first of all, i'll ignore the baseless and petty insults.

>I don't think it's okay to charge copious amounts of money for
>some shit after the fact, for one,

the logic for charging "copious amounts of money" probably has something to do with the idea that the breaks we are talkin about have acquired worth over the years.

so maybe in 1985 it would have cost $5k to clear impeach the president (that's a random figure). but after it has been used by numerous artists, its market value has likely gone up. do i think $1Mil is reasonable? hell no. but that's not my determination to make. the market determines that. if someone is going to pay $60k for it, then that's what it costs.

>and for another I have a problem with someone who has no problem doing so and not at least helping out these guys that played this >shit and are hurting right now
>there's no reason Melvin Bliss had to die broke and doing
>house parties, not having the money to get proper care for his
>ailments

First, you can't make a statement like this without actually being privy to what did/did not go on behind the scenes. do we know what kind of contracts these guys signed in the first place? maybe they were screwed. maybe they weren't. maybe they signed away their own rights for good compensation, maybe they didn't. my point is that many of these guys are not well off now, it's very true. but it is not the case in EVERY situation that a musician dying poor is the fault of some crooked record exec somewhere.

i have no idea about melvin bliss' individual circumstances, but as howisya stated, if producers in 2012 are really worried about Melvin Bliss, then maybe they should book the Melvin Blisses of this world for sessions instead of sampling their previous work and being upset when they are sued down the line by an unrelated party.

it's unrealistic to expect anyone who acquires the rights to any art down the line, to double back to see how well the creator is doing in life. it's a nice sentiment and it would be great if that happened every time, but it's not always practical.

>>the bottom line is that you have to pay to play.
>>at this point in the game, no one should be shocked when an
>>attorney comes calling over their uncleared sample use.
>crying
>>over the person who is suing is kind of a moot point.
>>
>
>you're basically saying that it's fine to use any sort of
>tactic to get over that you want because it doesn't matter how
>you get it as long as you do

Sorry. how am i saying "any sort of tactic to get over" is acceptable? lol Explain how you got from A to B?
What i explicitly said was that in the present landscape, being sued for sample clearance is very much a reality that anyone who uses samples should be prepared for. Whether or not you get sued by the guy who actually played the drums or a 4th party who later acquired the rights to the drum loop will not change the fact that YOUR bank account will be $X lighter at the end of the day. That was my point.

>>the fact that someone has the wherewithall and foresight to
>>recognize that a market can be exploited does not make their
>>actions bullshit. it's sheer capitalism.
>>
>
>you can call it what you want, but suing people for using
>something you now possess when they used it during a time you
>didn't possess it is indeed bullshit

Let's put it this way.
Your neighbor (X) paints a painting.
Y likes the painting and starts selling a copy of it, without consent.
The painting becomes famous, and Y is making money off it, without consent.
X sells you rights to the painting.
You find out that Y has been infringing upon your rights in the painting.

Under copyright law, you are entitled to go after Y.
particularly if his use of Y is infringing upon your rights in some manner.
it's bigger than just samples.
what if Y is a hate group that is using the painting to promote their message.
should you not go after them because they started using the painting before you acquired the rights to it?

>>and lol @ him asking kids what samples were poppin being
>some
>>kind of awful practice. why don't you find those kids and be
>>mad at them for telling? maybe if much of this information
>>wasn't so readily available by people on forums and the
>>internet generally who are in a hurry to brag about what
>>sample came from where, it would be a bigger issue.
>>
>
>they didn't know why he was doing it, smartass
>but the part you don't know is that the kids worked in his
>warehouse and he wouldn't pay them

them not knowing why he was doing it doesn't really make a difference, imo. the onus is ultimately on the guys who used the samples to clear them. you have to expect that samples will be discussed, and its not farfetched that whoever owns the rights will come after you.

As far as the guy in question allegedly being a scumbag who stffs kids their rightful wages, that has no bearing on this specific issue. he might very well be a jerk. i don't have an opinion on that.

>but I guess it's not his fault for stiffing children because
>they went for it, right?

where did i say anything of this sort?


>only when read by somebody of a polishpro pedigree like your
>nigger ass

cheers to you too, guy.