I could not agree more with what you stated. Indeed, as a couple of members here have experienced when we have collaborated, the first thing I do is to make sure that any sample that they are using is legit. I also extend that rule to any vst we will use in the project. Some of you may call me a hypocrite, and point out at the fact that I have posted "cracked" software and sample packs on sister site, however, just like r2r says that is done to give you all the choice to try before you buy. My DAW computer contains over 1000 plugins, 7 DAWs, and tetra bites of samples, and everything has been paid for. It is the one I use for commercial projects. Bottom line is, if you are making money, pay the authors and devs what they deserve.

 

Do not make warez from money

 

First of all, thanks for the calm & polite answer!
I can understand your point of view... up to that point, where the lines are getting blurred. Talking 'bout Blurred Lines in a way that it is only a little bit inspired by the Gaye Song is rather ridiculous. I don't want to get into the discussion if it is okay, if your "inspiration" goes a little too far, so that it is (almost) a rip off - it is another topic, because it is not samling anymore. But hey, blame on me, because I was the one harping on this honesty thing.

To come back to the original question: I just would not call sampling a kick from some techno or disco record, processing it, then rearrange in your own house track... ehm, I'd not call that "willfully steal someone else's tune or music". Technically you need a license for that, too, and I'm okay with that. On the other hand I don't see how any electronic music producer is feeling robbed, when some other producer is using their kick (probably 808/909 ... or sampled anywhere else) in a own work. And as I stated above... please show me a example of a track where you can say "ah this kick is from here, that snare was from there".

Yeah alright, but one question stays... is it okay to use authors/devs work (you should add publishers, because you know where much of the money in music biz stays) UNTIL you make money?

 

Last edited: Nov 29, 2022

My personal opinion is that if you are making money you should respect the copyright owners. Conversely, if you are not making any money, I don't wont criticize you. I save that for those that are making money and refuse to pay for the tools that make it possible. We are lucky. A carpenter needs to buy, rent, or borrow the tools of his trade, so does an electrician, a taxi driver, etc. There is no "let me borrow your taxi to see if I make money and then I will pay you" in music production. Yet, we have people, including some members here, that boast of releasing songs, and making money with cracked software and not-paid-for sample packs. That is fucked up. Developers are not barking at the hobbyist using a cracked version of their vst or sample pack. They are barking at the ones who making money without compensating them. That a plugin is expensive is a lame excuse. People have forgotten that in early 90s a Mitusbishi digital multitrack was $150k, a Sony was $250k. Nowadays people complain , and refuse to pay $50 for a plugin. In sum, if you are making money compensate the creators of the tools you are using.

 

Providing cracked software that also falls under the term stealing or isn't that wrong If what you say is true, you shouldn't complain about it many people don't have the money to buy all those plugins and sample packs like me for example if i will make money with it i would be willing to pay for it but i dont i am not pro enough to make a living from music maybe in the future but I don't think so I see it as a therapy so I can shut myself off from the shitty things in life that is how it is nothing more nothing less

 

You are reading but not comprehending what I have written. I am not complaining about people that don't have money to buy it, show me where. What I have said, and I will repeat it one last time is "if you are making money compensate the creators of the tools you are using".

 

I get your point and with no disrespect, it is a different angle on what a few people already mentioned.

The only question I believe I know the answer for that is relevant is: "Just because something seems innocent enough and a person knows it belongs to someone else, does that make it ok?"
- The answer is no, it does not. No Avenger alluded earlier just because someone can get away with something or do something and it hurts nobody and they do not get sued does not make it right.

Each of us must live to our own ethics. Nobody should expect everyone to be the same, that is unrealistic. However, if someone knows something is not right and still does it that is on them.

 

This topic is completely irrelevant for 99.9% on here.

Sample however many seconds of whatever you like.

It won't matter a jot unless you are one of the 0.1% on here who actually earns their main income by publishing their music.

