Hey everyone, it might not be the correct forum for this but I could not find any that would fit this subject hence I post it here. If any of you admins think you know a correct forum for this then feel free to suggest it or move this thread there.

Okay, so here is the dilemma or is it a Catch 22 situation? Many of us using pirated sample libraries here to test ideas and create music with them. We work on the music for many grueling hours even with ready samples in the hope that we will make it in the industry to earn our living or even to make it big. Most of our goals are to keep making music because we love making music as this is basically our lives thus it is also our hope to make a living of it without any other side jobs. However, until then most of us simply cannot afford to buy expensive sample libraries, software, DAWs... etc. but we all kind of make a wow that once we make enough money with our music then we buy all that we have already used before with that we keep those companies afloat so they can develop newer and better things for music making.

Now here is the dilemma. The only way you can make it big with your music is that you have to publish your music one way or another. Once it is online other people can listen to it then you can start pitching your music for live venues where you can perform it to hopefully build a huge audience with that you can make the necessary money to live prosper and for to be able to buy the pirated things you have already used. However, once your music is online and/or performed it is out there for everybody to hear. That means all the officials will also hear it and can easily distinguish many of the samples you used in your music. So, if you make it big they can and I am kind of sure they will check on your licenses and on the time the license was sold to you and this is the problem. How can you make money with your music without performing publically and/or publishing it, however, once you have published/performed it you can be timestamped with it and later you can be sued by the companies for their products that you do not have a timely legal license. Legally it doesn't matter if you can purchase the license later if the music that you have published let us say a year ago has pirated samples in it and at the time of first publishing you did not have the proper licenses for their usage. Thus the Catch 22.

This would mean that all our invested time and hard work is eventually futile, right?

I would like to hear some ideas around this. Maybe there are some great tricks to this I am not aware of. LOL

 

lol, I doubt sample vendors are sitting there listening to MTV to check whether their samples are used. And most samples aren't "unique" anyway.

 

I'm entering 2024 Olympics. I hope to make it big and become successful.
Until then I'm going to steal shoes, shorts and tops, maybe food to keep me going.
Once I make it though I'll go back and pay or all goods.

 

But really, aside from one shot samples and such, who doesn't twist their samples into oblivion? I usually make the sample so screwy that it still retains the groove, but the sound is hardly distinguishable from the source. Meh, samples are for suckers anyways. hehehehe

 

The only way to make $$ is to tour nowadays. There are billions of tracks out there for someone to click 'play'.

 

Someone who wants to make money from music should at least invest anuff work / money to own the samples he uses. Especially since virtually everyone who does, uses Youtube nowadays, people who still steal should consider the following.

If you don't twist and mangle samples as much as @Seckkksee there is always a good chance that those you used without permission are caught by Youtubes Content ID System, which allows people who bought or own rights to use the samples to do funny things to your video, like tracking the video’s viewership statistics, monetizing the video by running ads against it or even blocking the whole video from being viewed .

 

Thanks for the inputs people. I guess I should have been a bit more specific as I am trying to do my own sounds as well, however, there are sounds you cannot simply just create. For example Orchestra String libraries, Brass libraries...etc. I guess these you have to buy as many of them easily recognizable. Then what is the point of wasting time on seeking out, downloading, installing huge libraries and using certain sample libraries if until you purchase them you can't monetize your music? It is then illogical to say that is being said everywhere that "When you make money with your music you should buy those libraries." It should be the other way around: "You cannot monetize your music with unlicensed libraries but if you want to monetize it you should buy the libraries before you ever publish it!" LOL

 

Thanks for the very detailed reply. I really appreciate it!

 

as a side note

A crowdfunding campaign has finally remunerated the man behind one of the most sampled beats in history.

Richard L. Spencer is the former lead vocalist and saxophone player of The Winstons and the copyright holder of their track 'Amen Brother' which features the legendary Amen Break drum pattern, one of the most sampled pieces of music in history.

The 6-second breakbeat has been widely used by hip hop, jungle, drum 'n' bass and techno producers without Spencer or the performer, drummer Gregory C. Coleman, ever receiving a penny in royalties.

Unfortunately Coleman passed away in 2006, but Spencer who arranged the track has finally been rewarded for his work after a GoFundMe campaign started by UK breakbeat DJ Martyn Webster raised a total of £24,000 to pay the musician.

$30,875.30

 

Here's an idea. Buy a damn instrument and learn to play it. Worked for Page, Hendrix, Baker, Clapton, Bonham, The Edge, and THOUSANDS of others. Honestly, using something already recorded to mix into other garbage that also wasn't created by you. That DOESN'T make you a musician. There is no longer bands, and musicians. Just lazy a-holes who want to get paid for as little effort as possible. The problem with the generation around today, lazy, b!tchin, and not an once of creativity. Iff the world started today, mankind would die off from the little effort these clowns put into everything. Cue the finger shaking, the lectures, metaphoes, and excuses. I didn't make them this way. I'm just pointing out the bloody obvious

 

I have no thoughts on pirating. I abandoned philosophising the morality years ago because the music business doesn't give a shit about me, so I give what I get. Nothing. I've done music scores for $100 that took three months.... I've done tracks on Billboard charting albums that have earned me $75. My studio is an asset valued at over $50,000. Add my legit software and that's maybe another $20,000. (I'm a UAD2 and Acustica Audio collector) So, the few pirated items I use fall into a category I call "I would never buy this but it's handy once a year"

 

Brilliant Strats2...

