Copyright, Piracy, Morale... whatever...

[Razmo]

XO: yes... but they have lousy customer support... E-Mu don't give a shit about their old customers anymore... E-Mu was a really good little music company before Creative took over... and the only reason they did it was to snatch Dave Russums knowledge for themselves... He developed the EMU 10K1 chip used in their lousy card these days...

[Razmo]

I definitely prefer the small gear manufacturers these days... they are much more reliable... companies like Roland, Yamaha, Novation and Alesis don't give a shit about listening it seems....

When you send idears to these companies or tech questions they don't want to answer, they just... dont! .... when you contact the smaller ones, you get a response at least, and they listen... and put your idears on future update lists if they are reasonable...

Just wrote Elektron about their Machine Drum recently... nice answer to my idears, and they were put on the list... we had a little discussion of their usage first, but I eventually convinced him... now that's good customer service

[xo]

I was thinking earlier how one would go about checking whether a sample is public domain or not?

I mean, songs in the charts would be easy to tell because they're so well known and it's obvious where the samples came from...

There are several aspects to this

A) how to designate rights
B) how to enforce rights
C) how to discover application
D) how to evaluate rightful or wrongful application

It's possible to embed a license in a sample if the sample is encoded in a format with a metadata container, e.g. FLAC; if it's encoded in wav, then not.

Another idea is to create a global database of sample signatures, or hash codes. A creator uploads a signature for a sample and designates rights to it.

But signatures are brittle, if one bit changes, then the equivalence relation no longer holds.

There is also the possibility to perform higher level semantic equivalence testing. The question is how to do this in practice. It's not that trivial, I believe, to define a semantic equivalence relation for audio.

Consider that audio can be processed, partitioned and transformed in many ways that make it hard to recognize. This also ties into the next question:

When is a use fair, even when the sample used is copyrighted and not allowed for commercial use? I mean, if a sample is almost non-recognizable in its use, is it then fair to use it, or is it unfair under any circumstances?

The problem is compounded by the fact that if you consider the space of transformations of any audio signal, there may quickly become much overlap between audio and then who is copying who?

One might watermark a sample, but the watermark might be lost in the signal processing and it's also not optimal to distort audio just to watermark it.

I'm not that big of a fan of DRM. I think people have to discover sample abuse and take action from that.

There's a lot of things to consider...

[xo]

XO: it would certainly put some fun instead of jura into music making... people could stop worrying about it that much.... I think it's a rather good idear, and to some extend it is done in denmark allready as taxing is put on blank media to some extend... it just need to be much bigger in scope...

I don't think it exists in Denmark. We pay extra taxes but does this money go to the artists? Perhaps it does... But they retracted the right to lend CD's from the library and digitally copy them. To me it seems like the current government is reversing progressive policies to more conservative practices.

But who am I to say that these progressive ideas can work satisfactory, I'd just like a system where everyone is satisfied and happy and where people aren't criminalised for consuming culture outside their spending capacity

[Chris Abbott]

> has anyone given permissions without demanding money?
I (and the C64 composers I represent) give permissions like this all the time: it's not as unusual as you'd think if the use if uncommercial or the numbers are low.

As for the "piracy = promotion" angle, Scott Adams (Dilbert) tackled the argument by saying that what's happened is that the chance to choose what happens to his work has been taken away from the creator by someone who has no right to it.

The process by which someone who pirates tries to convince themselves that they're actually doing a good and decent thing in the best interests of the creator is called "Cognitive Dissonance".

And as the thread has already covered, growing up should result in a wider world view less centered on "me-me-me" (though it often doesn't), and the possible ramifications of your actions in a connected world. But there's a sizeable subsection of people who think they're entitled to anything they want, when they want, on their own terms (not just intellectual property). Those people are just stuck in teenage hell forever.

Heck, there have been people since the dawn of Back in Time 1 insisting that Rob Hubbard deserves nothing more from his C64 music, despite professing themselves to be fans. Happens a lot less now: I suspect those people just quietly download the new CDs from P2P and keep quiet.

An odd thing is when someone says to me: "You know I could have downloaded all this stuff from Limewire, but I chose to buy instead to support the composers". And of course that person has done a good thing. But there's a definite implication there that I have no real right to be selling stuff when it's freely available, and that it's only for charity that they're buying the product. So it's not: "This CD is worth the money! I love it!", but "This CD isn't worth anything since someone who had nothing to do with it feels the need to give it away: but since I'm such a nice guy, here's some cash". Which I suppose is symptomatic of the decrease in perceived value of music tracks (which is obviously industry-wide).

Ideally I'd like people to think the CDs are worth the money AND get a warm glow from making a difference. And that happens sometimes with some of the people who are always first in the queue to buy something new, so I guess I should appreciate that.

