SOUND ON SOUND

[MadManDan]

Hello all,

I was planning on making an instructional video on doing mash-ups, then it occurred to me: They’re not exactly legal, or are they? My video would cover subjects like scouring the internet for assets such as multi track torrents, capturing Spotify, etc, and mashing it all up.

So pardon my ignorance, music biz has always been a weak point for me, and internet searching is not always reliable…. Is all this even legal? Popular opinion is that people get away with this all the time, and that nobody really sneezes at it as long as there is no money made. Youtube monetizing, etc. True or false?

I’m really just interested in teaching the production side of it. But if it is going to bring me “illegal” karma, then I don’t need it.

Pieces,

MadManDan

[ManFromGlass]

from what little I understand about the legal side -
if you have permission from the owner of the recording and the owner of the copyright of the music then no probs.
I've never explored this Creative Commons thing. Isn't that a collection of people who waive their copyrights and let people use their music for free? But does that also apply to whomever owns the recording?
Either way I think if one doesn't have permission then it's illegal.
but I've been wrong before.

[John Stafford]

I wouldn't make a video publicly available in which you show people how to capture from Spotify or download tracks illegally, especially if you have music in it that you've downloaded illegally.

[RichardT]

Hello all,

I was planning on making an instructional video on doing mash-ups, then it occurred to me: They’re not exactly legal, or are they? My video would cover subjects like scouring the internet for assets such as multi track torrents, capturing Spotify, etc, and mashing it all up.

So pardon my ignorance, music biz has always been a weak point for me, and internet searching is not always reliable…. Is all this even legal? Popular opinion is that people get away with this all the time, and that nobody really sneezes at it as long as there is no money made. Youtube monetizing, etc. True or false?

I’m really just interested in teaching the production side of it. But if it is going to bring me “illegal” karma, then I don’t need it.

Pieces,

MadManDan

No, it’s not legal I’m afraid, even if it is not aiming to make money.

[MadManDan]

True. And actually, all that could be left out. Just begin with, "here are my pieces."

I would still like to point out, non specifically, that streaming services like spotify may sound better than you tube, and will warp much more cleanly? But again, I could...leave all that out as well. :headbang:

NOTE!!!!: I will always advocate for buying a proper copy of the cd or dvd first,,,,,,

What I Would like to do is compare warp algorhythms. Play the same part repeatedly and listen to each warp algorythm available in Cubase

[MadManDan]

That's it I'm squashing it. Doesn't feel right doing the "how to"

That said, I would still like to post the final product, non-monetizing.

[blinddrew]

You could hunt out pieces licenced under the creative commons options that would allow this, or source pieces from friends/acquaintances who are willing to grant you a free licence.
But current precedent, from the 9th circuit in the US, is that no matter how small the snippet, any use of sample needs a licence to be legal.
At some point someone might get the supreme court to take a look at this from a fair-use perspective but don't hold your breath.

[CS70]

True. And actually, all that could be left out. Just begin with, "here are my pieces."

I would still like to point out, non specifically, that streaming services like spotify may sound better than you tube, and will warp much more cleanly? But again, I could...leave all that out as well. :headbang:

NOTE!!!!: I will always advocate for buying a proper copy of the cd or dvd first,,,,,,

What I Would like to do is compare warp algorhythms. Play the same part repeatedly and listen to each warp algorythm available in Cubase

Buying a copy entitles you to play that copy for personal listening - but no more. Sampling still needs licensing.

Much better to make your own recording and use that to illustrate what you want to illustrate?

[Mike Stranks]

Buying a copy entitles you to play that copy for personal listening - but no more. Sampling still needs licensing.

Much better to make your own recording and use that to illustrate what you want to illustrate?

Bold text above added by me for emphasis. What follows applies to the UK... I haven't researched other territories.

I'm writing this to give info to UK-based people about using other people's material as part of a broader project.

The statement above is a good 'catch-all' and a safe starting point, but there are nuances.

I have a PRS licence (c. £175 pa) which allows me to use commercial paid-for music within in proscribed limits for websites, podcasts etc. I must own the music - ie a physical entity or have purchased a download from a recognised site.

YouTube is a different ballgame. You cannot download material to use in any project without the express permission of all copyright holders. Similarly you cannot upload material containing other people's music/recordings without their express permission. (UK churches now have a COVID-driven means of buying a (not-cheap) licence to upload their own versions of other people's music - eg. church music groups playing and singing someone else's song.)

One problem is that different 'rules' apply to different parts of the world. Internet searches can give you false hope/impressions by talking about 'rules' that apply to somewhere else. My very detailed searches have indicated that in the UK there is no legal way you can load anyone else's recorded material to publicly-available YouTube without all copyright-owners' - usually two or three of 'em - express permission.

[blinddrew]

And it's worth mentioning again that there maybe multiple copyright holders on multiple copyrights - the recording and the composition have separate rights, so even if the music is out of copyright, the recording is unlikely to be.

[Mike Stranks]

And it's worth mentioning again that there maybe multiple copyright holders on multiple copyrights - the recording and the composition have separate rights, so even if the music is out of copyright, the recording is unlikely to be.

Quite so! :thumbup: