On the Future of Sampling (in this scene)

[Andrew McIntosh]

From the thread about Bandcamp -

So what would be the future of abundant recycling of other peoples sounds/voices/samples in industrial noise releases?

Good question. Or of any genre that doesn't have money and lawyers backing it up to clear samples?

I always come back to Negativland on this issue. They of course famously had a lot of hassle with this, and their reaction was pretty much anything recorded and put out to the public should be public use as far as remixing and sampling was concerned. If I remember right, they compared it to the age old musical tradition of just taking what was there before and re-using it. It's pretty much how music, all art really, evolves. You put legal blocks on that and you get no evolution, or very little.

It's a radical position that I like, but with caveats based on personal experience. Some years ago a mate and I did some collaborative recording, and a whole seven-plus minute track of ours was used as part of a longer, twenty-or-so minute thing by some project called, if I remember, Siesm or something like that (I do remember he called the whole of his piece "Blue Skies of War"), without any attribution or permission. This was on a now redundant mp3 hosting site. When I contacted this person, saying that we wouldn't have minded him using it if he had just asked us or even mentioned where he got it from, he didn't reply but the piece in question disappeared offline. We didn't care about money (there was none in question), or even that he used our stuff (we were flattered). More the rudeness.

I suppose Negativland was thinking about popular music and other audio that would be obviously recognised? But even that has it's issues. If anyone else had that book of theirs', "The Letter U and the Numeral 2", you'd remember it had a cd with it that had a lot of audio that, among other things, criticised pop artists for sueing for copyright infringements. The mentioned, in passing, Tom Waits. As it happened, it was because some commercial had someone imitating Waits to get around getting permission to use his actual music. I think it's legitimate Waits would want to preserve his integrity at least on that matter. So nothing's totally cut and dried.


But what would this have to do with our scene? We're all just nobodies, noodling away at home and lifting samples from anything at will. Anything from obscure shit on YT to obviously identifiable stuff from mainstream movies. Sampling has always been important to Industrial and beyond, and it should stay that way. But the law in various countries and internationally moves fast, keeping up with the whims of cooperates, leaving the rest of us a bit more vulnerable. In the case of Bandcamp, it looks like what was for a while a great resource might become more hostile. Time to adjust yet again.

[Confuzzled]

I feel that genres that, for the most part, fly under the radar of the mass populace can get away with it. Who is going to put a lawyer on retainer to go after a person who releases a 25 limited edition cassette with a sample of their music? Unless it was used in an inflammatory way, I see people turning a blind eye. Its when things blow up that people want their cut of the pie. Look at hip-hop: For the first few years, record companies could give a shit until the genre started blowing up and then the cease-and-desist or pay notices went out.

Personally, for my own "will never see the light of day because I'm easily distracted" noise recordings, I tend to stay away from using samples unless I can manipulate them to point of being unrecognizable. Maybe if theres a good sound bite I may consider using it... I prefer field recordings or being a creeper and recording people blowing up in public places and using their tirades.

I do wonder if Negativland caught shit for the way they manipulated favorite things from the sound  of music. That was brilliant.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

One can sample other peopls art totally legally, unless you make it for profit. I guess there was those hugely popular mash up artists who had massive following, but no way really other ways of distributing it than making it free in internet.

I am not concerned "copyright" problems of sampling. As mentioned above, nobody would go after physical releases with microscopic pressings, but my concern would be rather that could it in future have effect that some of the classic industrial / noise releases would be pulled down from platforms? If using copyrighted elements (such as audio track of films), I would not be surprised if something like Propergol albums would soon be taken down from platforms where it is digitally for sale? Abundance of movie samples is so huge in some of them. As soon as big corporations see that as something that could be done. Not directly targeting specific band, but simply recognizing material featuring their material. Now that there are means to do it: you no longer need actual human staff to go through material, just based on automation.

One related example would be podcast interviews I have done (in Finnish) that include fragments of songs from artists who are featured. Hardcore bands that were featured, had copyrighted material, so even short clip of their song appearing in middle of interview meant that podcast can be online, but restricted from all commercial use. No problem, just example. Curious was that at least one of the bands themselves had no idea there was copyright for their stuff. Label who simply had done reissue CD, also put it on digital distribution and had some sort of copyright on it, possibly not even asking band about it. Another case being one Finnish documentary, where it could not be published at youtube. Always being copyright violation case. Because of material of band where maker of documentary is member. Eventually it was solved, but I would not be surprised if we would be eventually in situation where the rules of mainstream apply on underground. Merely the paperwork and trying to get permissions of use your OWN material may be task big enough that (at least I'd say) fuck this... And simply prefer work where I am not asking permissions from corporations and filling forms all day long.

