When will these government idiots go after the record companies and managers that have been SCREWING the artists since the 50's with illegitimate record contracts? Nobody cares about the artists (that supply ALL of the productivity). How many Billions of dollars have artists been screwed out of in the 50 years BEFORE the existence of the internet? The internet is simply a tool with which NEW profits can be made. This is again, only about the top 1% (record companies) getting richer and richer.
@JohnandRowForever and... if the artist/rappers/producers paid to use the sample 9 of 10 times the record comapany owns the masters of the sample anyway so they(the musician) wont be getting money anyway. SAD but that's the contract they signed before they got in the studio. Still WE beat makers continue the legacy as we introduce our peers to what they left behind when they ask "Who is that sample from?" Then as a producer I must explain in a nut shell the careers of whom I sample from...
@JohnandRowForever, I agree with my you my dude, My comment was towards Producers becuase they are responsible for the music that involves the un-talented,un-original artist to rap on to begin with... It takes a special person to be able to cut records and then turn around and make a different song song out it. check out some of my work on my youtube page and you'll see, If anything we pay homage to that time in music. Peace!
If it wasn't for sampling, halfof this generation wouldn't even know those groups even happened! So by (even more today) US/ kids using the sample technique we are learning of what the originals did for music. If I was sampled by some producer, I would feel happy that someone liked my shit to the point that they would make a whole song off of a 2 bar drum loop. n-e-wayz, Long live the heartbeat of HIPHOP...=SAMPLING
@HOGGBEATZ So you're claiming that Sampling is a form of Advertisement? It's getting the word out on "Old Music" and/or "Old Artists" that have maybe been forgotten? Shouldn't the Creaters/Composers of this music have a say in how & when "THEIR" music is being used? Especially when some Uncreative Unorignal No-Talent is making a Fortune off of it.
@JohnAndRowForever Idk about that. Sampling is the equivalent of inviting a guest musician to sing or play on ur track. I think if ur going to get paid/sue for ur rights, it should b based on how much was used
Btw if I remember right, u cant copyright anything other than melodies/grooves, lyrics, and I think solos idk. Drum tracks, song names, and chord progressions arent covered under copyright laws, but u should still have to pay "samplees" as u would any other studio musician for their work
@JohnAndRowForever The problem is these record companies don't understand the culture, and they can't tell the difference between talent and no talent and the creative artists get attacked. It all depends on HOW you sample, but I think for the most part, it should be legal.And it's not "Their" music if I buy it.If it can be sold, its a product, and if I buy it, it's my possession, so I should be able to shit on it if I want.Do you get sued for making brownies and having a bake sale?
@BigkKinny Poor analogy. It's more like buying Norman Mailer novel, and then replicating Distinctive Specific chapters within that novel for your own novel. Merely because you purchased one of the person's products, that doesn't give you the right to Steal Intellectual ideas from that product.
@JohnAndRowForever Not really, it's like Stephen King's Dark Tower series, which are similar to Tolkien's Middle Earth.Theres a difference from stealing and sampling. Sampling is with appreciation and respect. Stealing is taking it, and telling someone you created it yourself.
To your analogy, most Hip-Hop artists dont "add a few chapters." It would be like me painting the Mona Lisa, but painting her surfing in a lake of lava, holding 2 sawed off shotguns blasting Pikachus while smoking a cigar.
@BigkKinny "it's like Stephen King's Dark Tower series, which are similar to Tolkien's Middle Earth." The oppertarive word there is "Similar". I'm referring to the so-called Artists(Talentless Thieving Hacks) that that Literally DUPLICATE another Artist's Distinctive Melody, Long Rhythmic Hooks &/or Long Passages of Lyrics; and then sticking it in their worthless little ditty "WITHOUT" Permission..That's "STEALING", and there's Nothing "Appreciative", "Respectful" &/or Honorable about that.
@JohnAndRowForever But without Tolkienn, King's series would be SIGNIFICANTly different, just like an artists music would be different without samples.Again they dont duplicate, they sample. They dont here a song and remake it and say they did it, they take a piece of someone elses art, and incorporate it in their own. Like Andy warhol, he didnt design the Coke bottle, so should he make his own soda bottle and paint it? Maybe the bottle spoke to him in a special way.
@BigkKinny "It would be like me painting the Mona Lisa, but painting her surfing in a lake of lava, holding 2 sawed off shotguns blasting Pikachus while smoking a cigar." Another poor anaolgy. Because that's not an example of a Duplicating another artist's Idea. You've altered da Vinci's image through extreme juxtapositioning. That's not the same as a LOSER Duplicating an Artist's Distinctive Melody..PURELY/FULLY..With No Alteration At All, and then Using it WITHOUT permission.
@JohnAndRowForever As a Rap listener, I have yet to find a respectable artist that has done that. P diddy did it with "Missing you", and Timbaland stole an arabian song, and put bass and drums to it, and looped it, but neither are respected in the Hip-Hop community.It's not duplication, it's sampling.Would you call Queen thieves? BEcause they sampled or to you "stole" from a Rap song, Kurtis Blow's "Christmas Rappin" yet you dont see rap fans trashing Rock music, we take it as a compliment.
@BigkKinny The R&B group Next sampled the Medicore Kurtis Blow tune "Christmas Rappin". Who did Queen Steal from "Without" Permission? I'm not saying they didn't, I'm merely asking who they Stole from? If Queen Sampled(STOLE) "WITHOUT" Permission...Then..YES! They are "THIEVES".
@JohnAndRowForever Queen did sample the CLASSIC Christmas Rappin by Kurtis Blow.Obviously Queen didnt think it was a mediocre tune, or else they wouldn't have used it to make one of their most popular tunes, "Another one Bites the Dust".
I guess people will have to agree to disagree on this issue because people have different opinions.
uh, a beep is a beep geez. sorry, i didnt cut/scratch my OwN 120 hz "beep" trying to prove that 120hz tone beep is yours and not mine is an impossible case since both tones are identical duh!
a b-flate note is a b-flat regardless of who presses the key on the piano dumb asses
If you suspect content is being shared on YouTube without the copyright holder's permission, report the infringement violation to us, we'll make sure the content gets removed. We review all submissions, regardless of content or subject matter.
We are not "officially" affiliated with YouTube, however we act within YouTube Guidelines as a community driven policing initiative, averaging 99% video removal for all complaints submitted, whether anonymous 3rd party tips, or the actual copyright holder.
Just watch the movie "zeitgeist moving forward" here on youtube, you'll see much better way for many points in people life, and spread the word because things are going to change.
A quick question?, if you posted someone elses video content to your channel and you included the right owner in the description box by saying "Credit to" and posted the user name of that video, do you still get nailed for copyright or do need to have the users permission and all that applies to it? because I post Viral Videos from my Xbox and included the rightful owner and the site it came from in my description box or does that not count?
@D12303 If the copyright owners don't want their shit to be uploaded by anyone but themselves it'll be removed. It doesn't matter if you credit them. What matters is their decision.
@TheWaxMinister Thans for that info, I actually stopped that a while ago when I uploaded a video that someone claimed and I got 1 strike, so I'm turning a new leaf and deleted every single video that I ever recorded from viral video and am focusing on my own. I only got 3 strikes, I'm going to use them wisely :P
@D12303 If you're using copyrighted music, lay off the big companies like Sony, Universial etc. Mostly the popular Vevo songs. I've uploaded 60+ songs on a different channel and I've had to audioswap just 3 of them, which were songs by more famous artists. Underground music is safer to use. I've never gotten any strikes though :)
@TheWaxMinister I don't mean to make this look like a book to read but to make a long story short, I already figured out that you need to msg Vevo or the companies you mentioned directly and ask them for my rights to publish their song to my video because I you got to admit, the garbage that YouTube has for audio swap is pesh no offense YouTube but music is what makes videos come to life, now the question is do others that use songs from Vevo or other companies get punished? or do they not care
Most people that like a song with a sample in it never even heard the original song it came from anyway (unless it's a Puffy song)... you could go on about this forever, but if a painter paints a red triangle, does that mean no other painter is allowed to paint red triangles in his artwork? As long as one is trying to be original and samples bits and pieces, I think it's ok... takin' someone's groove or chorus is a different story... but I don't make the law (but I have a MPC... hehehe)
If you think about an artist taking time to write, sing and produce a song which may cost him/her considerable time and money then someone comes along and steals it for their video, it's not fair, is it? Most video producing software now has 'royalty free' music for you to put on your video, if not do a google search and get some, there's lots out there for free with no restrictions. Don't steal other's music to sell your video! The video isn't good if you need pop music to sell it!
