might I suggest some of the loud voices (including myself) butt out at this point and let others contribute without bickering?

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #501109 - 13/08/07 12:50 PM
Re: It's the "allowed to do so" bit that is wrong. (and the stuff preceeding it).

What you're saying just doesn't make any sense.

Of course, they're allowed to do so. I've given two examples where they were allowed to do so.

Do you see the elephant in the room?

[added in quote for clarity]


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: tomafd]
      #501114 - 13/08/07 12:55 PM
Quote tomafd:

Quote Happyandbored:

If you don't want something misused, don't put it out in the public domain.




The only reason people do it with other people's music is because it's easy to do so.

As I pointed out in a previous posting, that is bad faith. It's also, in my experiences from talking to samplists, completely and utterly wrong. Go back and reread the earlier posts.

I'd agree that it would be a good thing if the whole licensing process was made easier

Hallelujah!!!

The moral rights issue is debatable and I'm not totally against the idea of factoring that into a revised system anyway, as I've pointed out several times.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #501116 - 13/08/07 12:58 PM
Quote Rob C.:

Quote Rob C.:

I suspected I shouldn't have bothered with either... and I was right.




To be clear... there is a lot of interesting stuff in this thread, and some well-argued points. Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio is deteriorating.

To be constructive, might I suggest some of the loud voices (including myself) butt out at this point and let others contribute without bickering?





Rob, many thanks for clarifying your earlier comment. I'm sorry if I flew off at an adjacent angle. It;s been known to happen on occasion.

I agree that some of us have been arguing a little too ardently in this thread, myself being a top offender. Like you, I'm going to step out of the debate, as I've said just about all I can say without repeating myself.

But I do hope that the subject can continue to be argued in a calm, peaceful and constructive manner. This has, by and large, been one of the more constructive threads on this very controversial issue, and I am grateful to the moderators for having the courage to let it run its course.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #501117 - 13/08/07 12:58 PM
Quote Rob C.:

Quote Rob C.:

I suspected I shouldn't have bothered with either... and I was right.




To be clear... there is a lot of interesting stuff in this thread, and some well-argued points. Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio is deteriorating.

To be constructive, might I suggest some of the loud voices (including myself) butt out at this point and let others contribute without bickering?




Fine, I'll shut it if you shut it!



Been praying for an end to this anyway - wasted far, far, far too much time!!! However, It's been a real pleasure debating it with you all.




Lastly, regarding Steve's comments regarding Woodie Guthrie - I quoted him to make a point about changing atttitudes in how musicians view their work, how we've moved to a culture of 'screw you buddy'. All I want is to improve copyright law and the licensing system to encourage a more open and sharing musical culture.

Maybe there is also a way to keep moral rights in such a system, but how do we prevent it becoming the norm to say 'screw you' so that everyone can have their cake?



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Neil C
active member


Joined: 01/04/03
Posts: 2616
Loc: Under a PlopEgg
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #501123 - 13/08/07 01:03 PM
Quote leslawrenson:


Do you not share with me the sense of the absurdity in this?

The reason for this absurd state of affairs is due to the fact that the law is outdated, and does not take sufficient heed of modern technology




Indeed so.
To the extent that it's a breach of copyright to play a CD from your computer drive. Because the data gets copied into a buffer - it breaches the no copying part of the law (at least this was the case a couple of years ago, I don't think it's changed).
It's also in the UK, against copyright law to tape a CD you have bought so you can play it in your car for your own personal listening. I believe the USA has an ammendment to allow this (again from what I was told a couple of years ago).

Copyright law, according to the little I have heard about, is a huge mess.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
tomafd



Joined: 03/10/05
Posts: 3468
Loc: uk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #501127 - 13/08/07 01:10 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

Quote tomafd:

Quote Happyandbored:

If you don't want something misused, don't put it out in the public domain.




The only reason people do it with other people's music is because it's easy to do so.

As I pointed out in a previous posting, that is bad faith. It's also, in my experiences from talking to samplists, completely and utterly wrong. Go back and reread the earlier posts.

I'd agree that it would be a good thing if the whole licensing process was made easier

Hallelujah!!!

The moral rights issue is debatable and I'm not totally against the idea of factoring that into a revised system anyway, as I've pointed out several times.





I'd be very interested to find samplists who only used analog tape and traditional edit techniques to do what they do, without computers. That is why I say it is 'easy to do' and few would do it without the use of digital sampling- and no doubt, if bread and cars could be 'sampled' and reproduced as easily as music, everyone would do so. Would that make it 'right' ?

