« Pocket Hipster App Makes Fun Of You & Your Music | Main | Spotify “A Few Weeks Away” From UMG Deal »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Whoa whoa whoa hipster DJs speaking at this conference... What is this nonsense about independent vs. popular musicians? Saying it's okay to sample indie people but not

Statements like "Laurel Halo responded that being sampled from an independent artist is definitely flattering, but if an already successful artist is making a profit off of one of her samples without providing recognition, it would be taking advantage." just don't make any sense!

I understand their point that using popular music to propel your own career is wrong, but just give credit to those people.No matter what... If you are sampling someone else's work, you are using THEIR work, for YOUR music. It shouldn't matter how popular anyone is, or how obscure a sample is... Sampling is sampling. Give credit where credit is due no matter who you are sampling, whether your Lady Gaga or DJ Fedora.

(another ramble..)

John C

It's strange to me that nowhere in this article does it talk about the legal necessity of compensating copyright holders for commercial gains; both sound recording copyright holder and the publisher/writer.

What's up?


I would guess that musicians that sample other people's work don't want to be bothered giving credit where credit is due because they possibly use SO many samples that it's just extra work and time on their part to so. They also probably think that if they can possibly get away with swiping something that they don't have to pay royalties for or pass off as their own, then they'll try. It's not a good way to conduct yourself or your business.

Free album download at http://www.facebook.com/chancius


It's really a shame that sampling other people's work without any credit or compensation has become the accepted way for many "artists" today. I would rather stop making music than be pirated or 'ripped off' by someone else.

What would these people have done had there been nothing to sample - oh, wait, they would have had to actually create it themselves. What a concept.

Black Swan Theories

With the recent exponential growth of easy-to-use software applications this question of sampling is going to get even further muddied. I think that as this trend of easy music creation grows we are going to see a sharp delineation between those who author original music and those who create music using samples...There will grow a sort of musical snobbery.

I recently read an article where a top record executive said, "You don't have to be able to play an instrument really. [...] Anyone can do it. It's a two-edged sword. On one edge it gives power to the people and on the other edge it gives power to the people who have no abilities."

The blatant disregard for the law by the discussion panel is indicative of the mindset of this growing movement. But aren't all revolutions by definition the result of the disregard of someone's "law"?

Isitindie(Keith Griffis)

I think it is a bit presumptuous to say that the threat of retribution from illegal sampling is unlikely and is easily disregarded. Think of how much it costs to defend against any lawsuit whether you are guilty or innocent. You will still need to respond with your own legal aid and it will still cost money.

I would much rather use a service that will pay royalties as I earn money than be hit with litigation and essentially lose the song entirely. I would use limelight or a similar tool for legal reuse of copyrighted works. Just my 2 cents.
I talk about this on my blog IsItIndie.


Give credit where credit is due. Period. Just my lil 2 cents.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Musician & Music Industry Resources