 

Ok i see what you mean sorry for my comment I'm not a professional and I don't know anything about releasing and or using samples or copyright material I also had no intention of releasing anything or earning money or the fame I don't like attention maybe you can teach me a thing or two

 

Whenever someone jumps on a thread alleging that its topic is irrelevant, the first question that pops up is: if is it irrelevant why are you wasting your time reading it, replying to it? I guess the irrelevant topic suddenly became so relevant that you could not ignore it, and had to throw in your 2 cents

 

True!

As humans we are very good in lying to ourselves, sadly. We can whitewash everything. That is why I think it is crucial to reflect your doings, in particular when we do something which is not right. Regarding sampling, how I make or listen music, I have no problem with looking in the mirror saying, "yeah I know it is not right but I can live to my own ethics in this case". I paid so much more money to artists, companies, etc regarding music and it is ridiculous how less money I got myself out of it... although I played a few hundred gigs, made CD/Vinyl releases with bands, worked as a guitar teacher, wrote articles about music in a local newspaper, made tons&tons&tons of free advertisment in telling everybody how great this artist and that music product is... etc...
Still I don't want to complain about this imbalance. On the other hand I can understand, why many are complaining, because they really want to make a living with music... In my heart & soul I want it, too, but I don't dare, mainly because I don't want to get frustrated, disappointed and angry with my passion. The situation is really difficult for many of us... but what makes it difficult is in my opinion not some artists sampling other artists... it is the way copyright laws shifted over the time, they are not mainly made and interpreted to make us musicians and producers happy and fair treated... they are mostly made and interpreted from people with money in their minds, not music.

 

If you have no intention of releasing or earning money don't worry about legal implications of sampling. BTW,you can have a successful career as a ghost producer, or ghost songwriter.

 

The purpose of copyright law is not to make anyone happy. Indeed, it does not even exist primarily to protect the interests of the creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts—that is—knowledge. See https://lib.siu.edu/copyright/module-01/ for an excellent explanation of copyright basics, including why they exist.

 

Thanks for the link @The Pirate ... I will have a look.
Here is a link to an really interesting article someone wrote about vaporwave and sampling. It is not only an opinion, but gives further context and links to the history of copyright in music, starting in the latter 1800s and the Berne Convention.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Vaporwave/comments/aab7i6/vaporwave_sampling_copyrightsome_idle_thoughts/

 

@9ty Thanks for that link, too. i have been following close the clash posited in the article. One thing is clear, as I explained earlier, if there is money to be made someone WILL come after you. That is why advising people to use samples because such and such producer have done it without legal repercussion is the wrong advice.

 

What is a ghost producer?

 

You will produce a track, album, whatever but receive no written credit for it. Think of a work for hire. Regardless you will get paid, and depending on agreement receive royalties. I did it for WB, BMG, and SONY Latin division for years, still do it if price is right. These contracts had me as 'in-house producer." BTW, being an "in-house producer" does not necessarily means that you will remain anonymous. I did it by choice. All I wanted and want is to get paid. Call me a music mercenary. As much as I love music, I am not ashamed to admit that am in this business for the money. I love getting paid for what i love to do. One thing you need to keep in mind is that if a label signs you as IHP (not International House of Pancakes) 99.9999% they will keep you from performing freelance work. Since they are aware of that, they will pay you pretty good. As IHP you practically get to do whatever you want, you have a lot of control over all aspects of the production that outside producers hired by the label dont have.
If you don't like fame or recognition you can also use an artistic name if you are trying to remain anonymous. All comes down to what you want, and what your goals, your expectations and your ego.

 

Ok nice to know
Do you have deadlines ?
Do you have free choice to do your own thing or do you have rules you have to follow?

 

You possibly (on purpose) left out the occasional non-disclosure agreements I wonder how many will take some of your useful advice onboard? I guess useful is for many in the eye of the beholder.

We should chat in PM sometime if you're up for it. Not too dissimilar funnily enough. Up to you.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2022