Making and Detecting Illegal Music 246
Demona writes "Long-time music aficionado
Dave Marsh has an article in the latest edition of
Counterpunch entitled
Sampler's Delight. Giving rave reviews to "Nothing to Fear", the
latest in a
long line of so-called
illegal music, he also describes a "'major label waveform CD database,' which is capable of recognizing materials allegedly owned by the record label cartel." This database is allegedly why a UK pressing plant rejected the initial attempt at publishing "Nothing To Fear", which is comprised almost entirely of sampled material."
Re:Yah sure (Score:1, Insightful)
I should write my code in assembler and never use anyone elses code or libraries.
Yeh we need some more people doing that, I only have libjpeg but i want a statically compiled propritory image format in each application.
"We can see as far as we can today, because we stand of the shoulders of giants."
doesn't seem factual (Score:3, Insightful)
As a lot of readers probably know gracenote uses simple metrics about the length of the songs and their position on the cd to check a database to find likely matches. Gracenote maintains nothing of the sort of a waveform database.
While i believe there is/was at least one startup that was working to match music using a beats & tone analysis method that could match to songs that had been shifted or obscured in some way, i'm not sure this technology has ever been in real use.
The idea that there is some huge waveform database that cd pressing plants now use is pretty suspicious. I think working in the industry i would have heard about it, even if it was kept secret the storage capacity and processing needs would be astronomical. 11,000 albums heavily compressed to 160kbps still takes approximately 600gb, I understand that the amount of in print US albums is somewhere between 200,000 - 300,000 and more like 600,000 for world releases (in print only). Searching through a collection like that would easily take days or weeks depending on how small a segment you were trying to match
Why do you keep supporting them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes I just don't get the Slashdot crowd... Many of us use Linux and have given up on using Microsoft stuff, but when it comes to the latest crappy mainstream music, we whine that we can't pirate it? Come on.... If you really feel that major labels are screwing you, give them up. Support inedepent musicians and labels.
There's a whole world of music out there that is cheaper, more interesting, more cutting-edge, etc..etc... You just have to look a little harder to find it, just like you had to try a bit harder to get Linux installed and your closed-source applications replaced by Free Software.
Sorry for the rant...you might mod me down, but really....If some big companies are doing something you don't like, forget about them and move on to something better.
Cheers,
Vic
Is that even possible? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why don't these people put their time to some constructive use and learn how to write actual music on their own
Could it perhaps be because songwriters either are close to running out [baen.com] of unique melodies or already have run out of unique melodies? (There exist fewer than 50,000 possible melodies; read this article [everything2.com] to see why.)
Re:Write your own damn music. (Score:5, Insightful)
I absolutely can not see that. This is our culture we're sampling. I agree that it wouldn't be fair to copy your entire album and sell it, but if I just sample 5 or 10 or 30 seconds of it, how is that impacting the sales of your album?
No one is going to say "Oh, I'm not going to buy that old Beach Boys album because artist Xyzzy used a 12 second sample of it, and those were the only 12 seconds I wanted anyway!" No one chose to buy Plunderphonics because they couldn't afford the original version of the Beatles' "A Day In The Life", so they decided a chopped-up unrecognizable version of the ending would be close enough.
Copyright is there to give the artist incentive to create. Sampling laws don't do that. No one says "I'm going to create a great song so that it can be sampled a lot and I can collect royalties." That's just a happy side benefit to selling albums.
But sampling laws DO encourage people not to create by giving them a limited pallete to work with.
Re:Write your own damn music. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sampling fees are another issue. I do not know what record companies charge for sampling fees, but if they are anything like the prices that they rip us off with CD's with, then I don't blame them. Artists need to be paid, but the amount of this that goes to the record companies is just ridiculous.
misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
There are less than 50,000 4-note melodies. 4 notes being all it took in one particular court case.
However that only means that there are 50,000 unique melodies in a legal sense.
In an artistic sense there are millions.
Re:Four notes is an approx of "substantially simil (Score:4, Insightful)
As a songwriter, I often wonder: How the F*** am I supposed to compare my songs to the other one-million songs out there to see if they are `substantially similar?' Hell, any three-chord song sounds `substantially similar' to any other three-chord song.
I hereby renounce my title as a creator. Everything I could ever make (as music, as art, as writing, as code) has already been done and been copyrighted and/or patented. I will now slave away in a factory. Thank you for your time.
No, this is not a troll. This is simply a scared U.S. citizen.
*=Registered trademark of despair.com
Re:I thought satire was protected. (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of *all* music is just recycled chords and beats. Drummers have always recycled each other. Beethoven and Mozart recycled Haydn, Stravinsky recycled Tchaikovsky. The middle ages troubadors recycled each other. Gregorian chants recycled elements of other Gregorian chants. Jazz players float improvisations on familiar phrases from other tunes.
All of this was once *fluid and free*. Sometimes major ideas got recycled. Sometimes that was subconscious, sometimes not. The point is, it was *accepted practice*. How many famous classical pieces are titled "Variations on a theme by...".
*A degree of familiarity is an essential element of the music most people like.* That familiarity comes from the recycling of musical elements created by other musicians.
