Re: Samples and looping

[tim echols <eekamouse67@yahoo.com>]

perhaps you see it this way because it is not your original work which is 
sampled and then not compensated.  yes, the illegal download and 
filesharing have made it so that the actual recorded work can hardly pull 
in the amount of money for the artist that it once did.  but just because 
the artist can barely make any money off of it doesn't mean that someone 
else should.  so now, if you use someone's sample in a work without 
clearing it, they can then sue for every cent made off the recording--  
maybe not as much as they would like, but...  i doubt that the verve 
enjoyed all of the proceeds of "bittersweet symphony" going to 
jagger/richards, but they should have cleared the sample first.  so, i 
don't think any harm was really done to society there, huh?--  the people 
that wrote the work which was used so extensively get paid for the 
misappropriation of their work by getting all proceeds from the song, 
since no deal was worked out beforehand.  peer-to-peer
 networks and the availability of legal downloads have conspired to do the 
album in and usher in a new age of the single.  here's hoping that the 
ease of sampling others' works doesn't lead to the degradation of 
intellectual property law, or even no-talent hacks can claim to have 
"created" something by stitching together others' works into something 
that they feel is their own.  people can manipulate others' images as much 
as they desire in the privacy of their own home, but the minute they try 
to make money off another's work without their ok, that property in 
essence reverts back to the original creator, thank goodness.  at least 
for now, until the cretans win another victory for sham creativity.


> oops! ;)
> nah. to end this right away I'll say this - no matter
> what each one of us says,
> after the discussions it is unlikely someone's opinion
> will change. I think
> most of us are normal decent people and no matter how one
> views sampling,
> 
> I think none of us really wants any harm done to the
> society. And I have yet to
> see a case when sampling is not an overblown matter and
> actually does serious
> harm to someone.
> 
> Louigi.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Toby G <carpet8@mac.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just started a long
> flaming 
> discussion.
>  
> t
> 
>   -----
> Original Message ----- 
>   
> From: 
>   Louigi 
>   Verona 
>   To:
> Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
> 
>   
>   Sent:
> Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:56 
>   AM
>   Subject:
> Re: Samples and looping
> 
>   
> I think it is immoral to make people ask you every
> time they 
>   wanna use
> your work. I mean, I am sitting at home and I have a sound
> editor 
>   and
> I record an audio signal of a movie that is playing. Then I
> cut out 
>   samples
> out of this recording. Does it mean that some guy there
> actually 
>   owns my
> freedom and I am obliged to go ask permission whether I can
> cut out 
>   samples
> from a movie he once did?
> 
> But of course these sampling 
>   questions are very controversial. I have no desire to
> start
> a long flaming 
>   discussion. Just cleared up my position on that.
> 
> 
>   On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:49 PM,
> Milo <milo.vuc@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>   No, it is not illegal to sample. What is
> illegal (and 
>     immoral) is to
> use someone's work without asking for written
> permission. 
>     If you ask
> the right person nicely, you will get the license 90% of
> the 
>     time. A
> friend of mine recently obtained a license from a very
> famous 
>     movie
> director, to use a sample from his latest movie. Guess
> what, he 
>     gave
> his permission for free as long as the sample is not used
> in 
>     another
> movie... :-)
> 
>     
>     
>     
> 
> 
> 
> 
>