AFRAID TO SAMPLE?!?! ADD YOUR THOUGHTS TO MY RESEARCH!

I hope its ok if I post this in this section.

In addition to my musical ambitions, I am also a 3rd-Year law student at the University of Georgia. I am currently working on a paper about the way that current copyright laws stifle the creation of sample-based music for fear of being sued for not clearing samples.

So I'd like to ask for some input from people on this message board for use in my paper.

If you get some time, could you respond to this message with some thoughts on your perceptions of current copyright law, how it effects your willingness to sample, and whether you feel its justified.

I know this is asking a lot, but if you could write as eloquently as possible (You know, correct spelling and whatnot), it will greatly increase the chance that I cite your thoughts in my paper. I hope this will be an important work, as I plan to seek its publication once I am finished. I am passionate about the idea that artists should be able to sample without fear of being sued, and hope that your thoughts, pro or con, can help to develop these ideas.

Thanks a lot everybody! And to the moderators, thanks in advance for allowing me to post this here (assuming that you do).

Peace, J.

probably not the right place to post - but when i've got sometime ill hit you back with my thoughts

i've got abunch of thoughts on this one, particularly about the art of sampling in general. let me get back to you.

Thanks guys. That would be excellent if you could post your thoughts. Be sure and post them to the forum, rather than PMing me, so that I can site your words in the paper and someone reading it could access it.

I posted here because this is where people post and discuss the music they've created. Plus, I think this research could be important for all of us on here who are making and sharing music.

Put (very) simply: i think that having restrictions forces artists to be more creative in their sampling so that the record companies don't recognise samples they've used. having a free for all situation would mean that there would be less incentive for creativity in the process of sampling, which may increase the numbers of loop-based 'artists' thereby further lowering the quality of contemporary music. i believe in 'fighting the system' because only through struggle can one truly achieve greatness. (that sounds like a famous quote to me, if it isn't, then maybe i am great?? )

Word...I am an aspiring law school student (i don't know where I want to go yet). This is a topic that I am very interested in. (I'm leaning towards Duke. They have intellectual property law).
To begin I will say this, as it relates to hip hop music (in my opinion) the sampled sound is the best. Furthermore, when you consider the origins (DJs looping the breaks off old/other peoples records) of hip hop MUSIC the sampled sound is the most authentic....
aahhhhhhhh.. my planning period is up...students are knocking at my door... I will PM you when I get some more time.

havent got time to write a full response at the mo but here's how i see it (my view extends from people using the same samples to people doing nothing original with new one's) hope that makes sense when you've read

DFENS wrote:

HabitualMusic wrote:Ever been out diggin for records and u come across some **** thats already been used by a well known artist or artists? Happens to me all the time and I usually dont buy it and try to flip the sample my own way. What do u guys think about using samples that somone else has used already

well i used to avoid using samples that i've heard others using, but that doesnt mean i'm not gonna use it. i sampled 'you are my starship' not long ago. when i was loading the sample into my mpc, i was second guessing whether or not i should use it. anyhow, i spent the time to chop it up nice and tweak the sample to get it exactly how it wanted it and it worked out good. i wasnt trying to hide that i was using the sample but i knew i had to do something more with it. the beat turned out good, one i've been meaning to come back to and do some more work on. anyhow, i'm glad i used the sample cos its one of my better beats (even if still unfinished). but also i think i used the sample differently enough to stand up to any crit about jacking samples that others had already used. but in knowing i should do something different with the sample, i worked that extra bit harder which resulted in a beat which improved my choppin/filtering/tweakin.

i dont think its wrong to use samples that others have used if you've got your own ideas. reusing the same ideas over and over that others have already done, that i have a problem with. if you got a fresh ideas, use em.

..and from a legal point of view, no i'm not scared.

its an art, you should express your self as you see fit.

The rules are...to me, there are no rules. Man, just do whatcha like. But I will say that its diggin for that obscure sh*t where the original band members are M.I.A. and odds are that nobody from that band or whatever will hear of it.

A few years ago the Beastie boys were getting sued for the flute usage on the sone "PASS THE MIC." I mean, this is like 10 years pass after check your head was released in the 1992 spring, the time of the L.A. riots. Anyway, the person who wanted to sue the B-Bys was a music teacher in his 50's 0r 60's and heard "Pass the Mic" because a student was playing it and he was shocked to hear it. The judge rules in favor of the B-boys cause the court thought that the song did'n't really rely on that sample and that it was so small.

For me, f*ck it, I just dont care about any legal issues, what I sample is what I want to hear.

its no longer art once money becomes an issue

Its like this, say you invent a cure for the common cold and called 'Colgon' (short for Cold Gone), but someone else takes it changes the name, tweaks the dose a bit and releases it and makes money of it.

Would you not be ANGRY? would you not want to sue?
Would you not feel cheated?