@ShoppingBargains Yes, and the guy in the trailer who wants to make a wiggle out of a record... he owes something to the maker of the record. Why doesn't he make his own record, then wiggle it? He at least has to pay something, if not the full rate.
Oh! About sampling... According to the documentary, the copyright laws are waay outdated, I mean, u cant handle something that is not foreseen in the law! Its way easier to cover somebody's song than taking 4 or 5 seconds of it! Look at the literary world, where writers take some ideas of another author and put them in their own book. well in that case, putting a citation is enough not to have some punk ass lawyers knocking on your door, they should apply the same priciple, in the music!
@tincho92 what do you think if the law allows everything that's made available for free to the public by the authors, Gratis? but whatever it is that was shared under exclusive environments (need to agree to terms and conditions / pay some money) copyrighted in the way that everything is now?. For example everything's on tv is gratis, but whatever it is that's on youtube was not.
I agree with most of you! Why in God's name do they block my video for copyright infringment? I'm not intending to earn any money from it! It seems that the big corporations want to control every fucking media in the world! If they care so much about 'Copyrights' they should just add on the description, for example, a citation like '2011 Interglobal Media - All Rights Reserved'... What they're doing is just unfair! And as they said, it goes against the reason it was created for!
Youtube's slogan "Broadcast yourshelf".It should be "Broadcast Vevo" or "Broadcast CBS".Youtube has lost the reason that was created for(or they made us believe to a false reason and target.).It's just like internet tv now.
Youtubers(those with the big hits) are being sponsored by companies,preload adds fck the videos up videos are being deleted withought warning due to copyright.
I hate how copyright has taken tons of anime episodes, openings, and endings off of YouTube. Now, I can't use any of those for my piano covers. Thank you, corporate companies who pay YouTube to remove our videos, which we worked hard on. Go Fk yourself... Y__Y
In other words, instead of havin to pay for it, just ask permission rather than having to pay. This movie looks very interesing. Notice how the dude said, "No one took Hip-Hop seriously until it started makin money." Exactly holmes, and then those blood suckin lawyers, A&R's, and other rich ritzy a-holes (who don't give a f*** about the culture) started finding more ways to suck dollar signs outta the artform.
Don't get me wrong, I think copyright is kinda b.s., I mean especially when independent hip-hop artists/producers/djs, etc. use like, a less than a second sample to make a beat, yet they can get in trouble for it? But, at the same time it was music that was already created by another artist that had it published originally. Basically, what Im sayin is, I think it's lame that they can get potentially sued, but at the same time, the artist sampling needs to recognize the originator-at the most.
COPYRIGHTS IN YOUTUBE SUCKS! Common sense, where in the web is the main source of searching medias for people who's new or who are searching for new music, movies and other medias - YouTube? RATHER THAN COMPANIES PAYING YouTube FOR COPYRIGHTS, THEY SHOULD ENHANCE USER ENJOYMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGE THIS WEBSITE BY ENDORSING THEIR PRODUCTS. The no. 1 website to search for new movies and music is in YouTube, and they will block it instantly because of copyrights?! Think.
If copy right laws get out of control people will just be burning what they already have (everything made so far) and leaving them on park benches, or just giving them away to the public just to get back at the copyright industry.
at the end of the day fuck how mainstream pop artists sample things. they just replay the thing and thats it. listen to some Black Milk or Just Blaze and see how music is really flipped and maybe you'll start to appreciate sampling. but at the end of the day don't listen to hip-hop new or old if your hating on sampling cos thered be no waynes or soula boys without DJ Kool Herc looping 2 records together in a club somewhere in 1978.
now aint the pot call the kettle a pot!! PUN intended... and it takes real talent to make a track or if you want it to Produce a song!! just cause the dynamics of the game changed and so called street kids were getting money all of a sudden it became a crime.. That Biz sample back in the day was WACK anyway its just that money changed everything as was stated more money more problems...
now aint the pot call the kettle a pot!! PUN intended... and it takes real talent to make a track or if you want it to Produce a song!! just cause the dynamics of the game changed and so calles street kids were getting money all of a sudden it became a crime.. That Biz sample back in the day was WACK anyway its just that money changed everything as was stated more money more problems...
Real simple how many people would know these artists music if it wasnt for sampling or hiphop for that matter? Nobody knew that Hiphop was going to be the Monster that it is... the same folks that are making noise were the same onees dissing hiphop bak in the day... i remember Time magazine with a picture of a gorilla wearing a kango holding a box on its shoulder and reffering to hiphop as jungle music!!! same folks profited off these same artists with thier BS contracts ..
@Imakebeats65 ... nice try , but this is not a race thing ... it is a legal thing , an integrity thing , a music thing ..... sampling someone elses shit is lazy
@groalerable ... I know it can be complex ... I recently heard DJ Jazzy Jeff`s tribute to Michael Jackson ...i think he called it ... He`s the king , I`m the DJ ...something like that ... a pretty righteous tribute Jeff made ... it was all samples off MJ`s songs and Jeff had put parts from different MJ songs together .... something like this I can get behind and be fine with .. but like that shit puffy did with " every breath you take " ... I cant get down with that .. its a ripoff and its lazy
Did the original creator of a sample lose anything when the their song was sampled? No - their income, popularity and reputation would remain the same with the deed done and undone. So how can an act that has no affect on it's "victim" even be considered a crime? It's just fucking retarded.
@lobaxx ... depends on how you define victim or victimization ... and just because you see no effect on someone does not mean there has not been some effect
And what effect would you say sampling has on the original artist? Would his income have been higher if someone had not sampled his track? Fuck no - if anything, the act of sampling might increase his popularity.
One is a victim if defined so according to law. Thereby the quotation marks.
No, buying a car and fucking repainting it IS NOT STEALING. The same applies to buying a record and sampling it - IT'S NOT STEALING. Fuck it, even piracy doesn't qualify as stealing; or do also consider photography equivalent to kidnapping?
@lobaxx ... Your analogy`s are bad .... this car you talk about ...is it one of a kind ? ... If one person did not exist , would the car exist ?
If you sample a groove that someone wrote , there is no way that groove would have existed without the original person making it up .... if you sample Brian May`s guitar sound for your record , you basically have Brian May on your record .... what dont you understand ?
Why would it be a bad analogy? Someone else made it, right (and, as you said, would not have been made without their effort)? And you BOUGHT it, right? You switched out some parts, redid the paint job and basically created something completely different. It's exactly what is done in sampling and with cars. If the car is original i irrelevant - 90% av all modern pop music is anything but original. Now how can someone in their right mind call this an act of stealth?
@lobaxx .... take a Toyota for example .... how many of them have been made over the years .... 20 million .. 50 million ...they are all the same .... now how can you compare that to the tone Jimi Hendrix got or the groove that Clyde Stubbelfield has .... these things are personal and unique .... when you sample these people and their art you are using them , you are using what took them years and years to develop .. that is bad enough , but to think they shouldnt even be compensated ... wow
And yet, Jimmie has sold millions of records, which makes his work no less unique then that of toyota. And how long did their designers and engineers spend on their creations?
You have still to provide a victim. And without a victim, there can be no crime.
law in itself is corrupt and illogical; I'm saying this from a scientific perspective, and on that note, marketing and privatization are also instruments of corruption when we consider the massively impacting socio-bio-psycho-economical (excuse my language) ramifications which create imaginary mental abstractions which go beyond reason: they are belief systems.
that law doesn't solve problems, such as the problem with the person who commits such an act. He may go to jail, but that doesn't prevent others from becoming criminals. That is why law is illogical: it only prevents and protects, but never cures. And I suppose one might say that criminal acts can never be prevented. Quite frankly, there has been evidence against that ever since we dived into psychology during the 19th century.
@grimslider75 You make it seem like a blue collar crime committed by disenfranchised/uneducated youth who don't know any better. Are you saying these unoriginal people, who think of themselves as creative, have psychological issues that 19th century psychology can fix?
I was speaking of law in general but, Im sorry that I didn't explain that I do not agree with laws and their existence, so one who does commit a "crime" against copyright is not doing anything wrong through their act as they experience it. The act only becomes a crime when someone else see such an act as one which violates their interpretation of the act, and its implications.
@grimslider75 ... You do not agree with laws and their existance ? What kind of idiotic shit is that . Laws give people a reasonable expectation of safety in a stable society . In other words , the reason you feel safe enough to leave your house , walk down the street , go to the mall is because of laws . By contrast , people in a lawless society , say downtown Baghdad , do not have the expectation of safety people have in society`s that have rule of law .