The first 'sample' I ever heard used on a commercial recording was some Persian singer taken off the radio and stitched (beautifully), via analog tape techniques, into a tune called "Persian Love" by Holger Czukay (ex-Can), in 1981 (though it could have been 1980) Some time before Eno got out the razor blades and did the same thing on "My Life in the Bush of Ghosts", and long before the Detroit crew starting mucking about extending breaks. People didn't generally do it because it was pretty difficult to do it effectively- and I can still remember working in a music shop when the first cheap samplers came out, and people going 'that's cheating !' when I showed them how easy it was to get a drum break up and loop it.

We have a 'sampling culture' because the technology allows it, not because there was any great demand for it, in the days of analog techniques. Regardless of your previous posts, I still don't see how the existence of the technology 'therefore' makes it ok, or even your right, to sample other people's music, and that that right pre-empts the rights of the original artists.

As a muso whose only income comes from music, I'd be more than happy to get any extra income from licensing chunks to others who are willing to pay for it. But they have to ask me first !

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Darclinc



Joined: 04/08/03
Posts: 1942
Loc: Earth
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: tomafd]
      #501128 - 13/08/07 01:10 PM
I've sampled stuff before ( mostly voice samples from movies etc ), but I don't / haven't sampled anything for many years. I've also never used my synths' preset patches or any drum loops / prefabricated groove libraries. I do this because it's a lot more challenging this way, and when I go to bed at night, at least I am content in knowing that what I've created is mine and that I alone conceived all creative aspects of its being, which, at the end of the day, should be an infinitely more satisfying process and result for any self respecting musician.

At least it is that way for me. Each to his own, I suppose.

Why would you want to use other people's work / parts thereof anyway ?

D.

--------------------
www.thirdfloormusic.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Rob C



Joined: 10/02/03
Posts: 8434
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Neil C]
      #501223 - 13/08/07 03:16 PM
Quote Neil C:

To the extent that it's a breach of copyright to play a CD from your computer drive. Because the data gets copied into a buffer - it breaches the no copying part of the law (at least this was the case a couple of years ago, I don't think it's changed).




There is now a specific exception for this kind of copy.

Quote Neil C:

It's also in the UK, against copyright law to tape a CD you have bought so you can play it in your car for your own personal listening. I believe the USA has an ammendment to allow this (again from what I was told a couple of years ago).




That is still the case.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
John Willett
Sound-Link ProAudio


Joined: 07/03/00
Posts: 12454
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #501239 - 13/08/07 03:28 PM
Quote Neil C:

It's also in the UK, against copyright law to tape a CD you have bought so you can play it in your car for your own personal listening. I believe the USA has an ammendment to allow this (again from what I was told a couple of years ago).




Although illegal, most people would see this as fair use if you already own the CD and I don't know anyone prosecuted for doing this.

On the other hand sampling is copying for commercial gain.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: John Willett]
      #501307 - 13/08/07 04:38 PM
Quote John Willett:

Quote Neil C:

It's also in the UK, against copyright law to tape a CD you have bought so you can play it in your car for your own personal listening. I believe the USA has an ammendment to allow this (again from what I was told a couple of years ago).




Although illegal, most people would see this as fair use if you already own the CD and I don't know anyone prosecuted for doing this.

On the other hand sampling is copying for commercial gain.




Playing devil's advocate for a second here...

Some particulary narrow minded people will argue though, that you are depriving the artist of the right to profit from selling casette copies (or whatever other format it is being copied to). Sure, there is a difference in that making a cassette or minidisk copy is not for profit when compared with sampling, but it is still depriving the artist of income.

A twat could even make the case for the moral rights of the artist: what if they don't want their music to be heard on a sonically inferior format? Perhaps they only want to release their records on vinyl - shouldn't that individual right be protected too?!

This is a perfect example of where the copyright interests of individuals have been restricted to protect the wider public interest, at least in the US. Over here, as you point out, the fact that it's illegal to make cassette copies is thankfully ignored.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
tomafd



Joined: 03/10/05
Posts: 3468
Loc: uk
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #501324 - 13/08/07 05:00 PM
Quote Happyandbored:


Some particulary narrow minded people will argue though, that you are depriving the artist of the right to profit from selling casette copies (or whatever other format it is being copied to). Sure, there is a difference in that making a cassette or minidisk copy is not for profit when compared with sampling, but it is still depriving the artist of income.

A twat could even make the case for the moral rights of the artist: what if they don't want their music to be heard on a sonically inferior format? Perhaps they only want to release their records on vinyl - shouldn't that individual right be protected too?!

This is a perfect example of where the copyright interests of individuals have been restricted to protect the wider public interest, at least in the US. Over here, as you point out, the fact that it's illegal to make cassette copies is thankfully ignored.





