I think the reason this user got especially punched in the nards because he opened a thread called

"Newgrounds is for assholes"

Even still, this isn't even such a bad thing that has happened.... because he was told, just start a new account. Its pretty simple.

Hahaha Lmao. I love this website. : D

At 9/2/08 11:26 PM, KgZ wrote: Still, it's called sampling. It's a total musical form of art. I can't argue that he didn't break the rules, but it sounds like a very gray area.

Sampling seems to me to be as much of a musical art as putting together a puzzle of a Monet makes you a painter.

At 9/3/08 01:56 AM, Bad-Man-Incorporated wrote:

Thanks for pointing it out.

Thanks for answering my question :)

At 9/3/08 05:57 PM, MJTTOMB wrote:

At 9/2/08 11:26 PM, KgZ wrote: Still, it's called sampling. It's a total musical form of art. I can't argue that he didn't break the rules, but it sounds like a very gray area.

Sampling seems to me to be as much of a musical art as putting together a puzzle of a Monet makes you a painter.

I recommend you get out of your "classicist" confines before you make such ignorant silly statements.

A better comparison would be putting raw, unedited loops and that only together is like a puzzle. But even at that, lame as it may be- it's still a musical art. and the puzzle will look different than the way it did before, because the pieces can be ubiquitous as much as you want them to be. (try taking a TV show with a bunch of episodes, cut out phrases and patch different words to together to reconfigure a different sentence, that can be fun, and its creative).

Now once you get into effects, slicing, meshing different samples with different backgrounds, that's a whole new world. You might as well go on and bash the DnB genre because they use premade amen breaks. there's so much more to it which I can glady explain, since I'm going to make a good estimate that your knowledge on electronica genres is very, very, small.

Look up the genre "mashup" too.

At 9/3/08 05:42 PM, SadSpoon wrote:

At 9/3/08 01:35 PM, nostromer wrote: Hahaha Lmao. I love this website. : D

i like turtles

I like ducks.

Also, this thread got derailed pretty bad. The discussion is SUPPOSED to be about how much we suck. What's all this shit about sampling? Seriously. Get on topic dumb heads.

At 9/3/08 06:57 PM, Quarl wrote: The discussion is SUPPOSED to be about how much we suck.

sorry. We're assholes. I wasn't really paying any attention. I guess being an asshole and sucking are generally the same thing. Discuss?

At 9/3/08 06:57 PM, Quarl wrote:

At 9/3/08 05:42 PM, SadSpoon wrote:

At 9/3/08 01:35 PM, nostromer wrote: Hahaha Lmao. I love this website. : D

i like turtles

I like ducks.

Also, this thread got derailed pretty bad. The discussion is SUPPOSED to be about how much we suck. What's all this shit about sampling? Seriously. Get on topic dumb heads.

well, we're assholes apparently because some people said that the OP's song that uses copyrighted samples is entirely stolen. So the subject on sampling does relate to the topic somewhat.

There is so much wrong with this thread. Just about every single post I could call someone out on something. Instead I'll just explain everything in great detail.

Sampling is taking segments of or full songs and using them in a song that you create. For example, acapellas, melody lines, drum hits, ect. Sampling does NOT include the actual score. If done right, video game remixes are fine because they are NOT sampling. They are recompositions. But let us consider video game remixes as unacceptable. Then shouldn't covers be as well? They aren't even recompositions. They're the exact same track just played by someone else. However they are acceptable. So long as proper credit is given, they are fine.

On the topic of sampling and remixing, using samples that are released under the Creative Commons license are fine. This can sometimes be skewed and a mod may say "but the rules say that no copyrighted samples may be used." However, if the artist, such as Trent Reznor of NIN, release there songs to be remixed freely by whoever wants to, then they are allowed to submit those songs here. The licensing terms make it completely legal. This isn't that case for all songs though. Though there are some situations like the one above, often time artists allow people to remix there songs for contest run by them and can only be submitted to certain places. If that's the case, then no it's not allowed.

There is one more instance that I'm not sure about myself and would like an answer to, and that's if you buy the separate pieces of the track for remixing. A few months ago Radiohead released a song called Nude. Along with it they allowed listeners to buy the separate tracks to the song for remixing. If a person were to buy them and remix them, would they be acceptable to post on Newgrounds?

Any instances of sampling other than what was stated above and drum sampling is strictly prohibited. Some people such as SadSpoon may say "oh but don't you break the law in real life?" First of all, not all people are irresponsible. Second, I'm sure that you wouldn't have a multi-million dollar lawsuit against you if you did that would also bring an end to not just you, but an entire community.