I guess humans aren't intelligent enough to understand simple mutual conduct which is the basis of humanities social development. People learn to become "bad" in society, and laws may make people "feel" safe, however, we don't need reassurance in society, we need ways to change human behaviour ethically, and scientifically. Laws do neither of those things.
@grimslider75 ...So apparently you have figured out what all other psychiatrists , sociologists , and anthropologists have failed to figure out for centuries ... must suck to be the only one enlightened enough to know how to fix humanity ... maybe humanity will catch up with your genius in a few centuries or so .... in the meantime laws will keep doing what they have done throughout the ages ... give people a reasonable expectation of safety and justice .
I haven't figured out anything that hasn't been thought before; My ideas stem from what I have learned from others. My progress is owed to those who have progressed before me. Myself, and every other human owes it to those before them for the knowledge they have given us about the world and the mind that we would have otherwise left alone. I am sure that out of the 7 billion or more people on this planet, I am not the only person to see law as obsolete.
@grimslider75 .... shit ... you say your progress is owed to others before you .... what do you owe them ? Some hairbrained theories that have no rational or realistic value ? Interesting that you did not notate anyone that you owe something to ... no names ... no Socrates , no Plato , no Jefferson , no Madison , no Freud , no Marx .... exactly who do you owe your alleged progress to ?
I like to read and formulate ideas that way, and I'm not one to cite people, but I do have people that i agree with. I read a lot of mark twain and albert einstein as well as kant, but I can't isolate so few individuals as people who have nurtured my educational process. Clearly, I don't have any great theories, I haven't had any great motivation to test them, whatever they seem to be. Our discussion is now clearly off topic concerning the video, so PM if there is anything else.
@grimslider75 ... One more thing , your jibberish about " acts only becoming crimes because of someones interpretation " .... how do you interpret murder ... how do you interpret rape ...how do you interpret stealing .... are you fucking stupid or something ?
If you are implying that my stupidity arises from my wanting to focus on interpretation, I am sorry for stating without explaining clearly where my position is on this issue.
However, seeing as you would rather downplay social ills as things which "fucking stupid" people would rather interpret than just claim illegal and wrong, I don't see any point in engaging in further discussion with you. Thanks for the opportunity
prt2: These people who commit "crimes" have psychological issues only as interpretation describes their actions to be. They themselves are committing a harmless act of a lack of creativity ONLY if such an act is done without real cognition taking place. One who samples should be granted the allowance of the act only if they are remarkably skilled with their art. Art is representational, if such is lacking, the creative process is lacking, and should be prohibited.
the market economy which rules against these actions have very little roots in why art is created. They care about their economical advantages, and nothing more, nothing less. If the law had no economical advantages, I'm sure there would be no lawyers specialized for such a task. They don't care, occupationally, for art or creativity.
If I buy flour, eggs, chocolate chips, sugar (etc.) and make cookies, and then sell them at a bake sale, these fucking lawyers would tell me I now have to pay each individual ingredient's manufacturer AGAIN, just because I made something new which uses a bit of what they made. Copyright lawyers are blood-sucking criminals.
@SubconsciousGatherer ... wrong .... sugar , eggs , and flour are available from any number of hundreds of thousands of chickens , farms , and incubators around the planet ... unless you know a chicken that lays golden eggs than the reality is that every egg is the same ... by contrast , a musical riff , beat or idea comes from one person ...and one person only .. nobody else is entitled to any credit or profit off that unique idea
@sweetfly66 Wow. You must live in a uniquely creative word where every single note, every single riff, every single beat is unlike anything else that's ever come before. You must have all kinds of new time signatures (since 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, etc.) have already been done, so no one's aloud to copy them. How on earth do people in that world play chords on the piano or guitar that have not already been done by someone else? (All art is creative theft, even the greats admit that.)
@SubconsciousGatherer .... by your logic plagiarism should be no big deal either ...at what point do you draw the line , do you even have a line or is anything and everything up for theft and " re-interpretation " ?
@sweetfly66 I'd never suggest "stealing" a sample, then pretending you invented the original sound. That would be plagiarism, but that's not what sampling is. It's the audio equivalent of visual cut-up collage. You're not taking the entirety of what someone else did, then claiming you made it and reaping their rewards. Instead, you're taking fragments from various sources and recontextualizing them into something NEW. Artists know this. Legal-minded types don't. (Not meant as rude.)
@SubconsciousGatherer ... I am not a lawyer , if thats what you were implying . I am a drummer in the Boston area .
All artists take from other artists , Paul Mcartney said every song he has ever written has been a rip off . Rip off is a strong word and I`m sure he did not mean sitting there with a recorder ( sampler , same thing ) and literally lifting the sound and feel directly from another song . I dont know man , maybe I just dont think sampling is that artistic .
@sweetfly66 Have you ever heard Revolution #9 by the Beatles? Listen to that and tell me what's wrong with it. You may not appreciate the artistic merit or quality of sampling (I can't stand Top 40 radio, for example) but that doesn't mean it's wrong or should be illegal. Stealing is one thing. A sample is another. When you sample a piece of food, you're not running off with the entire thing. It's a fragment.
@SubconsciousGatherer ... Of course I have heard it , but I dont know what you mean by your Revolution #9 reference .
" when sampling , you`re not running off with the entire thing . Its a fragment " ..... so if i only steal part of the money from a banks vault its ok .... at what point does a sample or a part become big enough to be called illegal or unethical ?
@societyforrealmusic I don't deny someone created those musical ingredients. I deny their right to have a stranglehold against all future usages of the fragmentary use of their work within the context of a new creation. It's called "sampling."
@2:46... that guy is taking the easy way out... someone played the things he's stealing... he has to at least pay something like $20 to buy the right, or more (much more) if he makes money eventually. People that wear hats inside are always suspicious.
It's true that people made (and can make) something new by breaking the rules (0:30), but you still have to pay SOMETHING even if it's not the full rate (some kind of method of acknowledgment)... if you make money from it that is. If you reap, you can't keep (it all). if they're "in your band", you have to pay them for that... something... like a pay for hire at least. But royalties will also accrue if there's money.
@societyforrealmusic Sure, let's spend all our artistic, creative time figuring out who wants a piece of what we're doing until no one's doing ANYTHING anymore, other than paying for things that have already been paid for. (Sound like a society YOU want to live in?)
b) You have to pay (a proportion) of those, as the sample helps make the money, and the sampler didn't write it, or play it. Eg: Stubblefield must get paid. He wrote the drums, even if he didn't have a credit on the original JB record. There needs to be a new law and fast, or a Presidential decree to pay him (if such a thing exists).
@societyforrealmusic Go listen to something by John Oswald, the tape-Beatles or Negativland, and tell me if you think they could ever track everyone down and pay them or not.
If sampling is stealing or unoriginal depends on what you do with it. There is a big difference between Puff Daddy and let's say DJ Shadow. One is unoriginal easy stealing the other is creative new sampling.
There is a difference between adapting styles methods or techniques towards innovation and playing someone's record at a different speed. Influences are one thing, quality of the music and merit of the innovations of hip hop aside, straight up replay, record sampling is a poor example of artistry or innovation.
listen at 1:48 the reason why no producers tell the name of the artist they sampled is because when they have bin diggin all night thru records and finally find the sound or vocal they been looking for they dont wanna give it up to noone cuz you worked hard for that.
Sampling IS sampling when you have an impact on it. You have to do something with it... Taking samples into sampler is one thing but magic happens when you sit hours composing something new. Personally I love pitching down samples (usually few seconds) and chop it - then there is not much to compare with the original.
I've seen that doc recently and there was that dude who worked with Nirvana, Jimmy Page - said it's lazy to take others work. I guess he never heard of Dj Shadow or Krush
I see jokes go up like a lead balloon here. A serious suggestion is a new generation of artists and their backup who forego copyright restrictions. If, with public cooperation they flourish, the greedy ones who think they have to sue to survive will be squeezed out by their own rules.
Copyright law doesn't go far enough, there should be chips implanted in people's brains that eliminate the memory of a song after,say, 30 days if an ongoing fee is not paid to stop people humming it endlessly for free. Your brain is property of the state and should be subject to stricter regulation.
@bartownsu ... .i wonder if your opinion would be different if you had a hit record that people were using over and over and over but you were not getting any money from it .
