>The new ruling basically says that samples of ANY length need to be licensed. >So you could, for example, take a recording, and make notes out of single cycle samples, and it would be illegal.
>they already cant enforce the laws that exist today >How many of you actually use samples in your music. >I haven't since the mid nineties. >I also often create synth parts that are variations on recognizable musical motifs One possible point here is that when you make music with most modern gear (digital synths, computers) the gear is simply playing back recordings. So unless you're recording acoustic instruments or true analogue synthesis you're using samples - even the analogue style digital gear will use a sample of a square wave or whatever rather than an oscillator. I guess since this was the purpose intended practically these samples are cleared but I'm no legal eagle so what exactly the position under this new ruling is I don't know, I guess I'm just trying to make the point that most modern music is made up of recycled bits and pieces. >If they can't tell where it's from, they can't sue you, regardless of whether it's illegal. Pragmatically of course the threshold's always going to be if someone can recognise their "intellectual property" in someone else's work they may be in a position to pursue the matter - which I might say might not be all bad if only a thread yesterday hadn't had me on the Irdial site where they campaign for free music!