Speaking of which brings me to my next point. In real life, when you break the law and are caught, you suffer the consequences, whatever they may be. Those who enforce the law are the police. Now let's apply this scenario to Newgrounds and change laws to rules. When you break the rules of submitting to the Audio Portal, the Newgrounds police, more commonly known as 'mods', will respond. Just like in real life, you will suffer the consequences, which happens to be deletion.

Honestly guys, learn to deal with punishment. It's really pathetic.

WHERES THE MOD.
this is just a flame war.
kill this

At 9/4/08 01:27 AM, Cebster wrote: WHERES THE MOD.
this is just a flame war.
kill this

Well, if you've read rucklo's post at the top of this page, it should explain things. Also, the last page has had some good information and discussion.

I'd like to know about speech clips and movie clips, are we allowed to sample them in songs? All the discussion I've read so far has been about sampling acapellas and other songs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but samples from speeches or movies would be under a different copyright, but I haven't found anything specific about using those quotes in music...

At 9/3/08 10:39 PM, DSMagnum wrote:

Second, I'm sure that you wouldn't have a multi-million dollar lawsuit against you if you did that would also bring an end to not just you, but an entire community.

LOL. Dude, I doubt its that big of deal. If it was, the mods would certainly have an ability to delete songs from now. It takes quite some time to delete.

I mean there's songs like
this which are obviously stolen, despite being pointed about several times in a review, the author can just say "my orchestra played this" when the original file sounds exactly the same. (read suspended-3rd-chord AKA yours truly review to see more info). Yet despite clear evidence, it hasnt been deleted yet. If it was THAT much of a problem where a few songs out of thousands were stolen content, the watch on the AP would be significantly more vigilant. The staff (meaning audio mods) would be much more equipped than with what little they have. If the consequences were to be that dire the rules would be far more strictly enforced. NG isnt dumb. (besides, it's not exactly NG's fault- how the hell would a site as large as this gets removed? you're going way overboard. And sued for *multi million*? HAHA!)

At 9/4/08 01:27 AM, Cebster wrote: WHERES THE MOD.
this is just a flame war.
kill this

Thanks for contributing such helpful information!
If you think this a flame war, read the entire topic.
It's not all roses and unicorns, but there's a lot of interesting and helpful information being circulated here.
I personally don't like locking topic fetishes, it's not like you can solve real life issues with locking topics. "Abortion is wrong! This has turned into a massive flamefest with clashing opinions. Topic locked!!!!" This topic hasnt even gotten out of hand.

At 9/3/08 10:39 PM, DSMagnum wrote:

.

On the topic of sampling and remixing, using samples that are released under the Creative Commons license are fine. This can sometimes be skewed and a mod may say "but the rules say that no copyrighted samples may be used." However, if the artist, such as Trent Reznor of NIN, release there songs to be remixed freely by whoever wants to, then they are allowed to submit those songs here. The licensing terms make it completely legal. This isn't that case for all songs though. Though there are some situations like the one above, often time artists allow people to remix there songs for contest run by them and can only be submitted to certain places. If that's the case, then no it's not allowed.

I've said before. Despite the "legal mumbo jumbo" pertaining to ownership of the tracks that WEREN"T CREATED BY YOU... and being able to do what you want with them...
The admins still don't want them here. You want permission, pester Tom. (I'm sure he'd dig that) If that changes then fine. We'll adapt our strategy as well. It will be much more difficult to moderate the audio portal. Anyone can say they own whatever...and bla bla bla. Thats the kind of shit that makes it "gray".

At 9/4/08 03:18 AM, Bad-Man-Incorporated wrote: I've said before. Despite the "legal mumbo jumbo" pertaining to ownership of the tracks that WEREN"T CREATED BY YOU... and being able to do what you want with them...

We've discussed this before, and honestly I think you're wrong. Yes, when you submit a song you claim the song to be made by you. Remixes can be claimed as to have been made by you. Let's take Kanye West for example. His song Stronger was more of a mix of the song Harder Faster Better Stronger by Daft Punk. He purchased the rights and was allowed to make money off of it. If you apply this situation to Newgrounds, it works the exact same way. If samples are released under the Creative Commons license and are allowed to be used in songs and remixes that are released under the same license, then it is entirely fine. The only difference is the licensing.

tl;dr: You don't have to claim that you made the samples in order to claim that you made the song.

S3C: Obviously you don't understand rhetorical strategies. I exaggerated to get a point across. Seemed to have caught your eye didn't it?

