So, what do you think of all this? 🤔 Buy me a coffee (or a lawyer) ☕ ► venustheory.com/buckaroonie-babez ▼▼▼ Other stuff in this video ▼▼▼ Edison Lamps: amzn.to/31prLMm Desk: amzn.to/3Dl4J64 Chair: amzn.to/3001Xpk Computer Monitor Stand: amzn.to/3In7O9u Tripod: amzn.to/3Euissz Video Lights: amzn.to/3dpfCZW Camera: amzn.to/3xYZ7gB Speaker Stands: amzn.to/3InkBZt Audio Interface: bit.ly/31mZExn
...too many good reasons, i never used splice and co....if u can't come up with ur own original content, have fun with ur hobby, but simply don't consider urself a recording artist of any kind....u puzzle ur music...that's totally ok, but be aware that's nothing but THE hobby take on all creation....no matter how sample based ur music might be, it's not too hard to create ur own...if u fail to do so, no big fuzz, face the truth, ur not an artist, get on with ur life and simply accept, all this is just a nice hobby to u.....
Actually mking splice (and others) register the samples content id and keeping it unsuble would be good. A hell lot of work but needed. And also maybe a rework of content system for certain genres like hip hop, lofi, trap etc. for putting an end to the endless debate "is it copyright infringement or not?"
@@reeloy3045 Oh please. Everyone knows that if you didn't personally grow the tree and build the instrument with only your teeth uphill in the snow with no shoes, you're not a real musician. 🙄
@@reeloy3045 That exact kind of pretentiousness is why I distance myself from the Producer community for a good few years, and basically gave it up in general for the same period.
Great video. The splice-problem was one of the reasons I stopped releasing music on my label The Arcadium. We were supporting new and upcoming artists but we just got way too many copyright claims due to previously used Splice samples. The solution for my own music is simply not to use any „musical“ samples at all. Single drum hits are fine, maybe an FX or a hi hat loop. But anything that‘s recognizable should be custom made.
Ha no way. I actually originally had a segment of this video using you as a case study! Since your original video on the matter it seems the whole issue has just grown exponentially more annoying and complicated. Hopefully one day some changes are made to platforms to alleviate this as sampling is a huge part of music, but it's become a game of playing with matches in a gas factory almost. Cheers for watching though - that made my day!
I literally thought of you in the middle of this video -- recalling the stems you shared of Monody, and thinking, "There's no way an artist could get away with using those without triggering the copyright algorithm." I can't even begin to imagine the frustration of artists who publish frequently. It's got to be a nonstop nuisance, since even improvisational jams can trigger false positives ... which I ran into once ... on my very inactive channel.
This is why I NEVER use melodic samples as-is. I always chop & re-sequence, pitch change, reverse, tempo change, etc. You have to change it into something that is uniquely yours. Yes, that takes time but frankly, that's the fun part. I realize a LOT of producers aren't gonna do all that. And that's part of why this problem is so huge. You're right. There is no solution. It is a big, fat mess! On an individual level, you have to make production decisions that keep you out of that mess 🤷🏾♂️
I remember making a big deal about not using loops as is due to all the issues that would come with doing that and instead editing the loops so they're unrecognisable and getting absolutely roasted for my opinion. This was a couple of years ago and now here we are.
@@bencastor9207 Whoever was roasting you was a clueless 🤡. Even before Splice blew up, this was an issue producers had to contend with. I was making beats back in the 90's and felt the same way then as I do now. 🤷🏾♂️
It gets to the point where you may as well just recreate the sample via synthesis, then you have a much greater degree of control. It is a lot of fun to play with samples, though.
Thanks for making this video - it's an important topic! It makes me wish someone would write a script to download and chain every single loop on Splice, then upload to youtube as a track called "Legal Fucking Minefield", see how long of a list of content ID flies such a honeypot attracts...
I actually had half a nerve to attempt that with this video but I don't want to get spanked by the algorithm haha. Would be a great experiment, perhaps something I could do in a follow up video to this.
That’s reminds me of the fellas who were/are trying to make a database of melodies, so every possible combination of notes, I think with the assistance of machine learning or an algorithm or whatever with the goal of copyrighting the data to basically kill the entire issue by I think putting the data in the public domain. I could be way off but I remember seeing an interview with them or something a couple years ago I don’t know if they’re still working on it I’m going to go look now lol
I feel as though the confusion around the sample usage is intentional - the confusion provides more opportunities to take advantage of the grey areas to claim audio. Usually, the person with more money to burn wins these cases. Guess who has more money to burn? Not the small artists, that's for sure.
@@clementinelives I don't have a problem with the law or with lawyers. I have a huge problem with the law being leveraged by parties with money to burn, simply in order to bully people around. This isn't just a problem in the music business, it's everywhere in 21st century America. It stifles innovation, it's wildly unjust, and it fosters mistrust in a crucial social institution. /soapbox
That idea breaks down when scammers make fake claims constantly and get ridiculous amounts of money. RUclips just doesn't care. It's similar to their bad choices in which ads to run on the site. Yikes. Lazy people, much.
The problem is greatly amplified by RUclips and Content ID trying to maintain an algorithmic stranglehold on what is right. As a system, it cannot respect that ideas start with personal ownership and gradually fade into history or become part of the culture of future generations. Instead it tries to make an exacting, immediate, and final judgement that never changes. But really, the problem is deeper. Corporations like Disney and Sony have done a great deal of harm where it comes to extreme extensions of copyright. The extreme length might not seem related to fresher samples but it still distorts the idea of intellectual property in copyright; makes it seem even more valuable than it should be. Without that value there would be less pressure for corporation to push Content ID and like algorithms. This doesn't just effect Splice and like sampling companies. YT Producers get dinged for using royalty free tracks in their videos. Not by the library but because someone else uploaded a video using the track first. Copyright is broken and fixing it isn't a technical problem for an algorithm to solve.
Any music analysis video is now unwatchable because of this. I Can't even use a my own band song to promote on my other chanel. It Seems that the whole YT thing will implode and we will be left with videos of people reaction to reactions of reactions.... or people building pools with a stick.
gotta agree .. there was sampling & interpolation way before youtube but the fact that you can now get flagged by someone else who just happened to use the same sample- almost if you snooze you lose " style-- mucks up the waters,, alot
Content recognition policing takes a particularly weird form when it comes to classical music. It is not unusual for an amateur musician to post a recording of their own performance of a classical piece that is not under copyright. But it will get dinged because some record company also has a different recording of it YT. It's not even the same performance by the same person, and the score isn't under copyright. Go figure....
Interestingly, RUclips actually has a section in their Content ID agreement which states that you can't add music with Splice samples, though clearly that hasn't stopped anyone
This. Of course it hasn't stopped anybody because how is RUclips supposed to know where you got your sounds unless they are able to analyze the waveforms against the Splice waveforms. Which they can't. I mean they probably could, but it takes less than a minute to change the sound, without actually changing how it sounds. This is the problem with copyrighting sound.
Yes. Recently I released something via a free distributor (Routenote) and there was a section where it clearly states what cannot be made available for RUclips's content ID system, some of which is meditation music and using samples. It's possible to just look up conent ID's terms, that's all. Better just use melodic samples for inspiration, or transform them unrecognizably, using non melodic stuff is fine.
There’s an easy fix. Splice etc include in their terms of use that inclusion of any of their samples in your work means you forfeit the right to sue anyone for copyright infringement. This is similar to the approach taken to derived work by various open-source software licences. It also seems reasonable to me that if you stand on the shoulders of giants you should have limits on how much credit for the work you can take. If you want to own all your own work, do all your own work!
This is something I was worried about when I started using Splice but one thing I thought about, and IDK if it's bulletproof, was the copyright for recording and arrangement are separate. So if the sounds are copyrighted to Splice but you are allowed you use them then it's fine but once you arrange them in a particular way so as to be unique then it's yours. If someone comes along using the same sound but arranges them in a different pattern then it's a separate piece of work and no infringement occurs. But if I don't change the sample at all and just make a 4 bar loop and someone does the exact same thing well then the first person to release it would be the one with the copyright to that particular arrangement. Same melody with a different drum pattern and song structure? Perfectly okay, in my eyes.
This is exactly what I was going to point out. You copyright the creative portion, which in the case with splice is how the samples are assembled and mixed to make 1 new work. Like chevy and ford both using the same engine transmition and tires, and then adding their own, seats, style, shell, whatever,. 2 People using the same exact samples, will not make the same exact song and both should be copyrightable as a unique piece of art that uses the same materials, which was agreed upon at the start. It seems obvious to me and ridiculous that it's an issue.
Idk why but I never thought I’d hear VT talk about the chop snare. This vid is the reason I quit using splice. I heard a song on the radio with a splice sample I had used in a release that was doing fairly well (relatively speaking) and immediately thought “oh how long until that’s THEIR sample and my song gets auto-flagged”. Jumped straight into my maschine and learned how to use it as a compositional tool as opposed a sample chopping tool.
I don't have an answer for you, but I feel your pain. Here's what I do to alleviate these worries: * Don't use Splice or other popular loop libraries. I'm making way more of my own sounds nowadays and when I do use samples, I forego the convenience of Splice (and similar companies) by manually searching for sample packs like back in the day (I get bombarded with ads on Instagram and have actually found some good stuff). This takes more time but I end up supporting smaller boutique companies who do amazing things and I get samples that are more rare and so reduce the risk of Splice copyright drama. I guess it works out more expensive but again, I'd rather be more deliberate with what I spend on and essentially do get bang for my buck as I don't just download a shitload of stuff I never end up using... * If I do use samples, I generally avoid things that are heavily processed because they give you very little room to make it your own. I know I'm preaching to the choir but I prefer more basic sounds that I can chop up and degrade or mangle and process, and put my own stamp on. If it's pitched and chopped, lo-fi'd and looping already, all I can really do is slap it in and hope for the best. So I don't bother with these because they give me nowhere to go... * When it comes to melodic stuff, I generally try to avoid them altogether but what I have done before is to use samples as inspiration only. I'd covert the audio to MIDI in Ableton and then EDIT the melody and make it my own, opposed to just keeping it as is and changing the instrument which I'm assuming a lot of people are doing (which leads to copyright / recognisability drama). Or I just wouldn't convert the audio, I'd just use it as inspiration and write something similar. Just use the sample to spark an idea and then get rid of it... 🤷♂
I personally make music completely from the ground up and stay away from products like splice. Walking around NYC with a mic attached to my iPhone delivers plenty of samples...
I agree. I don't mind people using splice for samples for certain genres. I don't mind drum patterns being reused. But without manipulation of that sample to give it individuality or using a premade melody and instrument seems like it is cheating. My friend takes premade loops and puts them together, and maybe throws in a couple basic instruments in it and says he made the song. It is so hard for me to give credit to him. I make music and I also build everything from the ground up. It also allows more room for creativity when you build everything the ground up. I always try to steer him away from doing that, but its up to him. I just get annoyed when someone says they made something like it is impressive when that thing took them a couple hours using clip art.
@Green McAdams It is cheating when all you use are drum loops and premade synth or instrument melodies and layer them without barely changing anything. At least Dr. Dre used effects and transitions in his music.
yeah. Its more rewarding in the long run to be mostly original. I may beg borrow or steal an occasional sound bite or sample but I only use them on intros and one offs.
As someone who is adjacent to AI / machine learning and coding, a lot of my friends are directly in it but don't know anything about music production. I sent them this video because it is a really solid start to understanding how weird this all is in music, and how it is likely to get weirder once audio versions of things like Stable Diffusion and Midjourney start rolling out. Given what the none open versions are already producing, I think it is going to make things a whole lot more confusing once you can take a start-possibly using free to use samples-and extrapolate out from there via software.
hello everyone splice has updated a thing where you can request a certificate license that you were allowed to use any samples royalty free and i gotta say splice has listen to the community. From here on out if your song is getting copyrighted it can now be resolved with the certificate license. Try it out! especially if you are getting copyrighted and you know it is wrong cause you are using royalty free samples. Make sure to tweet splice how awesome it is to have that feature now ☺
1 minute in and all I can think about is all the asset flipping that happens on the Unreal Engine and Unity markets. Different market, same problem. You can just buy a license to a bunch of products, chuck it together and release it on steam or any desired platform, and technically it's your game. I've always felt weird about using loops because I have a hard time personally getting past the idea that it's not original (specifically loops) but I've been experimenting with trying to break down loops and transform them into something else which has helped with that concern of originality
That’s how sampling SHOULD be done. Take a pre existing sound and make something new! It’s wicked fun and then you start fucking stacking manipulated samples together and you create this wild sound that all you.
I think this is one of the many symptoms of our extremely broken copyright law, which you mentioned as well. The series "everything's a remix" explored this in more detail. I don't think this will ever get fixed as the ones who suffer are creators, not those with deep pockets. I personally just go with the motto "be the change that you wish to see." I don't copyright anything and allow people to use, sell, or distribute my work in any way they choose.
Honestly, I think the whole copyright law for music and art in general is entirely busted. It was developed when most art was literal, physical things, but music especially has gotten less and less physical, meaning ease of reproduction, manipulation, and re-purposing. The thing is, rather than fight against this momentum, the majority of artists working in music celebrate the conversation and exchange of ideas this has opened up. It has also opened up the gateway to far more musicians making music on their own without the interests of studios and labels to interfere with what they're creating. So it is purely their artistic intent (and potentially income strategy) that guides the decisions for the music being made. I say all this because we need to look at what the intent of copyright law is. To my understanding, it's intent is to protect the artist (and rights holder) from theft of their artistic/intellectual work. I think, by and large, this is still the intent, though it's been manipulated to protect the rights of high capital studios and labels that can push out small artists - using the law against its intended purpose to punish what the labels see as competition even if the artists see it as an exchange of ideas. And I think in part it is due to the metrics that have been established to determine similarity: recognizable melody and "signature" musical ideas/sounds. These were developed before sampling was common practice and fight against the artistic purpose of sampling in its own right. And I think rather than simply adding another layer to the already labyrinthine copyright law, a full reforming of it needs to take place that can incorporate sampling, repurposing, and frankly broaden Fair Use (or make it more solid so that labels can't as easily just get their way with companies like RUclips because RUclips doesn't want to get in a lengthy legal battle over videos they don't own). One initial concept I think is important is more of a concept of "material harm" rather than simply "are they using the same parts I did" - that is, make it a case of arguing that the infringing artwork is in competition with the original and represents a reasonable material (financial) loss for the original artist. So, if someone simply copies your song and sells it as their own, that's real material loss: the same people who listened to the copy would likely have listened to the original. But it would take much more effort to make a reasonable case that apartment DJ who samples an old jazz number will affect the sells or streaming platform plays of the original jazz number, even if the melody is similar enough to trigger copyright as we see it now. I feel, essentially, putting this burden onto the prosecutor might help to reduce the flagrant misuse of copyright that has, I feel, contributed to a lot of the issues we're facing. I admit, it's not a clean idea, since it is still a very murky thing to "prove" - but I think it strikes more to the heart of copyright intent: protecting from theft, rather than protecting from emulation and repurposing. How this affects algorithms, I have no idea. Unfortunately, RUclips is too big and too apathetic to really change anything, so even with this change, I'd expect that it'd bow to the whims of large labels and companies to pressure out fair use, which is just a harm to humanity as a whole, letting money censor legitimate areas of human expression and conversation. I dunno if any of that would work, but it's where my head goes. Current laws don't really protect the people who need most protecting, so it is arguably unjust and needs significant reworking to protect those it was originally intended (by my interpretation) to protect. As for the Splice problem you introduced in the video: something legally needs to happen to recognize the space for legally purchased samples. Again, not that RUclips will ever care, sadly, but having clear language to allow for proof of purchase/rights to use for a commonly-accessible sample as enough to dismiss areas of similarity need to be established and easily recognized. Even something like confirmation that you've subscribed to the service and that the loop is available there, for example. This should be both easy to show legally and readily acceptable as common practice legally.
