Sampling now illegal? WTF?!?!?!?!?!!!!

[TheVillageMidiot]

I know I haven't posted here in the longest time but I felt this is something all musicians should hear about, especially us keyboard players.

"Earlier this month, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that artists must now pay for any musical sample they use in their work, no matter how small. In the past, artists only had to pay for larger samples that incorporated an easily recognizable piece of the original work. The new ruling stems from an older case involving the NWA track "100 Miles and Runnin," which included a short guitar riff from a mid-70's Funkadelic song called "Get Off Your Ass and Jam." For more information, visit ca6.uscourts.gov."

What kind of crap is that? Greedy bastards. As if they haven't already done enough to the music industry. It used to be so simple. There are way too many artists out there that thrive on sampling and all of this has now made it much harder to continue doing so. This really makes me angry. I'd love to give them a piece of my mind.

Those buisness assholes really know how to take advantage, don't they?

Musically,

Tim

[toph]

I'd like to read more about this....

Could you post a "direct" link???


Thanx!
TOPH

[TheVillageMidiot]

I don't have a direct link unfortunately. It was part of a newsletter I get by e-mail from Cakewalk. Sorry. You can read more about the details of the new law from that link at the end of the quote.

[Georges]

"Earlier this month, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that artists must now pay for any musical sample they use in their work, no matter how small. In the past, artists only had to pay for larger samples that incorporated an easily recognizable piece of the original work.

I guess with DJs popping up in every corner, who are able to create a piece from scratch using only samples, and claiming that it would be their own, this new interpretation is both necessary and justified. However, one should not forget though what makes up the song, is it the individual samples or the whole "image" ? If a song is made up of 20%-100% of samples (lengthwise), I agree that the author should pay copyright fees to the owners of the samples; with one sample used in a song, well, maybe musicians such as DT will refrain from using samples in their songs in future ... unfortunately.

I'm not sure if this ruling also applies to instrument samples because they are very difficult to identify in the whole mix, where as instrumental riffs, vocals or drum loops are quite easy to recognize for their author and the copyright agency. Nonetheless, for instrument samples, there are already more restricted copyright rules, in particular with regards to sample libraries (more specifically: orchestra-related sample libraries).

[ChrisMcCoy]

Seems like that's going to be a difficult rule to enforce.
If you sample one single "Ooh" or "Ah" who's to say it didn't come from a patch on the stock banks of your synth. For example, My RS-9 has a "Scat" patch which seems to be based on a real vocal scat sample. So if it stands to reason, in order for me to use the instrument I purchased in the music store for the purpose of recording and performing music, I now have to track down the artist who recorded the patch via Roland US and then write a check for royalties...no way man, not gonna do it, and good luck proving it's a copyright infringement ! :shock:

[siebenboy]

"Earlier this month, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that artists must now pay for any musical sample they use in their work, no matter how small. In the past, artists only had to pay for larger samples that incorporated an easily recognizable piece of the original work.

I guess with DJs popping up in every corner, who are able to create a piece from scratch using only samples, and claiming that it would be their own, this new interpretation is both necessary and justified...


Stupid DJ's. We hates them. :evil:

[Kurzweilfreak]

I don't see what's so bad about it. If you're using something that someone else originally recorded, pay for it. Don't wanna pay for it? Don't use it, or rerecord an emulation of your own. If you're just talking about a 3 second guitar riff or whatnot, you're really straining the limits of calling yourself a "musician" if you can't just rerecord the same notes instead of just cutting and pasting the sample from the original recording.

This will also help get rid of all the "me too!" musicians that think they can make music just by cutting and pasting samples from other pieces of music.

Why does it make you so angry, and what piece of mind would you like to give them? Or is it just your lashing out because they are "business" and you're an artist? What if it was YOUR music someone was jacking samples from and making successful works from? Would you feel cheated because of all the money you spent going into a studio, paying for the time, the instruments, the knowledge to mic, mix and EQ that guitar part or drum pattern and then having someone else just copy it and use it as the basis for a song for free? I know I would.

[Tigerfolly]

Seems like that's going to be a difficult rule to enforce.
If you sample one single "Ooh" or "Ah" who's to say it didn't come from a patch on the stock banks of your synth. For example, My RS-9 has a "Scat" patch which seems to be based on a real vocal scat sample. So if it stands to reason, in order for me to use the instrument I purchased in the music store for the purpose of recording and performing music, I now have to track down the artist who recorded the patch via Roland US and then write a check for royalties...no way man, not gonna do it, and good luck proving it's a copyright infringement ! :shock:

Samples such as that Roland scat vocal sound are considered "public domain" in order for it to be sold commercially. Anything sold commercially is yours to use. If you paid for it, you can use it. If you buy a cd full of samples to use in your music, you didn't lift them, you didn't steal them, you didn't rip anyone off.. those samples were recorded with this purpose in mind.