At 9/4/08 09:53 PM, DSMagnum wrote:

At 9/4/08 03:18 AM, Bad-Man-Incorporated wrote: I've said before. Despite the "legal mumbo jumbo" pertaining to ownership of the tracks that WEREN"T CREATED BY YOU... and being able to do what you want with them...

We've discussed this before, and honestly I think you're wrong. Yes, when you submit a song you claim the song to be made by you. Remixes can be claimed as to have been made by you. Let's take Kanye West for example.

Read the rest of my statement regarding the admins...specifically Tom..not wanting shit like that here.
I understand you owning the rights and being ABLE to submit it under the same license...bla bla bla.
Regardless of the legalities, it still isn't wanted by the CREATOR OF THE SITE. IF he says otherwise, then yes, I will allow it, providing you can show proof of either ownership of the track, or show where it says it is free to remix and all that other bullshit. But for the time being, as I have to understand it, its not wanted. Plain and simple. I enforce what he wants. When HE changes his mind, I guess that means that I have to, as well.

Lets not make this more complicated than it has to be. Regardless of it being LEGAL to do, if Tom doesn't want it, it doesn't pass. Its pretty simple, actually. If it WAS legal, yet still deleted...(which only the admins have the power to do) then that reinforces the fact that...it still, just isn't wanted here. Whether legal or not.
I'm not wrong, were just speaking on two different levels. Thats all :)

Why you have to be so them harse people MUSIC IS a very hard thing to learn so is flash MAYBE HE/SHE DIDINT KNOW WAT THEY WERE DOING! MAYBE! OK! AND WHO READS THE RULES WHO THE HECK THOSE

At 9/4/08 10:16 PM, Bad-Man-Incorporated wrote: Read the rest of my statement regarding the admins...specifically Tom..not wanting shit like that here.
I'm not wrong, were just speaking on two different levels. Thats all :)

I read all of your post. The entire post was not revolving around the licensing, but the rules. The only reason I mentioned licensing was to get to the point I was making. If you take out the licensing part, you would understand that what I'm trying to say that is even if you didn't make the samples you used in the song, you can still make claim that you made the song. It is your own original work. You composed it. It may not be 100% your work, but are video game remixes? You didn't compose the song there, but the sounds are most likely all yours. Just flip the situation around.

Has Tom confronted you and told you exactly what he wants? When he made you a mod, did he give you exact directions? If he wants people to follow the rules, he should make them more clear. I mean we can sample from other songs in the portal can't we? Why can't we sample from professional artists that allow it? These things are not specific enough in the rules.

At 9/2/08 03:12 PM, Rig wrote: All noobs think their music rules.

All noobs are brutally taught the facts of life.

lolz then since im an audio noob, i think my songs rule? i dont think so.
and also since im a noob i dont understand the facts of life. no offence but thats extremely bland and
overall offside. please choose your words in less hast then blurting the sentance: "noobs" think their songs rule.

At 9/4/08 10:43 PM, st91 wrote: lolz then since im an audio noob, i think my songs rule? i dont think so.
and also since im a noob i dont understand the facts of life. no offence but thats extremely bland and
overall offside. please choose your words in less hast then blurting the sentance: "noobs" think their songs rule.

It's just a stereotype. No reason to troll over it.

My favorites are zero bombers!

Makes you feel like you did something wrong :[
until you get a few nice reviews.

At 9/4/08 10:40 PM, DSMagnum wrote:

Has Tom confronted you and told you exactly what he wants? When he made you a mod, did he give you exact directions? If he wants people to follow the rules, he should make them more clear. I mean we can sample from other songs in the portal can't we? Why can't we sample from professional artists that allow it? These things are not specific enough in the rules.

The rules ARE clear. If you didn't make it, don't submit it. As far as video game songs, they are considered covers. Covers are allowed because you made them. Original content is still the key draw here, though. But the rules are clear, and they were enforced with the deletion of the original poster's stuff.

lol, can't believe this is still going.

At 9/4/08 09:53 PM, DSMagnum wrote:

S3C: Obviously you don't understand rhetorical strategies. I exaggerated to get a point across. Seemed to have caught your eye didn't it?

Exaggeration isn't a rhetorical strategy, it's figurative language. given your serious tone I thought you were serious, sorry :|

looooooooooool. im banned and i dont even care anymore. that was last weeks bitch-fit. i think u all should stop bitchen too.
the bottom line is sampling is great wherever u wanna go; just not newgrounds.

i would also like to take this opportunity to say:
hi mom
fuck you all
smoke weed every day
dont kill the messenger
wipe up not down
halloween is the best holiday
newgrounds is composed of 2 colors: grey and yellow, and i think thats just great.
and most importantly
bitefight looks like shit, so stop advertising it tom

www.soundclick.com/JohnnyBGood

At 9/4/08 11:50 PM, Bad-Man-Incorporated wrote:
The rules ARE clear. If you didn't make it, don't submit it. As far as video game songs, they are considered covers. Covers are allowed because you made them. Original content is still the key draw here, though. But the rules are clear, and they were enforced with the deletion of the original poster's stuff.

