Highest German Court Says Sampling Is Not Copyright Infringement

[Deleted User]

@Nathan said:

@u0421793 said:
Does this mean that it’s okay to use sampled drum beats from a drum machine that is based on samples, now? What about riffs from sequencers such as the Yamaha QY boxes? What about entire demo tunes that come with a keyboard?

>

Yes, some clarification would be most welcome.

You can sample your music gear as you like.
You are not supposed to extract samples from romplers and resell them.

JohnnyGoodyear

@supadom said:

@soundklinik said:

@supadom said:
I personally have no idea but there seems to be a drive towards separation, segregation, 'patriotism' and a general notgiveafuckism about others. I presume it springs from some kind of post colonial bitterness. What I'm the most surprised about is that with all the information out there people still don't understand that a common union of nations is safer than being stuck with your imaginary 'special friend'. Global dementia is alive and well.

What do I know, I'm biased, I'm a migrant. Even worse, an economic migrant!

You really don't know much I grant you that, your pathetic rant is not different than that of Donald Trump, just the other extreme...

And not even related to the OP...

The op merely opened up the subject to a discussion. The discussion strayed from the word go so you can't really single me out here.

The only thing that unites are here is our interest in making music with our ipad so the expectations of world views should be set accordingly.

I'd welcome your enlightening pm message though since you don't want to pollute copyright thread with politics.

Nicely done.

[Deleted User]

@Crabman said:

@lala said:

went on forever because the old man from düsseldorf was greedy

Not entirely true,artists sampled Kraftwerk before (like Thomas Brinkman) without getting trouble.The difference was: he ASKED them before.That doesn't mean that an idiot like Moses P would have get an"ok"from them but at least he could have give it a try.

No, the ruling is exactly about that.
The old man has to be payed but he cant say you can't publish this, as he tried to. So you don't have to ask but you have to pay (if you make money with it, if not nobody cares).

[Deleted User]

@u0421793 said:
Does this mean that it’s okay to use sampled drum beats from a drum machine that is based on samples, now? What about riffs from sequencers such as the Yamaha QY boxes?

Yes

What about entire demo tunes that come with a keyboard?
Unsure, probably yes

Will

@1P18 said:

@syrupcore said:

@1P18 said:
The decline of Europe continues.

how so?

Europe and the West have not produced any sort of leadership with wisdom in decades, and have been living off the fumes of WW2 and success in The Cold War, but that has only amounted to a bit of material gain which has in turn led to various indulgences. It's generally what happens to civilizations before they fall: they get fat and dumb, and let their guard down.

Thanks but sorry, I should have asked: "How is this ruling a continuation of Europe's decline?"

kobamoto

@1P18 said:

@nick said:
It is a very intelligent ruling, taking both sides into account. For example they suggest if someone makes money with a song that uses sampled elements a share should go to the creator of the original song. They don't suggest unrestricted sampling is OK, but they make a strong case that using samples should not be illegal per se, just like making a cover version of a song is not illegal.

Except that a cover is generally out of respect and admiration, whereas sampling without consent is plain theft.

Still haven't read the article, just trusting Lala's interpretation at this point, it would seem that the law is not what you thought it was about as its not about stealing anything, not giving compensation, or credit. Therefore you can rest easy as Europe has once again been saved!

JohnnyGoodyear

@kobamoto said:

@1P18 said:

@nick said:
It is a very intelligent ruling, taking both sides into account. For example they suggest if someone makes money with a song that uses sampled elements a share should go to the creator of the original song. They don't suggest unrestricted sampling is OK, but they make a strong case that using samples should not be illegal per se, just like making a cover version of a song is not illegal.

Except that a cover is generally out of respect and admiration, whereas sampling without consent is plain theft.

Still haven't read the article, just trusting Lala's interpretation at this point, it would seem that the law is not what you thought it was about as its not about stealing anything, not giving compensation, or credit. Therefore you can rest easy as Europe has once again been saved!

HUZZAH!

srcer

@lala said:

@Crabman said:

@lala said:

went on forever because the old man from düsseldorf was greedy

Not entirely true,artists sampled Kraftwerk before (like Thomas Brinkman) without getting trouble.The difference was: he ASKED them before.That doesn't mean that an idiot like Moses P would have get an"ok"from them but at least he could have give it a try.