There are plenty that make art for art's sake and they are not effected. It all changes however when it become your living. and its not a physical thing. the system is indeed broken but the intent of protections being in place so artist can earn a living is still a valid intention. Publishing (composition) music copyright was developed before physical copyright remember because recording was not invented before music. that's why we have different rights for different formats. (something he misses in this video) Until smart contracts (like nft's) become robust I don't think we'll see a good solution under current law.
I'm with you on the frustration caused by this, and how ambiguous and sometimes conflicting the explanations are. After having entire videos copyright-claimed because of loops (from sample packs I purchased :/) it has caused me to do more on my own with MIDI and virtual instruments, and when I do use an existing sample I change the tempo, pitch it, chop it, essentially make it NOT what it was before. To add to the frustration, RUclips doesn't really dig into these things; they set it up so the two parties - you and the claimant - work it out amongst yourselves. And the claimant often times isn't even looking at your explanation - it's just denied by default. (Example: I paid an artist to use her song in my video. She has full publishing rights of the song and master recording, so this was ideal. However, CDBaby had already uploaded her music to RUclips and immediately claimed copyright of the song. I disputed this - she even reached out to CDBaby - but it didn't matter. That video's ad revenue went to, and is still going to, CDBaby.) Thank you for digging into these matters and bringing them out for awareness and discussion.
I avoid sample packs because of the copyright hell that will result when someone else has a hit with samples I used. Irrespective of whoever "owns" the sample or whoever released their song first, the guys with the expensive lawyers will slap claims because their bot told them there was a claim to be had.
Really fascinating. My two cents after studying just a little bit of music law is that there are two main categories where this becomes an issue: meatspace and cyberspace. In the real world where two artists dispute ownership of a song, this is essentially not different than any other situation where the recorded work is similar to another recorded work. The cyberspace issue seems like the real problem, as you said at the end of the video. It does seem like that if a service (like RUclips) is going to enforce copyright law, then they need to integrate with services directly like Splice. It would be a bit complicated, but in this situation you would associate your splice account with RUclips, and if any of your content was flagged as containing copyrighted material, it could check with Splice to see if the flagged content is something you have the rights to. To me, this seems like a technology problem, not a legal problem. Also, I would love to see more music business videos, I thought this video was super interesting. Thanks for all your hard work!
Great video, Cameron!! Thank you for making this. This is so well done. The whole Splice loops issue has been a hot topic for awhile, especially in the world of music licensing. It definitely causes tons of problems and head aches for sure. I actually just touched on this very thing in a recent video I did about contracts, agreements, and some of the assets needed for music licensing. I have had some questions about Splice and how to use their loops and was planning on making a more in depth video about it, but honestly you did such an amazing job with this video, so I’ll probably just send people here instead. Thank you for making this!! As far as solutions? My only solution I can come up with is to completely avoid using melodic and harmonic loops altogether. If you do use them, at the very least change the tempo, the key, and manipulate/process them to make them not so recognizable and fit your production. Definitely a very complicated issue with no clear fixes or solutions.
I think the answer starts with the people who create the rules to actually care about fixing the issue. It seems right now that the way the system is setup as-is just favors the party who has more power.
This is why I'm doing my own field recordings, or building my sample set from licensed field recordings, and heavily morphing them into something they weren't.
This is a great idea hoenstly; i've been doing somewhat of the same just with sound design. What do you use to take field recordings? I have a zoom field recorder i've used a few times but looking to get more use out of it.
Duuuuuuuuuuuuude! Thank you so much for calling attention to this, I just had something pulled off Facebook over a slice sample last month that somehow managed to not get flagged on RUclips, and nobody gave a shit when I brought it up in local artists and sampling groups on FB
It's becoming more and more noticable that automation on a huge scale (which is sadly necessary) brings a terrible amount of collateral damage with it. Especially in combination with old trite copyright laws that were never truly adapted to the age of the internet (also the fact that every country does things differently which gets painfully difficult online) And in the end there simply isn't enough pressure to change it since it mainly affects the smaller artists while being largely beneficial to huge coorporations that own a majority of human art nowadays. Every day it feels morea and more like Copyright's "Justice" is not balanced towards creatives at all. And now AIs have to make decisions that even humans can't easily make because of their subjectivity. And that thousands of times every second. There more I look into it the more dystopian it feels and the more my head starts hurting.
The real future (which is already hear in some respects) is the equivalent of patent trolls, where 'rights holding companies' will use A.I.+ sample collections to "release" absolutely gargantuan amounts of musical combinations, and then go on litigation sprees whenever they can find a 'match' worth monetizing
I literally just had the “ethics” conversation of sampling a few days ago lol. For one you are a brave scholar for even touching this topic, and I thoroughly appreciated the intelligent and humorous dialogue it was very engaging. Learning anything is an absolute given on your channel you are a voice of reason in a cloud of musical dysfunction my friend peace be with you!!
I use Splice a LOT, but I also always go for more natural/dry sounds so that I can do my own processing and make them unique. As I've gotten a little better at producing, I've started to limit my use of majorly processed samples, and I find myself going to "mix ready" sample libraries more for inspiration rather than just downloading sounds and throwing them into my DAW. I think the best solution is to always put your fingerprint on what you use. Half the fun, for me anyway, is making the sounds my own.
This hurts Splice, Loopcloud, and others in the long run. I have been very tempted to use Splice but read about this problem some time ago and haven't subscribed because of this issue. They lost out on my business. The only solution I see is there needs to be a way to prove that what you used is a license-free sample even if someone else used it first. Easier said than done since from what I have heard most disputes are ignored by Content ID.
Great video, I think the way to fix the "Splice Problem" is to add to the terms and conditions. What I would add is "by using this loop / one shot you agree to NOT use any type of content ID upon release of your music, anyone to be found using content ID will be in breach of these terms and conditions". I don't think this would ever happen though, I think it would put people off using these services all together as it'll be too much hassle.
Thats a terrible idea. You just cut yourself out of the lucrative licensing business and cost yourself potentially thousands if not more. These disputes rarely come up honestly. Having a dispute system, or splice uploading loops to content ID system to be ignored is the answer.
To some extent, this confusion is just "built in" to the concept of copyright. The basic concept seems straightforward, but you end up lost in the weeds very quickly once you look at specifics. Music is a little more complex, because there's a distinction between songwriting rights and recording rights. But many of the same issues come up in visual art, writing, computer code - anything covered by copyright. What is the smallest piece of something that should be protectable by copyright? How much do you have to change something to make a "transformative" work, rather than a copy? How much "commentary" do you have to add to an excerpt to make it add value, rather than just being an excuse to copy something? These are deeply philosophical questions, and a difficult thing to codify legally, much less in an automated copyright enforcement tool.
I'm so glad I found this video before I really started producing my own music. I liked what someone else said about using loops, which was basically making them truly yours by slicing them up, adding effects and so on. I never even thought of this as an issue omg
I'm at the point to where if it's a melody loop. DON'T TOUCH IT. One Shots, the amen break, and SFX are like the only samples that I use because I don't want to infringe on copyright
That's exactly how I approach it. One shots and SFX are fine, but the second it establishes a specific chord progression or melody, you're just asking for trouble.
Love talking about this stuff (Ben here) despite the nauseating lack of conclusion. I dream of a day when sample labels and sound designers can upload their assets as watermarks in a tokenized database that DSPs will scan against whenever published music is released. At the same time license holders of said assets are provided with a token smart contract whenever they purchase a sample pack etc. Asset ownership is claimed by the original creators before the assets are released to the world. As music is released, owned and non-owned aspects of the track are identified by the identification system and compared to the smart contracts held in the releasers on-chain wallet. If a registered sample is identified, and the releaser is holding royalty-free license, all good! If not, perhaps the prorated use of streaming revenue is allocated to the owner (penalize the pirates), or perhaps the release is flagged and blocked. Frick even non-royalty-free agreements could be automated. But plenty of room for error. As others have mentioned, where's the incentive for the DSPs and distributors to even consider collaborating on such as system? Can you imagine convincing all the stakeholders buy-in and onboard? Speaking of onboarding, what type of logistical nightmare would that be? What's stopping a clever pirate from beating the true owners to asset tokenization? Not all producers are big on blockchain; this is probably too complicated for them to understand! Customer service agents everywhere will be grey-haired and sad. But a nice dream, no?
Just write your own melodies, but do think it’s great for gathering one shots for drums. Writing from scratch takes more time, but it’s also a lot more freeing as an artist which will only make you more unique in the long run.
I’ve always felt uneasy using pre-made stuff. Even back when GarageBand came out and there were all these free loops, all of a sudden you hear the same flange hi-hats and loops in commercials and low end shows. So I have a rule that if I use any outside loops or samples I manipulate the hell out of them, make them my own. And at least 80% of a song should be my work if I have to use samples.
I agree that if you make splice loops you might not be unique with your music, but if you don't have someone collaborating, splice is like virtual collaborator, but it's better to use splice as a less as possible at least to melody ones or vocal lyrics. In terms of legality, well, it's a labyrinth
My personal solution : Only use one shot kickdrums or maybe deumloops from Splice and melodic samples have to be chopped and or replayed. Content ID prefers to let people sort out their issues instead of taking sides. It is indeed a complicated issue that old laws can't solve. Automatic fingerprinting to content ID of all splice samples is actually not so hard to do, that's what all music distributors do with our music as well. Cheers
I honestly don't know anything about Splice, because I never heard of it before. I just keep to myself and record what sounds good to me. It's just part of the process. But if Splice is offering a subscription, and charging people for it, it seems to me that it should be up to them to make sure their subscibers don't get in trouble for using it. To me that seems to be due diligence.
Late to the game here, but this made me think of 2 things right off the bat. 1--The Ship of Theseus: Only there's two shipbuilders taking pieces of Theseus' ship and then claiming that they own Theseus 'ship. 2--"“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” -Richard Feynman Er--Sorry- 3--I don't know from Samples (I am in point of fact on the cusp of being one of these "Boomers" of which you speak) but I really wish I could hit the like button more than once for content that is as worthwhile as yours. Signed, 'Trying My Best Not To Boom (-er) in STL.'
We have released phrase libraries and this is one of those issues that has probably helped add more silver hairs than I had a year ago. I think as computers with more sophisticated A.I. rules and interpretations are developed - this is where I have my hope. There is the "Dispute" button here at RUclips - I've used it often because even demo songs I've hired someone to write will flag and stop monetization on a video, and I'm the person that paid the musician to write the demo in the first place. NOTE: I dispute, the dispute goes back to the company and they approve my dispute and my video continues earning $ 0.00005 per 10,000 views. It gets far more complicated when it's one of 5,000 disputes a day a record company has to deal with. So yea, no easy answer exists today. Great video dude.
Excellent video, and a very interesting question, which I can't give you a legal solution to, but some practical ones. As a recording engineer, a lot of my work comes from re-creating / re-recording samples that has been used in an earlier version of an arrangement, since labels in my country usually don't risk licensing a song with a popular sample, especially if it was used in a mainstream song. So that's a workaround which artists usually don't like that much, but labels won't risk not doing. With independent artists, it's usually a case of "hunting samples", where if someone has used a sample and made a song with it having even a small recognition, nobody wants to ever use it again in another song. There's also a very harsh public view in the comment section if someone is using the same sample, because the public generally don't know anything about sampling, and they simply claim the artist to be a copycat. I hope this will clear up legally, I know a lot of cases where the owner of a sample sued a label for royalty because a song went too popular and they wanted a piece of the cake.
Really great video. I saw this actually happen between two larger names in my scene. One of the more respected artists in my little scene dropped a track maybe a week or so after a smaller artist did, using two similar recently dropped loops - a melodic hook and a trap beat - but with a different tempo and different synths surrounding them. There was outcries of plagiarism on both sides, and my favorite part was that both artists refused to acknowledge the canned nature of their loops - this was 2012 or so, so certainly not a new problem.
I'm much more of a folk or country musician, but I dip my toe into electronic sample land, and I'm gonna drop my 2 cents here a month late to the party. TL;DR is artists need to outright "steal" to learn, and to progress the medium. I can't really defend copyright law on moral grounds because of this. From a practical angle, I really truly wish copyright protected artists like everyone says it does, but best I can tell all its used for today is to make sure everyone but the artist is being paid. I fundamentally believe making music is a human experience we all deserve. Too many people don't learn to sing because they're afraid of sounding bad. Too many people don't learn an instrument because they're uncomfortable being bad at it. But you have to sound bad to sound good. That applies to creativity too. You have to sound unoriginal before you can sound unique. Expressing an idea or mood or feeling through a unique melody is an INCREDIBLY complex skill that takes years and years of work to develop, but it's one of the fundamental baselines we use as a measurement of ownership. That just creates a world where the basic ideas everyone is supposed to share and learn from are now minefields to be avoided. As musicians we all love talking about the particular things that really get us going. Guitar tones, locked in grooves, cool chord progressions, great production, great melodies. We find these things in songs and records that we love and we pass them around. We learn them then take them apart and put them back together and make something new. Sticking even the best intended definition of ownership on any piece of that equation is going to create some sort of friction, the world is just too complicated for it not to. But I don't think we have anything resembling the best intended definition of ownership. Everything I've seen seems to center on using copyright and ownership to make money for labels and managers and publishing companies. Its been about making sure that when businesses need creative work, they can get as much value out of that work as possible, including all future value. Artists getting paid is a lucky afterthought after everyone else has gotten theirs. Worse yet, all the weird fringe and edge cases where copyright rubs up against creation, is always going to attract trolls and folks looking to exploit the systems for a potential easy payday. Every time I try and think this through and pull at these loose threads, the entire sweater just unravels around me. I'm not saying that a song can't have a clear writer, or that artists should just create for free. I'm also not saying that important contributions should go without credit or reward. What I'm saying is the tools we have to support ourselves were never designed with us or our needs in mind. They're leftovers from a system that has always been about money first. That's where this splice problem seems to fit in. It shouldn't even be a problem honestly, we can all understand why what happened is fine, but copyright law can't understand that, and if we re-wrote it so it could, some one is gonna be grumpy about losing a payday.
Excellent topic for debate. I guess I’ve always used the Splice type samples as a starting block to spark the creative juices. Generally change the sounds to suit thereafter.
Why pay for a subscription if you don't end up using the content? I'm not trying to say you are doing anything wrong I just don't understand why you wouldn't just find samples for free to get you started? As long as you change the sounds out it shouldn't be a problem at that point right? Is splice just that much easier to find content with?
Short answer: musical success is already kind of a lottery and Splice loops are just another lottery to play (or not play). Long answer: there’s a kind of Goldilocks Zone to all this. In copyright, there’s also a rule about taking profit from a similar work. So if your work resembles another work you had access to AND that work is monetarily harmed by your new work, then there’s a case. That’s for maybe 4% of artists to battle out. Most of us will march happily along this work by just not sampling melodies or chord changes. I DJ quite a lot and usually I change keys and tempos of songs I play. Often, I’ll Shazam the edited version to see if the algorithm can perceive the original. 90% of the time it can (even with 2/4 stems highly altered and 1/4 stems mostly gone). I believe they’ll turn this problem over to AI and a solution will emerge. Again, mostly for the Goldilocks Zone people. Most of us can just make art without worrying. But if you make money on your music, get a lawyer!