To the lawyer at 0:18 ...So if I buy a record and use a snippet of it to use for a song I have I have to pay again?! So that means if I buy a box of crayons and used the red crayon for some art work I have to pay crayola again
@bstrut118 ....no , a red crayola crayon is manufactured specifically so you can make art with it .... contrast that with sampling someones guitar riff or beat ... they did not write that riff or beat so you could use it for your art ..its THEIR art , not yours
@sweetfly66 true. that was a bad analogy. the crayon is like a guitar or drum and the picture drawn with that crayon is like the song that was made by the guitar or drum. ok with that in mind do you think the person who made up the basic drum pattern "kick " "snare" "kick" "snare" in a 4 count should be paid every time someone uses that pattern? so when I draw a square with a crayon i have to pay dues to the first person who drew the first square?
@bstrut118 ... when does a drawn square make anyone any money ..and frankly anyone can draw a square .... your analogy`s are very weak man .... just admit that sampling is unfair ... it just is
You can't own something that is not physical. Not only that, but whatever I purchase becomes my property and I should be allowed to do whatever I want with it. Any laws restricting property ownership (which is copyright laws) is absolute fascism.
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
As a musician who grew up with sampling, I do understand that it is an ART that allows people to create something new. HOWEVER, I think what most sampled artists REALLY have a problem is BEAT-JACKING...someone takes a whole section of a song, LOOPS it, and then fattens up the bass and drums with synths..and then calls himself a "producer." Sampling is fine; beat-jacking is a whole notha thing!
In the end, it's all about the money! If you're a Producer that samples but you ain't makin' no dough, then nobody's gonna come after you, but once you start pullin' in some cash flow... That's when people come knockin'!
Copy rights protection laws are just some brain wash procedures inherited from the Jews when they named god for everybody else using population psychology. I mean the protection is just some fake religious science (act like laws and proofs) and empty languages (decorated with invalid authorities and ownerships).
I think that although people should be credited and/or paid, some of the most innovative and fun music has been from sampling. And look at how much R & B like Rhianna now uses sampling.
The Jamms 1987 sounds rough and raw yet Dancing Queen sampled still remains a landmark track in sampling history.
Or you could be like Robert Plant on Long Cool One and sample yourself. Does that mean you sue yourself :)
I think sampling is fine, as long as you don't try to claim that it's yours. Give credit where credit is due. Otherwise, I don't see why all us musicians can't just get along. Music is one of the strongest forms of expression, and it should be about exactly that, not money or being famous or having fans. Although those things are nice. =] Lol.
We just trying to make good music. That's all I gotta say. Evolving. Taking a four second sample and turning it into something bigger and better. It's all about music.
The only problem I really have with 'sample musicians', is that they are pretty much pirating other peoples' music, and they think it's fine. But then, say somebody pirates their music, begins selling copies, ect. & they seen the police on that person's ass.
Just saying, I think that's fairly hypocritical.
(Poor Clyde Stubblefield, I just want to give him a hug. :( I hope none of this ever makes him bitter.)
As a sample-based electronic musician in my off-time, I gotta chime in; yes, nabbing a beat, throwing something over and/or under it and looping it a bunch of times is shameless, blatant...creativity, in my book.
You see, it takes some thinking to hear something and be able to reinvent it, remix it, or completely destroy the original vision and artistry and construct something new out of it. Try it sometime.
In short, get creative..the original work should inspire you to do so.
I can agree if a producer just loops a sample and adds drums to it. Thats theft but classic hip hop tracks were looped. However, chopping up samples and making a whole new melody plus adding drums is different...Fuck it anyway, its all money in this business its got nothing to do with the music.
Intellectual Property laws are a perversion of property laws; no other type of property allows the creator to have such control over a product; even when that product has been purchased and is thus the property of the purchaser.
When will these government idiots go after the record companies and managers that have been SCREWING the artists since the 50's with illegitimate record contracts? Nobody cares about the artists (that supply ALL of the productivity). How many Billions of dollars have artists been screwed out of in the 50 years BEFORE the existence of the internet? The internet is simply a tool with which NEW profits can be made. This is again, only about the top 1% (record companies) getting richer and richer.
FunkMan53 6 days ago
Sample away to your heart's content. But pay for it. Period.
KikoSavesTheDay 1 month ago
CoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL! must check this film!
420earthquake 2 months ago
*where is Aesop Rock in this doc?
ofMilwaukee 2 months ago
Where is Aesop Rock in t
ofMilwaukee 2 months ago
@JohnandRowForever and... if the artist/rappers/producers paid to use the sample 9 of 10 times the record comapany owns the masters of the sample anyway so they(the musician) wont be getting money anyway. SAD but that's the contract they signed before they got in the studio. Still WE beat makers continue the legacy as we introduce our peers to what they left behind when they ask "Who is that sample from?" Then as a producer I must explain in a nut shell the careers of whom I sample from...
HOGGBEATZ 3 months ago
@JohnandRowForever, I agree with my you my dude, My comment was towards Producers becuase they are responsible for the music that involves the un-talented,un-original artist to rap on to begin with... It takes a special person to be able to cut records and then turn around and make a different song song out it. check out some of my work on my youtube page and you'll see, If anything we pay homage to that time in music. Peace!
HOGGBEATZ 3 months ago
THIS DOC IS ON NETFLIX!!! for those who would like to see it!
HOGGBEATZ 3 months ago
Just saw this Doc on "Netflix" It was dope...
If it wasn't for sampling, halfof this generation wouldn't even know those groups even happened! So by (even more today) US/ kids using the sample technique we are learning of what the originals did for music. If I was sampled by some producer, I would feel happy that someone liked my shit to the point that they would make a whole song off of a 2 bar drum loop. n-e-wayz, Long live the heartbeat of HIPHOP...=SAMPLING
HOGGBEATZ 3 months ago
@HOGGBEATZ So you're claiming that Sampling is a form of Advertisement? It's getting the word out on "Old Music" and/or "Old Artists" that have maybe been forgotten? Shouldn't the Creaters/Composers of this music have a say in how & when "THEIR" music is being used? Especially when some Uncreative Unorignal No-Talent is making a Fortune off of it.
JohnAndRowForever 3 months ago
@JohnAndRowForever Idk about that. Sampling is the equivalent of inviting a guest musician to sing or play on ur track. I think if ur going to get paid/sue for ur rights, it should b based on how much was used
Btw if I remember right, u cant copyright anything other than melodies/grooves, lyrics, and I think solos idk. Drum tracks, song names, and chord progressions arent covered under copyright laws, but u should still have to pay "samplees" as u would any other studio musician for their work
thesmellycatjazz 2 months ago
@JohnAndRowForever The problem is these record companies don't understand the culture, and they can't tell the difference between talent and no talent and the creative artists get attacked. It all depends on HOW you sample, but I think for the most part, it should be legal.And it's not "Their" music if I buy it.If it can be sold, its a product, and if I buy it, it's my possession, so I should be able to shit on it if I want.Do you get sued for making brownies and having a bake sale?
BigkKinny 2 months ago
@BigkKinny Poor analogy. It's more like buying Norman Mailer novel, and then replicating Distinctive Specific chapters within that novel for your own novel. Merely because you purchased one of the person's products, that doesn't give you the right to Steal Intellectual ideas from that product.
JohnAndRowForever 2 months ago
@JohnAndRowForever Not really, it's like Stephen King's Dark Tower series, which are similar to Tolkien's Middle Earth.Theres a difference from stealing and sampling. Sampling is with appreciation and respect. Stealing is taking it, and telling someone you created it yourself.
To your analogy, most Hip-Hop artists dont "add a few chapters." It would be like me painting the Mona Lisa, but painting her surfing in a lake of lava, holding 2 sawed off shotguns blasting Pikachus while smoking a cigar.
BigkKinny 2 months ago
@BigkKinny "it's like Stephen King's Dark Tower series, which are similar to Tolkien's Middle Earth." The oppertarive word there is "Similar". I'm referring to the so-called Artists(Talentless Thieving Hacks) that that Literally DUPLICATE another Artist's Distinctive Melody, Long Rhythmic Hooks &/or Long Passages of Lyrics; and then sticking it in their worthless little ditty "WITHOUT" Permission..That's "STEALING", and there's Nothing "Appreciative", "Respectful" &/or Honorable about that.
JohnAndRowForever 2 months ago
@JohnAndRowForever But without Tolkienn, King's series would be SIGNIFICANTly different, just like an artists music would be different without samples.Again they dont duplicate, they sample. They dont here a song and remake it and say they did it, they take a piece of someone elses art, and incorporate it in their own. Like Andy warhol, he didnt design the Coke bottle, so should he make his own soda bottle and paint it? Maybe the bottle spoke to him in a special way.