What kind of crap is that? Greedy bastards. As if they haven't already done enough to the music industry. It used to be so simple. There are way too many artists out there that thrive on sampling and all of this has now made it much harder to continue doing so. This really makes me angry. I'd love to give them a piece of my mind.

However, taking samples from songs without the permission of the artist, the record company, or whoever holds the publishing rights has basically always been illegal, it's just never been laid down in writing. If you took samples from a song and ended up with a hit song from it, and the artist you ripped off suddenly heard his song on the radio making money for someone else, that artist is understandably going to be angry. Wouldn't you be angry? The artists sues, and generally wins the case, and ends up with a nice cash settlement and the publishing rights for your hit song. Ask The Verve if their little "Bittersweet Symphony" tastes bitter or sweet now that they've been raked over the legal system coals.

This has been happening in the music industry for a long time now, and it's about time there's some legistlation for it. Worldwide we're all operating on a legal system that's pathetically obsolete. It's about time they started realizing that things have advanced a bit, and interpreting laws designed in the 1800s and applying them to today's technology and situations is just plain ridiculous.

Basically, this treats sampling just like composing. If you write a song that basically rips off another artist's song and try to publish it as your own you're going to run into trouble. Now, if you sample an artist's song and try to publish it as your own, you'll also run in trouble. That's the way it should be.

Take a breath folks, the thought police aren't cracking down on inspiration. This isn't the big bad music industry trying to kill the musicians of the world, because if plagarism was legal they'd be making millions off of every ripped off song just like they made millions off of the original. Instead, this protects the artist's music from being stolen and used without his or her permission.

[Taurus]

I agree with you. Its a good thing this is happening. Besides, havent we all already taken care of using only original samples?
I dont believe we have to pay for a Roland scat sample or anything like that example. That'd be extremely redicilous since we payed a whole big fat price for the instrument in the first place.

This all makes our future music more safe.

[Taurus]

Oh btw, Did anyone say something about DJ's being stupid? hm... nah. musta imagined..

:oops:

[Ehren]

Speaking of samples, does anyone know where the samples from Space Dye Vest came? I'm sure this has been asked in the past, but it's probably a really old thread that I've never seen.

[Tigerfolly]

Speaking of samples, does anyone know where the samples from Space Dye Vest came? I'm sure this has been asked in the past, but it's probably a really old thread that I've never seen.

http://www.dtfaq.com/category/?categoryid=10

[John]

Doesn't make much sense to me. If there is a riff that people like, how long would it take someone to record it themselves and offer it free. Let's see a 3 second riff with 10-20 takes would take me about 6 seconds a take giving a grand total of about 1 to 2 minutes of invested time. That's a stupid law. If it becomes pratical to enforce it (don't see how) and/or if people become ethical and don't want to use samples they didn't pay for, you would probably start to see millions of free samples available that people recorded themselves with minimal effort (Take about 2 minutes for a 3 sec riff and I'd bet they'd be damm close to the original too). The law seems like a waste of time.

- John O.

[siebenboy]

Sorry, I'm sure not ALL DJ's are stupid. That's a biased statement.

Pop, country, and rap on the other hand SUCK.

[Enigma™]

Sorry, I'm sure not ALL DJ's are stupid. That's a biased statement.

Pop, country, and rap on the other hand SUCK.

Am I the ONLY person that finds this ironic?

[TheVillageMidiot]

Why does it make you so angry, and what piece of mind would you like to give them? Or is it just your lashing out because they are "business" and you're an artist? What if it was YOUR music someone was jacking samples from and making successful works from? Would you feel cheated because of all the money you spent going into a studio, paying for the time, the instruments, the knowledge to mic, mix and EQ that guitar part or drum pattern and then having someone else just copy it and use it as the basis for a song for free? I know I would.

If someone wanted to use something of mine, I would not mind as long as it's not a huge portion of something I've done and they ask permission first. I'm always interested in hearing what other people can do with my music. It's a good way to get new ideas and even revive old ones.

The reason this whole thing really got me started was because I'm sure the majority of the samples that people will be paying for will come from people who I'm sure already have more than enough money already. I know this definately isn't the case for everyone but it will be for the bigger part of the samples being used.

Take Lars Ulrich for example. He did all that crap to Napster just because he felt his music was being stolen even though we all know that plenty of people have actually purchased those Metallica albums and what not. If I were in his position, I would be happy that more people were hearing my music. But then again...that's just my personal opinion.

