Whilst not wanting to to resurrect the 'sampling vs orginality' thread etc, let me throw this out there:
It seems to me that in our little piece of musical endeavour (at least) samples tend to be used in such a way that you can't recognize them from the source material - or it's v. difficult to do so. Either because they're processed so much (i.e., speeding up/slowing down, granulated, filtered, distorted, phased, chorused etc, etc) so much, or because only an unrecognizeable fraction of the source is used - i.e., in order that the tone can be 'played' as it were, like an original instrument. In that instance, whilst the 'borrowed' sound might be the same, the notes it plays, the 'song', will be different. In these instance, copyright infringement becomes a very blurred question. I mean it would be like sueing someone for sampling bird sounds for instance, because, after those were processed in the same way, the connection remaining with the original material might be just as tenuous as say your original guitar riff. Mho. k >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 8:03 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] >Subject: Re: (313) All Uncleared Sampling Ruled Illegal > > >Learn hoq to make your own music or pay the guy that went thru all >the trouble to get it out there. Sampling is stealing. It's not >paying tribute, or showing respect. Maybe if you were sampling >and giving away your music, but you are not. You are struggling >just like the guy you sampled from, but you are taking the easy >route. The only reason you hate this ruling so much is that now >you realize your own creative level is almost non existent, and >youre screwed. I guess the market will just have to go back to >being less saturated, and the few actually striving to make >something new will be able to actually pay their rent, on time. >Steve > >
