Kraftwerk told to suck it by German court

[DJ Rock Well]

I don't know if this will have any repercussions in other countries where legal attitudes to sampling have gone the other way in recent years. But for now, let's just enjoy the fact common sense prevailed somewhere in the world.

 

http://boingboing.net/2016/05/31/german-court-hands-kraftwerk-i.html

[Ethanol]

That's an interesting read. Anyone know if 'De-minimus' is applied in UK law?

[DJ Rock Well]

I have no idea on that one mate. I'm guessing this won't have any direct legal effect outside Germany. But hopefully it will suggest to other cases in other parts of the world that there's more to sampling than stealing.

[arkei]

When you use intellectual property of someone else, then you should indicate that your quoting somebody. At least this it how it works in science. So if said portion of that Kraftwerk-Song, was so unobvious, as that toy-rapper Moses Pelham who produced that track claims, why did he even use it? Plus he's in some way the MC Hammer meets P-Diddy of Germany...

 

To me the ones that cash in, like the multi-millionaire German P-Diddy who produced this, should pay for their samples accordingly

[DJ Rock Well]

Yeah, I agree that anybody making big money off a track with samples needs to pay the artist(s) they sampled. But I think it is time for the world to accept that sampling can most definitely be an artform and in many cases (perhaps not this one?) there's much more to a track than the sample it contains.

 

I also, do not agree with the whole business of sueing producers of tracks that contain no samples but we're obviously inspired by another song, as happened with Marvin Gaye's estate. It's shit because in that case it was obviously a new song that did all but sample the old one, but if you let people sue for that, where does it end.

 

Ultimately, I genuinely believe that sampling is a creative process and one that does not need to be suppressed by rich old rock stars. Sure they deserve royalties proportionate to the money made from the sampled tracked, but no more than that. Some of them act like it's still 1988.

[Guest rasteri]

When you use intellectual property of someone else, then you should indicate that your quoting somebody. At least this it how it works in science.

I've never thought of it like that. Imagine how shit physics would be if everyone had to pay royalties to Newton's estate every time they wanted to release a paper.

[Ethanol]

More importantly something needs to be done to stop all the awful re-sung/re-played/covered songs that are released.

 

And on a side note where does a copyright holder stand on the thousands of bands getting payed to play cover versions of their tracks at gigs daily around the world?

[waxdestroyer]

"The court found that sampling had helped create hip-hop music"

 

pretty clueless as nobody was sampling when hiphop was born, even "planet rock" was not sampled

[Chris]

Planet rock samples kraftwerk!

[Chris]

Or maybe replays it... What have I said...

[waxdestroyer]

Or maybe replays it... What have I said...

 

that's right, it was replayed on synths, samplers then had only tiny memories like 1.5 secs

[Jam Burglar]

"The court found that sampling had helped create hip-hop music"

 

pretty clueless as nobody was sampling when hiphop was born, even "planet rock" was not sampled

 

Wait, what? That's not right dude. You're just speaking on recorded hip hop music, which really didn't sound like what what was actually happening with the scene back then. The real music in the clubs and parks was all samples. Most of the early records were in-house bands for the labels but that was just because everybody was afraid of getting sued. If you listen to the tapes and anything that was happening before records started dropping in 1979 its full on 2-turntables and a mic, sample-crazy goodness. Most records were just an attempt to roughly approximate what was actually happening in the scene.

[djdiggla]

When you use intellectual property of someone else, then you should indicate that your quoting somebody. At least this it how it works in science. So if said portion of that Kraftwerk-Song, was so unobvious, as that toy-rapper Moses Pelham who produced that track claims, why did he even use it? Plus he's in some way the MC Hammer meets P-Diddy of Germany...

 

To me the ones that cash in, like the multi-millionaire German P-Diddy who produced this, should pay for their samples accordingly

 

So should you pay for quoting someone in science? I kinda liked where you were going there at first... if properly footnoted it should be in the realm of creative commons.

[arkei]

 

When you use intellectual property of someone else, then you should indicate that your quoting somebody. At least this it how it works in science. So if said portion of that Kraftwerk-Song, was so unobvious, as that toy-rapper Moses Pelham who produced that track claims, why did he even use it? Plus he's in some way the MC Hammer meets P-Diddy of Germany...

 

To me the ones that cash in, like the multi-millionaire German P-Diddy who produced this, should pay for their samples accordingly

 

So should you pay for quoting someone in science? I kinda liked where you were going there at first... if properly footnoted it should be in the realm of creative commons.

 

 

When you write a thesis, you normally contribute something new. By doing this you may need to quote somebody work in order to get the point across of your thesis. By doing so, you need to indicate that you are quoting somebody. In music, you wan't to get a track to the people for their enjoyment. In the same time you are cashing in. So if your track contains samples/intellectual property, then you shoud indicate, that you were quoting/sampling somebodies work in order to produce your new work. The paying fee part is a given in the music industry, therefore with quoting/sampling somebody, you automatically are obliged to pay. This shoudn't count for people who don't want to make money of music...

[Flexinoodle]

Nonsense, how can that even be governed ?

Is it 50p for a snare sample 50p for a kick, £1 for a piano note.

Seriously, it is utter stupidity to even dream of putting sampling in to the same category as a thesis, when you quote in a thesis you are basically saying "Look they think it too" this is not the desired effect of using a sample.

[djdiggla]

Nonsense, how can that even be governed ?

Is it 50p for a snare sample 50p for a kick, £1 for a piano note.

Seriously, it is utter stupidity to even dream of putting sampling in to the same category as a thesis, when you quote in a thesis you are basically saying "Look they think it too" this is not the desired effect of using a sample.

That's a good distinction. I still think you are standing on shoulders in both cases and generally disagree with the concept of intellectual property laws at least in their current form.

[Flexinoodle]

I have had this argument at the Reaper forum at KVR forum at Gearslutz forum, it is pure nonsense really, lets be clear on this Roland and Korg have pretty much owned the Groovebox market since the MC303 was released, early days Roland, later days Korg, every box both companies have released have had samples from records on them, unlicensed and untouchable, they have lawyers coming out of their ying yang and on any criminal grounds it is not illegal, as for moral grounds, really, who gives a shit, most of the people who made the music wouldn't get paid if you coughed up a licence fee, some holding company would, users of Amen brother had to cough up personal donations because the only surviving member of the band never got paid a penny.

 

It is easy to take the moral high ground when you have never actually had to deal with the gutter dwelling shoe filth that you would be giving any licence fee to.