People should not fear being sued they should fear the fact that they are being dishonest (that being that intend to make money from it), its like damn what the hell did your mothers teach you ?

Now my principles with regard to this is, if you really want to sample so bad, but hide it, which is really deceiving your self, then CHOP CHOP CHOP! and KEEP CHOP CHOP thats if you can still make it sound good after all that chopping....

End of the day you got to be honest about it...

It all depends on how a sample is altered. Sometimes its a obviouse loop from someones record and it is not altered in any way. Sometimes samples are chopped up,reversed,eq'd,sped up, slowed down.ect. beyond recognition. Basically, if I think someone would sound good rapping over it i will do it. There is no way to get a true authentic sound out of keyboards, and i dont plan on learning to play 20 different instruments. If i was banging out official releases then i might give a **** about sample recognition. F#ck it , its the record companies job to clear samples anyway. **** that. **** UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA. **** YOU.

sorry i gotta get some sleep, mabey i will be back when i wake up.
try not to quote the last few sentences on your report.

I used to be hung up on the restrictions and laws that are placed on sample-based music. Now, Im more like, "If it bangs, thats all that matters."

Anyway, Unless you are actually pushing an artist as a "Label", then sample clearing falls in the hands of the artist, not you as the producer. I make a track with samples, MC Makebelieve wants to buy it for X amount of dollars, I accept his offer. He, or his company is now responsible for clearing this sample. This is assuming that you are selling exclusive rights.

Mr I3rown wrote:Its like this, say you invent a cure for the common cold and called 'Colgon' (short for Cold Gone), but someone else takes it changes the name, tweaks the dose a bit and releases it and makes money of it.

Would you not be ANGRY? would you not want to sue?
Would you not feel cheated?

People should not fear being sued they should fear the fact that they are being dishonest (that being that intend to make money from it), its like damn what the hell did your mothers teach you ?

Now my principles with regard to this is, if you really want to sample so bad, but hide it, which is really deceiving your self, then CHOP CHOP CHOP! and KEEP CHOP CHOP thats if you can still make it sound good after all that chopping....

End of the day you got to be honest about it...

a cold remedy is not public domain like art is. you can patent a new microwave design but you cant patent jazz music

the artist who made the album already got paid everything he was expecting to get, when you bought the album. its the greedy labels that try to extort as much doe as possible

say you painted a picture of a woman. someone can buy your painting, take crayons and color over it and release it as his art. because he altered the original in some way, and you were paid your due when he bought the painting from you. now sometimes you won't agree with what he does with your painting, and sometimes you'll love it, but its fair game either way. you were paid, now its public domain

art is obscure, you cant put a finger on it.. some kid installed cool edit and raps into his headphones over 50 cent beats. you might think thats wack but to him thats his art. you can't compare that to stealing something tangible like a cold remedy

Thank you all so much for your comments. Keep em coming, anyone who has thoughts on this. I hope to publish this paper in a law review, where it has a real chance of influencing the law in this area. Thanks again! J.

FLUENT wrote:

Mr I3rown wrote:Its like this, say you invent a cure for the common cold and called 'Colgon' (short for Cold Gone), but someone else takes it changes the name, tweaks the dose a bit and releases it and makes money of it.

Would you not be ANGRY? would you not want to sue?
Would you not feel cheated?

People should not fear being sued they should fear the fact that they are being dishonest (that being that intend to make money from it), its like damn what the hell did your mothers teach you ?

Now my principles with regard to this is, if you really want to sample so bad, but hide it, which is really deceiving your self, then CHOP CHOP CHOP! and KEEP CHOP CHOP thats if you can still make it sound good after all that chopping....

End of the day you got to be honest about it...

a cold remedy is not public domain like art is. you can patent a new microwave design but you cant patent jazz music

the artist who made the album already got paid everything he was expecting to get, when you bought the album. its the greedy labels that try to extort as much doe as possible

say you painted a picture of a woman. someone can buy your painting, take crayons and color over it and release it as his art. because he altered the original in some way, and you were paid your due when he bought the painting from you. now sometimes you won't agree with what he does with your painting, and sometimes you'll love it, but its fair game either way. you were paid, now its public domain

art is obscure, you cant put a finger on it.. some kid installed cool edit and raps into his headphones over 50 cent beats. you might think thats wack but to him thats his art. you can't compare that to stealing something tangible like a cold remedy

I agree with the art issue, however I am refering to the 'Integrity' of it.
Right now we live in a Care Free Culture, where we dont mind buying pirate software, cause we justify it by saying "Well the companies make shits loads of money anyway" End of the day someone made it originally and should be given the respect they deserve for there work.

Samplers are like leechers, instead of uping your game and make it your self we take the short cut and sample it. Same as a programmer re-using code to do something else. In most cases this would be called plagurism (in the academic sense) however you get round this by noting it in your documentation.

I think that laws should change but respect or some gratitude should be given to the original composer. no excuses!