BigkKinny 2 months ago
Comment removed
JohnAndRowForever 2 months ago
@BigkKinny "It would be like me painting the Mona Lisa, but painting her surfing in a lake of lava, holding 2 sawed off shotguns blasting Pikachus while smoking a cigar." Another poor anaolgy. Because that's not an example of a Duplicating another artist's Idea. You've altered da Vinci's image through extreme juxtapositioning. That's not the same as a LOSER Duplicating an Artist's Distinctive Melody..PURELY/FULLY..With No Alteration At All, and then Using it WITHOUT permission.
JohnAndRowForever 2 months ago
@JohnAndRowForever As a Rap listener, I have yet to find a respectable artist that has done that. P diddy did it with "Missing you", and Timbaland stole an arabian song, and put bass and drums to it, and looped it, but neither are respected in the Hip-Hop community.It's not duplication, it's sampling.Would you call Queen thieves? BEcause they sampled or to you "stole" from a Rap song, Kurtis Blow's "Christmas Rappin" yet you dont see rap fans trashing Rock music, we take it as a compliment.
BigkKinny 2 months ago
@BigkKinny The R&B group Next sampled the Medicore Kurtis Blow tune "Christmas Rappin". Who did Queen Steal from "Without" Permission? I'm not saying they didn't, I'm merely asking who they Stole from? If Queen Sampled(STOLE) "WITHOUT" Permission...Then..YES! They are "THIEVES".
JohnAndRowForever 2 months ago
@JohnAndRowForever Queen did sample the CLASSIC Christmas Rappin by Kurtis Blow.Obviously Queen didnt think it was a mediocre tune, or else they wouldn't have used it to make one of their most popular tunes, "Another one Bites the Dust".
I guess people will have to agree to disagree on this issue because people have different opinions.
BigkKinny 2 months ago
When is this comin out? I gotta see it
RVCA91 3 months ago
@RVCA91 its out already, its on youtube. ironically.
ChrisBBeats1 3 months ago
does anybody know the music in background straight at the start?
is there a soundtrack?
SuniClaye 4 months ago
Copyright is stupid. Did you know that the cure for cancer is patented?
TheEpicImpaler 4 months ago
copyright the alphabet and sue anyone that bitches!
isnt this clip copyright protected? please remove youboob
baychecks100 6 months ago
uh, a beep is a beep geez. sorry, i didnt cut/scratch my OwN 120 hz "beep" trying to prove that 120hz tone beep is yours and not mine is an impossible case since both tones are identical duh!
a b-flate note is a b-flat regardless of who presses the key on the piano dumb asses
baychecks100 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you suspect content is being shared on YouTube without the copyright holder's permission, report the infringement violation to us, we'll make sure the content gets removed. We review all submissions, regardless of content or subject matter.
We are not "officially" affiliated with YouTube, however we act within YouTube Guidelines as a community driven policing initiative, averaging 99% video removal for all complaints submitted, whether anonymous 3rd party tips, or the actual copyright holder.
DMCAServicesBureau 6 months ago
THAT BASSRINE!
skillracoon 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skillracoon LOOOL was literally about to post this comment.
ChrisBBeats1 3 months ago
Check out the Press Pass Tv video "Fair Use for Fair Play"
presspasstv 7 months ago
Just watch the movie "zeitgeist moving forward" here on youtube, you'll see much better way for many points in people life, and spread the word because things are going to change.
stamstuff 8 months ago
Is that DJ Qubert?
WASSnROLL 8 months ago
@WASSnROLL Yep
WASSnROLL 8 months ago
@WASSnROLL yeah... hes credited in at at one part
GNRule123 8 months ago
A quick question?, if you posted someone elses video content to your channel and you included the right owner in the description box by saying "Credit to" and posted the user name of that video, do you still get nailed for copyright or do need to have the users permission and all that applies to it? because I post Viral Videos from my Xbox and included the rightful owner and the site it came from in my description box or does that not count?
D12303 8 months ago
@D12303 If the copyright owners don't want their shit to be uploaded by anyone but themselves it'll be removed. It doesn't matter if you credit them. What matters is their decision.
TheWaxMinister 8 months ago
@TheWaxMinister Thans for that info, I actually stopped that a while ago when I uploaded a video that someone claimed and I got 1 strike, so I'm turning a new leaf and deleted every single video that I ever recorded from viral video and am focusing on my own. I only got 3 strikes, I'm going to use them wisely :P
D12303 8 months ago
@D12303 If you're using copyrighted music, lay off the big companies like Sony, Universial etc. Mostly the popular Vevo songs. I've uploaded 60+ songs on a different channel and I've had to audioswap just 3 of them, which were songs by more famous artists. Underground music is safer to use. I've never gotten any strikes though :)
TheWaxMinister 8 months ago
@TheWaxMinister I don't mean to make this look like a book to read but to make a long story short, I already figured out that you need to msg Vevo or the companies you mentioned directly and ask them for my rights to publish their song to my video because I you got to admit, the garbage that YouTube has for audio swap is pesh no offense YouTube but music is what makes videos come to life, now the question is do others that use songs from Vevo or other companies get punished? or do they not care
D12303 8 months ago
ITS ART !
ART HAS NO BOARDERS!
STUPID LAWS N SHIT!
all ya producers out there KEEP THEM SOUNDS COMIN`
peace
Amfiters 9 months ago
Most people that like a song with a sample in it never even heard the original song it came from anyway (unless it's a Puffy song)... you could go on about this forever, but if a painter paints a red triangle, does that mean no other painter is allowed to paint red triangles in his artwork? As long as one is trying to be original and samples bits and pieces, I think it's ok... takin' someone's groove or chorus is a different story... but I don't make the law (but I have a MPC... hehehe)
DJChrisLoot 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i saw this film in peru and it was just great
Eatdearplease444 11 months ago
If you think about an artist taking time to write, sing and produce a song which may cost him/her considerable time and money then someone comes along and steals it for their video, it's not fair, is it? Most video producing software now has 'royalty free' music for you to put on your video, if not do a google search and get some, there's lots out there for free with no restrictions. Don't steal other's music to sell your video! The video isn't good if you need pop music to sell it!
ShoppingBargains 1 year ago
@ShoppingBargains Yes, and the guy in the trailer who wants to make a wiggle out of a record... he owes something to the maker of the record. Why doesn't he make his own record, then wiggle it? He at least has to pay something, if not the full rate.
societyforrealmusic 10 months ago
Oh! About sampling... According to the documentary, the copyright laws are waay outdated, I mean, u cant handle something that is not foreseen in the law! Its way easier to cover somebody's song than taking 4 or 5 seconds of it! Look at the literary world, where writers take some ideas of another author and put them in their own book. well in that case, putting a citation is enough not to have some punk ass lawyers knocking on your door, they should apply the same priciple, in the music!
tincho92 1 year ago
@tincho92 what do you think if the law allows everything that's made available for free to the public by the authors, Gratis? but whatever it is that was shared under exclusive environments (need to agree to terms and conditions / pay some money) copyrighted in the way that everything is now?. For example everything's on tv is gratis, but whatever it is that's on youtube was not.
Melki 11 months ago
@tincho92 not true. A tune is a few minutes... a lot of time, so 5 secs is a BIG part of it. Gotta pay.
societyforrealmusic 10 months ago
I agree with most of you! Why in God's name do they block my video for copyright infringment? I'm not intending to earn any money from it! It seems that the big corporations want to control every fucking media in the world! If they care so much about 'Copyrights' they should just add on the description, for example, a citation like '2011 Interglobal Media - All Rights Reserved'... What they're doing is just unfair! And as they said, it goes against the reason it was created for!
tincho92 1 year ago
Youtube's slogan "Broadcast yourshelf".It should be "Broadcast Vevo" or "Broadcast CBS".Youtube has lost the reason that was created for(or they made us believe to a false reason and target.).It's just like internet tv now.
Youtubers(those with the big hits) are being sponsored by companies,preload adds fck the videos up videos are being deleted withought warning due to copyright.
jimmyking92 1 year ago
What did El P say? If you can catch me then I didnt do my job?