Not to get on your ass about this, but uh- hypothetical situation, I do do this, but for another "band" on another site:

I take music I own, a brief second or two of a song, crush the heck out of it, reverse it, and start using it as noise. Technically the sample itself is no longer a sample, because it's original data. In theory, does this not mean a regular acapella, so long as it was altered to not sound like the original singer, is acceptable? And if so where does one draw the line? A little autotune? A full pitch/tempo change and added modulation?

This works in the real music industry, what with covers/stealing chord progressions and melodies/remixing, but there is a bit of an odd situation here then in that you can't really tell what has or has not been altered. Not to mention there have been numerous successful lawsuits over sampling, no matter how short the actual sampled bit might have been or whether it fell under "fair use" or not.

Then again, by saying "Absolutely nothing sampled from another source, even with permission, original content only" you have just destroyed the right of anyone to upload audio who uses commercial and purchased or free instrument or drum banks, loops, samples, soundfonts, libraries, and certain types of generators.

That is to say, you just killed off likely 70% of the people who submit anything to this site, including those who upload good "original content." So a specific list of what is or is not acceptable from source to source by length and license seems like a good idea, if you really do want to wade in this "grey area".

Otherwise, just say it's judged on personal opinion of the moderation. That works too.

At 9/4/08 11:50 PM, Bad-Man-Incorporated wrote: The rules ARE clear. If you didn't make it, don't submit it. As far as video game songs, they are considered covers. Covers are allowed because you made them. Original content is still the key draw here, though. But the rules are clear, and they were enforced with the deletion of the original poster's stuff.

Making a cover isn't original. Yes you may have PLAYED or rewritten the song, but you did not MAKE it. There is no such thing as an original cover. They don't exist.

So if covers are considered original content, why can't a remix of The Hand That Feeds be original? There is much more originality in that, even if you didn't make all the samples.

Not too long ago a Celldweller remix was submitted to the portal and made weekly top 5. No one did anything about it. No one complained. The samples were released to the public for free use for a remixing contest. What is so wrong about that?

You really need to stop being such a hypocrit. If an artist uses a sample they have permission to use, let them. They aren't doing anything wrong.

If you really want to enforce the rules, then users shouldn't be allowed to sample at all. Technically, when you submit to the portal, you automatically gain the rights to that song right? So if I were to sample a song from the portal, wouldn't that be against the rules? Yet the rules permit it? There are too many loopholes to say what you are saying.

And no, the rules aren't clear. Yes, the original poster was wrong for what he did. I'm not disagreeing with that. What I'm saying is that there is too much confusion in the rules. There are so many things that could easily be misunderstood.

At 9/5/08 11:22 PM, DSMagnum wrote: There is no such thing as an original cover. They don't exist.

Yes, they do. Otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to copyright them.

At 9/5/08 11:38 PM, Fuoco wrote:

At 9/5/08 11:22 PM, DSMagnum wrote: There is no such thing as an original cover. They don't exist.

Yes, they do. Otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to copyright them.

According to BMI, remixes aren't original and you can copyright those.

Something doesn't have to be original in order to copyright it. A cover is basically just playing a song someone else wrote with maybe a few differences. Does that sound original? No. The composition was done by someone else. A different band or group just played it.

Ok, so now I'm more confused now than when i first read the rules. I must say that most of my stuff is original, but I have made 2 remixes. Both were different kinds, one was more of a cover and the other was a remix, but still used vocals of the original, though i made significant changes to the song... writing completely new melodies etc.

Am i supposed to take these down? I don't want to get banned for misunderstanding the rules. I tried in all honesty to make original work. So which one should be taken down... or both??????

This has vocals

This is a cover

And i really don't want to whore these songs.... so i'd appreciate it if nobody rated it or anything... i can save whoring for the advertising thread.

Please don't ban me. Just ask me to remove the songs.

At 9/5/08 11:44 PM, DSMagnum wrote: Something doesn't have to be original in order to copyright it. A cover is basically just playing a song someone else wrote with maybe a few differences. Does that sound original? No. The composition was done by someone else. A different band or group just played it.

Even if it sounds original or not, it doesn't matter. You made it, you just didn't pasted the original vocals or harmonics there and wrote something all over. If you did, then it isn't allowed.