À (At) 15:44 +0000 17/08/0, Simon Walley écrivait (wrote) : >>what about artists and labels we enjoy talking about on this list who have >>used illegaly samples from other artists, sometimes artists signed on >>majors ? :) > >But thats okay :) > >No, thats a good point. The difference is that (generally speaking) for >small scale independent artists and labels, you don't sample someone elses >work purely because you want to make money out of it. You might use it for >any number of reasons but purely to make money won't be one of them. > >Carl Craig, Jeff Mills, etc. would probably quite happily talk about the >reasons for using a given sample and the respect they have for the original >artist. Same with a lot of hip-hop producers.
i had recently the opportunity recently to listen to several original tracks sampled by famous detroit musicians. this have sighlty changed my mind about them. since i consider some detroit tracks being artistic ripp-off. that's my modest feelings. >The difference here is that no respect is being paid. The sample is being >used because it is a good, effective, dancefloor sample. The rip-off guys >know it - they also know that UR is a small, independent label compared to >Sony or whoever is releasing this and that legal action would be tricky and >costly for them to initiate. > >Basically, they know they can rip-off other artists hard work, pass it off >as their own and fear no reprisals. This is wrong. > >Its a sliding scale with 'purely artistic usage' at one end and 'purely >money making' at the other. Where as independent artists might be all over >that scale (some justifiable, some questionable), the major label rip-offs >will always crash in on the money making side.