WuTang069 1 year ago
Comment removed
andrew49848 1 year ago
Comment removed
andrew49848 1 year ago
Comment removed
andrew49848 1 year ago
Comment removed
andrew49848 1 year ago
Comment removed
andrew49848 1 year ago
Comment removed
andrew49848 1 year ago
Comment removed
andrew49848 1 year ago
Comment removed
andrew49848 1 year ago
Comment removed
andrew49848 1 year ago
Comment removed
andrew49848 1 year ago
Comment removed
andrew49848 1 year ago
I hate how copyright has taken tons of anime episodes, openings, and endings off of YouTube. Now, I can't use any of those for my piano covers. Thank you, corporate companies who pay YouTube to remove our videos, which we worked hard on. Go Fk yourself... Y__Y
pianoac 1 year ago
In other words, instead of havin to pay for it, just ask permission rather than having to pay. This movie looks very interesing. Notice how the dude said, "No one took Hip-Hop seriously until it started makin money." Exactly holmes, and then those blood suckin lawyers, A&R's, and other rich ritzy a-holes (who don't give a f*** about the culture) started finding more ways to suck dollar signs outta the artform.
musicalminded878 1 year ago
Don't get me wrong, I think copyright is kinda b.s., I mean especially when independent hip-hop artists/producers/djs, etc. use like, a less than a second sample to make a beat, yet they can get in trouble for it? But, at the same time it was music that was already created by another artist that had it published originally. Basically, what Im sayin is, I think it's lame that they can get potentially sued, but at the same time, the artist sampling needs to recognize the originator-at the most.
musicalminded878 1 year ago
COPYRIGHTS IN YOUTUBE SUCKS! Common sense, where in the web is the main source of searching medias for people who's new or who are searching for new music, movies and other medias - YouTube? RATHER THAN COMPANIES PAYING YouTube FOR COPYRIGHTS, THEY SHOULD ENHANCE USER ENJOYMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGE THIS WEBSITE BY ENDORSING THEIR PRODUCTS. The no. 1 website to search for new movies and music is in YouTube, and they will block it instantly because of copyrights?! Think.
jdfc5 1 year ago 11
@jdfc5 MY CAPS LOCK IS BROKEN TOO!
opo736 5 months ago
If copy right laws get out of control people will just be burning what they already have (everything made so far) and leaving them on park benches, or just giving them away to the public just to get back at the copyright industry.
monkeybars101 1 year ago 2
at the end of the day fuck how mainstream pop artists sample things. they just replay the thing and thats it. listen to some Black Milk or Just Blaze and see how music is really flipped and maybe you'll start to appreciate sampling. but at the end of the day don't listen to hip-hop new or old if your hating on sampling cos thered be no waynes or soula boys without DJ Kool Herc looping 2 records together in a club somewhere in 1978.
FreshFruitInc 1 year ago
Copyright SUCKS . End of discution!11!!!
JakeCavarity 1 year ago
look, most beats out here are copy paste, that is not impressive or YOUR IDEA and these producers should have the originators name on the production
ex: DOA - jayz
but a very chopped up beat that u can barely tell the sample or its very rearranged is VERY impressive and almost as good as the original
ex: kingdom come - jayz
JayRocFly 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
now aint the pot call the kettle a pot!! PUN intended... and it takes real talent to make a track or if you want it to Produce a song!! just cause the dynamics of the game changed and so called street kids were getting money all of a sudden it became a crime.. That Biz sample back in the day was WACK anyway its just that money changed everything as was stated more money more problems...
Imakebeats65 1 year ago
now aint the pot call the kettle a pot!! PUN intended... and it takes real talent to make a track or if you want it to Produce a song!! just cause the dynamics of the game changed and so calles street kids were getting money all of a sudden it became a crime.. That Biz sample back in the day was WACK anyway its just that money changed everything as was stated more money more problems...
Imakebeats65 1 year ago
Real simple how many people would know these artists music if it wasnt for sampling or hiphop for that matter? Nobody knew that Hiphop was going to be the Monster that it is... the same folks that are making noise were the same onees dissing hiphop bak in the day... i remember Time magazine with a picture of a gorilla wearing a kango holding a box on its shoulder and reffering to hiphop as jungle music!!! same folks profited off these same artists with thier BS contracts ..
Imakebeats65 1 year ago
@Imakebeats65 ... nice try , but this is not a race thing ... it is a legal thing , an integrity thing , a music thing ..... sampling someone elses shit is lazy
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@sweetfly66
sampling is how hip hop began, and it was how most of the classics were made.
sampling is it's own art form. it can become very very complex.
groalerable 1 year ago
@groalerable ... I know it can be complex ... I recently heard DJ Jazzy Jeff`s tribute to Michael Jackson ...i think he called it ... He`s the king , I`m the DJ ...something like that ... a pretty righteous tribute Jeff made ... it was all samples off MJ`s songs and Jeff had put parts from different MJ songs together .... something like this I can get behind and be fine with .. but like that shit puffy did with " every breath you take " ... I cant get down with that .. its a ripoff and its lazy
sweetfly66 1 year ago
Did the original creator of a sample lose anything when the their song was sampled? No - their income, popularity and reputation would remain the same with the deed done and undone. So how can an act that has no affect on it's "victim" even be considered a crime? It's just fucking retarded.
lobaxx 1 year ago
@lobaxx ... depends on how you define victim or victimization ... and just because you see no effect on someone does not mean there has not been some effect
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@sweetfly66
And what effect would you say sampling has on the original artist? Would his income have been higher if someone had not sampled his track? Fuck no - if anything, the act of sampling might increase his popularity.
One is a victim if defined so according to law. Thereby the quotation marks.
lobaxx 1 year ago
@lobaxx .... So you are saying .... I stole from you and it helped you so its all good ?
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@sweetfly66
No, buying a car and fucking repainting it IS NOT STEALING. The same applies to buying a record and sampling it - IT'S NOT STEALING. Fuck it, even piracy doesn't qualify as stealing; or do also consider photography equivalent to kidnapping?
lobaxx 1 year ago
@lobaxx ... Your analogy`s are bad .... this car you talk about ...is it one of a kind ? ... If one person did not exist , would the car exist ?
If you sample a groove that someone wrote , there is no way that groove would have existed without the original person making it up .... if you sample Brian May`s guitar sound for your record , you basically have Brian May on your record .... what dont you understand ?
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@sweetfly66
Why would it be a bad analogy? Someone else made it, right (and, as you said, would not have been made without their effort)? And you BOUGHT it, right? You switched out some parts, redid the paint job and basically created something completely different. It's exactly what is done in sampling and with cars. If the car is original i irrelevant - 90% av all modern pop music is anything but original. Now how can someone in their right mind call this an act of stealth?
lobaxx 1 year ago
@lobaxx .... take a Toyota for example .... how many of them have been made over the years .... 20 million .. 50 million ...they are all the same .... now how can you compare that to the tone Jimi Hendrix got or the groove that Clyde Stubbelfield has .... these things are personal and unique .... when you sample these people and their art you are using them , you are using what took them years and years to develop .. that is bad enough , but to think they shouldnt even be compensated ... wow
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@sweetfly66
And yet, Jimmie has sold millions of records, which makes his work no less unique then that of toyota. And how long did their designers and engineers spend on their creations?
You have still to provide a victim. And without a victim, there can be no crime.
lobaxx 1 year ago
Everyone thinks its cool to sample without paying...until someone else starts getting way rich off sampling THEIR material.
tiktokyt 1 year ago
@tiktokyt
and this my friend, is a sad example of human behaviour in th 21st century.
grimslider75 1 year ago
Someone's downloading this Copyright Criminals off Pirate Bay as we speak. Touche.
gaBehcuoDsuoitneterP 1 year ago
Copyrights are the stupidiest thing ever!!!
JakeCavarity 1 year ago
@JakeCavarity Until you're the guy who recognizes someone ELSE using your music to make money. :)
gaBehcuoDsuoitneterP 1 year ago
law in itself is corrupt and illogical; I'm saying this from a scientific perspective, and on that note, marketing and privatization are also instruments of corruption when we consider the massively impacting socio-bio-psycho-economical (excuse my language) ramifications which create imaginary mental abstractions which go beyond reason: they are belief systems.
grimslider75 1 year ago
@grimslider75 Law is illogical? What about the law that keeps people from robbing you at gun point?
gaBehcuoDsuoitneterP 1 year ago
@gaBehcuoDsuoitneterP
that law doesn't solve problems, such as the problem with the person who commits such an act. He may go to jail, but that doesn't prevent others from becoming criminals. That is why law is illogical: it only prevents and protects, but never cures. And I suppose one might say that criminal acts can never be prevented. Quite frankly, there has been evidence against that ever since we dived into psychology during the 19th century.
grimslider75 1 year ago
@grimslider75 You make it seem like a blue collar crime committed by disenfranchised/uneducated youth who don't know any better. Are you saying these unoriginal people, who think of themselves as creative, have psychological issues that 19th century psychology can fix?
gaBehcuoDsuoitneterP 1 year ago
@gaBehcuoDsuoitneterP
I was speaking of law in general but, Im sorry that I didn't explain that I do not agree with laws and their existence, so one who does commit a "crime" against copyright is not doing anything wrong through their act as they experience it. The act only becomes a crime when someone else see such an act as one which violates their interpretation of the act, and its implications.
grimslider75 1 year ago
@grimslider75 ... You do not agree with laws and their existance ? What kind of idiotic shit is that . Laws give people a reasonable expectation of safety in a stable society . In other words , the reason you feel safe enough to leave your house , walk down the street , go to the mall is because of laws . By contrast , people in a lawless society , say downtown Baghdad , do not have the expectation of safety people have in society`s that have rule of law .
