|
A serious discussion about sampling- (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Exactly. I only posed the question to see if anyone could argue for the opposite in any way I wasn't seeing. :) |
I see. :)
An intresting qustion to ask IP-advocates or people who claim rights in this and that is what they actually claim ownership in? You own a number? No it's not like that, they say it's not the number they own. So is it the signal that reaches the speaker or the soundwaves that come out of it. Every owner of a copy of a specific recording will with their audio system reproduce the source information in different ways because of variations like different hardware, decoders, amplifiers, cables, jacks, speakers etc etc. I guess even factors such as temperature and other meteorological conditions affect that which finally reaches the ears. So what is it the copyright holder actually claims rights in?
Ownership is legitimate control. So legitimate it isn't and it's not even control, unless i've been living in a cave while a method has been invented for controlling let's say a billion different sequences of electrical impulses and soundwaves "happening" in different places around the world. |
|
|
| SMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
And an end to this debate is the DJ Shadow album "Entroducing". |
I was about to mention it before the property theory discussion started. Fantastic album, <3 DJ Shadow. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by SMC
I see. :)
An intresting qustion to ask IP-advocates or people who claim rights in this and that is what they actually claim ownership in? You own a number? No it's not like that, they say it's not the number they own. So is it the signal that reaches the speaker or the soundwaves that come out of it. Every owner of a copy of a specific recording will with their audio system reproduce the source information in different ways because of variations like different hardware, decoders, amplifiers, cables, jacks, speakers etc etc. I guess even factors such as temperature and other meteorological conditions affect that which finally reaches the ears. So what is it the copyright holder actually claims rights in?
Ownership is legitimate control. So legitimate it isn't and it's not even control, unless i've been living in a cave while a method has been invented for controlling let's say a billion different sequences of electrical impulses and soundwaves "happening" in different places around the world. |
You win this thread. :)
Excellent take on the IP battle. |
|
|
| SMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
You win this thread. :)
Excellent take on the IP battle. |
Thanks. Just trying to create some awareness. :) |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
| quote: | Originally posted by david.michael
The bold part is something I admittedly still have to work on as a producer. Not necessarily with sampling so much as using pre-made (or only moderately modified) synth patches, etc. |
something i have trouble with aswell hehe. i don't use patches, but i try and do everything i make through FM Synthesis because i just like the idea of being able to create what i want out of nothing. learning to listen to sound and knowing how to translate that into your computer or whatever isn't an easy task hehe...
| quote: | Originally posted by Allied Nations
True, but I know some producers who know their inside out but still chose to steal all their kicks from old 70s disco records never even thinking about having those samples cleared. Is that ok? |
well there could be a lot of reasons for that, but really i don't see a problem with sampling in this way and without liscensing because well...how could you ever control that? it's one thing if it's something very distinct, but if not i don't see an issue.
i don't really see any reason to nit pick over legal rights to something as basic as kick drums or samples or whatever. these things are fundamental to music and could never be controlled in a legal sense. where the copyright laws should focus attention is to instances of blatent infringment on significant aspects of a song...
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
By the same token, people can learn how to use and manipulate new and different technologies to alter and use samples in new and interesting ways that can be wholely unique.
A "master" sampler can should be able to use or alter samples so you have little to no idea what, if any, samples they're using. |
i'll look at someone like fatboy slim, who has basically built his career on sampling, as an example. some of his samples are pretty distinct to certain songs...they are liscensed and he's used them in his own way. no problem with that.
there is nothing inherently wrong with sampling, but i just think too often it's used as a crutch for a lack of knowledge and effort. as david.michael said...lots of people use soft synth patches or whatever or just snag a kick out of that above and beyond track and try to produce something. well is there a legal issue there? i don't know if there is... all it means is that you're probably a very boring producer. |
|
|
| Allied Nations |
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
something i have trouble with aswell hehe. i don't use patches, but i try and do everything i make through FM Synthesis because i just like the idea of being able to create what i want out of nothing. learning to listen to sound and knowing how to translate that into your computer or whatever isn't an easy task hehe...
well there could be a lot of reasons for that, but really i don't see a problem with sampling in this way and without liscensing because well...how could you ever control that? it's one thing if it's something very distinct, but if not i don't see an issue.
i don't really see any reason to nit pick over legal rights to something as basic as kick drums or samples or whatever. these things are fundamental to music and could never be controlled in a legal sense. where the copyright laws should focus attention is to instances of blatent infringment on significant aspects of a song...
i'll look at someone like fatboy slim, who has basically built his career on sampling, as an example. some of his samples are pretty distinct to certain songs...they are liscensed and he's used them in his own way. no problem with that.