The corporations fighting sampling are trying to control artistic expression to maximize profits. This attempt is seen by many as a direct attack on the musical tradition. The idea of "fair use" was supposed to protect such creativity bottlenecks.
Fundamental dishonesty! (Score:2, Insightful)
The solution to the problem is to stop buying the product in the first place, if the album is good you will buy it, if it is bad you will not. Get rid of your illegal MP3s and OGGs and simply have music that you own. Wanna listen to some new music? Pay for it, or learn to play it.
Stealing it weakens the argument for cheaper music and enforces the perception that p2p networks simply share music for which people have no license. Rather than providing people with a useful way to share files on a heterogenus network.
I don't like MS products and licensing so I don't use them. I hate when people tell me that they think MS Office is much better than StarOffice, when the copy they have is stolen. If it's that good pay for it. The same is true for all intellectual property, we all think it is theft, we all would like to live in a state of pure anarchy, but none of you seem to be able to get to that enlightened level because of your greed. Free your mind and free your wallet, don't pay, don't listen.
that's called a cover (Score:2, Insightful)
if it was impossible to trade mp3's(or .ogg or such), i'd be listening to .mods, .xm's , sids, and maybe midi's.
Turning a recording into a .ogg file and distributing it infringes both the songwriter's and the performer's copyright.
Turning a song into a module file (mod, s3m, xm, it, mid+sf2) won't draw any fire from RIAA labels but will still infringe the songwriter's copyright. You still need a license from BMI or Harry Fox, depending on the intended use.
Writing your own music is harder than it looks because it's nearly impossible to avoid "substantial similarity" to the millions of songs out there.
Re:Why do you keep supporting them? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to convey; the original poster is asking people to give up something that they really love. I used Led Zep as an example of something that would be too good to give up just because it is on a monopoly label. You can substitute something contemporary that a young ignorant whippersnapper would love as much, that is of a similar quality on a monopoly label....ummmm....that isnt doable is it?!
Re:real close but .... (Score:2, Insightful)
People don't always want to take the time to appreciate things. They want instant everything.
Re:Why do you keep supporting them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone that knows the facts realzes that the RIAA is beyond intolerable. From the DAT tax outrage, to the killing of Napster to the DRM that they are trying to force into every device, it should be clear to everyone that these people are a threat, to creativity and innovation as well as free expression in music.
The question is not at what point do the actions of the RIAA become too onerous. That point has already been passed. The REAL question is when are people going to stop buying and file trading monopoly music? It is important that the file trading of monopoly music stops, because the act of listening to it takes away attention from non monopoly music.
Non monopoly music needs to be distributed and listened to far and wide. This is essential. Many labels are taking the bold step of uncopyrighting their materials, but this alone is not enough.
Re:misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why do you keep supporting them? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Forget about them" as you say, and you'll find that one day that the movie you taped will no longer play at your friend's house, or that you no longer can transfer the CD you bought to Minidisc for your walkman. Worse, you may also find that DRM has effectively barred independent labels from the market. The measures proposed by the RIAA aim to prevent piracy, but they will also assert a large measure of control over the distribution of music. I bet the RIAA is fuly aware of that.
Simply stop buying their music, and they'll probably claim their slumping sales on piracy, and call for even harsher measures. Don't lose sight of the bigger picture!
Waveforms R Us (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yah sure (Score:2, Insightful)
When one hears a song for the first time, most people don't suspend judgement until they can research how much studying the performer has done before they decide if they like the song or not.
[Do you not use a software package unless you know it was coded in machine code with object-oriented design, because that's the only thing that meets your subjective qualifications for a good software engineer? Should they also make sure not to re-use any code that others have developed?]
All means of expression are valid. Some means might not appeal to you for many reasons. You may be looking for a specific kind of talent (e.g. years of study). So be it; that's your right, but it doesn't make the expression less valid.
It's art. Art is personal. Art makes you think. it makes you happy, and it makes you mad.
To the RIAA it's also product. Product is commercial. Product makes you money.
Complain about the commercial quality of the product but don't complain about the "talent" of the performer. They are different things.
Uh, try DJ Shadow (Score:3, Insightful)
Examples? DJ Shadow, Fat Boy Slim, Moby, Daft Punk.. there are a hundred examples.
Whoever modded this guy down is a chump. (Score:3, Insightful)
Pirating really is like welfare. I can see people becoming so use to free music that it'll poison the industry. Joe has a few hit songs, but like most people, doesn't have the cash or the distibution infrastructure to get visibility. (and no, the internet is barely a viable option at this point) Unfortunately, neither do the labels anymore because all it takes is a dozen people to hit the net with any P2P program, and they're ass outta luck with near zero chance of defraying the cost. What happens? Joe is either really, really, really dedicated or he says I have a wife and kids to feed and drops the music gig. Now picture that on a large scale.
Now I'm not saying that this will happen 100% or the industry eventially won't eventially find other ways to make money off hits, but it doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to a see a music recession on the rise because neither side will back down. And before I get any high and mighty replies about the evil empires raping us at the counter, I ask you this: What do you do if a department store gives you shitty service? Overprices their product? Oh, naturally you steal it off the shelf, right? Contrary to popular belief, you can change the industries behavior without resorting to THEFT... It just takes a lot of hard work and we're all lazy bastards.