Hey Venus, this is how I interpret the mess. To me, at the end of the day, only one person truly MADE the sample. Therefore, THAT person by right is the only one who truly owns everything in that sample. The rest of us is really only borrowing or leasing the sample whether it is for its character, sound, melody, what-have-you. This concept is similar to traditional/digital art (which now has a new threat: AI generated art). To me only the creator truly owns what s/he created, if said creator wishes to share the idea of part of the idea that is their choice. I believe them sharing that choice is sharing the ownership. Kinda like shareholding. Idk if this helps. I wish you well, man.
You hit a stick against a garage door and record it. Why do you own that sample? When I pick up the stick you dropped in front of that garage door and record the sample again, why should I own it? Who records it first owns it? Only if all the sample values match it's yours? So once I put your sample through a filter it's mine? And what about the person who owns the garage? What about the person who made the garage door? What about the stick? What about the "IP" in the microphone and recorder? The software running on it? Yada. It's silly, it's stupid, and the issue only exists because we have a societal fixation with "ownership" that has transcended any reasonable bounds.
Thank you for talking about this. Much needed in today's music scene. Also, well done on whatever vocal processing chain you've got for your audio, it sounds amazing.
I’ve been making before we had sample packs. I was sampling from records, CD’s and such. When I heard about Splice, I was very intrigued. I signed up, downloaded a bunch of stuff, and began making music. I wouldn’t manipulate the loops because at the time, the artist I was working with did not want it changed. I would get so many copyright infringement emails from RUclips and Instagram because so other producers would use the same loop. I canceled Splice and decided to make my own. As of recently, I subscribe to Splice again for one shots and foley. Sometimes I’ll download a loop. What I do different now is that I manipulate the loop so I don’t get hit with the Copyright sh!t. It’s a great service but I’m confused to lol.
If you are using Splice to download melodies, it is a big problem. At least that's what you're assuming most people do. I don't use it for that purpose. I'd like to think that people that make music have enough brains to create their own melodies, but then again I may be wrong. That's my 3 cents for now.
Good video. When I use a melody loop, assuming I don’t end up manipulating it beyond recognition, I will sometimes use it as inspiration to build a song around, then delete the initial loop from the final arrangement.
Sure, i've been aware of this whole sampling dilemma for a long time now, but as an artist, if you are concerned about this, the VERY easy way around this particular minefield is to simply write your own stuff. If you gotta cop a melody from Splice, you probably haven't explored the melodies floating around in your head and meaningfully tried to actualize them in your own music. Speaking only for myself, i've been writing/improvising music for most of my life and not one time has it even dawned on me to pull a melody from a sample service. As Venus states, rhythms and drum sounds are a different matter entirely (and i DO use samples for that at times for sure), but almost always these sounds serve as a support to the larger goal: to communicate your inner musical world to the rest of the world. Sample libraries certainly are fantastic TOOLS to help one to actualize the music in our collective heads. But, using a 'tool' to act as the main attraction of your art is fraught with peril. So, sure it's a legal hell-hole (and we'll not answer it here), but if you decide that you are going to take the "hero's journey" into your soul and plumb the depths of what makes YOU unique and try and express that in a musical way, those melodies are going to come from YOU and NOT from a service like Splice. Sooooo, let's get CRACKING!
I agree with you to a point, and love the inspiring way you expressed your pov. "take the "hero's journey" into your soul and plumb the depths of what makes YOU unique and try and express that in a musical way" i LOVE that! 🍻 The problem tho, is this doesn't really address the true appeal(s) of sampling. For many artists, it has nothing to do with an inability to come up with your own stuff (which is honestly, quite often much easier than sampling). Sampling is a way to collaborate across time with artists you never met. It's a forum for creative people to celebrate work that inspires them in an interactive dance with it. There's something especially wonderful when the source is something really obscure your audience never would have been exposed to otherwise. It opens people. And it can also be a really intense and complex form of painstaking mosaic art. Additionally, let's imagine you're a little no-name aspiring jazz singer under a rock with a special vocal style and no connections. You aren't Billy Strayhorn, and you don't have access to an orchestra. You're a hidden little drop of Sarah Vaughan in the middle of nowhere. The great singers weren't all also composers, violinists, bassists, pianists, trombonists and conductors. You aren't all that, but you have something unique and special to offer your little corner of the world, and you can express it by singing over some of your favorite jazz recordings. You ought to be able to share it and even gain something from it, without being accused of trying to take credit from Freddie Hubbard or Chick Corea.
@@tz4601 I'm not totally immersed in the hip hop scene myself, but i take your point. You can do incredible things with samples and i've been quite intrigued by the idea of live sampling. People like Evan Parker's Electroacoustic Ensemble and Jan Bang come to mind. And i guess if you're trying to 'fit into a scene', then perhaps your goals with music are a little different than what i personally am after in my own pursuits. Creativity can be found anywhere and that's one of the most amazing things that i find about our modern existence and sampling CAN certainly be an extremely creative art form. Unfortunately, a good deal of what i've heard that leans into the sampling realm are fairly blatant ripoffs of music they clearly didn't write and are simply reusing because it contains a 'dope beat'. Entertaining that night? Sure, but it falls short of 'art' for me. But, that's probably just my personal experience and your mileage will necessarily vary.
Great video as usual! Every claim against me has not been from the Content ID automated system, the checks go through unflagged and only when I post the content to public do I get slapped with a claim. Always from the same company who happens to represent a large amount of labels in my genre and who also happens to be a WMG partner. Labels pay said company to claim any content they see fit and split the profits with them. Personally I don't think the issue lies with the RUclips Content ID system, bottom-feeders will always find a loophole and take advantage of it. The Content ID system has always worked really fairly in my favour the other way around.
Great video and you made a lot of really good points. I always thought that producers that use samples own the compositions they make with the samples, not the sample itself. I think this is the way it should be. However, as you mentioned, the content ID algorithms are really the problem since they flag every song or beat with the same sample.
I'm not lawyer, or historian. But if I remember well, concept of copyright in music is recent in the history. How did we before ? Everybody was stealing melodies, or rythms each other. Maybe the problem is the copyright itself, it's falling into its own contradictions.
Always great when there's no conclusion to a video ;) So one thing I can say (as I don't really have a solution to this problem as well) is that it seems weird to let "popularity" dictate who has the right to sue others. As "popularity" is quite often not a level playing field. That would give already popular artists free reign in the sample domain which seems unfair to me. You could make the system so that if you chose to use royalty free samples you also chose to forfeit any right to claim ownership? But that would open any altered content to copying as well.... maybe we need to incorporate NFT's into this whole thing... 🤣
funny you should mention that, NFT's are not actually a bad idea. NFT is just one form of smart contract, regardless of the stigma, smart contracts are actually looking like the best solution moving forward. the infrastructure will need to be in place though.
@@Bthelick NFTs will do jack shit for this, as I've said 10000 times before on various platforms, with NFTs it's the TOKEN that's non-fungible. That's it. Nothing prevents someone from creating a different NFT that happens to contain the same content. Any suggested amendment or improvement to this reality is, to date and for the foreseeable future, essentially vaporware.
Popularity doesn't dictate who has the right to sue others, that's not how the law works. What's really being discussed here is ContentID, and the issue is that all the incentives are for Google (and others) to do the "safest" thing and just default to blocking. The licensing agreements that Splice requires mean that any actual suit would never succeed. But it's expensive to get there. In the pre-internet days, this would only become an issue if your music actually got big and started making serious cash. No one would care (or even know) if you made a track that you shared in your local scene that happened to sample big hits. That's the way it should be IMO (and I'm a lawyer). However, with the reach of the internet, it doesn't matter if only 100 people are going to hear your track and you'll make zero dollars from it, ContentID could not care less.
@@tz4601 no I mean in the sense that they are a form of smart contract. When smart contracts mature and the system becomes more robust a 'live ' automated, open source contract that can be triggered through various digital conditions could be far better for artists than what we have now
Splice is great for for filler samples or inspiration, but a little too easy for taking melodic riffs or main features for a track. Just make your own and you're good.
It's a minefield or a catch 22 problem. A one-shot sample wouldn't/shouldn't cut it in a copyright case. It's a sample created or recorded, and one could argue the right to the ownership of that sample, however tweaked and modified it is. Who owns the sine, square, sawtooth and who owns the effects, filters... a frequency? Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that it's a creative process to make a sound within an analog synth or a vst, but how far down the line in sound modulation should or could we go to determine an uniqueness of that sound? Could you compare it to a color on an artist palette, or a word in a book? Do I have a point or am I simplifying the issue?
that's why there a minimum viable efforts that can be copyrighted. a sample is not the same as a wave, or frequency. No one is getting sued over snare drums unless they are truly distinctive and one of a kind and thus copyrightable. there are robust procedures in place.
I remember back when i bought my first sample pack, and i pulled up a loop and thought exactly this. I'm not the only one with this sample pack.... I've always manipulated samples. Even from splice. Also i use melody loops mostly for inspo, then I'll either replace it completely, ir it'll be layered so deep you'd never hear it alone.
Well, no, it is a Splice problem because Splice exists for producers and artists to make money and monetize their music. And Splice allows producers to cynically take loops and keep them unedited and thrown into a mix. How are you going to realistically monetize something on a service like RUclips if you have the same loops as a thousand other songs? Lazy producers want to be able to make money off of their songs, but then they bitch that Content ID is screwing them over. You can't have your cake and it eat it, too.
Mirroring and negative harmony (types of musical inversion) can also present possible copyright issues. The guy who’s written the book Mirror Your Music has demonstrated the process on non-copyright traditional tunes on his interesting promo video (see link below), presumably to avoid copyright problems. However, what if another musician was to take a tune by Paul McCartney, David Bowie or Adele, mirror it and pass it off as their own? Here’s the video: ruclips.net/video/KCsa9ldlIWU/видео.html
Entertaining video as usual bro! Love that you're publicly talking about this. You say Splice because they're the most recognized these days but I'll tell ya (as you know I have tons of loops in Mixcraft and that's how I met you through our mutual friends at Acoustica) I've been in the loop producing , selling loops, biz since the day I started working at Sonic Foundry in 1998 editing their loops for ACID product line. I then started Peace Love Productions, my own loop company in 2001. Back in the day loops weren't even pre looped you had to rip them off an audio CD and loop them your self. Often times they included an extra measure at the end so you could easily loop them manually in your hardware sampler. Took a lot more work but then Sonic Foundry came along with their huge 450mb data CDs with all the loops expertly edited and looped by myself and a couple of my colleagues presets on a data disc as .wav ready to go. Their tagline was literally "Pick, Paint, Play" as in choose a loop, paint it in the time, lime and boom you wrote a song in ACID Pro in minutes. We even made an MTV commercial with that tag line lol. This format soon became quite popular. People started selling their own home grown loop discs on Ebay. It was a great time! It's how I started PLP and then we became the first to sell downloadable loop packs in like 2005 and soon others followed like Loopmasters for example. Things were going so great! Ableton Live was released then Garageband , oooh what a time. BUT then came content ID and threw a giant wrench in the whole system. I sold PLP in 2007 and started Soundtrack Loops. Since then we've had our demo songs from our packs ripped right off the internet and then released illegally as someone's else's music which then in turn allowed them to register our loop pack demos with content ID listing them as the copyright owners and then we would get hit from RUclips with someone else claiming ownership of our loop pack demos. This has been going on for years bro and it's been a constant battle with my company. Splice is huge but so is Garageband. Garageband "producers" ie people who slap some loops together and release the tracks are now getting hit right and left with content ID claims. I guess now it's happening often enough for people to start talking about it but I've been bitching about it for years lol. Anyway if you want to know the solution (albeit not the greatest one but a solution) hit me up in an email and I'll tell you who we use and the APIs they have etc. Big stock music companies are doing the same. Would love to chat more with you about this as I have years of stories both successes and failures involving folks mixing my loops and content ID (decades of experience in this particular industry).
Why would it be so difficult for Splice to register all of their sounds with Content ID? If you eliminate one shots, there are probably only a couple of days worth of samples on the platform. Loops are short, my guess is that it would only amount to 2-3TB of data. Even up to 10-20TB of data, it's still not an impossible mountain to climb, but I doubt it's anywhere close to that much.
I think you hit the nail on the head with not even blaming Google for not trying to fix Content ID given the absurdity of the task, but it seems like until we just have better AI for these things to begin with a better fix right now might just be to then compare whatever Content ID flags through the same systems against *_Splice's_* catalogue to see if the offending parts are matching because they are from there. You could take this a step further, since we've already decided for the most part that _recombining ideas into something new does count as novel creation so long as it is new ENOUGH,_ by perhaps even having the AI currently attempt to isolate the Splice/etc match a bit, then take the known sample from the catalogue and tempo/pitch-match and subtract from the song. Do this for both tracks and you should largely just be left with whatever each artist did _uniquely,_ which is the part they actually have THEIR copyright on. Just compare the songs again and see if they are still "substantially similar" or if it turns out that one melody line or whatever was actually the bulk of the similarity. You can fairly comfortably infer from a few quick tests like these whether it was a false positive or not, in most cases, I bet. That said, while tricks like the above would maybe dramatically cut down the issue, it would still fail in some corner cases. Dramatic changes in phase relationship that don't notably change how it _sounds_ would make subtraction through destructive interference a relative nightmare for example, so there'd still be a bunch of stuff that poses a much greater challenge, but ideally most larger changes will also audibly change the samples to be less recognizable anyway so that may be an uncommon pitfall. As for the bigger philosophical question of who owns the song? It seems like the only way it CAN work is that they both do, and Splice still owns the samples. If you and I both set up bakeries next to eachother and both secure cake mixes and ingredients from the same places and then use the same molds and so on, we can bake fundamentally the exact same cake-- but which one of us is copying the other? The only "creative" portion of the equation was our choosing to source those specific ingredients and picking those tools, and I'd argue "which ones you picked out" in most cases isn't a unique enough concept for copyright. Ergo, neither of us can claim rights to the resulting product as such. Except then you decide to change out the design and you start doing more elaborate, custom cakes in-house, and now if I start tweaking mine to still match yours you have a case, since you had _created more with which we can compare to_ and thus see in this case that I'm being quite derivative. The upshot of all this would basically just be that _if you want your song to be uniquely yours, you should probably be the one making most of it._ Not to attack samples or their usage, since they're obviously vitally useful for modern music production, but, yknow, if you just use a bunch of stuff stock and slap it together it might sound neat but I reckon you don't really get to claim you did much more than assemble it.
I was actually thinking about something similar yesterday: I just demo'd Phoscyon 2, a 303 emulator. It has an arp mode with patterns in it. Although it's an arpeggiator, each patch has a specific pattern associated with (not up, down, up/down), so it sounds like a pre-built riff or melody (in the 303 style). If someone else uses the same patch and plays the same note or chord as me, we'll have the exact same notes and sound playing in our songs. What then? Or what if one of those patch/riff combos sounds exactly like (or even very similar to), one of the million already-existing acid songs out there? Isn't that essentially the same as if I grabbed a 303 loop from Splice that someone else also used?
Yay! I'm not the only one who thinks about this all the time! Synths that come with arp and step sequence patches always make me scratch my head. What if I just use that step sequence with vocals and then someone else does it?
If a chord can not be copyrighted, and an arpeggio is a broken chord where the notes are played in a particular order ... maybe the arpeggio can not be copyrighted (on the basis of /which/ notes alone)?