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@sweetfly66
I guess humans aren't intelligent enough to understand simple mutual conduct which is the basis of humanities social development. People learn to become "bad" in society, and laws may make people "feel" safe, however, we don't need reassurance in society, we need ways to change human behaviour ethically, and scientifically. Laws do neither of those things.
grimslider75 1 year ago
@grimslider75 ...So apparently you have figured out what all other psychiatrists , sociologists , and anthropologists have failed to figure out for centuries ... must suck to be the only one enlightened enough to know how to fix humanity ... maybe humanity will catch up with your genius in a few centuries or so .... in the meantime laws will keep doing what they have done throughout the ages ... give people a reasonable expectation of safety and justice .
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@sweetfly66
I haven't figured out anything that hasn't been thought before; My ideas stem from what I have learned from others. My progress is owed to those who have progressed before me. Myself, and every other human owes it to those before them for the knowledge they have given us about the world and the mind that we would have otherwise left alone. I am sure that out of the 7 billion or more people on this planet, I am not the only person to see law as obsolete.
grimslider75 1 year ago
@grimslider75 .... shit ... you say your progress is owed to others before you .... what do you owe them ? Some hairbrained theories that have no rational or realistic value ? Interesting that you did not notate anyone that you owe something to ... no names ... no Socrates , no Plato , no Jefferson , no Madison , no Freud , no Marx .... exactly who do you owe your alleged progress to ?
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@sweetfly66
I like to read and formulate ideas that way, and I'm not one to cite people, but I do have people that i agree with. I read a lot of mark twain and albert einstein as well as kant, but I can't isolate so few individuals as people who have nurtured my educational process. Clearly, I don't have any great theories, I haven't had any great motivation to test them, whatever they seem to be. Our discussion is now clearly off topic concerning the video, so PM if there is anything else.
grimslider75 1 year ago
@grimslider75 ... One more thing , your jibberish about " acts only becoming crimes because of someones interpretation " .... how do you interpret murder ... how do you interpret rape ...how do you interpret stealing .... are you fucking stupid or something ?
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@sweetfly66
If you are implying that my stupidity arises from my wanting to focus on interpretation, I am sorry for stating without explaining clearly where my position is on this issue.
However, seeing as you would rather downplay social ills as things which "fucking stupid" people would rather interpret than just claim illegal and wrong, I don't see any point in engaging in further discussion with you. Thanks for the opportunity
grimslider75 1 year ago
@gaBehcuoDsuoitneterP
prt2: These people who commit "crimes" have psychological issues only as interpretation describes their actions to be. They themselves are committing a harmless act of a lack of creativity ONLY if such an act is done without real cognition taking place. One who samples should be granted the allowance of the act only if they are remarkably skilled with their art. Art is representational, if such is lacking, the creative process is lacking, and should be prohibited.
grimslider75 1 year ago
@gaBehcuoDsuoitneterP
APOLOGY: for the series and length of my replies
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
the market economy which rules against these actions have very little roots in why art is created. They care about their economical advantages, and nothing more, nothing less. If the law had no economical advantages, I'm sure there would be no lawyers specialized for such a task. They don't care, occupationally, for art or creativity.
grimslider75 1 year ago
raw data now. everything is everyone's. the world is ours, not "mine".
marcosaccioly 1 year ago
You're either rich enough to afford the law or you're a complete outlaw. Now that's mucic to my ears.
12107170 1 year ago
If I buy flour, eggs, chocolate chips, sugar (etc.) and make cookies, and then sell them at a bake sale, these fucking lawyers would tell me I now have to pay each individual ingredient's manufacturer AGAIN, just because I made something new which uses a bit of what they made. Copyright lawyers are blood-sucking criminals.
SubconsciousGatherer 1 year ago 20
@SubconsciousGatherer ... wrong .... sugar , eggs , and flour are available from any number of hundreds of thousands of chickens , farms , and incubators around the planet ... unless you know a chicken that lays golden eggs than the reality is that every egg is the same ... by contrast , a musical riff , beat or idea comes from one person ...and one person only .. nobody else is entitled to any credit or profit off that unique idea
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@sweetfly66 Wow. You must live in a uniquely creative word where every single note, every single riff, every single beat is unlike anything else that's ever come before. You must have all kinds of new time signatures (since 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, etc.) have already been done, so no one's aloud to copy them. How on earth do people in that world play chords on the piano or guitar that have not already been done by someone else? (All art is creative theft, even the greats admit that.)
SubconsciousGatherer 1 year ago
@SubconsciousGatherer .... by your logic plagiarism should be no big deal either ...at what point do you draw the line , do you even have a line or is anything and everything up for theft and " re-interpretation " ?
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@sweetfly66 I'd never suggest "stealing" a sample, then pretending you invented the original sound. That would be plagiarism, but that's not what sampling is. It's the audio equivalent of visual cut-up collage. You're not taking the entirety of what someone else did, then claiming you made it and reaping their rewards. Instead, you're taking fragments from various sources and recontextualizing them into something NEW. Artists know this. Legal-minded types don't. (Not meant as rude.)
SubconsciousGatherer 1 year ago
@SubconsciousGatherer ... I am not a lawyer , if thats what you were implying . I am a drummer in the Boston area .
All artists take from other artists , Paul Mcartney said every song he has ever written has been a rip off . Rip off is a strong word and I`m sure he did not mean sitting there with a recorder ( sampler , same thing ) and literally lifting the sound and feel directly from another song . I dont know man , maybe I just dont think sampling is that artistic .
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@sweetfly66 Have you ever heard Revolution #9 by the Beatles? Listen to that and tell me what's wrong with it. You may not appreciate the artistic merit or quality of sampling (I can't stand Top 40 radio, for example) but that doesn't mean it's wrong or should be illegal. Stealing is one thing. A sample is another. When you sample a piece of food, you're not running off with the entire thing. It's a fragment.
SubconsciousGatherer 1 year ago
@SubconsciousGatherer ... Of course I have heard it , but I dont know what you mean by your Revolution #9 reference .
" when sampling , you`re not running off with the entire thing . Its a fragment " ..... so if i only steal part of the money from a banks vault its ok .... at what point does a sample or a part become big enough to be called illegal or unethical ?
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@SubconsciousGatherer More like conscious gatherer. The difference is that someone created those musical "ingredients" you mention.
societyforrealmusic 10 months ago
@societyforrealmusic I don't deny someone created those musical ingredients. I deny their right to have a stranglehold against all future usages of the fragmentary use of their work within the context of a new creation. It's called "sampling."
SubconsciousGatherer 10 months ago
@2:46... that guy is taking the easy way out... someone played the things he's stealing... he has to at least pay something like $20 to buy the right, or more (much more) if he makes money eventually. People that wear hats inside are always suspicious.
societyforrealmusic 10 months ago
@societyforrealmusic Where'd you get the $20 figure from? Actually, it's the people in BACKWARS hats we need to be suspicious of.
SubconsciousGatherer 10 months ago
It's true that people made (and can make) something new by breaking the rules (0:30), but you still have to pay SOMETHING even if it's not the full rate (some kind of method of acknowledgment)... if you make money from it that is. If you reap, you can't keep (it all). if they're "in your band", you have to pay them for that... something... like a pay for hire at least. But royalties will also accrue if there's money.
societyforrealmusic 10 months ago
@societyforrealmusic Sure, let's spend all our artistic, creative time figuring out who wants a piece of what we're doing until no one's doing ANYTHING anymore, other than paying for things that have already been paid for. (Sound like a society YOU want to live in?)
SubconsciousGatherer 10 months ago
b) You have to pay (a proportion) of those, as the sample helps make the money, and the sampler didn't write it, or play it. Eg: Stubblefield must get paid. He wrote the drums, even if he didn't have a credit on the original JB record. There needs to be a new law and fast, or a Presidential decree to pay him (if such a thing exists).
societyforrealmusic 10 months ago
@societyforrealmusic Go listen to something by John Oswald, the tape-Beatles or Negativland, and tell me if you think they could ever track everyone down and pay them or not.