[Kurzweilfreak]

Who are you or anyone else to decide who has "enough" money or not? I don't believe that is for anyone to decide except for that person.

Lars is perfectly within his legal and ethical rights to be pissed about someone stealing his work. If all those people already purchased those albums, then what need would there be to download them again? Maybe lots of those downloaders DID purchase those albums, but then again, maybe a lot of them didn't.

What do you do for a living? If you really want to be in Lar's position, go to work and tell them not to send you a paycheck for next week because you want to work for free just because you want people to see what you've done, not because you want any monetary compensation for it. Just for the joy of doing your job. Regardless of what your music means to you, for some people it's also their job in addition to whatever else they get out of it. No one likes to work for free, and it's no one else's business how much money they have or don't have so that's a pretty crappy arguement.

Your opinion would probably change quite quickly if you began making money on your music and then found out that some people were just stealing it without you getting anything for it.

[Bastardo Demono]

Sorry, I'm sure not ALL DJ's are stupid. That's a biased statement.

Pop, country, and rap on the other hand SUCK.

Am I the ONLY person that finds this ironic?

yeah, just a bit... hahahahahaha

I really dont see what the problem is with this, something from somes commercial piece of work shouldnt be public domain, especially when it is used to help sell another product by relating it to the success of what it is sampling or musical merit it can give them. and sure, making recreations of desired samples might get past some of this law, but it wont for those artists who use someone else work, like a well known guitar riff, hell copyright infringement cases (which are always a battle to prove, but still)and dont see the problem with all these techno and rap groups having to get the main theme of there songs from somewhere, or progressive rock groups having to get their melodramatic voice overs from somewhere else too

[TheVillageMidiot]

Who are you or anyone else to decide who has "enough" money or not? I don't believe that is for anyone to decide except for that person.

Lars is perfectly within his legal and ethical rights to be pissed about someone stealing his work. If all those people already purchased those albums, then what need would there be to download them again? Maybe lots of those downloaders DID purchase those albums, but then again, maybe a lot of them didn't.

What do you do for a living? If you really want to be in Lar's position, go to work and tell them not to send you a paycheck for next week because you want to work for free just because you want people to see what you've done, not because you want any monetary compensation for it. Just for the joy of doing your job. Regardless of what your music means to you, for some people it's also their job in addition to whatever else they get out of it. No one likes to work for free, and it's no one else's business how much money they have or don't have so that's a pretty crappy arguement.

Your opinion would probably change quite quickly if you began making money on your music and then found out that some people were just stealing it without you getting anything for it.

I'm still in school. I never said I wanted to be in Lars' position. The guy has already made more than enough to live off of for the rest of his life. The music shouldn't be about the money. It should be about people hearing what you love to do. Yes, I realize that making money is important but once you've gotten to a point that shouldn't matter to you. I realize that artists have lost money because of this but the majority of those suffering the much larger losses in that area are the bigger bands that get way more downloads than the rest. You know...the ones that have already sold tons of albums.

On top of all that, I don't consider doing what you love work. I don't know about the rest of you guys but I thoroughly enjoy making music both on my own and with my band and the only part of it I consider any kind of work is having to move all of that heavy equipment. In my opinion, when you finally get to that point you're getting paid to have fun doing what you love.

And the whole stealing thing. It's stealing if you don't ask permission first. I'm sure that you're well aware that all that was required in the past (unless it was a rather large sample) was asking permission to use the sample in your work by writing the person you're getting it from a letter or even calling in some cases. Now it could be half a second long and you still have to pay for it. At any rate...it's not stealing if you ask permission. If you don't want other people using your work, just don't give them your permission. Simple as that.

[Kurzweilfreak]

Again, not everyone shares YOUR opinion. Just because you don't think music should be about the money doesn't mean others don't. Tell that to the cats on Bourbon St. who's sole source of income is what they make doing their gigs. That's music, and I'm sure they enjoy it to an extent, but for them it sure as hell is about the money. You won't find any of them playing for free. Why not? Because it's their job. And again, despite how much money anyone has made, it's no one's place to tell them "that's enough, you don't need anymore, so you shouldn't mind if I take this from you." Bill Gates has more than enough money for a few small countries, but it's HIS money and if he wants to make more, then more power to him.

It's nice that you have this noble notion of music for the love of music, and when it's your own music, that's just fine. But when you start stepping on someone else's rights and freedoms with their own property, then you're out of line.

Of course, all IMHO. ;)

[Kurzweilfreak]

And you're exactly correct in your final paragraph; it's not stealing if you're given permission. I believe that was the entire point of the court ruling. Some people may give you permission for free; others may charge you for it. :wink:

[Ehren]

Sorry, I'm sure not ALL DJ's are stupid. That's a biased statement.