Er...
Chris

[Razmo]

Chris:

The fun thing about my opinion in all this is, that it differs ... for me it depends on morale... I personaly find that copyright is a strange phenomenon... I believe that if you make something abstract, or thing you cannot touch and grab, then it belong to culture in a way, and that people should be allowed to use it, as culture in my view is ´to be everyones claim (culture is part of everyones lives, and everyone has a right to control their life)... I mean; you could also go down the street whistling or humming a commercial track, without having bought it, and if someone is not allowed to take something and use it for no profit, then that scenario should also be ilegal! ... I find that if people spit out culture, then they will have to take the consequences and let others interpret it anyway they want to... also, the artist benefit from the culture... they become famous and benefit a lot from the culture they create (just look at boybands etc.)

But when it comes to making money of it, my view changes... and here I have the Robin Hood thinking... when it is just a matter of money, then those who take should consider if they hurt the artist.... and the artist should consider if it really is of harm to the one they sue... it's MORALE! but the way I see it, most cases is only about one thing: MONEY... and not morale of common sense in any way.... of course there may be exeptions, but in general we live in an egoistic world these days.

[Razmo]

Just a funny sidenote:

Quotes!? ... why are quotes not copyrighted? ... in a country with free speech you can quote people without trouble as long as you do not change anything in the quotes... to me this seem very much like taking samples from someones work, but quoting someone is not ilegal!? you could quote someone from a commercial book, and noone can sue you for that...

I really don't see the difference... you could even quote in a commercial book, from another commercial book and get away with it at no risk since it's perfectly legal...

I really think the laws of copyright should be changed so that it only comes into play when money is an aspect ... when you look at the reasons for many a copyright case, money is the driving factor in 99% of the cases anyway.

Have to add though, that some ethic cases could need judgement... if your work for example would be used for discrimination purpuses or the like and the author has moral problems with it's usage I find it fair that laws can prevent it... but I fear that such laws would be tricky to make, as some greedy copyright owners would certainly try and bend these for their own gain...

[merman]

Just a funny sidenote:

Quotes!? ... why are quotes not copyrighted? ... in a country with free speech you can quote people without trouble as long as you do not change anything in the quotes... to me this seem very much like taking samples from someones work, but quoting someone is not ilegal!? you could quote someone from a commercial book, and noone can sue you for that...

I really don't see the difference... you could even quote in a commercial book, from another commercial book and get away with it at no risk since it's perfectly legal...

That's where "acceptable use" comes into play. A short quote from any source is legitemate provided it is annotated with where it came from. Larger quoted passages of text do need permission.

[Razmo]

Merman: yes... but even taking a sample from someones work is eligal, no matter the length...

Now I know, that the copyright thing on sample usage is very fuzzy... but I hear very often from other musicians, aksing me if it's legal to use even just a tiny drumsample from someones work! ... and what can I say to them? ... I can only say, that it's probably safe, but I cannot say it's legal... THAT is where I feel there ought to be a major change in the rules if any has to be there! ... we need some strict rules, so that noone can be uncertain!

But as it is right now, everything is just ilegal... and I find that wrong. I'd like to see "acceptable use" implemented into the sampling world too.

I mean; Bittersweet symphony.... approx. 4 sec. of a string sample... looped... I'd consider that a legal "quote", and that case is outrageous in my eyes... that Stones even got the ownership of the track after that is to me just as copyright breaking... in fact a hell of a lot more... that case just prove that the system is corrupt... it's money that makes everything tick... not morale.

[Chris Abbott]

Merman: yes... but even taking a sample from someones work is eligal, no matter the length...

Now I know, that the copyright thing on sample usage is very fuzzy... but I hear very often from other musicians, aksing me if it's legal to use even just a tiny drumsample from someones work! ... and what can I say to them? ... I can only say, that it's probably safe, but I cannot say it's legal... THAT is where I feel there ought to be a major change in the rules if any has to be there! ... we need some strict rules, so that noone can be uncertain!

But as it is right now, everything is just ilegal... and I find that wrong. I'd like to see "acceptable use" implemented into the sampling world too.

I mean; Bittersweet symphony.... approx. 4 sec. of a string sample... looped... I'd consider that a legal "quote", and that case is outrageous in my eyes... that Stones even got the ownership of the track after that is to me just as copyright breaking... in fact a hell of a lot more... that case just prove that the system is corrupt... it's money that makes everything tick... not morale.

<Devil's advocate mode ON>
Weeelll, in this case, the Rolling Stones (or their management) had put a lot of work into that sample: hiring musicians, scoring, recording, hiring recording venue... only for someone to come along and use it as the distinctive feature ("hook") in their track to make money. This is why music is different from quotes or whatever: a lot more work generally goes into even the shortest sample, since it's representative of a lot of copyright activity and work.

Take Console's 14 Zero Zero. That was only a 6 second sample of Wizball: but at the same time it contained more actual musical skill than anything else in that track. It started off the track, where making a distinctive impression is all important, and allowed Console to pretend he was some kind of retro-music-console genius. He borrowed reflected glory for his own gain by having the only distinctive bit of his tune belonging to someone else, and pretending he was the genius behind it.

With drum samples, if a drum sample is distinctive enough to a particular track that you'd recognise it in another track, then any track which uses that drum sample is trying to get reflected glory. Of course, most drum hits are obtainable independently from the same source they got it from (using the same keyboard, drum machine, sample CD or whatever). Most drum samples these days are not distinctive. And certainly if a drum sample is not distinctive enough to identify a particular track or song, then it probably doesn't deserve copyright protection (and indeed, under German law, it probably doesn't get it).