No, the ruling is exactly about that.
The old man has to be payed but he cant say you can't publish this, as he tried to. So you don't have to ask but you have to pay (if you make money with it, if not nobody cares).

This. Compulsory licensing. Copyright is a great framework to encourage creation. Just needs to be clear that any creation is not the end all be all, but the beginning of the next in a procession. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Anyone who doesn't want their work remixed is losing sight of the fact that art doesn't exist in a vacuum. Each work becomes a touchstone in the cultural milieu.

Will

No one expects a drummer to be completely original. It's realllllllllllllly common to say 'like the drum beat from blah. No one bats an eye. But if you sample the beat from blah... you're a thief.

A guitarist can play the exact same riff as 20 people before them and it's pretty much fine. Meh.

I think there's some murkiness in all of this due partially to not liking the idea of a machine doing it. It's 'lazy' on the part of the sampler (person) and they're undeserving because they haven't worked for it.

Another source of murk in all of this that we can't seem talk about is race and class. Dangermouse was a genius, Hank Shocklee was a thief.

Your ability to access the tools of creation have a lot to do with your parents income. Good samplers aren't cheap (ok, weren't when we started getting bothered by all of this) but they're a lot cheaper than years of drum lessons, a decent kit and years of rent in place where you can bash a drumset without getting the cops called!

AudioGus

Puff Daddy released a single called 'Tha Kidd (Is Not My Son)' which sampled Michael Jackson's 'Billie Jean' in its entirety. When he was in the studio mixing and recording, he decided 'Tha Kidd' would work best if he kept all the music and vocals from the original version and then not rap over it. So what he did was put in a tape with 'Billie Jean' on it and hit record. It turned out great. He also did 'Eye of the Tiger'.

Redo1

@1P18 said:

@mschenkel.it said:

@1P18 said:
Except that a cover is generally out of respect and admiration, whereas sampling without consent is plain theft.

Disagree. Completely.

There may be admiration within that theft, but only in the sense that the thief thinks, "I like this other person's work, how can I take it and benefit from it myself."

I have yet to hear a coherent argument in defense of sampling. Your reply doesn't change that.

Tend to agree, but perhaps the question of whether it is theft or not should be left up to the creator of the original sample no?

nick

@Redo1 said:

@1P18 said:

@mschenkel.it said:

@1P18 said:
Except that a cover is generally out of respect and admiration, whereas sampling without consent is plain theft.

Disagree. Completely.

There may be admiration within that theft, but only in the sense that the thief thinks, "I like this other person's work, how can I take it and benefit from it myself."

I have yet to hear a coherent argument in defense of sampling. Your reply doesn't change that.

Tend to agree, but perhaps the question of whether it is theft or not should be left up to the creator of the original sample no?

no. In modern societies, it is usually law makers and courts and judges who decide what is theft and what is not.

If I reuse a tiny bit that you created to make something entirely new and different which is not taking away anything from you -- is it really theft?

Good copyright laws should protect the art, of course; but not only the art that is already existing, also the creation of future art. If copyright laws get too strict they can get in the way of creating new art.

And no one is going to say, ah I wanted to buy the Kraftwerk album, but now that that clang sound is also available on a hip hop song, I'd rather buy that.

u0421793

Well, there was a recent ridiculous spate of youtube takedowns over (in some cases) something as fundamental as a particular individual drum sound used — found to also appear in other songs — because it was the same thing that made it in a different song!

kobamoto

@Nathan said:

@syrupcore said:
But if you sample the beat from blah... you're a thief.

Surely, this is only true if you fail to acknowledge the copyright holder, and pay whatever is due?

we'd like to think so, but some people just equate sampling to stealing that's why I was looking for clarification earlier in the thread cause you never know where someone is really coming from until they tell you.

srcer

@nick said:

@Redo1 said:

@1P18 said:

@mschenkel.it said:

@1P18 said:
Except that a cover is generally out of respect and admiration, whereas sampling without consent is plain theft.

Disagree. Completely.

There may be admiration within that theft, but only in the sense that the thief thinks, "I like this other person's work, how can I take it and benefit from it myself."

