https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v4s-WmajI0

i came across a snippet of a drake ref track for dre that used the same sample. im tryna track down the original.

https://pitchfork.com/features/article/sample-snitching-how-online-fan-chatter-can-create-legal-trouble-for-rap-producers/

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

the guy who doesnt have to worry about being sued

i assume youd wanna be credited/compensated fairly for your art being used by someone else.

same people who bitch about not being paid fairly by lables/streaming services/etc somehow created an acceptable exemption for them using other peoples music for free.

...but with that shitty attitude you can fuck right off

it’s actually the proper hip hop worldview

for repurposing an element of ‘oops upside your head’ for ‘uptown funk’...

or when the marvin gaye estate sued ed sheeran for basically stealing the bassline from ‘lets get it on’ for ‘thinking out loud’...

you sided with mars/ronson and sheeran?

aka crediting the rightful originator who put their heart and soul into creating the initial composition from scratch.

i just recently saw a clip of an older jazz artist speak about how someone contacted him and showed him a (then) current song that looped one of his works. he said he was honored to be recognized by an artist of the newer generation...but broke down into tears when he found out it was past the statute of limitations and there was no way he could be properly compensated for it.

for some reason...most people only see things from the side of the freeloader.

99% of the time the master is not owned by the creator. writers own the song. labels own the "sound recording"

its owned by the labels...who exploited them.

and what statute of limitations? if there was a statute of limitations de la soul would have its catalog up and artists wouldnt be sued decades after the fact

inform yourself before speaking

https://www.okayplayer.com/music/sample-bob-james-tracklib.html


Don't know why Bob was limited to what his options were with "Peter Piper" but Bob claims he couldn't get some royalties from it for or until a certain time.

So....

but it implies he learned about it after the songs notoriety had passed.

it also says until... which means he did get something.

caught early enough (De La, Biz Markie were caught early after the records were released) that is what affects how much the originator can get (court is like "you should have got it sooner!!!")

For instance, when I read the Knack was using RUN DMC in 2006 for "it's tricky" that was released in 1986, I thought that was "off". I read the case was settled out of court so maybe that shows the Knack really couldn't "do" RUN DMC like they could if the Knack sued in 1986 - 1992

is 3 years.

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20190605-nine-most-notorious-copyright-cases-in-music-history
-----
The segment on the track formed the foundation for jungle in the 90s, and arguably the genre of drum & bass wouldn’t today exist without it. Despite this, the writers never received any royalties, due to statute of limitations for copyright infringement in the US being just three years.
-----

im sure each case is different and there are obviously some conditions/criteria otherwise met where people sue and get legal remedies beyond that point (we have seen artists have to pay up for older sampled work). but the statute of limitations does exists and artists have been barred from compensation in the past.

yeah but its not 3 years from release...its 3 years since its been for sale or being exploited

https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/j-dilla-10cc-sample-lawsuit-workinonit-1053913/

you’re a dummy to think the creators are the ones getting paid

you think stubblefield is getting paid for funky drummer? purdie getting paid for synthetic substitution?

like a child when someone disagrees with them.

adults usually grow out of that online tantrum phase.

1 it’s not a debate
2 you can’t read emotions from words on a screen
3 a dummy is a person who talks about which he does not know (see: You)

>aka crediting the rightful originator who put their heart and
>soul into creating the initial composition from scratch.

Why do folks have such a hard time injecting any sense of nuance into these conversations? There are issues that beg for care and thought and instead it's always a race to absolutes and manifestos.

"sample snitching" is a ridiculous phrase, particularly in the context of online chatter, but it does point to an uncomfortable fact: listeners (and producers!) exchanging discoveries on the internet can cause financial and legal trouble for producers later down the line.

And although we can talk all day about how sampling should/shouldn't work and who is owed what, the truth is that there are lots of reasons someone might not clear a sample.

(also, someone correct me if I'm wrong bc i'm not 100% here, but properly *clearing* a sample does always mean that it will be clearly attributed in credits (especially now that credits don't exist) -- so "crediting the rightful originator" is not exactly what clearance is about...)

Regardless, you came in wanting to know the source of a sample but then turned the act of asking the question into some sort of crusade for the original artist... and that's kind of shady, lol.

-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

i asked for a sample id. someone took it to the left. and i simply addressed the information *he/she* posted.

if anyone is on a crusade its the one bringing thinkpieces into a simple request post. he could have just as easily ignored it.

https://gigaom.com/2010/11/16/419-why-the-music-industry-isnt-suing-mashup-star-girl-talk/