SubconsciousGatherer 10 months ago
men in suites run/ruin everything... the cunts
jimineedles 1 year ago
If sampling is stealing or unoriginal depends on what you do with it. There is a big difference between Puff Daddy and let's say DJ Shadow. One is unoriginal easy stealing the other is creative new sampling.
royalsteven 1 year ago
There is a difference between adapting styles methods or techniques towards innovation and playing someone's record at a different speed. Influences are one thing, quality of the music and merit of the innovations of hip hop aside, straight up replay, record sampling is a poor example of artistry or innovation.
k1020 1 year ago
listen at 1:48 the reason why no producers tell the name of the artist they sampled is because when they have bin diggin all night thru records and finally find the sound or vocal they been looking for they dont wanna give it up to noone cuz you worked hard for that.
antonioWiseGuys 1 year ago
If you want this movie to download free, send me private message I'll send you download links.
AlienCommunity 1 year ago
did this ever come out?
manikmati 1 year ago
Sampling IS sampling when you have an impact on it. You have to do something with it... Taking samples into sampler is one thing but magic happens when you sit hours composing something new. Personally I love pitching down samples (usually few seconds) and chop it - then there is not much to compare with the original.
I've seen that doc recently and there was that dude who worked with Nirvana, Jimmy Page - said it's lazy to take others work. I guess he never heard of Dj Shadow or Krush
holy0damn 1 year ago
The best thing you all can do about sample
and to about copyright of a sound you are talking about is:
Make your own sounds and music to sample,
double and original better to create and sample your own stuff.
BAM rap this crack smoke out.
WDHellSOnLineKILLER 1 year ago
is this part of Remix the documentary or is this seperate?
ThePavin 1 year ago
"If you're not getting bootlegged, you're not getting big"
-Abel Delgado (Me)
but don't bootleg my quote, It's copy written haha
D201RECORDS 1 year ago
hahaha @ george clinton "ive been sued for sampling my own stuff" haha i believe that
87168 1 year ago
SHOULD BE SAME AS VITAMINS YOU CANNOT OWN THE SOUND NOR NOTES... FUCK COPYWRITE MONEY MAKING BASTARDS!!
DZMPLZ 1 year ago
I see jokes go up like a lead balloon here. A serious suggestion is a new generation of artists and their backup who forego copyright restrictions. If, with public cooperation they flourish, the greedy ones who think they have to sue to survive will be squeezed out by their own rules.
857frank 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Copyright law doesn't go far enough, there should be chips implanted in people's brains that eliminate the memory of a song after,say, 30 days if an ongoing fee is not paid to stop people humming it endlessly for free. Your brain is property of the state and should be subject to stricter regulation.
857frank 1 year ago
Comment removed
857frank 1 year ago
Sample one note?
So you can't sample a C# note?
Such BS...
This is why the music Industry took a dump in the year 2000.
No wonder people started turning to limewire and napster back in 1999
Greedy ass Record Labels just wanted money.
They forget where the money is coming from.
THE FANS and Listeners!
djscratchdog 1 year ago
Copyright is bullshit. end of... I had to take down 40 videos cos of a copyright claim... Fucking pigs
bartownsu 1 year ago 12
@bartownsu ... .i wonder if your opinion would be different if you had a hit record that people were using over and over and over but you were not getting any money from it .
sweetfly66 1 year ago
To the lawyer at 0:18 ...So if I buy a record and use a snippet of it to use for a song I have I have to pay again?! So that means if I buy a box of crayons and used the red crayon for some art work I have to pay crayola again
bstrut118 1 year ago
@bstrut118 ....no , a red crayola crayon is manufactured specifically so you can make art with it .... contrast that with sampling someones guitar riff or beat ... they did not write that riff or beat so you could use it for your art ..its THEIR art , not yours
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@sweetfly66 true. that was a bad analogy. the crayon is like a guitar or drum and the picture drawn with that crayon is like the song that was made by the guitar or drum. ok with that in mind do you think the person who made up the basic drum pattern "kick " "snare" "kick" "snare" in a 4 count should be paid every time someone uses that pattern? so when I draw a square with a crayon i have to pay dues to the first person who drew the first square?
bstrut118 1 year ago
@bstrut118 ... when does a drawn square make anyone any money ..and frankly anyone can draw a square .... your analogy`s are very weak man .... just admit that sampling is unfair ... it just is
sweetfly66 1 year ago
@sweetfly66 lol nice rebuttal...
bstrut118 1 year ago
You can't own something that is not physical. Not only that, but whatever I purchase becomes my property and I should be allowed to do whatever I want with it. Any laws restricting property ownership (which is copyright laws) is absolute fascism.
1337bard 1 year ago
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
xSwiftrx 1 year ago
i have put up a vid and it has been copyright andi stilldo not no y????????????????
edward4eva1 1 year ago
As a musician who grew up with sampling, I do understand that it is an ART that allows people to create something new. HOWEVER, I think what most sampled artists REALLY have a problem is BEAT-JACKING...someone takes a whole section of a song, LOOPS it, and then fattens up the bass and drums with synths..and then calls himself a "producer." Sampling is fine; beat-jacking is a whole notha thing!
Odawg96 1 year ago
In the end, it's all about the money! If you're a Producer that samples but you ain't makin' no dough, then nobody's gonna come after you, but once you start pullin' in some cash flow... That's when people come knockin'!
pr0sperus01 1 year ago
wtf O_O
Lynnc83 1 year ago
Thanks for sharing. I heard your interview on Upfront with Tony Cox. Very, very informative. Good work. g
myjazzvibes 1 year ago
Copy rights protection laws are just some brain wash procedures inherited from the Jews when they named god for everybody else using population psychology. I mean the protection is just some fake religious science (act like laws and proofs) and empty languages (decorated with invalid authorities and ownerships).
beancube2010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pretty good movie really - watch online LAtest release MoVies -dot ^com
wrathfultyro52 1 year ago
Sampling keeps hiphop/rap interesting and lets it evolve.But u should always give props to the original.Ive heard some real good muzik from samples!
95BAYAREA 1 year ago 2
copyright masdye
it will come to an end
koteban 1 year ago 3
I think that although people should be credited and/or paid, some of the most innovative and fun music has been from sampling. And look at how much R & B like Rhianna now uses sampling.
The Jamms 1987 sounds rough and raw yet Dancing Queen sampled still remains a landmark track in sampling history.
Or you could be like Robert Plant on Long Cool One and sample yourself. Does that mean you sue yourself :)
brismike65 2 years ago
Makes Me Wanna Sample Even More!
Divinecyphr 2 years ago
I think sampling is fine, as long as you don't try to claim that it's yours. Give credit where credit is due. Otherwise, I don't see why all us musicians can't just get along. Music is one of the strongest forms of expression, and it should be about exactly that, not money or being famous or having fans. Although those things are nice. =] Lol.
chunkyluver31 2 years ago 3
I'm gonna use this for my research paper on copyright laws. =]
chunkyluver31 2 years ago
Comment removed
BetrayedWithAKiss1 2 years ago
nice info-share!
DungeonSF 2 years ago
2:55
TheMindGrind 2 years ago
i saw this on PBS, it was really good
josj15 2 years ago
We just trying to make good music. That's all I gotta say. Evolving. Taking a four second sample and turning it into something bigger and better. It's all about music.
xRokaMicx 2 years ago
The only problem I really have with 'sample musicians', is that they are pretty much pirating other peoples' music, and they think it's fine. But then, say somebody pirates their music, begins selling copies, ect. & they seen the police on that person's ass.
Just saying, I think that's fairly hypocritical.
(Poor Clyde Stubblefield, I just want to give him a hug. :( I hope none of this ever makes him bitter.)
ErraticConduct 2 years ago
As a sample-based electronic musician in my off-time, I gotta chime in; yes, nabbing a beat, throwing something over and/or under it and looping it a bunch of times is shameless, blatant...creativity, in my book.
You see, it takes some thinking to hear something and be able to reinvent it, remix it, or completely destroy the original vision and artistry and construct something new out of it. Try it sometime.
In short, get creative..the original work should inspire you to do so.
Bleakvoid 2 years ago
I can agree if a producer just loops a sample and adds drums to it. Thats theft but classic hip hop tracks were looped. However, chopping up samples and making a whole new melody plus adding drums is different...Fuck it anyway, its all money in this business its got nothing to do with the music.
NYSecond 2 years ago
Intellectual Property laws are a perversion of property laws; no other type of property allows the creator to have such control over a product; even when that product has been purchased and is thus the property of the purchaser.
murphycline 2 years ago
Too bad it's NOT streamable at that website.... spammer
chuiiadam 2 years ago