[tiny_tove]

One can sample other peopls art totally legally, unless you make it for profit. I guess there was those hugely popular mash up artists who had massive following, but no way really other ways of distributing it than making it free in internet.

I am not concerned "copyright" problems of sampling. As mentioned above, nobody would go after physical releases with microscopic pressings, but my concern would be rather that could it in future have effect that some of the classic industrial / noise releases would be pulled down from platforms? If using copyrighted elements (such as audio track of films), I would not be surprised if something like Propergol albums would soon be taken down from platforms where it is digitally for sale? Abundance of movie samples is so huge in some of them. As soon as big corporations see that as something that could be done. Not directly targeting specific band, but simply recognizing material featuring their material. Now that there are means to do it: you no longer need actual human staff to go through material, just based on automation.

One related example would be podcast interviews I have done (in Finnish) that include fragments of songs from artists who are featured. Hardcore bands that were featured, had copyrighted material, so even short clip of their song appearing in middle of interview meant that podcast can be online, but restricted from all commercial use. No problem, just example. Curious was that at least one of the bands themselves had no idea there was copyright for their stuff. Label who simply had done reissue CD, also put it on digital distribution and had some sort of copyright on it, possibly not even asking band about it. Another case being one Finnish documentary, where it could not be published at youtube. Always being copyright violation case. Because of material of band where maker of documentary is member. Eventually it was solved, but I would not be surprised if we would be eventually in situation where the rules of mainstream apply on underground. Merely the paperwork and trying to get permissions of use your OWN material may be task big enough that (at least I'd say) fuck this... And simply prefer work where I am not asking permissions from corporations and filling forms all day long.

when we were recording vindicta I was asked to not use some some samples from a Local Sardinian tv program because the journalist spends time looking for people infringing his copyrights!!! despite we only did 300 copies of the cd, the fact it could go on line somehow could give us issues.

there is a lenghth below which the sample can be considered legit but I don't know how.
It could become very difficult is this happens also because samples are an essential part of the narrative.

same could happen with collage, imagine big artists having to stop showing their works because they have "stolen" from lesse known photographers etc?

[Eigen Bast]

I definitely think the struggle here will be algorithm scrubbing and the capacity to post music online; spotify and bandcamp will probably soon be in lockstep enforcing copyright. Also, I know people are running into this more and more issues with getting CDs/vinyl pressed w even minor samples. Score 1 for CD-Rs and tapes at least.

I do think in general, we are all fairly safe with regards to the legal repercussions. In a genre where a press of 300 is impressive, the actual damages that could be collected are probably in the low 100s.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

Was yesterday listening the Megaptera "Near Death" LP and thinking how much there are long movie dialogues etc, so who know could this be in certain streaming platforms. I also think its not about legal repercussion, only about limited means of distribution. Now that physical medium exists, no problem, with less physical, more relying on streaming at services of large corporations.. I could predict we see results after few years?

[Confuzzled]

One related example would be podcast interviews I have done (in Finnish) that include fragments of songs from artists who are featured. Hardcore bands that were featured, had copyrighted material, so even short clip of their song appearing in middle of interview meant that podcast can be online, but restricted from all commercial use. No problem, just example. Curious was that at least one of the bands themselves had no idea there was copyright for their stuff. Label who simply had done reissue CD, also put it on digital distribution and had some sort of copyright on it, possibly not even asking band about it. Another case being one Finnish documentary, where it could not be published at youtube. Always being copyright violation case. Because of material of band where maker of documentary is member. Eventually it was solved, but I would not be surprised if we would be eventually in situation where the rules of mainstream apply on underground. Merely the paperwork and trying to get permissions of use your OWN material may be task big enough that (at least I'd say) fuck this... And simply prefer work where I am not asking permissions from corporations and filling out forms all day long.

To your point: I fall asleep to noise podcasts almost every night. Whether it's Noisextra or WCN or even old Harsh Truth episodes, Not because they bore me but because I like listening to interviews on a topic I enjoy and usually fall asleep with the help of a pill-based aid. Granted, I sleep through 5 or 6 episodes anight, which I'm guessing earns the podcasters a 10th of a penny if they're lucky. I get the whole copyright thing, and I find it laughable that a bot can recognize who the noise artist is and that there's copyright, especially when its scaping metal on white noise, but what if a podcast had someone performing live? Is that allowed?