A few days ago Chris from Airwindows processed a drumkit loop that he recorded himself with the plugin he was demonstrating on a video. The video took automatic DMCA for a Rammstein song. I mean, he did literaly EVERYTHING, recorded the drums, did the processing (even created the plugin that did the processing lol) and still the algorythm interpreted his work as Rammstein. The point about those automatic shuts are not the samples, are the average of similarity of a sound with another one. If you're not using samples thinking you're safe, maybe you could end up with problems if you don't know how those robots reads music. And if you know, very probably you also knows how to avoid those issues, working or not with samples.

 

Great discourse, thanks

I get why some things seem to be funny/peculiar, and that's a logical feeling if you grew into a music industry that had a sense of normality, where being a composer, performer or arranger was a legitimate profession that could make anyone dedicated a decent living. Now, some people are almost fighting for scraps (which is a decent metaphor), and a pittance to scrape from streaming because someone told them that is the only way. Add A.I into the mix and being a musician, composer or songwriter has almost been relegated as entertainment only unless you are a content provider or streaming producer that uses A.I or randomly hires musicians if A.I cannot do it, or you write/or resample EDM for DJ dance club circuits.

It is the way it is now I suppose. I doubt anyone wants to tell someone that loves music starting out, that they'll make more money as a plumber, doing a trade, a business or I.T degree, but it is true unless they can be in the 0.01%.

 

Royalty free isn't enough because the labels/distributors are using algorithms that are claiming ownership for things they don't own (use of royalty free samples) and are vexatiously claiming copyright over other people's work.

 

Solid grounding on your part recognizing discourse, instead of thinking I was coming at you.

I'm in that awkward zone where I'm not old enough to be pining for the days of exclusionary studio time or having to walk three towns over to listen to new artists' releases on a victrola, but I'm also not young enough to think that anything over ten years old is "vintage," or that everyone now having the ability to create effortlessly or mix automatically means that we're in some utopian period of music, since the trade-off is that we end up wading through a pool of half-assed music to find anything worthwhile, no matter the genre.

It's wild to me that some kids have never owned a guitar amp or a drum kit or anything with knobs that can fall off or strings that can break, or anything that they name because they spend so much time practicing on it, but it's also strange to me the oldheads on that trip where they've got a bunker full of trans-conduct-ing widgets and tube-driven cogs to patch up some failing sixteen-track board from the eighties that sounded like ass then and still does today, but now it reeks of stale beer and flop sweat from one too many gigs, praying all the while to pagan gawds it will never die. Again, awkward. I'm an outlier on both sides of the fence.

Word. I knew that the chances of living and dying a broke musician/writer/artist were wicked high, but I'm an odd marriage of the streets and a hopeless bohemian, sacrificing most everything to make music because it keeps me sane... ish... er. I've played and created most genres over the years because I listen to most genres, and started mixing because it fits my nature; a million small moves to make a whole is an enjoyable challenge, a puzzle, tho it's all admittedly escapism as well. Everything about music is therapy, but it's also its own brand of insanity.

Maybe that's the raw static between actual musicians and A.I., its ability to make music without having to endure the catastrophic storm of emotions that surround it like we do, the hope, the fear, the uncertainty, the perfectionism, the whole package. I know I don't trust anything that can write a song that sounds emotionally deep, if it doesn't even have the ability to spiral into an existential crisis.

 

I would like to add something that i noticed,for example the case of this song by Madonna which directly took up the famous organ arpegio of a song by the group Abba and strangely it passed without any problem until the Abba record company intervened!

 

You're mistaken, I downloaded this yesterday from Loopmasters

https://www.loopmasters.com/genres/...YzNTM3MjEkbzEkZzAkdDE3NDYzNTM3MjEkajAkbDAkaDA.

scroll down an you will see cleary stated that: All content is 100% Royalty-Free, so you can use the sounds in commercial productions with no extra cost.

This is true of all packs on Loopmasters or Producer Loops, others too, unless cleary stated that there are conditions are attached.

However, i'm prob gonna use her on next EP, i only do EPs, single and three club mixes, and it might get flagged on Soundcloud as three others of mine have, only because of the vocal though, but I provided a link to the site with the above royalty free notice and it was reinstated, not ideal but nowt I can do about it, no doubt detection will improve.