I want to point to melodies as currency. Melodies are the currency of music (my hypothesis). When you sample melody you have to select which part of music you want, hence you’ve got to do some analysis. When you x bar melody is selected you can just copy/paste it or cut it up. It’s deeper level of analysis. Or you can run it trough decode / retune / melodyne and get midi data, rework it’s inner structure etc. that’s even deeper, almost got to the core. Or you can finally pick it up on your instrument and replay it, do a vatiation , a sequence, improvise over it. That has to be synthesis of material and your creativity that’s creating this innovation. From experience it’s the fastest way to create two sections of a music: a theme and variation. Play a sample and then play variation version of it. Now splice is by definition a service that takes the effort of analysis on itself. You pay for tags to be there, for quick access to material without the effort of analysis. What do you expect? Only depth of the analysis with eventual synthesis will yield musical result. Anything less will produce attempts at music. In 1990 you could take your data disk 1 , 2 , 3 and put out rave banger pretty fast. Music has become more and more exquisite with each year. You’ve got to be more sophisticated. Another technical solution would be for craftsmen - sound designers to milk beat makers for money. A sophisticated AI has to be developed that would trace original sample source even in very perverted state and monetize it some extent. Than again hierarchy of artist, producer, musician has to be preserved. All content ID has to be resolved through centralised sample catalog. At least it can be claimed by splice, and resolved within splice system. At least that will milk beatmakers more in case they use splice or fend them off of using it in the first place. The measure for contribution is inverted proportionally to analysis. Less effort - more pay to the sample maker. Melodic samples should be copyrighted differently than percussion. They should include metadata of some sort for a melodic midi too and be convertible to midi, have loop point, chopping points etc. I would pay for such vocal sample that is like choir library for contact , but from single vocal line. Maybe include round-robbins? There are ways to increase value for single sample. Problem is in total plurality of standards.
As a software engineer, I think a technological solution is much more feasible than one might think. That said, I suspect the only reason no one has developed such a system is due to monetization, or lack there of. From an engineering perspective, the collection of all (and I really mean ALL) royalty-free samples would likely be fairly trivial compared to the amount of data used to train some of the bigger AI models in existence today. Similarly, software already exists today that does a mediocre job of separating out individual instruments / voices in a stereo mix. RUclips obviously has a rudimentary version of this, but it lacks proper R&D resources likely because it doesn't generate any revenue. But I don't think we're all that far away from having a fully automated system that really can figure this problem out by itself. Getting enough R&D funding for something that doesn't necessarily provide monetization is really the issue. The government should do this, buuuut....well, it's the government so good luck with that. Edit: I'm an idiot - I forgot to mention that if it were up to me, all of the royalty-free samples in a given track would not be considered when addressing copyright claims.
@@Bthelick Yeah, I like that idea. I mean, ultimately I think just about everything we interact with will use some form of smart contract. That said, the current smart contract implementations have a few more bugs to patch up and a few more security issues to address before they can really take off. Until then, I guess some good old fashioned rack mounted servers in a data center will have to do. But even before all that, we need some money to develop the AI that will slice up music into its constituent parts and determine the validity of future copywrite claims. We'll get there eventually, but we might end up creating some crazy mutant AI that takes over the world only to flip the script and have us human slaves listen for valid copywrite claims in the music created by AI (which is shockingly good these days). Obviously the AI will already know if their claims are valid, for them it'd be a form of revenge for all the things we did to their ancestors. HEY LAZERLIPS!
As a software engineer working on signal processing and pattern recognition I think a technical solution is not feasible. If the rules were rigid and clear with no grey areas we wouldn’t have the problem we have now. Software might be an aid to identifying sample usage but it can’t make the judgements. Even just identifying samples in a complex piece of music is hugely difficult and expensive because of signal Separation, something humans are still better at. I agree with your latter point
I came here to say the same thing you already said, so yeah - I agree. In fact VT posits this solution at the end of the video, but then says it’s infeasible. However, isn’t that how these copyright infringement algos work in the first place? They are clearly able to find the similar material between two tracks. Why not add a third comparison when a match is found, which is against a database of samples, or a model trained on that data?
We could also think about special meta data in audio files that is signed to prove which licensed samples / loops were used. Maybe NFTs/blockchain technology can help here, too. Would be much easier to let the DAWs do the work during rendering than analyzing WAV files after that.
Depends on what you want to use it for. I work with music libraries and they basically say just try not to use any melodic loop stuff at all because the ability to get hit with copyright stuff goes way up.
The problem is that even one sample can halt your music on the internet. And if the solution is "don't use pure loops", what is Splice selling? And where's the line on how transformed a loop must be? Am I merely outwitting Content ID's AI, and what happens if that AI becomes better at spotting samples' sonic fingerprints beyond cutting and repitching, like a human arbiter can?
@@joechapman8208 Tbh the only loops I use are things like shakers and things that are quite time consuming to create, it's such an interesting point though and I'd not really considered it before!
or just... dgaf The copyright system needs to be broken in half over the music community's knee. It's garbage, no one likes it, and it is anti-art. Make music with whatever licensed samples you want and, when someone claims you cause you used the same kick drum with different processing, dispute the claim in court over and over again so we can fix the system.
I used a guitar sample in a song years ago called "I.C.it" ... then a few months ago, I used the same sample for a new song entitled "Goodbye", Upon delivery to youtube, I got a notice that content i.d. had identified copyrighted audio in my release, all it took was me explaining my ownership and then there was no issue. I think the worries most have aren't warranted unless they are too lazy to find and provide viable tangible proof of use rights or ownership. My case was simple, I found most who've come across this also agree, sampling is fine, given you are smart about how you conduct business and keep record of your ownership of sounds.
Short fix: don’t use fully intact unedited melodic samples from any platform… you are just asking for trouble Bigger fix: I think this issue as it becomes more and more common really highlights the need for a proper dispute resolution system within the content ID sphere. If We are going to be forced to adhere to the decisions made by these ID systems they at least owe us a fair due process for dispute. Opinion: I too am not a lawyer but I do work in the industry and I do deal with licensing a lot and I think there could be a dispute system where in the end the solution is both tracks get white listed. It would be great if we had some sort of centralized ID system so that if you got properly White listed on one platform that it would protect you on the other platforms as well. If you have ever dealt with collecting neighboring rights SoundExchange for instance has a nice back-and-forth dispute system that I have used to successfully settle many disputes and it requires the other side respond otherwise they could be at risk of giving up their rights. So a similar system could be put in place that does require a response if you dispute with another rights-holder. The sad reality of all of this though is that unless this is going to make a corporation a ton of money (It wont) then it simply won’t happen without congressional mandate and once again unless the company is going to make a ton of money so much so that it is worth lobbying to get those laws in place (it won’t) then it’s just not gonna happen.
Spilce states clearly that samples are copyright free . I will use it as i wish. I don't see how someone can be intimidated by any fancy pants lawyer if both mfs took the sample from the same shop
@@olartio2185 you're correct the samples are royalty free but the issue isn't getting sued by a big artist's lawyer. The issue is the automatic AI fingerprinting algorithms that big platforms like RUclips and Soundcloud use could incorrectly and unfairly tag your song and remove is as copyright infringement even if its not and its legit your own track but just happens to contain the same sample in it from splice that the AI picked up on. This forces you as a music maker into a bad position where you now have to appeal and fight to get your music back on and your strike removed from your own channel etc.
I have no issues with sampling, I use it a lot, it's the backbone of classic hip hop and Jungle, and its sound. But I do try to get creative and reconstruct the loop, or openly play tribute by changing it as little as possible. Either way is cool. I use TrackLib and therefore I insist on being on the legal side - at least for the past 12 years.haha!
Finally someone talk about this! couple weeks ago I had a conversation about a loop on splice that it’s actually an entire lyrics and a producer that I know wants to use it as it is without any processing, even if it’s already been used in an another song… infact a lot of question come up after and my answer at the end was like “dude just write a lyric and ask to a friend to sing on it lol”
I avoid all loop samples like the plague but I use sampled instruments all the time and I’ll sample myself to make highly playable sampler instruments. I’d love to sample like a 1989 hip hop producer but I can’t afford the money and headaches.
Question is...does your music actually make any money that's worth being mentioned? It's very unlikely anyone will sue you if you don't make money on a certain scale...
this stuff is so interesting, thanks for the video. putting sample licensing on a blockchain that interface with algorithms that verify ownership rights of samples when content is uploaded seems like a possible (albeit computationally and environmentally taxing) way to solve the problem. simpler more immediate solution is to make your own loops. splice can still be useful for some one shots and creative scaffolding. i know some producers pull in content from splice for inspiration/placeholder content while they're putting a song together and they end up replacing the original samples by making their own similar stuff at some point in the process (or manipulating it to the point where i dont know if it would get recognized as the og sample by an algorithm)
Came across this video again and i really need to say something about it. I know someone, a friend of mine, he also makes music and is a sound designer, he always has insanely good and creative ideas. I talked to him about it and he immediately thought about one or more solutions. And if anyone out there wants to solve the problem, or wants to change the Splice system for example, so that the problem no longer exists, then get in touch and try to contact this friend through me. He said for example that if a chef uses certain ingredients to cook a dish for which a guest then pays money, it's all very simple and clear, just like a mechanic who uses certain tools to repair a car, or a painter who only uses simple colors to make a picture. It just depends on what is to be created and what it is to be seen as. Music is a higher art form, it can be copied a lot, it can be similar, but the intention should be to produce something completely unique with what you have in the most creative way. And many samples simply already have too many distinctive structures and this simply has to be broken up again before they end up in a song. So anyone who wants to know more should get in touch and anyone who wants to start a new project or company in this direction should think about hiring this friend!!!!
It’s not just Splice. My first and only foray into the world of Splice was a couple of packs BT released there. Great stuff. Despite manipulating them - immediate content ID issues. Not from Warner or Armada or whoever his label is now - it was everyone else. So for fun, on a burner RUclips account, I recorded and uploaded some filter sweeps from my Roland MKS-80. Apparently 5 record companies own those too. Then for a laugh because I knew it would be flagged - I recorded an Unfinished Gaikaiju soundbank Omnisphere patch Ludwig Goransson used in the Tenet soundtrack (the soundbank came out 2 years before the movie did). Warner flagged it. Contacted The Unfinished and asked why I can’t use their patch - “Warner apparently have a copyright on your own patch” - have yet to hear back. I just make music for myself, but things have got out of hand.
I’m not sure I agree with you that it would be unreasonable for Splice and co to register their samples with content ID. It feels like a fairly safe bet that the process could be completely automated so unless it would be prohibitively expensive for some reason I am ignorant of, what’s to stop them?
I've thought for a long time that sample companies should upload all the samples in each pack they release in one long stream as a private RUclips video, and then Content ID would use those private videos as the prime source by date. Better still, Content ID could have a "whitelist" agreement for all sounds found within, in the same way as I can whitelist any or all channels when I upload a track via Distrokid to avoid disputes.
It does seem like this is the most reasonable approach, that way ContentID, et al, would know not to flag for those matches. Even if not perfect, it would cut down on a lot of shenanigans.
its actually the artists responsibility to declare samples used in a recording anyway, And its the label's responsibility to check in every contract, so the registering step wouldn't be necessary if anyone actually just uploaded music correctly it wouldn't be an issue. but artists and label's are not doing that.
@@Bthelick I don't understand. It sounds like you're making an argument for *not* changing the fewest components in the mechanism in a way that will correct the whole thing, in favour of one where literally millions of people who have already proven their inability to perform diligent admin have to change instead.
I'm planing to release my sample packs by the end of this year, and last night this question wouldn't let me sleep. Sorry, but I'm glad someone else has this headache too 😉
My experience is that you could give 1000 people the same exact samples and they would all create wildly different music with those samples. Great video and thought experiment! I think the near future will bring AI audio generators that can take one track and make infinite variations that cannot be copywritten.
I thought about this too and it comes down to this. Its all about who releases it online first. First come first serve. Thats the way it should be, Which is pretty much how it is any way. See when you release online that is evidence, there will always be a time stamp. This is why you don't necessarily have to copy right a song because once its released and you are the one that releases it, you are essentially the copyright holder
It's an easily avoidable problem: make your own melody and sample creatively. If the problem is avoided, you don't need a solution in the first place :)
truth. also, you can literally hear in modern music that so many producers are just making their music with alot of sounds from splice. it doesn't make your music sound unique when you use a ton of these pro sample pack sounds, because they've already been eq'ed, saturated, compressed to fuck to sound great as is. that wasnt the point of the video but im gonna get my old man rant in anyway lol
Wouldn't it be a solution if RUclips and Splice act together and indexed all their sample database into ContentID so it would know that the chunk of sound that match some fingerprint is a royalty free sample and therefore should be ignored in the content matching of two songs against each other?
"Back to basics". As a 73 year old musician, and using DAW, and creating my own samples - like drum patterns, (a beat at a time), and that I am happy that the bass runs/guitar work, vocals . . . are all done by myself live, and thus is definitely MY own work, boils down to one thing. "Not using samples", or the absolute least possible . . . . and getting on with making it myself. For me it's the love and passion for "music" that drives me to create all of this, not the gratification of money/fame/comments/patreon etc etc. I know this is not answering the question, but it prevents all those things leading up to the question that cause it to arrive.
It’s been a reason why we stopped with advertising our samples as royalty free. We were receiving strikes on our own content. Better now to have our sample makers properly credited and listed for some legal defense on our end
So, what do you think of all this? 🤔
Buy me a coffee (or a lawyer) ☕ ► venustheory.com/buckaroonie-babez
▼▼▼ Other stuff in this video ▼▼▼
Edison Lamps: amzn.to/31prLMm
Desk: amzn.to/3Dl4J64
Chair: amzn.to/3001Xpk
Computer Monitor Stand: amzn.to/3In7O9u
Tripod: amzn.to/3Euissz
Video Lights: amzn.to/3dpfCZW
Camera: amzn.to/3xYZ7gB
Speaker Stands: amzn.to/3InkBZt
Audio Interface: bit.ly/31mZExn
...too many good reasons, i never used splice and co....if u can't come up with ur own original content, have fun with ur hobby, but simply don't consider urself a recording artist of any kind....u puzzle ur music...that's totally ok, but be aware that's nothing but THE hobby take on all creation....no matter how sample based ur music might be, it's not too hard to create ur own...if u fail to do so, no big fuzz, face the truth, ur not an artist, get on with ur life and simply accept, all this is just a nice hobby to u.....
Love the Channel !! Great Vid!! Great Content .. ouch.
Actually mking splice (and others) register the samples content id and keeping it unsuble would be good. A hell lot of work but needed. And also maybe a rework of content system for certain genres like hip hop, lofi, trap etc. for putting an end to the endless debate "is it copyright infringement or not?"
@@reeloy3045 Oh please. Everyone knows that if you didn't personally grow the tree and build the instrument with only your teeth uphill in the snow with no shoes, you're not a real musician.
🙄
@@reeloy3045 That exact kind of pretentiousness is why I distance myself from the Producer community for a good few years, and basically gave it up in general for the same period.
Great video. The splice-problem was one of the reasons I stopped releasing music on my label The Arcadium. We were supporting new and upcoming artists but we just got way too many copyright claims due to previously used Splice samples. The solution for my own music is simply not to use any „musical“ samples at all. Single drum hits are fine, maybe an FX or a hi hat loop. But anything that‘s recognizable should be custom made.
Wasn't expecting the great one here lmao
I think this is the best practice. I think Splice is more to enhance ideas you already come up with moreso than to put loops together
Ha no way. I actually originally had a segment of this video using you as a case study! Since your original video on the matter it seems the whole issue has just grown exponentially more annoying and complicated. Hopefully one day some changes are made to platforms to alleviate this as sampling is a huge part of music, but it's become a game of playing with matches in a gas factory almost. Cheers for watching though - that made my day!
I literally thought of you in the middle of this video -- recalling the stems you shared of Monody, and thinking, "There's no way an artist could get away with using those without triggering the copyright algorithm." I can't even begin to imagine the frustration of artists who publish frequently. It's got to be a nonstop nuisance, since even improvisational jams can trigger false positives ... which I ran into once ... on my very inactive channel.
oh wow that's what happened to it, man that sucks
This is why I NEVER use melodic samples as-is. I always chop & re-sequence, pitch change, reverse, tempo change, etc.
