TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Sampling now illegal?!

Sampling now illegal?!

I just found this article on winamp.com when I was updating... http://www.winamp.com/about/article.php?aid=10608

It says something about having to pay for samples even if they sound completely different. How can anyone monitor that? Is this going to turn into some big thing? I really hope not!

wtf... this is rediculous

Re: Sampling now illegal?!

quote:

How can anyone monitor that?

Heheh, they can't.

quote:

Is this going to turn into some big thing?

Nope. The whole law is quite worthless. If a sample is not identifiable, then it's not.

Re: Re: Sampling now illegal?!

quote:

Originally posted by Chronosis Nope. The whole law is quite worthless. If a sample is not identifiable, then it's not.

it would be fair to pay clearance if you use someone else's sample, don't you think?

To quote that article:

quote:

Previously, if a digital sample wasn't identifiable from it's original it was perfectly legal.

Utter bullshit.
Previously if you couldnt identify a sample, then you simply had no case on which to claim.....doesnt mean to say it was legal at all.
Sampling other peoples mechanicals has always been illegal without consent from the publishers of the original work.
I 100% agree with this- its peoples intellectual output and property. Its basically theft- albeit on a minor scale.


What its saying is that you should now declare all samples- even when mangled beyond recognition.... which is kind of the point of mangling them in some cases.....so they cant be identified

Until now, People wtih obvious samples have either cleared+payed for their use, or risked not clearing/paying and either got away with it or been caught-either because the artist/pulishers dont care, or the sample is not obvious or its changed and noone notices it.
Absolutely nothing has changed with this ruling as that scenario will still continue.

So absolutely nothing has changed

Yeah,Well said man !

Re: Re: Re: Sampling now illegal?!

quote:

Originally posted by BOOsTER it would be fair to pay clearance if you use someone else's sample, don't you think?

Well if you have made the sample into something completely new (which is the case when it's not identifiable, even by the original artist), then I think you can very well use it. It doesn't anymore represent the creative vision of the original artist.

quote:

Originally posted by Freak So absolutely nothing has changed

Exactly.

To what extent does this law go? When it comes to kicks, claps and all other sorts of general percussion I think it's quite ridiculous. How else would you be able to generate something new from something old?

quote:

Originally posted by Icone To what extent does this law go? When it comes to kicks, claps and all other sorts of general percussion I think it's quite ridiculous. How else would you be able to generate something new from something old?

It's just a fact that it can hardly be verified whether it's your self made (say) kick, or someone else's. If it's someone else's nobody will claim it because he cant prove it is HIS kick..

Hey. This is hardly an issue in the mostly liberal underground world of electronica. Remember people, many of our recording companies arent part of the RIAA/BPA. Some are yes but many that are dont agree with the current doings of those two organizations. Most people who produce electronica arent the same type of money grubbing people you see on MTV or the likes. Think about it. How many people know about this place? How many people here create remixes using an entire song as a sample or the accapella thats been bootlegged? My guess is, this will only affect hiphop producers and rap producers who use pre-fabbed acid loops and shit to construct the next radio masterpiece(of shit). If someone wanted to deal with it in the scene, good for them, because theres a small enough fan base that word spreads quickly and its a good chance he (or the company) just ended thier career(s).

Cheers,
Zac

Heh, for percussion samples I think it would be near impossible for someone to pinpoint a specific sample that was ripped off. Give me any kick and I'll convert 50 other completely different sounding kicks into one that sounds exactly like it. Short of ripping off an entire loop, there's just no way anyone could tell.

I hate the anti-piracy-movement. They're just wrong about things.

I can see how it is wrong to steal loops, lead sounds, and sound fx, but really... why would someone care that you used a recording of a kick, hihat, or crash? No one should. Now, if someone were to take your drum loop, put it in the latest crappy hip hop track, and make a lot of money off of it, I understand why you would be pissed off.

Ok. Sampling is necessary to some muscians, it really is a form of art when you hear some original songs then the new songs. I agree, most popular hip hop is absolute garbage. But you'll have a few beats that are absolutely excellent, sometimes genius. But other than that, it's pure TRASH.

This new law means nothing, really. It can't be enforced if a sample is chopped beyond recognition, and no artist is gonna really suport it. People will always sample, regardless.

haha Cincinnati rules doesnt apply to me!! HAHAH IN YOUR FACE CINCINNATI!!!

Didn't the whole house scene start out with squatters holding illegal outdoor house parties on some poor guys farm? Hence 'Revolution 909' remember?

Sampling (usually with blatant disregard for copyright) is essentially the foundation of all genres of electronic music. Certainly it is responsible for breaks, drum 'n bass and hip hop, the last item in particular being largely what made the record companies and their copyright lawyers so powerful in the first place. How ironic that they are trying to squelch the same creative drive that, in a manner of speaking, gave birth to them - it's like an artistic Oedipus complex.

