4 ms·

Electronic music wouldn't exist if it wasn't for ignoring copyright laws. The entire scene is built off the back of sampling and mix tapes. Likewise MP3 player

Electronic music wouldn't exist if it wasn't for ignoring copyright laws. The entire scene is built off the back of sampling and mix tapes. Likewise MP3 players and similar portable music devices (like the iPod) were technically advocating breaking copyright laws in some countries. Like here in the UK where it was illegal to rip a CD you owned. That law was clearly idiotic but the only reason it changed was because everyone was already doing it. I'm not trying to argue that piracy is good. However it's not as black and white as some make out.

dakom 5y ago
Small nitpick- I'd say one of the hallmarks of electronic music was that it wasn't built from copyrightable samples. It was trackers and analog-then-digital synths and all sorts of microtonal weirdness which had never been heard before. It's a nitpick because I agree large swaths of the dance and hip-hop music we have today wouldn't exist if not for copyright violation, no denying that. However, if we can put aside the legal angle, there's an understood difference between copyright violation for the purpose of sampling and remixing vs. outright "gonna steal your stuff because I don't want to pay for it." Tiny anecdote fwiw, I once worked a summer gig for a wedding/bar-mitzvah DJ who had a legal license to rip and play mp3s. Iirc part of the deal was they had to be a certain quality, e.g. 320kbps straight from the source. Or at least that's what he told me (this was AJ the DJ in Houston, Tx circa 2000 if anyone wants to do the fact-check legwork)
- lelandfe 5y ago
  > I'd say one of the hallmarks of electronic music was that it wasn't built from copyrightable samples Yup, exactly. See, for instance, the 1937 ondes Martenot composition Oraison as an example.[0] Other electronic progenitor genres, e.g musique concrete, did use samples but they were widely not copyrighted sounds.[1][2] Hip-hop, however, would not exist without illegal sampling. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EU0ISo996A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EU0ISo996A [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9pOq8u6-bA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9pOq8u6-bA [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8_fhIKeOX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8_fhIKeOX0
  - hnlmorg 5y ago
    Quoting artists from the 30s is a little disingenuous but maybe I should have been more explicit and said "electronic dance music" (which is also the significantly larger body of creative content). And in those genres copyrighted samples were used heavily.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  > Small nitpick- I'd say one of the hallmarks of electronic music was that it wasn't built from copyrightable samples. It was trackers and analog-then-digital synths and all sorts of microtonal weirdness which had never been heard before. Depends on the genre to some extent but it's worth noting that Amiga trackers could double as samplers and even the Atari ST could trigger hardware samplers. A lot of electronic producers would swap samples even for percussion (eg the Amen break which is used massively in jungle and early DnB and was ripped from a B-side on a Winstons record). Even some riffs that sound like synths are actually samples layered over a piano roll. But you're absolutely right that synths and drum machines were also pivotal too. I wasn't trying to suggest that the entire scene existed only for sampling but instead stating that sampling was one of the cornerstones that lead to the creation of many of the genres we still listen to now. > However, if we can put aside the legal angle, there's an understood difference between copyright violation for the purpose of sampling and remixing vs. outright "gonna steal your stuff because I don't want to pay for it." If we're putting aside the legal angle, then it really depends on who you ask. Electronic (house, techno, trance, hardcore, etc) producers had no issue with their records being copied and shared on DJ mix tapes because that was a way for smaller artists and DJs in the scene to breakthrough. But as a DJ you'd sometimes avoid including tracks from big commercial labels -- particularly if you were a headliner DJ and thus your mix tape would been heard by more people -- because mainstream artists wouldn't turn the same kind of blind eye to their tracks being on mix tapes (source: I'm an ex-DJ) So it really depends on the scene and sometimes even the individual.
  - dakom 5y ago
    Right, yeah, that's why I said _copyrightable_ samples.. e.g. sampling a sound from just about anywhere and slotting it into a tracker or drum machine is probably fine. I do agree the waters get muddy once it's multiple seconds long.. IANAL but there's the famous vanilla ice lawsuit, and I think there was some fair use wiggle room if it's under some amount of time (forgot the exact limit), it is fine to use. Good point about the DJ mixtape thing. I am guessing a lot of composers/producers got the raw end of that deal, but you are right, it helped a lot for promotion and growing the scene
    - 5y ago