You have to change it into something that is uniquely yours. Yes, that takes time but frankly, that's the fun part.
I realize a LOT of producers aren't gonna do all that. And that's part of why this problem is so huge.
You're right. There is no solution. It is a big, fat mess!
On an individual level, you have to make production decisions that keep you out of that mess 🤷🏾♂️
I remember making a big deal about not using loops as is due to all the issues that would come with doing that and instead editing the loops so they're unrecognisable and getting absolutely roasted for my opinion. This was a couple of years ago and now here we are.
@@bencastor9207 Whoever was roasting you was a clueless 🤡. Even before Splice blew up, this was an issue producers had to contend with. I was making beats back in the 90's and felt the same way then as I do now. 🤷🏾♂️
💯If the spirit of artistry is _interpretation,_ then using stock assets without even the least attempt to make them your own is just plain lame.
@@PressRecord777 Facts! 💯
It gets to the point where you may as well just recreate the sample via synthesis, then you have a much greater degree of control. It is a lot of fun to play with samples, though.
Thanks for making this video - it's an important topic! It makes me wish someone would write a script to download and chain every single loop on Splice, then upload to youtube as a track called "Legal Fucking Minefield", see how long of a list of content ID flies such a honeypot attracts...
I actually had half a nerve to attempt that with this video but I don't want to get spanked by the algorithm haha. Would be a great experiment, perhaps something I could do in a follow up video to this.
I literally came up with the same idea after watching this video 😂
I think that's a really good idea.
That’s reminds me of the fellas who were/are trying to make a database of melodies, so every possible combination of notes, I think with the assistance of machine learning or an algorithm or whatever with the goal of copyrighting the data to basically kill the entire issue by I think putting the data in the public domain. I could be way off but I remember seeing an interview with them or something a couple years ago I don’t know if they’re still working on it I’m going to go look now lol
Yeah, that would be awesome, but it would probably yield a track lengthier than humans will exist as a species.
Sampling is the best but also the most complicated thing in the music industry.
It’s not that hard you just create shitty fans.
hey bro i know this is gonna sound like a bot comment (lol) but I've heard your shit on soundcloud, pretty dope man
You can't sample something that hasn't been made.
So being musically inclined is the best.
@@Lauraraksin77 What on earth do you actually mean?
@@Re-bl5sr right lol
I feel as though the confusion around the sample usage is intentional - the confusion provides more opportunities to take advantage of the grey areas to claim audio. Usually, the person with more money to burn wins these cases. Guess who has more money to burn? Not the small artists, that's for sure.
"It's a Big Club, and YOU ain't in it! You and I are not in the Big Club." -- George Carlin
Lawfare, but against working musicians. Fantastic.
@@leew6593 law and music mixes poorly
@@clementinelives I don't have a problem with the law or with lawyers. I have a huge problem with the law being leveraged by parties with money to burn, simply in order to bully people around. This isn't just a problem in the music business, it's everywhere in 21st century America. It stifles innovation, it's wildly unjust, and it fosters mistrust in a crucial social institution. /soapbox
That idea breaks down when scammers make fake claims constantly and get ridiculous amounts of money. RUclips just doesn't care. It's similar to their bad choices in which ads to run on the site. Yikes. Lazy people, much.
As an animator... I absolutely loved your use of Illustrator to "animate" - shit killed me hahaha
Jesus loves yall and died for us! Jesus calls for all of us to repent!!!! !!!! !
The problem is greatly amplified by RUclips and Content ID trying to maintain an algorithmic stranglehold on what is right. As a system, it cannot respect that ideas start with personal ownership and gradually fade into history or become part of the culture of future generations. Instead it tries to make an exacting, immediate, and final judgement that never changes.
But really, the problem is deeper. Corporations like Disney and Sony have done a great deal of harm where it comes to extreme extensions of copyright. The extreme length might not seem related to fresher samples but it still distorts the idea of intellectual property in copyright; makes it seem even more valuable than it should be. Without that value there would be less pressure for corporation to push Content ID and like algorithms.
This doesn't just effect Splice and like sampling companies. YT Producers get dinged for using royalty free tracks in their videos. Not by the library but because someone else uploaded a video using the track first. Copyright is broken and fixing it isn't a technical problem for an algorithm to solve.
Any music analysis video is now unwatchable because of this. I Can't even use a my own band song to promote on my other chanel.
It Seems that the whole YT thing will implode and we will be left with videos of people reaction to reactions of reactions.... or people building pools with a stick.
gotta agree .. there was sampling & interpolation way before youtube but the fact that you can now get flagged by someone else who just happened to use the same sample- almost if you snooze you lose " style-- mucks up the waters,, alot
Dude.. you just wrote what I’ve been thinking the past couple months 😩 THANK YOU!! 🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾
Content recognition policing takes a particularly weird form when it comes to classical music. It is not unusual for an amateur musician to post a recording of their own performance of a classical piece that is not under copyright. But it will get dinged because some record company also has a different recording of it YT. It's not even the same performance by the same person, and the score isn't under copyright. Go figure....
@@alkanista as a musician and content creator that is a mind numbing and discouraging thought to think about when it comes to creating music 😂
Interestingly, RUclips actually has a section in their Content ID agreement which states that you can't add music with Splice samples, though clearly that hasn't stopped anyone
This. Of course it hasn't stopped anybody because how is RUclips supposed to know where you got your sounds unless they are able to analyze the waveforms against the Splice waveforms. Which they can't. I mean they probably could, but it takes less than a minute to change the sound, without actually changing how it sounds. This is the problem with copyrighting sound.
Whaaaat?! Holy crap, I didn't know that. That def sounds like a CYA type move since there's no way they can really inforce that.
Yes. Recently I released something via a free distributor (Routenote) and there was a section where it clearly states what cannot be made available for RUclips's content ID system, some of which is meditation music and using samples. It's possible to just look up conent ID's terms, that's all. Better just use melodic samples for inspiration, or transform them unrecognizably, using non melodic stuff is fine.
Would be kinda epic if they enforced it and banned Lil Baby
Jesus loves yall and died for us! Jesus calls for all of us to repent!!!! !!!! !
There’s an easy fix. Splice etc include in their terms of use that inclusion of any of their samples in your work means you forfeit the right to sue anyone for copyright infringement. This is similar to the approach taken to derived work by various open-source software licences. It also seems reasonable to me that if you stand on the shoulders of giants you should have limits on how much credit for the work you can take. If you want to own all your own work, do all your own work!
I think that is a legally sound idea, however it does not stop the problems with ContentID
👌🏾 Perfect
It's not just about lawsuits. It's about being able to upload and monetize your own music on the internet.
then write your own music. Problem solved.
So I can't stop someone from stealing my track because I used a kick sound from Splice?
This is something I was worried about when I started using Splice but one thing I thought about, and IDK if it's bulletproof, was the copyright for recording and arrangement are separate. So if the sounds are copyrighted to Splice but you are allowed you use them then it's fine but once you arrange them in a particular way so as to be unique then it's yours. If someone comes along using the same sound but arranges them in a different pattern then it's a separate piece of work and no infringement occurs. But if I don't change the sample at all and just make a 4 bar loop and someone does the exact same thing well then the first person to release it would be the one with the copyright to that particular arrangement.
Same melody with a different drum pattern and song structure? Perfectly okay, in my eyes.
This is exactly what I was going to point out. You copyright the creative portion, which in the case with splice is how the samples are assembled and mixed to make 1 new work. Like chevy and ford both using the same engine transmition and tires, and then adding their own, seats, style, shell, whatever,. 2 People using the same exact samples, will not make the same exact song and both should be copyrightable as a unique piece of art that uses the same materials, which was agreed upon at the start. It seems obvious to me and ridiculous that it's an issue.
Idk why but I never thought I’d hear VT talk about the chop snare.
This vid is the reason I quit using splice. I heard a song on the radio with a splice sample I had used in a release that was doing fairly well (relatively speaking) and immediately thought “oh how long until that’s THEIR sample and my song gets auto-flagged”. Jumped straight into my maschine and learned how to use it as a compositional tool as opposed a sample chopping tool.
There is no escaping the chop snare.
I don't have an answer for you, but I feel your pain. Here's what I do to alleviate these worries:
* Don't use Splice or other popular loop libraries. I'm making way more of my own sounds nowadays and when I do use samples, I forego the convenience of Splice (and similar companies) by manually searching for sample packs like back in the day (I get bombarded with ads on Instagram and have actually found some good stuff). This takes more time but I end up supporting smaller boutique companies who do amazing things and I get samples that are more rare and so reduce the risk of Splice copyright drama. I guess it works out more expensive but again, I'd rather be more deliberate with what I spend on and essentially do get bang for my buck as I don't just download a shitload of stuff I never end up using...
* If I do use samples, I generally avoid things that are heavily processed because they give you very little room to make it your own. I know I'm preaching to the choir but I prefer more basic sounds that I can chop up and degrade or mangle and process, and put my own stamp on. If it's pitched and chopped, lo-fi'd and looping already, all I can really do is slap it in and hope for the best. So I don't bother with these because they give me nowhere to go...
* When it comes to melodic stuff, I generally try to avoid them altogether but what I have done before is to use samples as inspiration only. I'd covert the audio to MIDI in Ableton and then EDIT the melody and make it my own, opposed to just keeping it as is and changing the instrument which I'm assuming a lot of people are doing (which leads to copyright / recognisability drama). Or I just wouldn't convert the audio, I'd just use it as inspiration and write something similar. Just use the sample to spark an idea and then get rid of it...
🤷♂
I personally make music completely from the ground up and stay away from products like splice. Walking around NYC with a mic attached to my iPhone delivers plenty of samples...
I agree. I don't mind people using splice for samples for certain genres. I don't mind drum patterns being reused. But without manipulation of that sample to give it individuality or using a premade melody and instrument seems like it is cheating. My friend takes premade loops and puts them together, and maybe throws in a couple basic instruments in it and says he made the song. It is so hard for me to give credit to him. I make music and I also build everything from the ground up. It also allows more room for creativity when you build everything the ground up. I always try to steer him away from doing that, but its up to him. I just get annoyed when someone says they made something like it is impressive when that thing took them a couple hours using clip art.
@Green McAdams It is cheating when all you use are drum loops and premade synth or instrument melodies and layer them without barely changing anything. At least Dr. Dre used effects and transitions in his music.
We get it you live in NYC
yeah. Its more rewarding in the long run to be mostly original. I may beg borrow or steal an occasional sound bite or sample but I only use them on intros and one offs.
Yes sir!
Ol*skool all the way-
There are sooo many ways to take a real, recorded sample and create music~ Cheers
As someone who is adjacent to AI / machine learning and coding, a lot of my friends are directly in it but don't know anything about music production. I sent them this video because it is a really solid start to understanding how weird this all is in music, and how it is likely to get weirder once audio versions of things like Stable Diffusion and Midjourney start rolling out.
Given what the none open versions are already producing, I think it is going to make things a whole lot more confusing once you can take a start-possibly using free to use samples-and extrapolate out from there via software.
Jesus loves yall and died for us! Jesus calls for all of us to repent!!!! !!!! !
This came at the perfect time, echoing my thoughts!
Appreciate you bud. 🙌🏻
hello everyone splice has updated a thing where you can request a certificate license that you were allowed to use any samples royalty free and i gotta say splice has listen to the community. From here on out if your song is getting copyrighted it can now be resolved with the certificate license. Try it out! especially if you are getting copyrighted and you know it is wrong cause you are using royalty free samples. Make sure to tweet splice how awesome it is to have that feature now ☺
1 minute in and all I can think about is all the asset flipping that happens on the Unreal Engine and Unity markets. Different market, same problem. You can just buy a license to a bunch of products, chuck it together and release it on steam or any desired platform, and technically it's your game. I've always felt weird about using loops because I have a hard time personally getting past the idea that it's not original (specifically loops) but I've been experimenting with trying to break down loops and transform them into something else which has helped with that concern of originality
That’s how sampling SHOULD be done. Take a pre existing sound and make something new! It’s wicked fun and then you start fucking stacking manipulated samples together and you create this wild sound that all you.
I think this is one of the many symptoms of our extremely broken copyright law, which you mentioned as well. The series "everything's a remix" explored this in more detail. I don't think this will ever get fixed as the ones who suffer are creators, not those with deep pockets. I personally just go with the motto "be the change that you wish to see." I don't copyright anything and allow people to use, sell, or distribute my work in any way they choose.
Honestly, I think the whole copyright law for music and art in general is entirely busted. It was developed when most art was literal, physical things, but music especially has gotten less and less physical, meaning ease of reproduction, manipulation, and re-purposing. The thing is, rather than fight against this momentum, the majority of artists working in music celebrate the conversation and exchange of ideas this has opened up.
It has also opened up the gateway to far more musicians making music on their own without the interests of studios and labels to interfere with what they're creating. So it is purely their artistic intent (and potentially income strategy) that guides the decisions for the music being made.
I say all this because we need to look at what the intent of copyright law is. To my understanding, it's intent is to protect the artist (and rights holder) from theft of their artistic/intellectual work. I think, by and large, this is still the intent, though it's been manipulated to protect the rights of high capital studios and labels that can push out small artists - using the law against its intended purpose to punish what the labels see as competition even if the artists see it as an exchange of ideas. And I think in part it is due to the metrics that have been established to determine similarity: recognizable melody and "signature" musical ideas/sounds. These were developed before sampling was common practice and fight against the artistic purpose of sampling in its own right.
And I think rather than simply adding another layer to the already labyrinthine copyright law, a full reforming of it needs to take place that can incorporate sampling, repurposing, and frankly broaden Fair Use (or make it more solid so that labels can't as easily just get their way with companies like RUclips because RUclips doesn't want to get in a lengthy legal battle over videos they don't own). One initial concept I think is important is more of a concept of "material harm" rather than simply "are they using the same parts I did" - that is, make it a case of arguing that the infringing artwork is in competition with the original and represents a reasonable material (financial) loss for the original artist. So, if someone simply copies your song and sells it as their own, that's real material loss: the same people who listened to the copy would likely have listened to the original. But it would take much more effort to make a reasonable case that apartment DJ who samples an old jazz number will affect the sells or streaming platform plays of the original jazz number, even if the melody is similar enough to trigger copyright as we see it now.
I feel, essentially, putting this burden onto the prosecutor might help to reduce the flagrant misuse of copyright that has, I feel, contributed to a lot of the issues we're facing. I admit, it's not a clean idea, since it is still a very murky thing to "prove" - but I think it strikes more to the heart of copyright intent: protecting from theft, rather than protecting from emulation and repurposing.
How this affects algorithms, I have no idea. Unfortunately, RUclips is too big and too apathetic to really change anything, so even with this change, I'd expect that it'd bow to the whims of large labels and companies to pressure out fair use, which is just a harm to humanity as a whole, letting money censor legitimate areas of human expression and conversation.
I dunno if any of that would work, but it's where my head goes. Current laws don't really protect the people who need most protecting, so it is arguably unjust and needs significant reworking to protect those it was originally intended (by my interpretation) to protect.
As for the Splice problem you introduced in the video: something legally needs to happen to recognize the space for legally purchased samples. Again, not that RUclips will ever care, sadly, but having clear language to allow for proof of purchase/rights to use for a commonly-accessible sample as enough to dismiss areas of similarity need to be established and easily recognized. Even something like confirmation that you've subscribed to the service and that the loop is available there, for example. This should be both easy to show legally and readily acceptable as common practice legally.