While I very much agree that it's wrong to try and rip vocals from a commercial track without permission for your own remix (the original artist/singer should be compensated in that case), I think the point gets rather silly when we're talking about a 5-second drum loop or movie quote. We can always find new ways to mangle and rearrange beats and tracks, but when it comes to the basic elements of music, everything has already been done before, somewhere, by someone.

For anyone who works/has worked in software or engineering, you'll know one of the fundamental principles: "Don't reinvent the wheel." If you know something's been done before, then use the existing code/design, it's simply a waste of time to redo it yourself. It's really the same thing for electronic music - if we're capable of "reverse engineering" someone else's sound by listening to the chords/notes/words/whatever and making an almost perfect recreation from scratch with a synthesizer, then what's the difference between doing that and just using the version that already exists?

Of course it depends on the complexity... as I said, this rationalization doesn't work when you're talking about a 2-minute acapella or a full-length track, but it's a question of where to draw the line. And while I admit there's a lot of gray area, I think we all know that the line's been drawn in the way of progress.

quote:

Originally posted by nhibberd Didn't the whole house scene start out with squatters holding illegal outdoor house parties on some poor guys farm? Hence 'Revolution 909' remember?

Actually, the house scene started out in abandoned warehouses in the '70s when funk and soul music were just beginning to lose popularity.

But your point is relevant, because I believe a significant amount of house music used samples from the same funk and soul music it was replacing.

quote:

Originally posted by IDarkISwordI Hey. This is hardly an issue in the mostly liberal underground world of electronica. Remember people, many of our recording companies arent part of the RIAA/BPA. Some are yes but many that are dont agree with the current doings of those two organizations. Most people who produce electronica arent the same type of money grubbing people you see on MTV or the likes. Think about it. How many people know about this place? How many people here create remixes using an entire song as a sample or the accapella thats been bootlegged? My guess is, this will only affect hiphop producers and rap producers who use pre-fabbed acid loops and shit to construct the next radio masterpiece(of shit). If someone wanted to deal with it in the scene, good for them, because theres a small enough fan base that word spreads quickly and its a good chance he (or the company) just ended thier career(s). Cheers, Zac

Well, I would say THANK GOD they have a better conscience.

I can really understand for hiphop and such. I remember Puff Daddy crushing the legendary 'Every Breath You Take' from The Police. I wonder how that went

this is funny bullshit, refer to this example. sampling

man people are so narrow!

the link talks about :

Heard it before? In all likelihood, yes. Oddly enough, the use of loops still remains a somewhat controversial issue. It's in the twilight zone, that fuzzy grey area between artistry and "pushing a button". After all, a loop is the product of someone else's efforts, talent and creativity. But then again, isn't that true for any kind of art? Aren't you using sampled instruments that have been recorded � and played � by someone else? And synth presets that someone else programmed? Who do you owe credit to when you play a violin trill on the NN-XT � the guy who sampled it? The conductor? The violinist? Antonius Stradivarius, who built it? The truth is, at the hands of a skilled artist a bunch of raw loops can be molded into a unique piece of artwork that holds its own against any other musical accomplishment. And never was there a tool more powerful for tweaking, bending, carving and re-shaping loops than Dr.REX!

quote:

Originally posted by mzvirbulis ...never was there a tool more powerful for tweaking, bending, carving and re-shaping loops than Dr.REX!

agreed...utter BS..cant believe this came from the makers of reason

what kind of shitty argument is that? afterall, if all you are doing is tweaking bending carving and whatever to the loop...does not change the fact that loop still belongs to someone else as they mentioned at first

Im not even gona wast my time trping on this.

quote:

Originally posted by mzvirbulis this is funny bullshit, refer to this example. sampling man people are so narrow! the link talks about : Heard it before? In all likelihood, yes. Oddly enough, the use of loops still remains a somewhat controversial issue. It's in the ................................................................................................................................into a unique piece of artwork that holds its own against any other musical accomplishment. And never was there a tool more powerful for tweaking, bending, carving and re-shaping loops than Dr.REX!

Sounds to me that they just want to sell a product. This is probably a product that is made for quantity not quality. If they want to sell a large quantity, they make something that is usable by a lot of people. And there are probably more people looping stuff that was made by guys with names like Yushi Guatumoto than people who produce.

kind regards,

Charly Darwin

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sampling now illegal?!

quote:

Originally posted by Chronosis Well if you have made the sample into something completely new (which is the case when it's not identifiable, even by the original artist), then I think you can very well use it. It doesn't anymore represent the creative vision of the original artist.

It's still the basis for your work though.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.