 

Last edited: May 4, 2025 at 11:57 AM

never trust AI, he wants you to quit so he can steal your shit and sell it as his own. Ask me how I know????

I was taking Lawerence Welk Samples and tweaking them by doubling the tempo and rolling off the high end and then dropping in some base notes, from the WillyWonka SuperBass Shakeyour mama's ass sample pak and then do some high end production worker with DJ hightech, Dj Lowtech, and DjNoTech, the TechBros as they is known in the scene..

We had some rollin tracks goin and were getting a major vibe from a lotta big people (mostly over 500lbs, which is really really reallly big) and shit was starting to break for us.

Then i axed the ChatGPA bout some directions to a festival and he heard our trax droppin in the background and he was like "oh no you ddiddn't" and we was all "oh yeas I did" and he was I all like I'm gonaa drop the 911 on your 411 and get your ass in a 302, and we was like "juss give me some damn directions" and then Interpol rolls up and steals our master tapes which was on an ssd hangin around DJNotech's Austrian PooDane (which is a poodle/great dane mix and really friendly and stuff and cute as a button when you dress him up like a pimp)

and shit that shit was gone and we was back to delivering pizza and shit..

so yeah don truss the AI'zz..

 

No, you shouldn't send it to attorney, but he/she should send it to you. Ok, in previous post I (by memory) revived my experience with session musicians 15 years ago...
now to get it right I asked perplexity.ai about nowadays situation on the subject...so. what it proposes:

"Expert Legal Services for Creative Industries

The Law Office of Adam C. Freedman is a New York City-based boutique firm specializing in entertainment, IP, and media law. We provide creative and entrepreneurial clients with strategic legal and business counsel at every stage of their projects. Let us help you protect your vision and build your success."

they have a lot of templates with entertainment contracts, and this one is exactly what we are talking about (but they want $10 for this):

https://shop.acfreedmanlaw.com/products/session-musician-agreement-flat-fee-buyout


But, perplexity.ai found exactly Release form for free, and you can download that in PDF:

https://www.davidbawiec.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Session-Player-Release-Form.pdf

Summary, note, the titles could be vary: contract, release form, session musician agreement etc., but the aim is the same.

PS. Of course, if your attorney isn't that experienced, you can send them those templates , free or paid ones.

 

Exactly, content match on YT is totally broken. I mean there is only so much you can do with a drum set.

 

It is not really about age if you think outside the square which you seem to be. If you think about a career as a bartender, accountant, plumber, retail trades, computer engineer, lawyer, doctor or any area, you would anticipate being able to make a GOOD living from it. Music used to be that way until some people decided they could take 90% of the earnings while others did the work. If they tried that in any of the mentioned other careers, there would be an uproar.
Imagine a doctor doing an 8 hour heart transplant and the hospital charged $100,000 dollars and said to the doctor, here is your pay, $100. Every fair employment department in the world would go nuts.

It isn't really about age, it is simply a person does the work they get paid the majority for the work, not 0.01% of it

I was asked recently about where they could make a career in music and the only answer that is true is that they get a doctorate and teach in a University or hook up with DJ's in trap and hop houses and make beats. What is the point in telling them to go out and try and make rent and food on performing or their own compositions with streaming? I guess I could have gone negative and said become a plumber, you'll make around $60 an hour.

 

Afirma. Those AI chats are very lawful and even neurotical with some issues you present to it, since it needs to embrace all the possibilities of a fact. Sometimes, they embrace 'real' possibilities that in real life are not precise, because the AI has a lot of information about things, but none to few knowledge of pratical things on life, so you can end up pretty easy on a rabbit hole that in real life you would not step in. There are so many nuances on the fact of "working with samples", so if you feed the AI with fear or worry, very probably it will take your fear to give you a 'precise' answer to solve the problem (on OP's situation, quiting the music business was the solution the AI gave to his worry).

 

So I looked at this, out of curiosity. I'll be blunt: this is just fluff. It's not required by law. It's a lawyer's approach to justifying their services, and charging you $10-$80 for "forms" that are covered by the law - which even section 2 of the document that you linked above explicitly articulates:

• Disclaimer: These materials are made available for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice.

So you just googled and linked the first link that kinda looked the part? Please, have some respect for your peers. Also, what lawyer charges $10 for a form? Have you never dealt with lawyers?