I have yet to hear a coherent argument in defense of sampling. Your reply doesn't change that.

Tend to agree, but perhaps the question of whether it is theft or not should be left up to the creator of the original sample no?

no. In modern societies, it is usually law makers and courts and judges who decide what is theft and what is not.

If I reuse a tiny bit that you created to make something entirely new and different which is not taking away anything from you -- is it really theft?

Good copyright laws should protect the art, of course; but not only the art that is already existing, also the creation of future art. If copyright laws get too strict they can get in the way of creating new art.

And no one is going to say, ah I wanted to buy the Kraftwerk album, but now that that clang sound is also available on a hip hop song, I'd rather buy that.

Well said

decibelle

@nick said:

If I reuse a tiny bit that you created to make something entirely new and different which is not taking away anything from you -- is it really theft?

I find that the person reusing's idea of what a "tiny bit" is, and the source creator's idea of what a "tiny bit" is, tend to be rather hugely different.

Suppose I travelled a long distances and spent hours/days setting up and waiting, and made hours of unused recording just to get a few seconds of audio, which I then spend hours/days/weeks tweaking til it sounds just right, which then ends up in my finished work.

What went into each moment of my work, as the creator I'm the only one who knows.

As a creator, another person reusing that moment of my work which I invested so much of time and effort and myself into, not to mention the years of learning and experience and talent and skillset behind it, and and they assign their definition of "tiny bit" on that part of my work? To me that would feel harshly insulting. Harshly.

Who gets to decide what a "tiny bit" is? I think the creator's definition of "tiny bit" is the only one which matters.

Did I really want to jump in here? Maybe not. Oh well. :P

knewspeak

I wonder how much money both parties have made from this decision and what cost to their reputations.

JiggyWig

@knewspeak said:
I wonder how much money both parties have made from this decision and what cost to their reputations.

The lawyers made money, no-one else did. I'll bet.

[Deleted User]

@decibelle said:

@nick said:

If I reuse a tiny bit that you created to make something entirely new and different which is not taking away anything from you -- is it really theft?

I find that the person reusing's idea of what a "tiny bit" is, and the source creator's idea of what a "tiny bit" is, tend to be rather hugely different.

Suppose I travelled a long distances and spent hours/days setting up and waiting, and made hours of unused recording just to get a few seconds of audio, which I then spend hours/days/weeks tweaking til it sounds just right, which then ends up in my finished work.

What went into each moment of my work, as the creator I'm the only one who knows.

As a creator, another person reusing that moment of my work which I invested so much of time and effort and myself into, not to mention the years of learning and experience and talent and skillset behind it, and and they assign their definition of "tiny bit" on that part of my work? To me that would feel harshly insulting. Harshly.

Who gets to decide what a "tiny bit" is? I think the creator's definition of "tiny bit" is the only one which matters.

Did I really want to jump in here? Maybe not. Oh well. :P

This is the worst argumentation I read ...
I spend so much time learning to read and write and coming up with original words and now you copy my "I luv u" that I found to be so original ...
Besides what if I change the order of the words " luv u I " every word has another pitch now, doesn't sound anything like the material it came from anymore ...
Must be all the uncreative ppl that steal your ideas and work as building block for something else

If you are so afraid of someone reusing your ideas don't publish them in the first place.

In case you haven't noticed copyright is rarely about protecting the artist,
It's about keeping the publisher in business, not the artist.

Michael_R_Grant

Another case this week: Madonna was cleared of using a couple of seconds of a horn sample on Vogue without asking the original musicians. It was deemed as not materially affecting the prospects of the song, in that the sample wouldn't be identified by many people as being from a particular work.

carol

Problem with sampling is you're not just taking another artists tune or idea - like using a blues riff in your guitar break - but all the work that went into creating the audio , such as the equipment , recording costs , time etc. so you could put together a whole track using tens if thousands of pounds of expense , and months of other peoples work in a couple of days without any recompense to the creators at all . Why should you get all that work for free ? You can't copy chunks out of published books and repackage it as your own , so why should musicians not have any rights over their own work ?

decibelle

@Nathan said:

@decibelle said:

@nick said:

As a creator, another person reusing that moment of my work which I invested so much of time and effort and myself into, not to mention the years of learning and experience and talent and skillset behind it, and and they assign their definition of "tiny bit" on that part of my work? To me that would feel harshly insulting. Harshly.

