Famous rip-offs - Page 5

(e) · 05-24-2003, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RMX
Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. Let's clear up the distinction so we can move forward.

Sampling: Grabbing some sounds from someone else's work to use in your own original work. Even though you use a piece of someone else's work, you owe them nothing, as our work is your own and not based solely upon theirs. Much like comedic parodies, celebrity voice impersonation, etc.

"Ripping Off": Stealing someone else's work in full, or to an extent that it is not an original piece of work. This is the kind of thing you get in trouble for - sued and the like. See previous comment on Vanilla Ice.

So no, Moby doesn't rip anyone off... he grabs things that sound good, plays with and manipulates them, and creates his own tunes. Much like I and many other people do at the moment. If I take, for example, a Moby tune and remix it - pull together a full CD worth of those types of tracks - then sell it publically, I owe Moby nothing as well. So, as you just said, no - he's not ripping them off.

On the other hand, Moby has traditionally been very good about giving credit where its due. I'm not saying he is perfect, but look at his old albums - Everything is Wrong, Early Underground, The end of Everthing, Into the Blue, etc... there were a lot of dues dolled out when he had no mandate to do so.

Perhaps fame has simply gone to his head recently? I know its definitely gone to his musical style... but hey, the end result is, he doesn't have to dish out credit anywhere. Whether I think his actions are right or wrong really have no bearing on what he's mandated to do.

Actually, it's illegal to use samples of peoples work without their consent. Many people have been sued doing it. A few years ago Madonna sued some people for sampling one of her songs. If you make money from using other peoples work, that's illegal.

Whether you use the whole song or not, you are still stealing the sample. It's like saying you're not stealing taking a door off a car that doesn't belong to you because you aren't taking the whole car. Do you follow what I am saying?

And no, Moby didn't give recognition to a lot of work, that's why I don't like him on top of his music being boring.

RMX · 05-24-2003, 04:33 AM

I'll garuntee you otherwise - at least by our laws, as long as you're not stealing the song, you're sampling. If you're sampling, there are very little, if any, laws that apply. Think of all the dance tunes of the late 90's that featured movie clips, other songs, or otherwise. Let's look at Enya, DJ Keoki, God Module, Type O Negative, Aphex Twin, and many MANY others. Not one of these people/groups have had the slightest reprocussions from sampling, to remixing an entire song and dropping it on an album (See Type O and Aphex, specifically). If you're going to tell me that I'm wrong, at least have the laws straight.

Since this goes way out of bounds of Moby and rip-offs at this point, I suggest we either start a new thread, or simply drop the entire discussion. I'll be happy to carry on as needed.

panbient · 05-24-2003, 04:45 AM

please oh please point me out the recognizable samples in an aphex twin song... a real aphex song... not some mislabled random electronic mp3... and remixing a song is the same as covering it... credit has to be given or you get sued... then again i don't ever remember hearing aphex twin covering anyone on any album... i've heard remixes he's done for other people's singles where they would have had to ask him to actually do it... but never someone else's on any of his releases (aside from the obvious remix collection cd)...

RMX · 05-24-2003, 04:56 AM

Specifically, Popcorn, an old sixties tune. No samples, full remixed song.

(e) · 05-24-2003, 05:51 AM

I know for a fact that you can get sued for using samples that haven't been cleared by the the owners (usually the record company). I'll try to find the law for you. A lot of artists when they start off actually use samples which aren't theirs and when they get popular the original artist finds out and sues them.

Artists like Aphex Twin usually have to buy the samples from the producers or at least contact them and ask them about it. If they don't do this they'll most likely end up getting in trouble.

RMX · 05-24-2003, 05:57 AM

At the same time, how does this explain the hundreds of different remixes out there by various multitudes of people? I suppose remixes and sampling can be considered different as well - an interesting case. If you can find some legal stuff on this, I'd love to see it, just to see what I'm getting into personally, as well... as far as I have ever heard, I'm in the clear to remix whatever I want, samples or not. Could it be a difference between location? And how does that explain, say, Type O Negative covering Summer Breeze with no credit given?

(e) · 05-24-2003, 06:05 AM

Oh yeah...a lot of the licences don't get renewed on the original so it basically becomes free to sample (I think). That's one of the reasons old songs get sampled. I don't think it changes from location to location though because as I said before, Madonna sued someone (in the UK I think) for doing it to one of her songs.

RMX · 05-24-2003, 06:10 AM

Aha! That's my disconnect - and now that you mention it, that could be a lot of where I'm erring. The same thing happens on books and the like - copyrights become public domain again. Now I'll have to see if I can't stir up more examples just to test the theory, but that takes care of a lot of different things I mentioned before - Aphex Twin, Type O - I'm still trying to figure out Enya's ability to get away with a lot of her remixes, for example... she clips entire songs, remixes them, and filters them in... much like Moby and others. I think I may have to take Sunday to look up more stuff on this - dig around if you get time, perhaps we can come up with a definitive answer.

(e) · 05-24-2003, 06:12 AM

Yes...that'd be good. If anyone finds out, let us know...please!!!

Sammo · 05-24-2003, 11:36 AM

As far as I understand it, sampling, remixing and covering aren't disctinct in the eyes of the law. It's all using other people's work, which is allways illegal unless permission is given (in contract form). Remixes and parodies are still illegal but, generally, the makers aren't prosecuted because the original artist doesn't object. It's a crime where the victim has to press charges, and if they don't then there is no issue. Artists are wise to the fact that remixes can re-boost flagging careers: it happened with Eddie Grant, Run DMC etc. Also clubs don't usually bother to get permission before they play a remix.