This one is actually better, and likely would look cool when dealing with newbies, or non-union musicians. It's not exactly airtight though (even I immediately spotted some holes). Were real money involved, that "Release Form" would be as good as toilet paper for an experienced Entertainment Lawyer. You've never been sued or negotiated with opposite party law firm I'm guessing? (I have).

How sweet. My attorney doesn't need forms though, and is plenty experienced, but thanks.

• So, we've established your experience in the matter is lacking (Australian law, French law, are vastly different from US Copyright Law), and dates back 15 years - your own admission.
• We've established the forms you linked are made available for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice.
• We've established you've not read Title 17 of the US Copyright Law - which is the rule book of Entertainment Law and the bedrock of any litigation. I recommend you familiarize yourself with the US concept of "Work for Hire," and forget about "droit moral."

Ultimately, you meant and mean well. No harm done - but kindly acknowledge (if only to yourself) your lack of expertise when confronted with hard facts, please. If you had been face to face with me, I guarantee you would've saved yourself much time googling for links and embarrassment.

Have a blessed day, in Australia or France, or wherever you're writing from.

• Edit: Funky Drummer

 

Last edited: May 5, 2025 at 8:28 AM

im not who you were replying to, but i agree with them. just because loopmasters says its 100% royalty free, does not mean a major label wont still issue a take-down notice. If they have a song released that uses the same sample as you, you will get take-down after take-down. Even if they don't have a song that uses the same sample as you, they still do it. A friend had a take down for an electronic song, that was 100% original, including the drums, which were from an analog drum machine. ZERO samples. He still got multiple take down notices from a subsidiary of universal, because it sounded similar to one of their songs.

 

This is quite common: getting a takedown from platforms because the samples in your track are present in a track that has already been released. It happened to me in the past and I even tried to open a dispute: nothing, it didn't work.
I keep saying that in the music business, sample packs should never be used

 

Well, you're not arguing with me now, but with David Bawiec, it's on his site https://www.davidbawiec.com/ the template is located (I only saw who he is today 05.05.25). So, you're arguing with David Bawiec, who has quite a few works for major film studios in the US, these works are listed on his site (you can see them, if you want) and he lives and works not in Australia or France, but in LA, CA.

So you can write to him that the release form on his site is crap.

 

This is not how it works. A major label cannot get your track removed with legit samples from legit sample providers, period. End of.

The legit samples are only LICENSED to you, you don't own it, you've payed for a licence to USE it in an original work, no person or company no matter who, EMI, me, you, etc who buys a legit pack has absolutely 100% no authority to pull your track, period.


My logo on the left is 100% copyright protected, merely by being used on vinyl covers, nobody can use it but me.

However, i could let you use it by tying you to a contract, a license in fact.

Which would simply read, you may use my logo for £1000, but only for the covers of your books, you may not use the logo, or any image associated with other than those set out in these terms.

Or words to that effect.

So any one who purchased a license to use my logo may do so freely and without further cost, but they can only use it on their books, because i said so, because I still own the copyright, I didn't sell my copyright, I sold a usage license only, to all those who bought my pack that has been given specific conditions of usage.

When you purchase a legit pack you automatically become tied to their conditions, so if legit company states that it's, 100% royalty free with no further costs required, that's exactly what is, you can use it freely in your work without any extra costs, PERIOD.

 

I understand what you are trying to say, but sadly you are incorrect. Major labels, can, and do get away with doing whatever they want. They don't have the right to issue a take-down, but they will do it anyways. Ive personally seen it happen, its been going on for years already, and will only get worse.

EMI or whoever has no authority, but they have the resources and power to bully somebody who may not have the resources to fight back.

 

Hi @shinyzen, I agree. Big companies always have a legal department with lawyers, and they inundate them with lawsuits, usually until they, as a small company, run out of money. They have more financial power than small companies, and they exploit that.

 

I have no desire to argue with anyone, it is you who is arguing in bad faith now because I've shut down every one of your justifications and counter-arguments.

Let me be clear - this is the last time before I block you, enough is enough, no matter how young and inexperienced you are:

• There is NO legal requirement to use anyone's forms if the work is PAID and as such documented as work for hire.

I highly recommend you take all your forms, get on a flight to L.A., NY or NSH, and speak to an attorney, face to face. Farewell.