>

I agree. The point I'd like to add is one of differentiation. Specifically, samples versus sampling. Grabbing key pieces of others work - unless by arrangement - seems wrong to me. But taking a couple of seconds from a James Brown horn sound (the most sampled act in history) and building that into something otherwise entirely new, seems another form of sonic artistry. Then there's using legitimately available commercial samples, such as those we see in Launchpad packs, as the basis of something new, added to user originated material. This is the sonic equivalent of cutting a diamond; the source material was there to begin with, but how it's shaped makes all the difference.

I agree completely. I meant to include something expressing my support for original creations by sampling artistry in my previous post, but forgot. So here it is now. Glad to share some agreement.

@lala said:

@decibelle said:

@nick said:

If I reuse

Oh well. :P

This is the worst argumentation I read ...
[...]
Must be all the uncreative ppl that steal your ideas and work as building block for something else

Heh, everybody's a critic. :P

@lala said:

If you are so afraid of someone reusing your ideas don't publish them in the first place.

Hmm, that "If you disagree even a little bit then give up completely and go home" approach confuses me. I wonder what Amnesty International and Greenpeace and EFF and Creative Commons and similar organisations would say about that?

If you really felt that way, why bother posting in a thread with stuff you disagree with in it?

If you think the way I suspect you do then participating in discussions with you is likely to be too frustrating for me, so I'm just advising you now that I'll probably be posting no more responses to you. Sorry.

[Deleted User]

Most stuff that is being sampled wouldn't be so hard to recreate ...
If you want to reinvent the wheel.

[Deleted User]

Ah greenpeace and AI is about copyright, I see, thanks for the advice.
I wonder what Santa Claus thinks about it. :P

decibelle

@carol said:
Problem with sampling is you're not just taking another artists tune or idea - like using a blues riff in your guitar break - but all the work that went into creating the audio , such as the equipment , recording costs , time etc. so you could put together a whole track using tens if thousands of pounds of expense , and months of other peoples work in a couple of days without any recompense to the creators at all . Why should you get all that work for free ? You can't copy chunks out of published books and repackage it as your own , so why should musicians not have any rights over their own work ?

What @carol said.

u0421793

Wait, does this mean that I can proceed with this project of mine.

(Composed in about 1998 on a Yamaha QY20 over many train journeys in and out of work, in those days, and forgotten about since, and now my QY20 is dead (changed internal battery 2 years ago but MAX680 chip seems expired now) but fortunately a few days ago found a midi file I must’ve made sometime from it, and put this into Logic Pro X and drove three Oberheim Matrix 1000 synths in midi echo mode yesterday (whereby they all act as one big synth doing the same sound from three outputs) one track at a time) (and logic drum kit sounds using my QY20 drum track wot I wrote back then) (the lyrics to Georgie Girl would be sung in a nerdy germanic accent) (the band name would be Cheezewerk) .

[Deleted User]

This is totally silly.
Dada is made of rearranging things others did.
So let's not have any new art because someone has hit a stone with a stick before.
That is exactly what this trial was about.
And it looks like they decided we don't want to create a situation like this ...
Deal with it.

u0421793

What you’re saying then is that that German Court certainly must’ve been High.

[Deleted User]

no, but they saw that copyright is limiting artistic expression for no reason.

You should have heard kraftwerks lawyer, it was really pathetic
Recitation of the bible and stuff, God that was so lame, lol

• you should not steal , blah blah

(They forgot that it's digital you don't steal you create a dublicate, fools, rofl)

Glad the judges didn't fall for that kind of argumentation that seams to be around in peoples heads.

Last supper Andy Warhol (original by Leonardo da Vinci)
to be seen today in the Guggenheim or MOMA (I can't remember) ...

[Deleted User]

@Nathan said:
There's nothing entirely new under the sun, how we arrange the pieces is another matter.

THIS.
I don't know how long exactly music history reaches back in history, 30.000 years? More?
However we are abusing some very old ideas anyway.