Pop, country, and rap on the other hand SUCK.

Am I the ONLY person that finds this ironic?

Yeah, man, i might see a litte irony here.

[Taurus]

Hahha, well if you ask me im sure most of you here are biased hypocrites so its ok to say that.

DJ's are considered 'the musicians of the century' even on some culture shows on tv. I certainly get very annoyed when i see that. IMO they're not musicians, they are DISC JOCKEYS, they put in a cd and push play and then use a mixingdesk (...wow..mixingdesk!! thats one of those complicated audiodevices isnt it?..) to slide from source to source.

Ofcourse, you gotta have one of those 'dj' headphones between your ear and your shoulder when you do that. Oh yeah, and you gotta stick your finger in the air and scream 'put y00r hands up 1n ZE AiR!!11!'
-----
To contribute to the topic: it'll be alright that this fee is happening. The only thing that really changes is getting a lawyer involved if you're not sure wether youre breaking the copyright. But if you create everything yourself then atleast you can say you did all, 100% by you. And i think thats a great thing too.

[Georges]

If you're just talking about a 3 second guitar riff or whatnot, you're really straining the limits of calling yourself a "musician" if you can't just rerecord the same notes instead of just cutting and pasting the sample from the original recording.

One note: recording the same notes instead of using the sample will still be seen as a copyright infringment if the riff is longer than 4 measures or if it a clearly recognizable part of another song (no matter its length).

If you buy a cd full of samples to use in your music, you didn't lift them, you didn't steal them, you didn't rip anyone off.. those samples were recorded with this purpose in mind.

Nope, not correct, that depends. Some sample CDs contains a strict limitation of usage. E.g. with orchestral sample CDs it often happens that the use is restricted to private use whereas using it in a song sold out there in the market is strictly forbidden without having a special license - if you buy a sample CD, you buy a license to use the samples, however, the range of that license is always strictly defined, some allow you to use it everywhere, others restrict the use.

And you're exactly correct in your final paragraph; it's not stealing if you're given permission. I believe that was the entire point of the court ruling. Some people may give you permission for free; others may charge you for it

With the new law, chances are that you have to pay the copyright agency in any case because the musicians usually delegate the task of surveillance and paying agent to the copyright agencies (as they pay regularly!). Moreover, it now means a new legal income for musicians, I guess no one will say "yes" to use it for free if you can earn money with it - we would all do the same.

To contribute to the topic: it'll be alright that this fee is happening. The only thing that really changes is getting a lawyer involved if you're not sure wether youre breaking the copyright. But if you create everything yourself then atleast you can say you did all, 100% by you. And i think thats a great thing too.

Better than using a lawyer, who costs really ALOT of money, is simply being careful that the samples you use are either your own or very difficult to recognize. That excludes using samples of vocal and riffs. That includes recording short unrecognizable (!) drum loops yourself. This includes requesting the permission to use at both the musician and his/her copyright agency. etc. Being careful does not cost anything if you don't want it.

[Taurus]

Thats a good tip George, and yeah. Changing existing stuff so it wont be recognised does work, especially when making your own drumloop. I use 'xxx''s tambourin and 'xxx''s timpany, stretch them a bit in the editor so the frequency goes a tad lower (or higher), and put them through a filter. And Voila, in the mix it wouldnt be recognisable.

All congas and bongos basically sound the same anyway, as most of those percussion instruments.

Georges, do you think if push would come to shove, and rumors got out that you use a certain sample, that they would do an investigation to scan the audio you made for that sample to prove that you manipulated the original sound? Or perhaps -you- had to prove how you even made your 'socalled' own-sample. What do you think?

Scary stuff... seems very realistic to scan for a specific wave-pattern like that... Saw it in '24' too :lol: :lol:

[Ehren]

Hahha, well if you ask me im sure most of you here are biased hypocrites so its ok to say that.

DJ's are considered 'the musicians of the century' even on some culture shows on tv. I certainly get very annoyed when i see that. IMO they're not musicians, they are DISC JOCKEYS, they put in a cd and push play and then use a mixingdesk (...wow..mixingdesk!! thats one of those complicated audiodevices isnt it?..) to slide from source to source.

Ofcourse, you gotta have one of those 'dj' headphones between your ear and your shoulder when you do that. Oh yeah, and you gotta stick your finger in the air and scream 'put y00r hands up 1n ZE AiR!!11!'
-----
To contribute to the topic: it'll be alright that this fee is happening. The only thing that really changes is getting a lawyer involved if you're not sure wether youre breaking the copyright. But if you create everything yourself then atleast you can say you did all, 100% by you. And i think thats a great thing too.