My main point here I guess is that it's not for the stealer to determine whether the artist is worthy enough to avoid being ripped off: the stealer has no right to make the judgement, especially since they just don't have all the facts (or any of the facts, except the "he's famous, he must be rich" fallacy).

Fame is a poor substitute for money, and it's entirely possible to be famous without ever being rich (since people give you money for actually doing stuff rather than just for how many people know your name).

A number of times there have been people on this very messageboard trying to get free music for their commercial game, promising "exposure". NEWSFLASH! Exposure is pretty much useless, since the chances of something worthwhile happening are quite near to zero: and the chances of you getting as much out of the "exposure" as you would have done by being paid a decent rate for your music are again almost zero.

The problem with acceptable use in sampling is the difficulty of definition: and the fact that big record companies would use that to massively abuse small record labels. It's ironic but these strict laws protect small companies too.

Chris

[Razmo]

Chris:... yes I agree, but still... it's all about money in the end... much more than a question of credit... if this was not the case, there would not be so many copyrigth holders that turn the blind eye to non-commercial use of their rights.... money makes the world go around they say...

Still, my opinion is, that when no money is made of it, it should be legal, no matter what you "steal"... music has a great impact on both culture and politics, and thus is very powerful... and when you add to culture, you should be prepared that people will react to it... it's the same with grumpy actors, being pissed that their privacy is intruded upon by the paparazi... they forget that they make themselves part of culture, and think that they have a right to "step out of it" when they want to... unfortunately that is not how culture works... if you go public... prepare to be used publicly, any other view is naive...

the money aspect is still a very hard thing to have an opinion on in my eyes... at least I find it hard to piont my finger in a particular direction... as I have written before, both sides of the story has strong points that all are dependent on circumstance if you ask me. maybe that is why there are no hard rules...

[Razmo]

Even this remix64 scene is also proof of what I'm saying.... if it's wrong to gain credit on parts of others work, then this scene is one big no-no scene! ... I don't believe that anyone who remixes in here, is not out to get a bit of fame and credit for their remixes.... still they do so on the behalf of the original composers big time right? .. if no "fame" was to be collected in here, I hardly believe there would be any activity at all.

The fun thing is, that as long as everyone gets it for free... then there is no problem, but as soon as money comes into play, hell is loose and the person is a thief and only want to earn credit on others work! ... the two cases just don't add up in my head (exept that of making money of it, which is outright wrong without sharing or asking permission)

[Chris Abbott]

The whole problem here is that the issue is just not black and white: plus you're confusing sampling with covering. There's a whole legal mechanism in place to ensure that people can make cover versions, either of C64 stuff or of normal stuff, and not have to pay too much. i.e. hell doesn't break loose if you do a C64 cover. Actually, the main problem is with people who steal samples from C64 games for tunes with a different name.

The continuum is from people who merely put drums on top of the SID and try to claim credit, to people who painstakingly use SID samples with other sounds to create a coherent sound event. For a cover of a C64 song that gets it right (whether RKO or commercial), both artistes get credit: the original author and the remixer. If money comes into play, then that person IS being immoral if they didn't bother to ask first. If they did, they'd discover that the C64 scene is very reasonable. Some people can't even be bothered to Google.

People are generally intelligent enough to realise when a cover has been created for the right or wrong reasons.

I think you're wrong about the fame though: there are (and always were) people making remixes of C64 tunes because the tune drove them to do it. It's a very powerful force.

Chris

[Razmo]

I think you're wrong about the fame though: there are (and always were) people making remixes of C64 tunes because the tune drove them to do it. It's a very powerful force.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that one ... I believe that musicians make music to get complimented on their work... it's a musicians major reason for making music (actually that is so with any artform), and in fact I believe it comes before the desire to make money... I simply do not believe that anyone make music only to listen to it for themselves... that makes releasing their work for others totaly unreasonable if that was the case... one way or the other, a musician wants to be heard.

You could argue that anonymous artist do not want that focus, but I believe that they want the "unknown attention" anyway.

If this was not the case by the way, then why bother with the whole voting system of RKO, not to mention those members that has complained about the system also.... someone MUST be interrested in the fame recieved here...

...and cover or not... it's still getting credit on someone elses work, be it cover or just mere samples.

[Razmo]

...but I agree to the fullest, that the original author, be it in cover versions or just samples, should be credited as well as the "borrower"... under no circumstance is it nice to take credit for others work as were it their own....

What I've been talking about the whole time is if you should have to ask permission to do it from the original owner, if you do not make any money on it... and here I do not feel that it should really matter... people has a right to reflect on their culture... if authors do not want to see their work responded to, then they should just not release it... I think

But ahh... what the hell, it's a matter of personal opinion, and is not really debateable this topic ... is it? we can argue what's right or wrong for ages, and no one will be convinced... Lets rest our case here

afterall, what I wanted from this thread was to know why people changed from the "side of darkness" to the "side of light"... don't really know if I got any wiser, but what the heck...