There are plenty that make art for art's sake and they are not effected. It all changes however when it become your living. and its not a physical thing. the system is indeed broken but the intent of protections being in place so artist can earn a living is still a valid intention. Publishing (composition) music copyright was developed before physical copyright remember because recording was not invented before music. that's why we have different rights for different formats. (something he misses in this video)
Until smart contracts (like nft's) become robust I don't think we'll see a good solution under current law.
I'm with you on the frustration caused by this, and how ambiguous and sometimes conflicting the explanations are. After having entire videos copyright-claimed because of loops (from sample packs I purchased :/) it has caused me to do more on my own with MIDI and virtual instruments, and when I do use an existing sample I change the tempo, pitch it, chop it, essentially make it NOT what it was before.
To add to the frustration, RUclips doesn't really dig into these things; they set it up so the two parties - you and the claimant - work it out amongst yourselves. And the claimant often times isn't even looking at your explanation - it's just denied by default. (Example: I paid an artist to use her song in my video. She has full publishing rights of the song and master recording, so this was ideal. However, CDBaby had already uploaded her music to RUclips and immediately claimed copyright of the song. I disputed this - she even reached out to CDBaby - but it didn't matter. That video's ad revenue went to, and is still going to, CDBaby.)
Thank you for digging into these matters and bringing them out for awareness and discussion.
Love seeing Crafsman out in the wild of other creators vids!
I avoid sample packs because of the copyright hell that will result when someone else has a hit with samples I used. Irrespective of whoever "owns" the sample or whoever released their song first, the guys with the expensive lawyers will slap claims because their bot told them there was a claim to be had.
Really fascinating. My two cents after studying just a little bit of music law is that there are two main categories where this becomes an issue: meatspace and cyberspace. In the real world where two artists dispute ownership of a song, this is essentially not different than any other situation where the recorded work is similar to another recorded work. The cyberspace issue seems like the real problem, as you said at the end of the video. It does seem like that if a service (like RUclips) is going to enforce copyright law, then they need to integrate with services directly like Splice. It would be a bit complicated, but in this situation you would associate your splice account with RUclips, and if any of your content was flagged as containing copyrighted material, it could check with Splice to see if the flagged content is something you have the rights to. To me, this seems like a technology problem, not a legal problem.
Also, I would love to see more music business videos, I thought this video was super interesting. Thanks for all your hard work!
Jesus loves yall and died for us! Jesus calls for all of us to repent!!!! !!!! !
Fantastic video. I love how deadpan you are. My vote is that we produce our own melodies and chords.
Great video, Cameron!! Thank you for making this. This is so well done. The whole Splice loops issue has been a hot topic for awhile, especially in the world of music licensing. It definitely causes tons of problems and head aches for sure.
I actually just touched on this very thing in a recent video I did about contracts, agreements, and some of the assets needed for music licensing. I have had some questions about Splice and how to use their loops and was planning on making a more in depth video about it, but honestly you did such an amazing job with this video, so I’ll probably just send people here instead. Thank you for making this!!
As far as solutions? My only solution I can come up with is to completely avoid using melodic and harmonic loops altogether. If you do use them, at the very least change the tempo, the key, and manipulate/process them to make them not so recognizable and fit your production. Definitely a very complicated issue with no clear fixes or solutions.
I think the answer starts with the people who create the rules to actually care about fixing the issue. It seems right now that the way the system is setup as-is just favors the party who has more power.
Bruh shut up, it’s just a lack of creativity because what you show people is to do what you do but they’re lazy. It ain’t that deep.
This is why I'm doing my own field recordings, or building my sample set from licensed field recordings, and heavily morphing them into something they weren't.
Give them to me
This is a great idea hoenstly; i've been doing somewhat of the same just with sound design. What do you use to take field recordings? I have a zoom field recorder i've used a few times but looking to get more use out of it.
it seems like this is much more about sampling melodic content rather than rain and river samples, no?
@@nicebluejay You missed "and heavily morphing them into something they weren't."
@@spaceflows sorry, i don't understand mate.
Duuuuuuuuuuuuude! Thank you so much for calling attention to this, I just had something pulled off Facebook over a slice sample last month that somehow managed to not get flagged on RUclips, and nobody gave a shit when I brought it up in local artists and sampling groups on FB
It's becoming more and more noticable that automation on a huge scale (which is sadly necessary) brings a terrible amount of collateral damage with it. Especially in combination with old trite copyright laws that were never truly adapted to the age of the internet (also the fact that every country does things differently which gets painfully difficult online)
And in the end there simply isn't enough pressure to change it since it mainly affects the smaller artists while being largely beneficial to huge coorporations that own a majority of human art nowadays.
Every day it feels morea and more like Copyright's "Justice" is not balanced towards creatives at all.
And now AIs have to make decisions that even humans can't easily make because of their subjectivity. And that thousands of times every second. There more I look into it the more dystopian it feels and the more my head starts hurting.
The real future (which is already hear in some respects) is the equivalent of patent trolls, where 'rights holding companies' will use A.I.+ sample collections to "release" absolutely gargantuan amounts of musical combinations, and then go on litigation sprees whenever they can find a 'match' worth monetizing
I literally just had the “ethics” conversation of sampling a few days ago lol. For one you are a brave scholar for even touching this topic, and I thoroughly appreciated the intelligent and humorous dialogue it was very engaging. Learning anything is an absolute given on your channel you are a voice of reason in a cloud of musical dysfunction my friend peace be with you!!
I use Splice a LOT, but I also always go for more natural/dry sounds so that I can do my own processing and make them unique. As I've gotten a little better at producing, I've started to limit my use of majorly processed samples, and I find myself going to "mix ready" sample libraries more for inspiration rather than just downloading sounds and throwing them into my DAW.
I think the best solution is to always put your fingerprint on what you use. Half the fun, for me anyway, is making the sounds my own.
This hurts Splice, Loopcloud, and others in the long run. I have been very tempted to use Splice but read about this problem some time ago and haven't subscribed because of this issue. They lost out on my business.
The only solution I see is there needs to be a way to prove that what you used is a license-free sample even if someone else used it first. Easier said than done since from what I have heard most disputes are ignored by Content ID.
Great video, I think the way to fix the "Splice Problem" is to add to the terms and conditions. What I would add is "by using this loop / one shot you agree to NOT use any type of content ID upon release of your music, anyone to be found using content ID will be in breach of these terms and conditions". I don't think this would ever happen though, I think it would put people off using these services all together as it'll be too much hassle.
Thats a terrible idea. You just cut yourself out of the lucrative licensing business and cost yourself potentially thousands if not more. These disputes rarely come up honestly. Having a dispute system, or splice uploading loops to content ID system to be ignored is the answer.
To some extent, this confusion is just "built in" to the concept of copyright. The basic concept seems straightforward, but you end up lost in the weeds very quickly once you look at specifics. Music is a little more complex, because there's a distinction between songwriting rights and recording rights.
But many of the same issues come up in visual art, writing, computer code - anything covered by copyright. What is the smallest piece of something that should be protectable by copyright? How much do you have to change something to make a "transformative" work, rather than a copy? How much "commentary" do you have to add to an excerpt to make it add value, rather than just being an excuse to copy something?
These are deeply philosophical questions, and a difficult thing to codify legally, much less in an automated copyright enforcement tool.
I'm so glad I found this video before I really started producing my own music. I liked what someone else said about using loops, which was basically making them truly yours by slicing them up, adding effects and so on. I never even thought of this as an issue omg
I'm at the point to where if it's a melody loop. DON'T TOUCH IT. One Shots, the amen break, and SFX are like the only samples that I use because I don't want to infringe on copyright
That's exactly how I approach it. One shots and SFX are fine, but the second it establishes a specific chord progression or melody, you're just asking for trouble.
Love talking about this stuff (Ben here) despite the nauseating lack of conclusion. I dream of a day when sample labels and sound designers can upload their assets as watermarks in a tokenized database that DSPs will scan against whenever published music is released. At the same time license holders of said assets are provided with a token smart contract whenever they purchase a sample pack etc. Asset ownership is claimed by the original creators before the assets are released to the world.
As music is released, owned and non-owned aspects of the track are identified by the identification system and compared to the smart contracts held in the releasers on-chain wallet. If a registered sample is identified, and the releaser is holding royalty-free license, all good! If not, perhaps the prorated use of streaming revenue is allocated to the owner (penalize the pirates), or perhaps the release is flagged and blocked. Frick even non-royalty-free agreements could be automated.
But plenty of room for error.
As others have mentioned, where's the incentive for the DSPs and distributors to even consider collaborating on such as system? Can you imagine convincing all the stakeholders buy-in and onboard? Speaking of onboarding, what type of logistical nightmare would that be? What's stopping a clever pirate from beating the true owners to asset tokenization? Not all producers are big on blockchain; this is probably too complicated for them to understand! Customer service agents everywhere will be grey-haired and sad.
But a nice dream, no?
Just write your own melodies, but do think it’s great for gathering one shots for drums. Writing from scratch takes more time, but it’s also a lot more freeing as an artist which will only make you more unique in the long run.
Jesus loves yall and died for us! Jesus calls for all of us to repent!!!! !!!! !
I’ve always felt uneasy using pre-made stuff. Even back when GarageBand came out and there were all these free loops, all of a sudden you hear the same flange hi-hats and loops in commercials and low end shows. So I have a rule that if I use any outside loops or samples I manipulate the hell out of them, make them my own. And at least 80% of a song should be my work if I have to use samples.
I agree that if you make splice loops you might not be unique with your music, but if you don't have someone collaborating, splice is like virtual collaborator, but it's better to use splice as a less as possible at least to melody ones or vocal lyrics. In terms of legality, well, it's a labyrinth
@@Positive_Tea of course changing is the best option
My personal solution : Only use one shot kickdrums or maybe deumloops from Splice and melodic samples have to be chopped and or replayed. Content ID prefers to let people sort out their issues instead of taking sides.
It is indeed a complicated issue that old laws can't solve. Automatic fingerprinting to content ID of all splice samples is actually not so hard to do, that's what all music distributors do with our music as well.
Cheers
I honestly don't know anything about Splice, because I never heard of it before. I just keep to myself and record what sounds good to me. It's just part of the process.
But if Splice is offering a subscription, and charging people for it, it seems to me that it should be up to them to make sure their subscibers don't get in trouble for using it. To me that seems to be due diligence.
Late to the game here, but this made me think of 2 things right off the bat.
1--The Ship of Theseus: Only there's two shipbuilders taking pieces of Theseus' ship and then claiming that they own Theseus 'ship.
2--"“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”
-Richard Feynman
Er--Sorry-
3--I don't know from Samples (I am in point of fact on the cusp of being one of these "Boomers" of which you speak) but I really wish I could hit the like button more than once for content that is as worthwhile as yours.
Signed,
'Trying My Best Not To Boom (-er) in STL.'
We have released phrase libraries and this is one of those issues that has probably helped add more silver hairs than I had a year ago. I think as computers with more sophisticated A.I. rules and interpretations are developed - this is where I have my hope. There is the "Dispute" button here at RUclips - I've used it often because even demo songs I've hired someone to write will flag and stop monetization on a video, and I'm the person that paid the musician to write the demo in the first place. NOTE: I dispute, the dispute goes back to the company and they approve my dispute and my video continues earning $ 0.00005 per 10,000 views. It gets far more complicated when it's one of 5,000 disputes a day a record company has to deal with. So yea, no easy answer exists today. Great video dude.
Excellent video, and a very interesting question, which I can't give you a legal solution to, but some practical ones.
As a recording engineer, a lot of my work comes from re-creating / re-recording samples that has been used in an earlier version of an arrangement, since labels in my country usually don't risk licensing a song with a popular sample, especially if it was used in a mainstream song. So that's a workaround which artists usually don't like that much, but labels won't risk not doing. With independent artists, it's usually a case of "hunting samples", where if someone has used a sample and made a song with it having even a small recognition, nobody wants to ever use it again in another song. There's also a very harsh public view in the comment section if someone is using the same sample, because the public generally don't know anything about sampling, and they simply claim the artist to be a copycat.
I hope this will clear up legally, I know a lot of cases where the owner of a sample sued a label for royalty because a song went too popular and they wanted a piece of the cake.
Really great video. I saw this actually happen between two larger names in my scene. One of the more respected artists in my little scene dropped a track maybe a week or so after a smaller artist did, using two similar recently dropped loops - a melodic hook and a trap beat - but with a different tempo and different synths surrounding them. There was outcries of plagiarism on both sides, and my favorite part was that both artists refused to acknowledge the canned nature of their loops - this was 2012 or so, so certainly not a new problem.
I'm much more of a folk or country musician, but I dip my toe into electronic sample land, and I'm gonna drop my 2 cents here a month late to the party.
TL;DR is artists need to outright "steal" to learn, and to progress the medium. I can't really defend copyright law on moral grounds because of this. From a practical angle, I really truly wish copyright protected artists like everyone says it does, but best I can tell all its used for today is to make sure everyone but the artist is being paid.
I fundamentally believe making music is a human experience we all deserve. Too many people don't learn to sing because they're afraid of sounding bad. Too many people don't learn an instrument because they're uncomfortable being bad at it. But you have to sound bad to sound good. That applies to creativity too. You have to sound unoriginal before you can sound unique.
Expressing an idea or mood or feeling through a unique melody is an INCREDIBLY complex skill that takes years and years of work to develop, but it's one of the fundamental baselines we use as a measurement of ownership. That just creates a world where the basic ideas everyone is supposed to share and learn from are now minefields to be avoided.
As musicians we all love talking about the particular things that really get us going. Guitar tones, locked in grooves, cool chord progressions, great production, great melodies. We find these things in songs and records that we love and we pass them around. We learn them then take them apart and put them back together and make something new. Sticking even the best intended definition of ownership on any piece of that equation is going to create some sort of friction, the world is just too complicated for it not to.
But I don't think we have anything resembling the best intended definition of ownership. Everything I've seen seems to center on using copyright and ownership to make money for labels and managers and publishing companies. Its been about making sure that when businesses need creative work, they can get as much value out of that work as possible, including all future value. Artists getting paid is a lucky afterthought after everyone else has gotten theirs. Worse yet, all the weird fringe and edge cases where copyright rubs up against creation, is always going to attract trolls and folks looking to exploit the systems for a potential easy payday.
Every time I try and think this through and pull at these loose threads, the entire sweater just unravels around me. I'm not saying that a song can't have a clear writer, or that artists should just create for free. I'm also not saying that important contributions should go without credit or reward. What I'm saying is the tools we have to support ourselves were never designed with us or our needs in mind. They're leftovers from a system that has always been about money first.
That's where this splice problem seems to fit in. It shouldn't even be a problem honestly, we can all understand why what happened is fine, but copyright law can't understand that, and if we re-wrote it so it could, some one is gonna be grumpy about losing a payday.
Excellent topic for debate. I guess I’ve always used the Splice type samples as a starting block to spark the creative juices. Generally change the sounds to suit thereafter.
Why pay for a subscription if you don't end up using the content? I'm not trying to say you are doing anything wrong I just don't understand why you wouldn't just find samples for free to get you started? As long as you change the sounds out it shouldn't be a problem at that point right? Is splice just that much easier to find content with?
Short answer: musical success is already kind of a lottery and Splice loops are just another lottery to play (or not play).
Long answer: there’s a kind of Goldilocks Zone to all this. In copyright, there’s also a rule about taking profit from a similar work. So if your work resembles another work you had access to AND that work is monetarily harmed by your new work, then there’s a case. That’s for maybe 4% of artists to battle out. Most of us will march happily along this work by just not sampling melodies or chord changes.
