Forums

    5 posts

  • avatar
    4677 sounds
    376 posts
    Another public domain question


    I just noticed there are loads of samples on here that are clearly public domain, some of them are things I have used on songs years ago and I was just wondering what the point of uploading stuff that is easily available online or elsewhere was. Does anyone have an opinion on this? If uploading them is cool, I have hundreds of gigabytes of speeches, newscasts, etc. I figured there was no point in uploading anything that is already a few mouse clicks away somewhere else. I was also curious about licensing issues.

    My concern is more about the attribution requirements of the CC license in regards to releasing something that is already license free as a licensed item. For intstance, if I use the freely available and unlicensed sound byte in a song, but someone here has it released as if they own it under a CC license, what then? Will they try and make someone attribute them for an Amen break or a Bush speech snippet?

    Aside from artifically increasing one's ranking for most uploads, it would be an easy way to get a well known sound into the top downloads and top rated lists as well... and we all know once you are there you instantly become rich, famous and disease free.

    Anyone have any thoughts? I have had little luck in getting anyone to respond lately, shit, I don't even get insults and threats anymore. It's lonely being a noise collector...

  • avatar
    18 sounds
    456 posts


    NoiseCollector
    (...) get a well known sound into the top downloads and [...] we all know once you are there you instantly become rich, (...)

    Those are theoretical dollars anyway. tongue

    Falsely claiming copyright ownership of public domain works is copyfraud. I think even if you release a work under a CC license (and put your name under it), you're still claiming copyright.

  • avatar
    975 sounds
    145 posts


    hehe - I'll cut you in your sleep noise box - (Threatening Enuf?) : )

    Though they are creative and totally freely available from SO many release groups and news sites, I don't really understand adding reverb and putting them out on your name, It sucks - I see alot of field recordings here that one person or another has "claimed" is from something like the Sound Ideas or Digital Juice Library. It seems like a way to build a way for your name and nothing more. The rights are easily purchased to things like that as well and then mass marketed to make a profit, once pirated becomes obsolete and abandoned as a project altogether I guess. Its mostly a way to get your name out there, Like someone completely multi sampling their own Rhodes , theres alot of websites to pull them from easily. I don't know noise man, there are alot of people looking to get at the musical world because I guess it's one of the 'coolest' scenes you can be into, 'I'm an artist', 'I filled a stuffed toy with bacon and sicked a dog on it' 'it's contemporary/' The vagueness is becoming. Even my girlfriend agrees that it may be public gain? the h@cking and music and drug cultures aren't nearly as glorious as people make em out to be. I agree with Nemo too, but who checks? How many of us have hit it MAJOR and found enough enemies to try and screw us? It's like blueboxing my apartment complex, We all do stuff like that, but noone makes much profit for busting us. In a theoretical and philosophical sense its just plain out wrong. Can nothing more be done?

    .Killer.
  • avatar
    1134 sounds
    284 posts


    I just noticed there are loads of samples on here that are clearly public domain, some of them are things I have used on songs years ago and I was just wondering what the point of uploading stuff that is easily available online or elsewhere was.

    Hi Noisecollector - this is something the mods should look into because those sounds are (often) not supposed to be here. Could you point us to a few examples? They may have slipped our attention or we were not aware of the fact that they have been available already. In any case, I agree that there is a potential conflict with the CC license.

    As for the more philosphical point: I guess people just want to show off and have nothing else to contribute.

    Life is probably good
  • avatar
    4677 sounds
    376 posts


    I can't remember the exact ones but if you search "bush", "reagan" or any other american politician or historical person, there are quite a few. I don't have a problem with them personally, I just think the license is in serious conflict with anything from the US government which is by default public domain and free to use however by whomever (presidential speeches for instance).

    5 posts