takdiego internet junkie |
1 Oct 2008 12:25 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx +++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
legality of "white labels"
hi all..
I have a question
http://www.juno.co.uk/ppps/products/1354372-02.htm
I'm browsing tunes and came up on these tracks which blatantly sample the beatles and bassment jaxx in different tunes..
are they paying copyrights for these? is this considered "legal"
in no way am I trying to rat them out or something, I'm honestly curious how sampling to this effect as allowed to be sold without royalties to the original artists.. |
chrisk power user dj |
1 Oct 2008 12:28 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx +++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
Re: legality of
i was always under the impression that the reason why these were put out solely as white labels and not as full releases was because the samples weren't cleared, and thus couldn't see a full commercial release without some legal repercussions. all the same though an internet search will typically tell you who did what bootleg now a days, so i don't think the anonymity is the same. but that was always my thought on why it was done that way. |
takdiego internet junkie |
1 Oct 2008 13:00 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx +++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
Re: legality of
thats kind of why I asked..
with white labels..I figured they treated those as "bootlegs"..no label information, sold for cash...while a tad seedy..thats how it worked when I was working in a record store..
now...here we are in the mp3 era..where...these songs are $2.50 each...I'm willing to bet apple studios or bassment jaxx don't see a dime of that..how does mp3 distributors get away with that? |
broken_records hardcore |
1 Oct 2008 13:06 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx +++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
Re: legality of
**********
According to takdiego ...
thats kind of why I asked..
with white labels..I figured they treated those as "bootlegs"..no label information, sold for cash...while a tad seedy..thats how it worked when I was working in a record store..
now...here we are in the mp3 era..where...these songs are $2.50 each...I'm willing to bet apple studios or bassment jaxx don't see a dime of that..how does mp3 distributors get away with that?
**********
mp3 distrubutors get away with it because the sales are so low that its not worth the legal costs to sue them for damages |
takdiego internet junkie |
1 Oct 2008 13:19 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx +++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
Re: legality of
makes sense to me...ty
**********
According to broken_records ...
mp3 distrubutors get away with it because the sales are so low that its not worth the legal costs to sue them for damages
********** |
subflo random title dj |
1 Oct 2008 13:30 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx +++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
Re: legality of
well if they do catch up with u one of 2 things will happen
1. they like it and purchase it off u and do a proper release ... rare but has happened
2. they send u a cease and desist order so u cant sell anymore at that point
if u continue selling them then u can get into trouble after that
any artist that would take u to court would be wasting more money than what they or you will ever collect from selling the track ... so its pretty much open game for bootlegs
discogs has a new title for artists that put out bootlegs called
unofficial releases
so it does get listed and u get credit for the tune |
takdiego internet junkie |
1 Oct 2008 15:54 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx +++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
Re: legality of
thank you for the proper explanation..
I kind of figured it's the same type of "shady" maneuvers..but whatever..I'm loving that beatles tune..lol |
luciphercolors js regular hacker |
1 Oct 2008 20:56 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
Re: legality of
I find it curious how ripping off beatles tunes is much different than building an entire drum track off of sampled beats... I'm not trying to start a flame war here, and surely it's already been discussed... but other than the fact that the Winstons or whoever aren't suing and that beats are a little less recognizable and a little more processed... whats the difference? |
broken_records hardcore |
2 Oct 2008 08:56 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx +++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
Re: legality of
**********
According to luciphercolors ...
I find it curious how ripping off beatles tunes is much different than building an entire drum track off of sampled beats... I'm not trying to start a flame war here, and surely it's already been discussed... but other than the fact that the Winstons or whoever aren't suing and that beats are a little less recognizable and a little more processed... whats the difference?
**********
well if the most recognizeable part of your tune is a chunk of "All We Need is Love" then perhaps you are just biting someone elses art....
if you flip a sample so that it is awesome and not completely recognizeable then you have taken someone elses art and added to it
my 2 cents
sampling a break that 99% of people couldn't tell what tune it came from is different than having KILLING IN THE NAME OF in your breakdown |
broken_records hardcore |
2 Oct 2008 08:59 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx +++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
Re: legality of
i should have read your whole post, i think you answered the question yourself
for halloween if i wear a superman costume i am just getting over on superman, in fact i probably paid to license the look in most cases....but if i make a superman outfit then cut it up and make it into a cop uniform then i have done something creative with the art that i borrowed and created my own art |
dtraxx random title dj |
2 Oct 2008 10:50 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx +++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
Re: legality of
The way the law works is if you take the exact sample, from the song itself, it can be a simple melody, or even a drum roll then you can be sued for it by the artist and the publisher. If you take an idea, but recreate it yourself, say singing the hook play the loop yourself then the artist can't sue you but the publisher still can because they may own the publishing rights.
But with most electronic music, it's so small and makes so little money, the possibility of you being sued is very unlikely, but still possible. |
mc.zezo.one random title mc |
2 Oct 2008 14:51 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx +++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
Re: legality of
new laws have cropped up around this recently...
All triggered by NWA's 100 Miles & Runnin' album that came out a few years ago....
Here's a tasty read re: Biggie's "Ready To Die" and some good legal mumbo jumbo links if you're so inclined.....
http://www.copycense.com/2006/03/uncleared_sampl.html |
step_correct random title producer |
2 Oct 2008 15:05 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx +++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
Re: legality of
**********
According to takdiego ...
hi all..
I have a question
http://www.juno.co.uk/ppps/products/1354372-02.htm
I'm browsing tunes and came up on these tracks which blatantly sample the beatles and bassment jaxx in different tunes..
are they paying copyrights for these? is this considered "legal"
in no way am I trying to rat them out or something, I'm honestly curious how sampling to this effect as allowed to be sold without royalties to the original artists..
**********
lol those are the homies tunes.. .. |
takdiego internet junkie |
2 Oct 2008 17:21 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx +++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
Re: legality of
he rocks! and he made a sale on juno..lol
**********
According to step_correct ...
lol those are the homies tunes.. ..
********** |