Most of those issues are between the artist and any record company they're dealing with- and I know quite a few artists (including me on one occasion) who had to fight quite hard just to be able to buy their own CDs off the company, at distributor price, to be able to sell them at full retail at gigs, etc. This is because the record company owns the masters, and once you've signed that deal, they own the recordings and therefore can do what they like with them, unless you and your lawyer get the right clauses in... I also had to fight pretty hard just to make sure that I do actually get the final veto on whether a tune gets used, or not, to advertise products or services i find objectionable. Same thing for the sampling issue- I'd rather not have my music used on tunes with rampantly misogynistic or homophobic lyrics, thank you, but it took a fair amount of arm twisting before they'd agree to let me have the final word.

As far as I know, most artists with 'standard' deals are not allowed to make cassette (or any format) copies of their own recordings if the mechanical rights in the original recording have been assigned to the record company, and there's no clause in the deal that specifically allows the artist to do it.

Same thing with the format the music is released on- if the artist only wants it released on vinyl, they'll have to get the record company to agree to that before release- and only the smallest and most laid-back record company is likely to agree to that !

Easiest way round all this, of course, is be the record company yourself- it's easy enough to find a bigger company to licence the tunes, should good things happen and you find you can't cope with demand- and in that situation you end up with all the best cards and can usually broker a deal that works well for you.

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
John Willett
Sound-Link ProAudio


Joined: 07/03/00
Posts: 12454
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: MD_BANNED]
      #501325 - 13/08/07 05:00 PM
Quote Happyandbored:

Playing devil's advocate for a second here...

Some particularly narrow minded people will argue though, that you are depriving the artist of the right to profit from selling cassette copies (or whatever other format it is being copied to). Sure, there is a difference in that making a cassette or minidisk copy is not for profit when compared with sampling, but it is still depriving the artist of income.




Yes and no - and only in the same way as you deprive a software company of income by making a safety backup of the software CD.

If the cassette copy for the car law was enforced, people would not buy two copies, they would either buy a cassette to play in the car and home or get a CD player for the car - either case they would only buy one copy. No revenue lost at all.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Steve House



Joined: 25/06/06
Posts: 65
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Rob C]
      #501326 - 13/08/07 05:00 PM
AFAIK, both here in Canada and in the US, it is legal to personally make a copy for your own private use of a copyrightable work that you own. You're allowed to copy a CD from disk onto your mp3 player, for example, or make a copy of a CD that you own so you don't have to risk loss or damage of your expensive original when you want to play it in your car on your next road trip. But that's a different thing altogether from making a copy to incorporate into another work that you're then going to publish publically.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
John Willett
Sound-Link ProAudio


Joined: 07/03/00
Posts: 12454
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve House]
      #501329 - 13/08/07 05:03 PM
Quote Steve House:

AFAIK, both here in Canada and in the US, it is legal to personally make a copy for your own private use of a copyrightable work that you own. You're allowed to copy a CD from disk onto your mp3 player, for example, or make a copy of a CD that you own so you don't have to risk loss or damage of your expensive original when you want to play it in your car on your next road trip. But that's a different thing altogether from making a copy to incorporate into another work that you're then going to publish publicly.




Agreed.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Steve Hill
member


Joined: 07/01/03
Posts: 13141
Loc: Oxfordshire
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #501350 - 13/08/07 06:05 PM
Quote leslawrenson:

I am grateful to the moderators for having the courage to let it run its course.




You've got to be a very brave (or bored) moderator to read this far, Les.

Seriously, it's an interesting topic but would benefit from fewer debates on the lines of did/didn't/did so/did not...

Unless everyone has really run out of things to say.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve Hill]
      #501369 - 13/08/07 06:43 PM
Quote Steve Hill:

Quote leslawrenson:

I am grateful to the moderators for having the courage to let it run its course.




You've got to be a very brave (or bored) moderator to read this far, Les.





So now they've gone to sleep, let's talk about... software piracy.

[runs and hides]


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
__
Who's never been here


Joined: 28/11/02
Posts: 6263
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve Hill]
      #501370 - 13/08/07 06:43 PM
Quote Steve Hill:

...You've got to be a very brave (or bored) moderator to read this far...




Oh no you havnt!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
kubrick2001



Joined: 23/06/05
Posts: 67
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #501372 - 13/08/07 06:45 PM
Here are the masters of sampling, i love them:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MJPdVVOmbz4


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
topten



Joined: 24/07/07
Posts: 403
Loc: Dublin
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #501393 - 13/08/07 07:09 PM
Theft or creative re-use?

IMO, theft only comes into it when the money changes hands.
Mashing or remixing for fun... I see no harm in it. Messing with Ableton and the like to create party/club mixes never hurt anyone.

As an artist I use sampling. I sample my grooves, my grooves. I also sample machines and stuff. Sampling liberates! I'm a player and as a player I can not bring myself to EVER sample someone elces recorded work. It would seem disrespectful to the artist and bound to bring shame and bad karma to myself.
I'm not odd. I imagine most players would feel the same.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
John Willett
Sound-Link ProAudio


Joined: 07/03/00
Posts: 12454
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: topten]
      #501402 - 13/08/07 07:16 PM
Quote topten:

IMO, theft only comes into it when the money changes hands.




