First off, I love Daft Punk; I just paid an insane amount to see them live 2 weeks ago in LA Great fawking show Came across this yesterday on Youtube. Check it out Daft Punk samples I'll say samples, but most of it sounds EXACTLY as the original did, they just maybe sped it up or something

 

I'll have to go back and listen to the actual Daft Punk recordings to weed out some of the digital noise, but if you can't hear that they sampled a scratchy record (or even a clean one), you may need to get your hearing checked.

Last time I checked this stuff out, you were permitted up to ~30 seconds worth of sampling, and so long as it wasn't a "directly derivative work (or some language similar)."

A few artists will cite the sources for all their samples, but most (read: 97%+) won't, as the final product isn't at all close to the original.

Where you really get into trouble is when you perform a song (not sample), claim it as your own, and start getting paid for it.

This is a far better example of what NOT to do (warning: long mp3 of broadcast):
http://www.dogmaticblog.com/mp3/led_zep2.mp3

 

I never knew that but you still have to pay the originator right?

 

Last time I checked, no. That may have changed in the late 1990's/early 2000's. . . a bunch of those laws have changed since I've had to worry about them.

The primary precedent over this was the "Ice Ice Baby" debacle (regarding the 30 second rule).

Regardless, the way I'm to understand the royalty scheme works is this (I'm not a lawyer, I'm on the other end of the ridiculousness):

- You're under obligation to remit payment to the copyright holder if you copy or perform their work outright. The thing is, if the copyright holder doesn't have a publishing company and/or address for you to submit payment. . .well, then, you've done all that you've had to do, and the right of fair usage (not the right of publishing) is yours until they find you (again). Now, already you're thinking you're scot-free, but ASCAP/BMI represents 90%+ of the publishing rights in the U.S., and they're hardasses. Yes, they're the guys that forced T.G.I.Fridays etc, to start using the stupid "Happy Birthday" song, because yes, the real "Happy Birthday" song still has a working copyright.

I personally don't have to worry about this too much these days; we write our own music, and the covers that we do are mostly covers of artists who are happy that somebody knows they exist.

 

Wow thanks for the info


Yea look at the artist Daft Punk copied, there's no way in hell the average Daft Punk listener would ever know who those peeps are. I listen to every kinda music there is, and I've never heard any of those original songs. So I guess if you copy, you'd better copy a not too recognizable song

 

[QUOTE=714s2k,Aug 2 2007, 09:01 AM] I listen to every kinda music there is, and I've never heard any of those original songs. So I guess if you copy, you'd better copy a not too recognizable song

 

I know who Barry Manilow is, but I've never heard that song. As for Anthony and The Imperials, I admit I have no clue who they are. But I promise you, my iPod is VERY VERY VERY diverse I even bump Spanish music sometimes

 

LoL, isn't Kanye using a DaftPunk song in "stronger" ?

 

Yup, that's another thing that made me kinda mad. Fools were talkin ish that Kanye stole the beat, and that he fawked up a Daft Punk song, then I find out Daft stole that ish first

 

Kanye West is a loser.