It's pretty bold to make a sweeping generalization about the majority of the members of this board, but I do have to say that I agree with you on the DJ issue. It's definitely a skill and it takes some amount of talent, but DJ's that can't play instruments, compose, or read music are definitely NOT musicians.

[FunkyDigits]

Poor Lars... not getting his 83rd solid gold car this christmas. This isn't some starving artist trying to make ends meat... actually, to be perfectly honest, it's more of an idea of principle than financial gain for the artist. The record company makes the money off of the records, the artists generally get fairly small royalties. Lars has made 95% of what he currently has from touring, not albums. If his band is really as awesome as everyone claims, then people will go see them live and he will still make his trillions of dollars. Money is not his problem... it's simply principle. Someone should pay for music an artist put their time and creativity into.
You know what I find REALLY funny, though? Lars didn't start complaining when internet downloading first started to occur. He started to complain after his sales slipped a bit. Consider the fact that Lars only began his crusade against internet filesharing after eveyone in the heavy metal community started proclaiming how terrible Mettalica's new albums sounded. Isn't it just slightly possible that sales slipped because they released some crappy albums rather than solely because of filesharing?

[Georges]

Georges, do you think if push would come to shove, and rumors got out that you use a certain sample, that they would do an investigation to scan the audio you made for that sample to prove that you manipulated the original sound? Or perhaps -you- had to prove how you even made your 'socalled' own-sample. What do you think?

To be honest, I don't know, but could definately be if your song makes sufficient revenue through any media so that someone thinks that you could share some of your cake. Consequently, all you do in this area is a matter of risk appreciation and of your risk aversion degree. If you get caught, don't blame anyone but yourself or your lawyer, for they are always to blame. :wink:

Just know that some of the copyright agency staff's job consists in searching all the media each day (including Internet) for copyrighted stuff, in particular the free download areas. They do certainly also have the means to dig deeper if necessary...

[Enigma™]

Hahha, well if you ask me im sure most of you here are biased hypocrites so its ok to say that.


Careful with that comment dude - I'm sure there are some people that would find that insulting... Not cool.

[Scrap]

All congas and bongos basically sound the same anyway, as most of those percussion instruments.

Might I say that is the most hilarious fucking thing I've heard this century.

Dude, take a world music class sometime. :P

[Taurus]

I appologize if I offended someone by saying that. As far what I've seen happening on this board Im sure you guys can live with it though.
I think you folks should take it a bit more 'lightly'. Isnt that what we do Togakure?

:P :?

Scrap, I happen to mainly compose worldmusic. And every percussion sample can be immitated very easilly.

[Ehren]

Taurus.
Dude.
You're so great.

:D

[Kurzweilfreak]

Heh, I just say what I think. If someone is offended.... tough $|-|17 :P

[Enigma™]

Heh, I just say what I think. If someone is offended.... tough $|-|17 :P

Ok.

http://www.923xtreme.com/rover/images/front100/banned.jpg

F.C.C - Fairly Cool Canuck.

[Vlakey]

I have a story I'd like to share with you, and I'd aprreciate some comments and opinions.... :D

The first album of my band (Moondive, I've posted some mp3s in the show-off section) is about to get released, and in the final master I left a sample-less version of one song that used to have movie samples in it. Here's the problem... when we finished the song, we asked a friend of ours to get us some depressing movie dialogues that we could fit into the song, and later it turned out that the samples he gave us were from a movie that was (at the time) not even yet in the theaters!!! :shock:

Luckilly, I gave the sample-less version to the record label.

And now I'm wondering...
I think those samples fitted really well in the song, and I would like it if people could hear that version too. Do you think that it'd be legal to put a version of that song that has those samples as a free mp3 download on our site? :?
Perhaps it would be smart not to do that before the movie goes out on dvd... although that might be of little importance.

[Enigma™]

couldn't you just re-create it with someone else speaking?

[Georges]

Do you think that it'd be legal to put a version of that song that has those samples as a free mp3 download on our site?.

Try it and see what happens, I wouldn't dare it if I were you.

[Vlakey]

it's that bad, huh :?
couldn't you just re-create it with someone else speaking?
well...... no. :D
if you heard it you'd understand what I'm trying to say here... =)

[whitelightening]

So let me get this straight. Sampling being illegal would imply that rap "music" is illegal since every song is EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!

I thought so. :D :D :D

[Tigerfolly]

So let me get this straight. Sampling being illegal would imply that rap "music" is illegal since every song is EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!

I thought so. :D :D :D

Only to the uninitiated.