Actually, theft only comes into it when money doesn't change hands.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
topten



Joined: 24/07/07
Posts: 403
Loc: Dublin
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: John Willett]
      #501412 - 13/08/07 07:27 PM
Property is theft.
i think Groucho Marx said that.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
leslawrenson



Joined: 14/03/06
Posts: 2509
Loc: Outside Mothercare
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: kubrick2001]
      #501414 - 13/08/07 07:29 PM
Quote kubrick2001:

Here are the masters of sampling, i love them:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MJPdVVOmbz4





These are nothing but remixes, though, aren't they?

And presumably Daft Punk got clearance on the material they used? It's all too easy to spot the samples they use.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Bob Bickerton
active member


Joined: 20/12/02
Posts: 3153
Loc: Nelson, New Zealand
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: leslawrenson]
      #501503 - 13/08/07 10:25 PM
Haven't read the whole thread (got a life you know) but thought I'd share a incident which demonstrates that the legal and appropriate use of samples (which I support) can have its downsides.

I was scheduled to perform in a school in front of two hundred kids when the teacher came up to me and said the kids had all learned the song I had recorded on the latest 'Kiwi Kids Song Series' (a CD resource given to schools in New Zealand to help kids learn new songs). I said I hadn't recorded anything for the Kiwi Kids Song Series, but the teacher insisted I had.

It turned out that the engineer who had sampled my uilleann pipes (with permission) had used them on a song and credited me for use of the samples. The teacher had assumed I'd recorded the song in person and would know it!

Anyway I had a listen and gave it a bash....wasn't too bad

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Steve Hill
member


Joined: 07/01/03
Posts: 13141
Loc: Oxfordshire
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Bob Bickerton]
      #501520 - 13/08/07 11:04 PM
You're a real trouper Bob. Not a lot of people admit to beng known for playing uilleann pipes.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Bob Bickerton
active member


Joined: 20/12/02
Posts: 3153
Loc: Nelson, New Zealand
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve Hill]
      #501530 - 13/08/07 11:34 PM
Quote Steve Hill:

You're a real trouper Bob. Not a lot of people admit to beng known for playing uilleann pipes.




We all have our crosses to bear....

Cheers

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Sir George Martian



Joined: 04/08/07
Posts: 23
Loc: Cyberville
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Steve Hill]
      #501539 - 14/08/07 12:02 AM
Why have you accredited this quote to me?

That's a very good question. I think the answer is that I haven't figured out how to get the quotes mechanism right yet. I was aiming at the other chap. I don't even know who you are.



Who are you?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
MD_BANNED



Joined: 08/08/07
Posts: 202
Re: Sampling - theft or creative re-use? new [Re: Sir George Martian]
      #501744 - 14/08/07 11:47 AM
Quote Sir George Martian:

Why have you accredited this quote to me?

That's a very good question. I think the answer is that I haven't figured out how to get the quotes mechanism right yet. I was aiming at the other chap. I don't even know who you are.



Who are you?




[happyandbored pops up from bunker...]

More evidence that some people haven't been reading the thread before posting!



[...then runs and hides again.]


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)

Rate this thread

Jump to

Extra Information
1 registered and 46 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  David Etheridge, James Perrett, zenguitar, Martin Walker, Forum Admin, Hugh Robjohns, Zukan, Frank Eleveld, SOS News Editor,  
Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled
Rating: *****
Thread views: 30917

November 2014
On sale now at main newsagents and bookstores (or buy direct from the
SOS Web Shop)
SOS current Print Magazine: click here for FULL Contents list
Click image for November 2014
DAW Tips from SOS

 

Home | Search | News | Current Issue | Tablet Mag | Articles | Forum | Subscribe | Shop | Readers Ads

Advertise | Information | Privacy Policy | Support | Login Help

 

Email: Contact SOS

Telephone: +44 (0)1954 789888

Fax: +44 (0)1954 789895

Registered Office: Media House, Trafalgar Way, Bar Hill, Cambridge, CB23 8SQ, United Kingdom.

Sound On Sound Ltd is registered in England and Wales.

Company number: 3015516 VAT number: GB 638 5307 26

         

All contents copyright © SOS Publications Group and/or its licensors, 1985-2014. All rights reserved.
The contents of this article are subject to worldwide copyright protection and reproduction in whole or part, whether mechanical or electronic, is expressly forbidden without the prior written consent of the Publishers. Great care has been taken to ensure accuracy in the preparation of this article but neither Sound On Sound Limited nor the publishers can be held responsible for its contents. The views expressed are those of the contributors and not necessarily those of the publishers.

Web site designed & maintained by PB Associates | SOS | Relative Media