 

Ed Sheeran is being sued again over his song "Thinking Out Loud." A part-owner of the copyright of Marvin Gaye's song "Let's Get It On" is suing for $100 million, claiming Sheeran copied sections from the 1973 classic.

Structured Asset Sales, which owns one-third of the copyright of "Let's Get It On," said in legal documents that Sheeran's hit single rips off "the melody, rhythms, harmonies, drums, bass line, backing chorus, tempo, syncopation and looping" from Gaye's song, reports the BBC.

Gaye co-wrote "Let's Get It On" with late songwriter Edward Townsend, whose estate sued Sheeran in 2016 with similar claims, saying Sheeran copied the "heart" of "Let's Get It On" and repeated it continuously throughout "Thinking Out Loud." It's not clear if that case has been resolved.

In addition to Sheeran, the lawsuit also names Sony/ATV Music Publishing, record label Atlantic and the song's co-writer, Amy Wadge.

Singer Robin Thicke, who faced a similar lawsuit a few years ago, tweeted at Sheeran, "Hey @edsheeran, call me."

Hey @edsheeran, call me.

— Robin Thicke (@robinthicke) June 28, 2018
In 2015, a federal jury found Thicke and Pharrell Williams copied from Gaye's 1977 hit "Got to Give It Up" for their 2013 song "Blurred Lines." The trial ended with jurors awarding Gaye's family $7.4 million, though that was later trimmed to $5.3 million.

Thicke and Williams tried to appeal the verdict, but it was upheld in March.




meanwhile this is what marvin gaye the third made

 

Yeah, I hear you. I am actually playing the keys since I was 6 years young and I also play the guitar since like 13. Probably drums I would love to learn and play and/or bass. Not all of the computer warriors lazy though. Illenium, Said The Sky, San Holo are amazing IMHO although all of them also play 2 or 3 instruments very well and what they do with their DAWs is amazing and mind you even they have admitted that the process is painstakingly long, many experimentations and hard work to achieve that sound. Especially, Illenium's drops are probably the best in the field not to mention his musicality is just wonderful and refreshing.

 

Design your own sounds period! It gives you a unique sound. Other sounds are just toys in the attic. Dedicate your art to the sculpting of your sound!

 

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2018

I try everything and buy what I use in anything that I'm planning to release (and when a stable version is available in the case of software).
...Some things i buy their next release instead of the one i've used, but i try to support Dev's as i'd like to be supported as an artist!

Over the years I've owned Notator, Cubase, Logic, SX, Nuendo and now Studio One (I used S1 cracked version until 2.6 but now own 2x license ie. 10 license total for the studio and home), also I have 3x UAD2 (with 75% available plugs) and 3x Powercore... I dont use a whole lot of sample CD's, to me it's kind of tragic to pile loops one on another and suggest there is some production artistry, but that's a matter of opinion.

One other thing... I was a label manager in the 90's and we released a track which included a well known accapella, we were sensible enough to get clearance and licensed for the world; Thankfully so as the track was top 5 in UK charts. Okay so we paid a lot in royalty, but we didn't loose everything in a legal battle. Moral of the story is you won't get sued until it's worth it and treat others as you expect to be treated!

 

I agree, but there are things you cannot design alone unless you already have a ton of money. Piano Samples, Orchestra Strings sample libs, Orchestra Brass libs, Woodwind libs, male/female orchestra choruses... etc. These I guess you have to purchase there is no way around it.

 

I actually listened to both of the Marvin Gaye songs a few weeks ago and there are similarities for sure but I don't think it was intentional theft done by Sheeran and Thicke. Definitely, they got inspired by those songs. Maybe they did not remember the song but something very similar came up in their creative process not realizing the similarities. Blurred Lines is way more upbeat and hip IMHO and I would be hard pushed to think it was intentional and plain theft! Even if the grooves are the same I find this a bit farfetched to be a copyright issue. Even though The Gaye estate won, all these melodies and grooves will be repeated to similarities eventually as melodies and grooves, especially in 4/4, will ultimately be totally exhausted if not exhausted already. But I definitely agree that musicians should never steal but be original, although many amazingly great musicians say that they do steal sometimes but in a very clever way and sometimes even unintentionally. If I had to choose between the two type of theft, intentionally clever and unintentional then I would definitely put my vote on the clever theft as that is harder to recognize but an unintentional one can get you busted before you even know what hit you and why exactly.

 

Last edited: Nov 13, 2018

I agree, but sometimes I hear a song, film music or music on adverts and instantly recognize certain sounds that I just used some time ago from like Atmosphere and later Omnisphere... etc. So there are actually some instantly recognizable sounds out there and the executives may not hunt down sounds but they can also hear I believe.