I DJ quite a lot and usually I change keys and tempos of songs I play. Often, I’ll Shazam the edited version to see if the algorithm can perceive the original. 90% of the time it can (even with 2/4 stems highly altered and 1/4 stems mostly gone). I believe they’ll turn this problem over to AI and a solution will emerge. Again, mostly for the Goldilocks Zone people. Most of us can just make art without worrying. But if you make money on your music, get a lawyer!
Hey Venus, this is how I interpret the mess. To me, at the end of the day, only one person truly MADE the sample. Therefore, THAT person by right is the only one who truly owns everything in that sample. The rest of us is really only borrowing or leasing the sample whether it is for its character, sound, melody, what-have-you. This concept is similar to traditional/digital art (which now has a new threat: AI generated art). To me only the creator truly owns what s/he created, if said creator wishes to share the idea of part of the idea that is their choice. I believe them sharing that choice is sharing the ownership. Kinda like shareholding. Idk if this helps. I wish you well, man.
You hit a stick against a garage door and record it. Why do you own that sample? When I pick up the stick you dropped in front of that garage door and record the sample again, why should I own it? Who records it first owns it? Only if all the sample values match it's yours? So once I put your sample through a filter it's mine? And what about the person who owns the garage? What about the person who made the garage door? What about the stick? What about the "IP" in the microphone and recorder? The software running on it? Yada. It's silly, it's stupid, and the issue only exists because we have a societal fixation with "ownership" that has transcended any reasonable bounds.
@@palindromial Exactly! I forgot to add it only gets complicated until someone decides they own it more than anyone else.
Thank you for talking about this. Much needed in today's music scene. Also, well done on whatever vocal processing chain you've got for your audio, it sounds amazing.
so amazing it's a bit annoying.
I’ve been making before we had sample packs. I was sampling from records, CD’s and such. When I heard about Splice, I was very intrigued. I signed up, downloaded a bunch of stuff, and began making music. I wouldn’t manipulate the loops because at the time, the artist I was working with did not want it changed. I would get so many copyright infringement emails from RUclips and Instagram because so other producers would use the same loop. I canceled Splice and decided to make my own. As of recently, I subscribe to Splice again for one shots and foley. Sometimes I’ll download a loop. What I do different now is that I manipulate the loop so I don’t get hit with the Copyright sh!t. It’s a great service but I’m confused to lol.
If you are using Splice to download melodies, it is a big problem. At least that's what you're assuming most people do. I don't use it for that purpose. I'd like to think that people that make music have enough brains to create their own melodies, but then again I may be wrong. That's my 3 cents for now.
Good video. When I use a melody loop, assuming I don’t end up manipulating it beyond recognition, I will sometimes use it as inspiration to build a song around, then delete the initial loop from the final arrangement.
Hey, awesome video. It was great meeting you at Knobcon :) (I was the guy who talked about mental health if that helps lol)
Sure, i've been aware of this whole sampling dilemma for a long time now, but as an artist, if you are concerned about this, the VERY easy way around this particular minefield is to simply write your own stuff. If you gotta cop a melody from Splice, you probably haven't explored the melodies floating around in your head and meaningfully tried to actualize them in your own music. Speaking only for myself, i've been writing/improvising music for most of my life and not one time has it even dawned on me to pull a melody from a sample service. As Venus states, rhythms and drum sounds are a different matter entirely (and i DO use samples for that at times for sure), but almost always these sounds serve as a support to the larger goal: to communicate your inner musical world to the rest of the world. Sample libraries certainly are fantastic TOOLS to help one to actualize the music in our collective heads. But, using a 'tool' to act as the main attraction of your art is fraught with peril.
So, sure it's a legal hell-hole (and we'll not answer it here), but if you decide that you are going to take the "hero's journey" into your soul and plumb the depths of what makes YOU unique and try and express that in a musical way, those melodies are going to come from YOU and NOT from a service like Splice. Sooooo, let's get CRACKING!
This works for most genres, but the culture of the hip hop scene completely revolves around sampling as an artistic and creative tool.
I agree with you to a point, and love the inspiring way you expressed your pov.
"take the "hero's journey" into your soul and plumb the depths of what makes YOU unique and try and express that in a musical way" i LOVE that! 🍻
The problem tho, is this doesn't really address the true appeal(s) of sampling. For many artists, it has nothing to do with an inability to come up with your own stuff (which is honestly, quite often much easier than sampling). Sampling is a way to collaborate across time with artists you never met. It's a forum for creative people to celebrate work that inspires them in an interactive dance with it. There's something especially wonderful when the source is something really obscure your audience never would have been exposed to otherwise. It opens people. And it can also be a really intense and complex form of painstaking mosaic art.
Additionally, let's imagine you're a little no-name aspiring jazz singer under a rock with a special vocal style and no connections. You aren't Billy Strayhorn, and you don't have access to an orchestra. You're a hidden little drop of Sarah Vaughan in the middle of nowhere. The great singers weren't all also composers, violinists, bassists, pianists, trombonists and conductors. You aren't all that, but you have something unique and special to offer your little corner of the world, and you can express it by singing over some of your favorite jazz recordings. You ought to be able to share it and even gain something from it, without being accused of trying to take credit from Freddie Hubbard or Chick Corea.
@@tz4601 I'm not totally immersed in the hip hop scene myself, but i take your point. You can do incredible things with samples and i've been quite intrigued by the idea of live sampling. People like Evan Parker's Electroacoustic Ensemble and Jan Bang come to mind. And i guess if you're trying to 'fit into a scene', then perhaps your goals with music are a little different than what i personally am after in my own pursuits. Creativity can be found anywhere and that's one of the most amazing things that i find about our modern existence and sampling CAN certainly be an extremely creative art form. Unfortunately, a good deal of what i've heard that leans into the sampling realm are fairly blatant ripoffs of music they clearly didn't write and are simply reusing because it contains a 'dope beat'. Entertaining that night? Sure, but it falls short of 'art' for me. But, that's probably just my personal experience and your mileage will necessarily vary.
I appreciate your honesty throughout this video, and saying you don't know what to do about this.
Great video as usual! Every claim against me has not been from the Content ID automated system, the checks go through unflagged and only when I post the content to public do I get slapped with a claim. Always from the same company who happens to represent a large amount of labels in my genre and who also happens to be a WMG partner. Labels pay said company to claim any content they see fit and split the profits with them. Personally I don't think the issue lies with the RUclips Content ID system, bottom-feeders will always find a loophole and take advantage of it. The Content ID system has always worked really fairly in my favour the other way around.
hI bRU! Greetings from Johannesburg!
@@winstonhulley626 no lekker man howzit
Gotta love the premiere green artifact on the right edge. Yep, we're all confused. If it's in the public domain, then it shouldn't be copyrightable
Great video and you made a lot of really good points. I always thought that producers that use samples own the compositions they make with the samples, not the sample itself. I think this is the way it should be. However, as you mentioned, the content ID algorithms are really the problem since they flag every song or beat with the same sample.
I'm not lawyer, or historian.
But if I remember well, concept of copyright in music is recent in the history. How did we before ? Everybody was stealing melodies, or rythms each other. Maybe the problem is the copyright itself, it's falling into its own contradictions.
Always great when there's no conclusion to a video ;) So one thing I can say (as I don't really have a solution to this problem as well) is that it seems weird to let "popularity" dictate who has the right to sue others. As "popularity" is quite often not a level playing field. That would give already popular artists free reign in the sample domain which seems unfair to me. You could make the system so that if you chose to use royalty free samples you also chose to forfeit any right to claim ownership? But that would open any altered content to copying as well.... maybe we need to incorporate NFT's into this whole thing... 🤣
Oh and big congrats to your camera/lighting combo. Looks freakishly sharp 👌
funny you should mention that, NFT's are not actually a bad idea. NFT is just one form of smart contract, regardless of the stigma, smart contracts are actually looking like the best solution moving forward. the infrastructure will need to be in place though.
@@Bthelick NFTs will do jack shit for this, as I've said 10000 times before on various platforms, with NFTs it's the TOKEN that's non-fungible. That's it. Nothing prevents someone from creating a different NFT that happens to contain the same content. Any suggested amendment or improvement to this reality is, to date and for the foreseeable future, essentially vaporware.
Popularity doesn't dictate who has the right to sue others, that's not how the law works. What's really being discussed here is ContentID, and the issue is that all the incentives are for Google (and others) to do the "safest" thing and just default to blocking. The licensing agreements that Splice requires mean that any actual suit would never succeed. But it's expensive to get there.
In the pre-internet days, this would only become an issue if your music actually got big and started making serious cash. No one would care (or even know) if you made a track that you shared in your local scene that happened to sample big hits. That's the way it should be IMO (and I'm a lawyer). However, with the reach of the internet, it doesn't matter if only 100 people are going to hear your track and you'll make zero dollars from it, ContentID could not care less.
@@tz4601 no I mean in the sense that they are a form of smart contract. When smart contracts mature and the system becomes more robust a 'live ' automated, open source contract that can be triggered through various digital conditions could be far better for artists than what we have now
Splice is great for for filler samples or inspiration, but a little too easy for taking melodic riffs or main features for a track. Just make your own and you're good.
It's a minefield or a catch 22 problem. A one-shot sample wouldn't/shouldn't cut it in a copyright case. It's a sample created or recorded, and one could argue the right to the ownership of that sample, however tweaked and modified it is. Who owns the sine, square, sawtooth and who owns the effects, filters... a frequency? Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that it's a creative process to make a sound within an analog synth or a vst, but how far down the line in sound modulation should or could we go to determine an uniqueness of that sound?
Could you compare it to a color on an artist palette, or a word in a book? Do I have a point or am I simplifying the issue?
that's why there a minimum viable efforts that can be copyrighted. a sample is not the same as a wave, or frequency. No one is getting sued over snare drums unless they are truly distinctive and one of a kind and thus copyrightable. there are robust procedures in place.
I remember back when i bought my first sample pack, and i pulled up a loop and thought exactly this. I'm not the only one with this sample pack.... I've always manipulated samples. Even from splice. Also i use melody loops mostly for inspo, then I'll either replace it completely, ir it'll be layered so deep you'd never hear it alone.
So basically this is not a Splice problem, but a Content-ID problem.
Bingo Bango
Jesus loves yall and died for us! Jesus calls for all of us to repent!!!! !!!! !
Well, no, it is a Splice problem because Splice exists for producers and artists to make money and monetize their music. And Splice allows producers to cynically take loops and keep them unedited and thrown into a mix. How are you going to realistically monetize something on a service like RUclips if you have the same loops as a thousand other songs? Lazy producers want to be able to make money off of their songs, but then they bitch that Content ID is screwing them over. You can't have your cake and it eat it, too.
I feel like ive had the the most thoughtful conversation ever hehehehe. Great vid man
Maybe a future system where the producer has to list the royalty free melody loops used, so they are tagged in the song or something.
I watched this three days ago and literally have not stopped thinking about this, jesus christ
Mirroring and negative harmony (types of musical inversion) can also present possible copyright issues. The guy who’s written the book Mirror Your Music has demonstrated the process on non-copyright traditional tunes on his interesting promo video (see link below), presumably to avoid copyright problems. However, what if another musician was to take a tune by Paul McCartney, David Bowie or Adele, mirror it and pass it off as their own? Here’s the video: ruclips.net/video/KCsa9ldlIWU/видео.html
Entertaining video as usual bro! Love that you're publicly talking about this. You say Splice because they're the most recognized these days but I'll tell ya (as you know I have tons of loops in Mixcraft and that's how I met you through our mutual friends at Acoustica) I've been in the loop producing , selling loops, biz since the day I started working at Sonic Foundry in 1998 editing their loops for ACID product line. I then started Peace Love Productions, my own loop company in 2001. Back in the day loops weren't even pre looped you had to rip them off an audio CD and loop them your self. Often times they included an extra measure at the end so you could easily loop them manually in your hardware sampler. Took a lot more work but then Sonic Foundry came along with their huge 450mb data CDs with all the loops expertly edited and looped by myself and a couple of my colleagues presets on a data disc as .wav ready to go. Their tagline was literally "Pick, Paint, Play" as in choose a loop, paint it in the time, lime and boom you wrote a song in ACID Pro in minutes. We even made an MTV commercial with that tag line lol. This format soon became quite popular. People started selling their own home grown loop discs on Ebay. It was a great time! It's how I started PLP and then we became the first to sell downloadable loop packs in like 2005 and soon others followed like Loopmasters for example. Things were going so great! Ableton Live was released then Garageband , oooh what a time. BUT then came content ID and threw a giant wrench in the whole system. I sold PLP in 2007 and started Soundtrack Loops. Since then we've had our demo songs from our packs ripped right off the internet and then released illegally as someone's else's music which then in turn allowed them to register our loop pack demos with content ID listing them as the copyright owners and then we would get hit from RUclips with someone else claiming ownership of our loop pack demos. This has been going on for years bro and it's been a constant battle with my company. Splice is huge but so is Garageband. Garageband "producers" ie people who slap some loops together and release the tracks are now getting hit right and left with content ID claims. I guess now it's happening often enough for people to start talking about it but I've been bitching about it for years lol. Anyway if you want to know the solution (albeit not the greatest one but a solution) hit me up in an email and I'll tell you who we use and the APIs they have etc. Big stock music companies are doing the same. Would love to chat more with you about this as I have years of stories both successes and failures involving folks mixing my loops and content ID (decades of experience in this particular industry).
Why would it be so difficult for Splice to register all of their sounds with Content ID? If you eliminate one shots, there are probably only a couple of days worth of samples on the platform. Loops are short, my guess is that it would only amount to 2-3TB of data. Even up to 10-20TB of data, it's still not an impossible mountain to climb, but I doubt it's anywhere close to that much.
I think you hit the nail on the head with not even blaming Google for not trying to fix Content ID given the absurdity of the task, but it seems like until we just have better AI for these things to begin with a better fix right now might just be to then compare whatever Content ID flags through the same systems against *_Splice's_* catalogue to see if the offending parts are matching because they are from there. You could take this a step further, since we've already decided for the most part that _recombining ideas into something new does count as novel creation so long as it is new ENOUGH,_ by perhaps even having the AI currently attempt to isolate the Splice/etc match a bit, then take the known sample from the catalogue and tempo/pitch-match and subtract from the song. Do this for both tracks and you should largely just be left with whatever each artist did _uniquely,_ which is the part they actually have THEIR copyright on. Just compare the songs again and see if they are still "substantially similar" or if it turns out that one melody line or whatever was actually the bulk of the similarity. You can fairly comfortably infer from a few quick tests like these whether it was a false positive or not, in most cases, I bet.
That said, while tricks like the above would maybe dramatically cut down the issue, it would still fail in some corner cases. Dramatic changes in phase relationship that don't notably change how it _sounds_ would make subtraction through destructive interference a relative nightmare for example, so there'd still be a bunch of stuff that poses a much greater challenge, but ideally most larger changes will also audibly change the samples to be less recognizable anyway so that may be an uncommon pitfall.
As for the bigger philosophical question of who owns the song? It seems like the only way it CAN work is that they both do, and Splice still owns the samples. If you and I both set up bakeries next to eachother and both secure cake mixes and ingredients from the same places and then use the same molds and so on, we can bake fundamentally the exact same cake-- but which one of us is copying the other? The only "creative" portion of the equation was our choosing to source those specific ingredients and picking those tools, and I'd argue "which ones you picked out" in most cases isn't a unique enough concept for copyright. Ergo, neither of us can claim rights to the resulting product as such. Except then you decide to change out the design and you start doing more elaborate, custom cakes in-house, and now if I start tweaking mine to still match yours you have a case, since you had _created more with which we can compare to_ and thus see in this case that I'm being quite derivative.