dakom 5y ago

Small nitpick- I'd say one of the hallmarks of electronic music was that it wasn't built from copyrightable samples. It was trackers and analog-then-digital synths and all sorts of microtonal weirdness which had never been heard before. It's a nitpick because I agree large swaths of the dance and hip-hop music we have today wouldn't exist if not for copyright violation, no denying that. However, if we can put aside the legal angle, there's an understood difference between copyright violation for the purpose of sampling and remixing vs. outright "gonna steal your stuff because I don't want to pay for it." Tiny anecdote fwiw, I once worked a summer gig for a wedding/bar-mitzvah DJ who had a legal license to rip and play mp3s. Iirc part of the deal was they had to be a certain quality, e.g. 320kbps straight from the source. Or at least that's what he told me (this was AJ the DJ in Houston, Tx circa 2000 if anyone wants to do the fact-check legwork)

lelandfe 5y ago
> I'd say one of the hallmarks of electronic music was that it wasn't built from copyrightable samples Yup, exactly. See, for instance, the 1937 ondes Martenot composition Oraison as an example.[0] Other electronic progenitor genres, e.g musique concrete, did use samples but they were widely not copyrighted sounds.[1][2] Hip-hop, however, would not exist without illegal sampling. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EU0ISo996A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EU0ISo996A [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9pOq8u6-bA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9pOq8u6-bA [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8_fhIKeOX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8_fhIKeOX0
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  Quoting artists from the 30s is a little disingenuous but maybe I should have been more explicit and said "electronic dance music" (which is also the significantly larger body of creative content). And in those genres copyrighted samples were used heavily.
hnlmorg 5y ago
> Small nitpick- I'd say one of the hallmarks of electronic music was that it wasn't built from copyrightable samples. It was trackers and analog-then-digital synths and all sorts of microtonal weirdness which had never been heard before. Depends on the genre to some extent but it's worth noting that Amiga trackers could double as samplers and even the Atari ST could trigger hardware samplers. A lot of electronic producers would swap samples even for percussion (eg the Amen break which is used massively in jungle and early DnB and was ripped from a B-side on a Winstons record). Even some riffs that sound like synths are actually samples layered over a piano roll. But you're absolutely right that synths and drum machines were also pivotal too. I wasn't trying to suggest that the entire scene existed only for sampling but instead stating that sampling was one of the cornerstones that lead to the creation of many of the genres we still listen to now. > However, if we can put aside the legal angle, there's an understood difference between copyright violation for the purpose of sampling and remixing vs. outright "gonna steal your stuff because I don't want to pay for it." If we're putting aside the legal angle, then it really depends on who you ask. Electronic (house, techno, trance, hardcore, etc) producers had no issue with their records being copied and shared on DJ mix tapes because that was a way for smaller artists and DJs in the scene to breakthrough. But as a DJ you'd sometimes avoid including tracks from big commercial labels -- particularly if you were a headliner DJ and thus your mix tape would been heard by more people -- because mainstream artists wouldn't turn the same kind of blind eye to their tracks being on mix tapes (source: I'm an ex-DJ) So it really depends on the scene and sometimes even the individual.
- dakom 5y ago
  Right, yeah, that's why I said _copyrightable_ samples.. e.g. sampling a sound from just about anywhere and slotting it into a tracker or drum machine is probably fine. I do agree the waters get muddy once it's multiple seconds long.. IANAL but there's the famous vanilla ice lawsuit, and I think there was some fair use wiggle room if it's under some amount of time (forgot the exact limit), it is fine to use. Good point about the DJ mixtape thing. I am guessing a lot of composers/producers got the raw end of that deal, but you are right, it helped a lot for promotion and growing the scene
  - 5y ago