Posting Audio

[lhavf]

What if you found a song you like and downlaoad it and modify it like increase the speed or power or something or add extra parts with a sound modifying program would that be considered stealing since you practiccaly remixed it

[liljim]

At 9/26/07 06:04 PM, lhavf wrote: would that be considered stealing

Yes.

since you practiccaly remixed it

Modifying does not equate to remixing.

[DnaDraxxus]

At 9/26/07 06:04 PM, lhavf wrote: What if you found a song you like and downlaoad it and modify it like increase the speed or power or something or add extra parts with a sound modifying program would that be considered stealing since you practiccaly remixed it

Technically no its not stealing. However if you just make it faster or slower without really throwing your own twist into it it could be considered stolen. If you have a song you would like to work off of that is more then welcomed but make sure you make it as unique as possible to avoid this problem all together.

[DnaDraxxus]

At 9/26/07 06:09 PM, liljim wrote:

Yes.

Well smack my ass and call me Charlie, you learn something new every day eh?

[liljim]

At 9/26/07 06:11 PM, DnaDraxxus wrote:

At 9/26/07 06:09 PM, liljim wrote:

Yes.

Well smack my ass and call me Charlie, you learn something new every day eh?

Even if you're remixing something, you still have to be careful with what you're doing, particularly if it's on a commercial basis. Copyright works slightly differently in different countries - it exists for different periods of time when it comes to music (I can't give examples, you can research that if you're interested). I'm reasonably sketchy on the details, but the following is reasonably accurate.

I think, for example, in the UK, the composer(s) retain copyright on their work for 50 years (and the reason I guess at that is that one of the most successful (and shitty) UK solo artists, Cliff Richard, was campaigning to extend the limit. Reason for that is that he's around 70 now and first started doing well in his teens... So he wants all the royalties to keep coming in (payment artists receive for air play over commercial radio stations, etc)). I think the limit is 70 years in the US.

So, for example - you're very welcome to remix classical music to your heart's content, since the artists are all long dead. As long as that's what you're doing - remixing and not taking a track that's been recorded recently and just speeding it up or slowing it down.

Even with non-commercial music remixing, it's usually a good idea to try and avoid remixing commercial tracks, unless:

a) You get specific permsission from the author or

b) The track you're remixing is released under a license that explicitly permits you to do so

There are ways and means around all of this - if the remix, for example, cuts the original tracks up beyond recognition or to a point where they're not within so-many-notes (this will probably vary amongst different countries as well) of the original, then you're ok. An example of one sample that's been used repeatedly in the past is the drum beat from Apache, which has been used in anything from covers to hip-hop tracks that completely cut the loops up. Some of those will have gotten permission (because they had to) and some will have cut up the samples to the point that they can't be directly compared against the original.

With respect to certain occurences in the past and lawsuits/royalty snatching from the original authors, I can think of two very specific examples offhand (and these might be before the younger users' time):

1. Vanilla Ice's "Ice, Ice, Baby" used the bassline and percussion from Queen's "Under Pressure" (featuring David Bowie)

2. The Verve used a loop by a symphony from one of The Rolling Stones' lesser known tracks (I think it was a B-Side) in "Bitter Sweet Symphony." You may not know the name of this band, or the track name, but I can more or less guarantee you'll have heard the track at one point or other. Richard Ashcroft (Singer from The Verve) was noted for wearing his "Fuck Mick Jagger" shirt during the tour of the Urban Hymns album.

Though neither of these were typically remixes, which are even more stringent when it comes to royalties, they cover samples used from original tracks and were both rightly penalised for not providing the credits/royalties to start with.

Have a read of those links, it's fruitful information that every musician should keep in mind. :)

[SonicINtrusion]

What if you are remixing your own song?

[NEVR]

At 4/14/08 10:22 AM, SonicINtrusion wrote: What if you are remixing your own song?

If the song is entirely your own original work, and has already been accepted as such by the audio mods, then remixing it should be fine. It's only when you submit 'remixes' of existing copyrighted songs that things can get a bit ugly for you.

[gfoxcook]

I know liljim wrote this 9 months ago, but I just now read it because of another thread linking here, and since it just got bumped by someone else in the past day, I wanna reply. #;-}>

At 9/26/07 06:58 PM, liljim wrote: With respect to certain occurences in the past and lawsuits/royalty snatching from the original authors, I can think of two very specific examples offhand (and these might be before the younger users' time):

1. Vanilla Ice's "Ice, Ice, Baby" used the bassline and percussion from Queen's "Under Pressure" (featuring David Bowie)

The main problem is that the resulting song is undoubtedly of far lesser quality than Under Pressure.

In fact, by most subjective criteria, it flat out sucks. But even ignoring that... it's lesser.

2. The Verve used a loop by a symphony from one of The Rolling Stones' lesser known tracks (I think it was a B-Side) in "Bitter Sweet Symphony." You may not know the name of this band, or the track name, but I can more or less guarantee you'll have heard the track at one point or other. Richard Ashcroft (Singer from The Verve) was noted for wearing his "Fuck Mick Jagger" shirt during the tour of the Urban Hymns album.

Though neither of these were typically remixes, which are even more stringent when it comes to royalties, they cover samples used from original tracks and were both rightly penalised for not providing the credits/royalties to start with.

That's not true. The Verve had a 50/50 deal on royalties from the get go to use the orchestral sample from the Rolling Stones, but when Bittersweet Symphony became a hit, the Stones' manager swooped in and claimed they had violated how they were supposed to use the sample, and the Rolling Stones ended up getting 100% of everything to do with that song. In fact, it was later used in commercials without ever consulting Ashcroft/The Verve, and when it won awards, the awards were given to Jagger and Richards.

I'm not saying The Verve didn't misuse the sample, they very well may have. But they didn't put out an album expecting to keep 100% of the credit and the cash themselves, they had lined up what they thought was a fair 50/50 deal beforehand.

Comparing Bittersweet Symphony's situation to Ice Ice Baby.... it makes me cry, liljim. ;_;