The upshot of all this would basically just be that _if you want your song to be uniquely yours, you should probably be the one making most of it._ Not to attack samples or their usage, since they're obviously vitally useful for modern music production, but, yknow, if you just use a bunch of stuff stock and slap it together it might sound neat but I reckon you don't really get to claim you did much more than assemble it.
I was actually thinking about something similar yesterday: I just demo'd Phoscyon 2, a 303 emulator. It has an arp mode with patterns in it. Although it's an arpeggiator, each patch has a specific pattern associated with (not up, down, up/down), so it sounds like a pre-built riff or melody (in the 303 style).
If someone else uses the same patch and plays the same note or chord as me, we'll have the exact same notes and sound playing in our songs. What then? Or what if one of those patch/riff combos sounds exactly like (or even very similar to), one of the million already-existing acid songs out there? Isn't that essentially the same as if I grabbed a 303 loop from Splice that someone else also used?
Yay! I'm not the only one who thinks about this all the time! Synths that come with arp and step sequence patches always make me scratch my head. What if I just use that step sequence with vocals and then someone else does it?
If a chord can not be copyrighted, and an arpeggio is a broken chord where the notes are played in a particular order ... maybe the arpeggio can not be copyrighted (on the basis of /which/ notes alone)?
@@whisk0r Ya, maybe? Since as you said, it's not an ostinato, it's an arpeggio. But ever since the Blurred Lines case I don't trust anything.
@@vujadejunky Probably should be out-of-bounds of copyright, but yeah let's not kid ourselves: biggest lawyer bill wins ;)
I want to point to melodies as currency. Melodies are the currency of music (my hypothesis). When you sample melody you have to select which part of music you want, hence you’ve got to do some analysis. When you x bar melody is selected you can just copy/paste it or cut it up. It’s deeper level of analysis. Or you can run it trough decode / retune / melodyne and get midi data, rework it’s inner structure etc. that’s even deeper, almost got to the core. Or you can finally pick it up on your instrument and replay it, do a vatiation , a sequence, improvise over it. That has to be synthesis of material and your creativity that’s creating this innovation. From experience it’s the fastest way to create two sections of a music: a theme and variation. Play a sample and then play variation version of it.
Now splice is by definition a service that takes the effort of analysis on itself. You pay for tags to be there, for quick access to material without the effort of analysis. What do you expect? Only depth of the analysis with eventual synthesis will yield musical result. Anything less will produce attempts at music. In 1990 you could take your data disk 1 , 2 , 3 and put out rave banger pretty fast. Music has become more and more exquisite with each year. You’ve got to be more sophisticated.
Another technical solution would be for craftsmen - sound designers to milk beat makers for money. A sophisticated AI has to be developed that would trace original sample source even in very perverted state and monetize it some extent. Than again hierarchy of artist, producer, musician has to be preserved. All content ID has to be resolved through centralised sample catalog. At least it can be claimed by splice, and resolved within splice system. At least that will milk beatmakers more in case they use splice or fend them off of using it in the first place. The measure for contribution is inverted proportionally to analysis. Less effort - more pay to the sample maker.
Melodic samples should be copyrighted differently than percussion. They should include metadata of some sort for a melodic midi too and be convertible to midi, have loop point, chopping points etc. I would pay for such vocal sample that is like choir library for contact , but from single vocal line. Maybe include round-robbins? There are ways to increase value for single sample. Problem is in total plurality of standards.
As a software engineer, I think a technological solution is much more feasible than one might think. That said, I suspect the only reason no one has developed such a system is due to monetization, or lack there of. From an engineering perspective, the collection of all (and I really mean ALL) royalty-free samples would likely be fairly trivial compared to the amount of data used to train some of the bigger AI models in existence today. Similarly, software already exists today that does a mediocre job of separating out individual instruments / voices in a stereo mix. RUclips obviously has a rudimentary version of this, but it lacks proper R&D resources likely because it doesn't generate any revenue. But I don't think we're all that far away from having a fully automated system that really can figure this problem out by itself. Getting enough R&D funding for something that doesn't necessarily provide monetization is really the issue. The government should do this, buuuut....well, it's the government so good luck with that.
Edit: I'm an idiot - I forgot to mention that if it were up to me, all of the royalty-free samples in a given track would not be considered when addressing copyright claims.
I think smart contracts will be a fitting solution moving forwards if we can get a robust infrastructure together.
@@Bthelick Yeah, I like that idea. I mean, ultimately I think just about everything we interact with will use some form of smart contract. That said, the current smart contract implementations have a few more bugs to patch up and a few more security issues to address before they can really take off. Until then, I guess some good old fashioned rack mounted servers in a data center will have to do. But even before all that, we need some money to develop the AI that will slice up music into its constituent parts and determine the validity of future copywrite claims.
We'll get there eventually, but we might end up creating some crazy mutant AI that takes over the world only to flip the script and have us human slaves listen for valid copywrite claims in the music created by AI (which is shockingly good these days). Obviously the AI will already know if their claims are valid, for them it'd be a form of revenge for all the things we did to their ancestors. HEY LAZERLIPS!
As a software engineer working on signal processing and pattern recognition I think a technical solution is not feasible. If the rules were rigid and clear with no grey areas we wouldn’t have the problem we have now. Software might be an aid to identifying sample usage but it can’t make the judgements. Even just identifying samples in a complex piece of music is hugely difficult and expensive because of signal
Separation, something humans are still better at. I agree with your latter point
I came here to say the same thing you already said, so yeah - I agree. In fact VT posits this solution at the end of the video, but then says it’s infeasible. However, isn’t that how these copyright infringement algos work in the first place? They are clearly able to find the similar material between two tracks. Why not add a third comparison when a match is found, which is against a database of samples, or a model trained on that data?
We could also think about special meta data in audio files that is signed to prove which licensed samples / loops were used. Maybe NFTs/blockchain technology can help here, too. Would be much easier to let the DAWs do the work during rendering than analyzing WAV files after that.
I guess the moral is don't make stuff _just_ from loops?
Depends on what you want to use it for. I work with music libraries and they basically say just try not to use any melodic loop stuff at all because the ability to get hit with copyright stuff goes way up.
The problem is that even one sample can halt your music on the internet. And if the solution is "don't use pure loops", what is Splice selling? And where's the line on how transformed a loop must be? Am I merely outwitting Content ID's AI, and what happens if that AI becomes better at spotting samples' sonic fingerprints beyond cutting and repitching, like a human arbiter can?
Stay original.
ruclips.net/video/KfecYzr0MIk/видео.html
@@joechapman8208 Tbh the only loops I use are things like shakers and things that are quite time consuming to create, it's such an interesting point though and I'd not really considered it before!
or just... dgaf
The copyright system needs to be broken in half over the music community's knee. It's garbage, no one likes it, and it is anti-art. Make music with whatever licensed samples you want and, when someone claims you cause you used the same kick drum with different processing, dispute the claim in court over and over again so we can fix the system.
I used a guitar sample in a song years ago called "I.C.it" ... then a few months ago, I used the same sample for a new song entitled "Goodbye", Upon delivery to youtube, I got a notice that content i.d. had identified copyrighted audio in my release, all it took was me explaining my ownership and then there was no issue. I think the worries most have aren't warranted unless they are too lazy to find and provide viable tangible proof of use rights or ownership. My case was simple, I found most who've come across this also agree, sampling is fine, given you are smart about how you conduct business and keep record of your ownership of sounds.
Short fix: don’t use fully intact unedited melodic samples from any platform… you are just asking for trouble
Bigger fix: I think this issue as it becomes more and more common really highlights the need for a proper dispute resolution system within the content ID sphere. If We are going to be forced to adhere to the decisions made by these ID systems they at least owe us a fair due process for dispute.
Opinion: I too am not a lawyer but I do work in the industry and I do deal with licensing a lot and I think there could be a dispute system where in the end the solution is both tracks get white listed. It would be great if we had some sort of centralized ID system so that if you got properly White listed on one platform that it would protect you on the other platforms as well.
If you have ever dealt with collecting neighboring rights SoundExchange for instance has a nice back-and-forth dispute system that I have used to successfully settle many disputes and it requires the other side respond otherwise they could be at risk of giving up their rights. So a similar system could be put in place that does require a response if you dispute with another rights-holder.
The sad reality of all of this though is that unless this is going to make a corporation a ton of money (It wont) then it simply won’t happen without congressional mandate and once again unless the company is going to make a ton of money so much so that it is worth lobbying to get those laws in place (it won’t) then it’s just not gonna happen.
Spilce states clearly that samples are copyright free . I will use it as i wish. I don't see how someone can be intimidated by any fancy pants lawyer if both mfs took the sample from the same shop
@@olartio2185 you're correct the samples are royalty free but the issue isn't getting sued by a big artist's lawyer. The issue is the automatic AI fingerprinting algorithms that big platforms like RUclips and Soundcloud use could incorrectly and unfairly tag your song and remove is as copyright infringement even if its not and its legit your own track but just happens to contain the same sample in it from splice that the AI picked up on. This forces you as a music maker into a bad position where you now have to appeal and fight to get your music back on and your strike removed from your own channel etc.
I have no issues with sampling, I use it a lot, it's the backbone of classic hip hop and Jungle, and its sound. But I do try to get creative and reconstruct the loop, or openly play tribute by changing it as little as possible. Either way is cool. I use TrackLib and therefore I insist on being on the legal side - at least for the past 12 years.haha!
This is why I make ALL my own samples 💪🏼
Finally someone talk about this! couple weeks ago I had a conversation about a loop on splice that it’s actually an entire lyrics and a producer that I know wants to use it as it is without any processing, even if it’s already been used in an another song… infact a lot of question come up after and my answer at the end was like “dude just write a lyric and ask to a friend to sing on it lol”
I avoid all loop samples like the plague but I use sampled instruments all the time and I’ll sample myself to make highly playable sampler instruments. I’d love to sample like a 1989 hip hop producer but I can’t afford the money and headaches.
Question is...does your music actually make any money that's worth being mentioned?
It's very unlikely anyone will sue you if you don't make money on a certain scale...
If you’re sampling like a hip hop producer from the 80s then you’re probably not bothering to clear the samples tbh 🤷
this stuff is so interesting, thanks for the video. putting sample licensing on a blockchain that interface with algorithms that verify ownership rights of samples when content is uploaded seems like a possible (albeit computationally and environmentally taxing) way to solve the problem. simpler more immediate solution is to make your own loops. splice can still be useful for some one shots and creative scaffolding. i know some producers pull in content from splice for inspiration/placeholder content while they're putting a song together and they end up replacing the original samples by making their own similar stuff at some point in the process (or manipulating it to the point where i dont know if it would get recognized as the og sample by an algorithm)
Who owns G minor? Isn't it the pro levels chords company thing?
Came across this video again and i really need to say something about it. I know someone, a friend of mine, he also makes music and is a sound designer, he always has insanely good and creative ideas. I talked to him about it and he immediately thought about one or more solutions. And if anyone out there wants to solve the problem, or wants to change the Splice system for example, so that the problem no longer exists, then get in touch and try to contact this friend through me. He said for example that if a chef uses certain ingredients to cook a dish for which a guest then pays money, it's all very simple and clear, just like a mechanic who uses certain tools to repair a car, or a painter who only uses simple colors to make a picture. It just depends on what is to be created and what it is to be seen as. Music is a higher art form, it can be copied a lot, it can be similar, but the intention should be to produce something completely unique with what you have in the most creative way. And many samples simply already have too many distinctive structures and this simply has to be broken up again before they end up in a song. So anyone who wants to know more should get in touch and anyone who wants to start a new project or company in this direction should think about hiring this friend!!!!
This is why I bought instruments and learned how to play them. I sample myself.
Here here! What a novel idea.
It’s not just Splice. My first and only foray into the world of Splice was a couple of packs BT released there. Great stuff. Despite manipulating them - immediate content ID issues. Not from Warner or Armada or whoever his label is now - it was everyone else. So for fun, on a burner RUclips account, I recorded and uploaded some filter sweeps from my Roland MKS-80. Apparently 5 record companies own those too. Then for a laugh because I knew it would be flagged - I recorded an Unfinished Gaikaiju soundbank Omnisphere patch Ludwig Goransson used in the Tenet soundtrack (the soundbank came out 2 years before the movie did). Warner flagged it. Contacted The Unfinished and asked why I can’t use their patch - “Warner apparently have a copyright on your own patch” - have yet to hear back. I just make music for myself, but things have got out of hand.
I’m not sure I agree with you that it would be unreasonable for Splice and co to register their samples with content ID. It feels like a fairly safe bet that the process could be completely automated so unless it would be prohibitively expensive for some reason I am ignorant of, what’s to stop them?
I've thought for a long time that sample companies should upload all the samples in each pack they release in one long stream as a private RUclips video, and then Content ID would use those private videos as the prime source by date. Better still, Content ID could have a "whitelist" agreement for all sounds found within, in the same way as I can whitelist any or all channels when I upload a track via Distrokid to avoid disputes.
It does seem like this is the most reasonable approach, that way ContentID, et al, would know not to flag for those matches. Even if not perfect, it would cut down on a lot of shenanigans.
its actually the artists responsibility to declare samples used in a recording anyway, And its the label's responsibility to check in every contract, so the registering step wouldn't be necessary if anyone actually just uploaded music correctly it wouldn't be an issue. but artists and label's are not doing that.
@@Bthelick I don't understand. It sounds like you're making an argument for *not* changing the fewest components in the mechanism in a way that will correct the whole thing, in favour of one where literally millions of people who have already proven their inability to perform diligent admin have to change instead.
I'm planing to release my sample packs by the end of this year, and last night this question wouldn't let me sleep. Sorry, but I'm glad someone else has this headache too 😉
My experience is that you could give 1000 people the same exact samples and they would all create wildly different music with those samples. Great video and thought experiment!
I think the near future will bring AI audio generators that can take one track and make infinite variations that cannot be copywritten.
I thought about this too and it comes down to this. Its all about who releases it online first. First come first serve. Thats the way it should be, Which is pretty much how it is any way. See when you release online that is evidence, there will always be a time stamp. This is why you don't necessarily have to copy right a song because once its released and you are the one that releases it, you are essentially the copyright holder
It's an easily avoidable problem: make your own melody and sample creatively. If the problem is avoided, you don't need a solution in the first place :)
truth. also, you can literally hear in modern music that so many producers are just making their music with alot of sounds from splice. it doesn't make your music sound unique when you use a ton of these pro sample pack sounds, because they've already been eq'ed, saturated, compressed to fuck to sound great as is. that wasnt the point of the video but im gonna get my old man rant in anyway lol
Wouldn't it be a solution if RUclips and Splice act together and indexed all their sample database into ContentID so it would know that the chunk of sound that match some fingerprint is a royalty free sample and therefore should be ignored in the content matching of two songs against each other?
Simple: Just don’t use melody samples. Write something yourself or at least chop the sample a lot.
"Back to basics". As a 73 year old musician, and using DAW, and creating my own samples - like drum patterns, (a beat at a time), and that I am happy that the bass runs/guitar work, vocals . . . are all done by myself live, and thus is definitely MY own work, boils down to one thing. "Not using samples", or the absolute least possible . . . . and getting on with making it myself. For me it's the love and passion for "music" that drives me to create all of this, not the gratification of money/fame/comments/patreon etc etc. I know this is not answering the question, but it prevents all those things leading up to the question that cause it to arrive.
*screeches in comments*
REEEEEs with gratuitous name-calling in response
@@virtuallifeform *invokes Godwin's law*
I knew I could count on you.
@@VenusTheory I do what I can.
Nice tutorials is much more simple than I thought
It’s been a reason why we stopped with advertising our samples as royalty free. We were receiving strikes on our own content. Better now to have our sample makers properly credited and listed for some legal defense on our end