there is nothing inherently wrong with sampling, but i just think too often it's used as a crutch for a lack of knowledge and effort. as david.michael said...lots of people use soft synth patches or whatever or just snag a kick out of that above and beyond track and try to produce something. well is there a legal issue there? i don't know if there is... all it means is that you're probably a very boring producer. |
What about the KLF, who never bothered to clear there samples? Essentially the same thing happened to them that happened ot Danger Mouse- their work was taken down. I think we would all agree the KLF made some wicked tunes, but they paid no attention to the legal aspecs-are they just the renegade esque extremist group that's alwyas going to be around in one form or another, or are they making a solid point about the way things are done in the music industry. Sure, fatboy slim clears it all, its not like he has problems... he can do whatever the he wants now, and that is reflected in his work, and in the title of his latest greatest hits, or whatever- |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| Fatboy Slim clears his because he failed to do so for the sample he used on Right Here Right Now and ended up losing all his royalties for the track. |
|
|
| Allied Nations |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Fatboy Slim clears his because he failed to do so for the sample he used on Right Here Right Now and ended up losing all his royalties for the track. |
Lol yeah- that too :p |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Allied Nations
What about the KLF, who never bothered to clear there samples? Essentially the same thing happened to them that happened ot Danger Mouse- their work was taken down. I think we would all agree the KLF made some wicked tunes, but they paid no attention to the legal aspecs-are they just the renegade esque extremist group that's alwyas going to be around in one form or another, or are they making a solid point about the way things are done in the music industry. Sure, fatboy slim clears it all, its not like he has problems... he can do whatever the he wants now, and that is reflected in his work, and in the title of his latest greatest hits, or whatever- |
well in a situation like that...i wonder if they could do it again if they'd do it differently? im sure there are lots of artists out there that might not seek out legal liscensing...and they just hope not to get caught. i don't really know what you can do in those situations...punishment once it's discovered i guess. KLF were running a big risk with not getting the samples liscensed...and i guess it simply lies with the record label that owns the samples to seek damages or what not.
i think the general music industry, at least for EDM, is pretty lax about sampling except for really obvious copying with the hopes of promoting the industry. people understand that sampling is apart of this genre inparticular, so just do it, but make it yours.
what is the point of liscensing anyway? sure it's something that labels bicker over money about, but on a more fundamental level i think it's really just about showing respect to the artists you're sampling. you enjoyed what they did enough to want to incorporate it into your own work. |
|
|
| Allied Nations |
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
well in a situation like that...i wonder if they could do it again if they'd do it differently? im sure there are lots of artists out there that might not seek out legal liscensing...and they just hope not to get caught. i don't really know what you can do in those situations...punishment once it's discovered i guess. KLF were running a big risk with not getting the samples liscensed...and i guess it simply lies with the record label that owns the samples to seek damages or what not.
i think the general music industry, at least for EDM, is pretty lax about sampling except for really obvious copying with the hopes of promoting the industry. people understand that sampling is apart of this genre inparticular, so just do it, but make it yours.
what is the point of liscensing anyway? sure it's something that labels bicker over money about, but on a more fundamental level i think it's really just about showing respect to the artists you're sampling. you enjoyed what they did enough to want to incorporate it into your own work. |
Exactly- well put! Which is why I advocate a Creative Commons liscence - 'Some Rights Reserved' - I think if I get to the point where I am distributing my tunes I will want to put a much more progressive, fair , copyright on it.
Most likely:
Noncommercial. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work — and derivative works based upon it — but for noncommercial purposes only
Then if their is other interest, as long as they approach you about it, you work it out then. |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Allied Nations
Exactly- well put! Which is why I advocate a Creative Commons liscence - 'Some Rights Reserved' - I think if I get to the point where I am distributing my tunes I will want to put a much more progressive, fair , copyright on it.
Most likely:
Noncommercial. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work — and derivative works based upon it — but for noncommercial purposes only
Then if their is other interest, as long as they approach you about it, you work it out then. |
haven't read the whole thread so hopefully i didn't just piggy back off of what others have said...
but the problem you run into then is you have to define commercial. is music on the radio commercial? what about in the club? those are situations which currently royalties are paid. under this concept then file sharing of your work would be legal right? the only problem that i see with your creative liscense is the only real way in which copyrights function now is in commercial settings. it's mostly to protect from other people making money off of you...so how then will your creative commons liscense be different? |
|
|
| Allied Nations |
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
haven't read the whole thread so hopefully i didn't just piggy back off of what others have said...
but the problem you run into then is you have to define commercial. is music on the radio commercial? what about in the club? those are situations which currently royalties are paid. under this concept then file sharing of your work would be legal right? the only problem that i see with your creative liscense is the only real way in which copyrights function now is in commercial settings. it's mostly to protect from other people making money off of you...so how then will your creative commons liscense be different? |
It basically means if someone wants to use it NOT to make money- they can fool around with his however they want- full freedom- So i suppose yes, that would mean it could be circulated on filesaharing websites |
|
|
|
|
